# commentaries

text:
<p>15:25&nbsp;<em>And it was the third hour when they crucified him</em>- "And it was the third hour and (not 'when') they crucified Him" (<em><a href='B:480 15:25'>Mar 15:25</a></em>) suggests they were waiting for the hour to come. It was in their brief to do it at the third hour. It may be that they got there a little early, and there was an agonizing wait for the third hour. Mark 15 has so many usages of the word “and”; circle them in your Bible (especially AV). This is to emphasize the relentlessness of it all, the repetition of everything, the way it droned remorselessly on. This is a feature of the cross, which we must carry. The crucifixion of Christ was at 9 a:m. He would have willingly laid Himself down on the stake, whereas most victims had to be thrown down on the ground by the soldiers. He gave His life, it wasn't taken from Him. Likewise He&nbsp;<em>gave</em>&nbsp;His back to the smiters when they flogged Him; He gave His face to them when they spoke about pulling out His beard (<em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em>). Men usually clenched their fists to stop the nails being driven in, and apparently fingers were often broken by the soldiers to ease their task. Not a bone of the Lord was broken. We can imagine Him willingly opening His palms to the nails; as we, so far away from it all, should have something of a willing acceptance of what being in Him demands of us. It may be that He undressed Himself when they finally reached the place of crucifixion. In similar vein, early paintings of the flogging show the Lord standing there&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;tied to the flogging post, as victims usually were. As He lay there horizontal, His eyes would have been heavenwards, for the last time in His mortality. Perhaps He went through the business of thinking ‘this is the last time I'll do this:::or that:::’. How often He had lifted up His eyes to Heaven and prayed (<em><a href='B:500 11:41'>Joh 11:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>). And now, this was the last time, except for the final raising of the head at His death. “While four soldiers held the prisoner, a Centurion placed the sharp five inch spike in the dead centre of the palm…four to five strokes would hammer the spike deep into the rough plank and a fifth turned it up so that the hand would not slip free" (C:M. Ward,&nbsp;<em>Treasury Of Praise</em>). If it is indeed so that a Centurion usually did the nailing, it is a wondrous testimony that it was the Centurion who could say later that “truly this was the Son of God". The very man who actually nailed the Son of God was not struck dead on the spot, as a human ‘deity’ would have done. God’s patient grace was extended, with the result that this man too came to faith.</p><p>The Hebrew language so often reflects the character of God. And His artless self-expression is no clearer seen in the way He inspired the records of the death of His Son. The record of the death of God's Son is something altogether beyond the use of devices as primitive as adjectives. The way in which the actual act of impaling is recorded as just a subordinate clause is perhaps the clearest illustration of this. The way Mary thinks the risen Lord is a gardener is another such. Or the weeping of the women, and Joseph, and Nicodemus (presumably this happened) when the body was taken from the cross, as the nails were taken out: this isn't recorded. Likewise, only Matthew records the suicide of Judas; the Father chose not to emphasize in the records that the man who did the worst a man has ever done or could ever do- to betray the peerless Son of God- actually went and took his own life (and even made a mess of doing that). If it were my son, I would have wanted to emphasize this. But the Almighty doesn't. In similar vein, it is almost incredible that there was no immediate judgment on the men who did the Son of God to death. The judgments of AD70 only came on the next generation. Those middle aged men who stood and derided the Saviour in His time of finest trial: they died, as far as we know, in their beds. And the Roman / Italian empire went on for a long time afterwards, even if God did in fact impute guilt to them for what their soldiers did.</p><p>Another hallmark of God's Hand in the record is that what to us are the most obvious OT prophecies are not quoted; e:g. <em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em>: "He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth". A human author would have made great capital from such detailed fulfilments. But not so the Almighty. Hebrew, along with all the Semitic languages, has no superlatives. God doesn’t need them. And the record of the cross is a classic example. The record of the resurrection reflects a similar culture. The actual resurrection isn’t ever described in marked contrast to how it is in the uninspired ‘gospels’. Instead we read of the impact of His resurrection upon His disciples. The spiritual culture of Almighty God is also shown by the way in which although&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Council (<em><a href='B:480 14:64'>Mar 14:64</a></em>), including Joseph, condemned Christ to death by crucifixion, God overlooks Joseph's lack of boldness in not contesting this, and speaks of him in such glowing spiritual terms. His 'not consenting unto' Christ's death was deep within him. I would be inclined to say: 'The&nbsp;<em>least</em>&nbsp;you could have done was to have abstained from the vote'. But the record is far more positive than that.</p><p>For want of a better way of putting it, the spiritual culture of God comes through so sublimely in these records. He began His written revelation with the comment, as an almost throw-away clause, that "He made the stars also" (<em><a href='B:10 1:16'>Gen 1:16</a></em>). The vastness of that creation, far more wondrous and extensive than just this planet, is treated&nbsp;<em>en passant</em>. The actual resurrection of the Lord Jesus is likewise not recorded; we only learn of it from the recorded witness of those who went to the tomb, and who later met the Lord. The uninspired&nbsp;<em>Gospel of Peter&nbsp;</em>39-42 does record the actual arising of the Lord’s dead body; but immediately it becomes evident that this isn’t inspired, simply because of the lack of spiritual culture which we are accustomed to in the inspired writings. Likewise it has been observed that God uses "an economy of miracle" when He has acted openly. The record of the disciples' baptism, whether and how the Lord met His mother after the resurrection (for surely He did), Saul changing his name to Paul, Aaron's repentance after the golden calf- all these things are left unrecorded. The Gospel writers do not praise the majestic temple and city of Jerusalem in any way, unlike the uninspired contemporary writers. And that same spiritual culture comes out especially in the account of the crucifixion. It makes a good exercise to read through one of the records, especially John 19, and make a list of the adjectives used. There are virtually none. Read a page of any human novelist or historian: the pages are cluttered with them. Hebrew is deficient in adjectives, and because of this it often uses 'Son of:::' plus an abstract noun, instead of an adjective. Thus we read of a "son of peace" (<em><a href='B:490 10:5-6'>Luk 10:5-6</a></em>), or "a man of tongue" (<em><a href='B:230 140:11'>Psa 140:11</a></em> RVmg; AV "an evil speaker").</p>


text:
<p>15:26&nbsp;<em>And the inscription of the charge against him read: The King of the Jews</em>- It was also written in Hebrew (Jn:), and putting together the gospel records, it said "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews". Did Pilate write it in his own handwriting? Did they use the same ladder to place the inscription which Joseph later used to retrieve the body? Why do the records suggest that the inscription was placed after the stake had been erected? Was there initial resistance from the Jews? Was He impaled with the placard around His neck, and then the ladder was put up, and a soldier lifted it off and nailed it above His head? "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" written in Hebrew would have used words whose first letters created the sacred Name: YHWH. Perhaps this was why there was such opposition to it. "King of the Jews" would have been understood as a Messianic title. Either Pilate was sarcastic, or really believed it, or just wanted to provoke the Jews. In any case, somehow the Yahweh Name was linked with the Messiah: King of the Jews. The Name was declared in the Lord’s death, as He had foretold (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). Forgiveness of sins is through baptism into the Name (<em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>), as even in OT times forgiveness was for the sake of the Name (<em><a href='B:230 79:9'>Psa 79:9</a></em>). And yet through the cross and blood of Christ is forgiveness made possible. His blood and death therefore was the supreme declaration of God’s Name; through His cross the grace and forgiveness, love, salvation and judgment implicit in the Name was all enabled and revealed in practice. <em><a href='B:230 22:22'>Psa 22:22</a></em> prophesied that “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>, LXX". It was to us His brethren that the Name was declared; in the eyes of an unbelieving world, this was just another crucified man, a failure, a wannabe who never made it. But to us, it is the declaration of the Name. It was and is done in the midst of the ecclesia, as if the whole church from that day to this beholds it all at first hand. And our response is to in turn “Declare his righteousness" (<em><a href='B:230 22:31'>Psa 22:31</a></em>), in response to seeing the Name declared, we declare to Him… in lives of love for the brethren. For the Name was declared, that the love that was between the Father and Son might be in us:&nbsp;</p><p>It is possible to argue that "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" written in Hebrew would require the use of words, the first letters of which created the word YHWH:</p><p>y Jesus- Yeshua<br/>h The Nazarene- Ha’Natzri cp. “the sect of ‘The Nazarene(s)’, <em><a href='B:510 24:5'>Act 24:5</a></em><br/>v and King- u’Melek<br/>h of the Jews- Ha’Yehudim<br/>giving the Yahweh Name:<br/>hvhy</p><p>This is why the Jews minded it so strongly when the title was put up. Pilate’s retort “What I have written I have written" may well have been an oblique reference to ‘I am that I am’. It was his attempt to have the last laugh with the Jews who had manipulated him into crucifying a man against whom there was no real charge. It was as if the Lord suffered as He did with a placard above Him which effectively said: 'This is Yahweh'. The Name was declared there, as the Lord had foreseen (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). The declaration of Yahweh’s Name to Moses in <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> thus becomes a foretaste of the Lord’s crucifixion. Some LXX versions render <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> as ‘Yahweh, Yahweh,&nbsp;<em>a man</em>&nbsp;full of mercy::::’. In the crucifixion of the man Christ Jesus the essence of Yahweh was declared. And we, John says with reference to the cross, saw that glory, as it were cowering in the rock like Moses,&nbsp;<em>full</em>&nbsp;of grace and truth (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> RV).</p><p>There are other reasons for thinking that there was the supreme manifestation of Yahweh in the cross of His Son:<br/>·&nbsp;It has been observed that the blood of the Passover Lamb on the lintels of the doors at the Exodus, three sides of a square, would have recalled the two repeated letters of ‘Yahweh’ (see above panel), as if His Name was manifested in the blood of the slain lamb:&nbsp;<br/>·&nbsp;Yahweh laid on the Lord the iniquity of us all, as if He was present there when the soldiers laid the cross upon the Lord's shoulders (<em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/>·&nbsp;Yahweh had prophesied of what He would achieve through the crucified Christ: “I am, I am: He that blots out thy transgressions" (<em><a href='B:290 43:25'>Isa 43:25</a></em> LXX). He declares His Name as being supremely demonstrated in His forgiveness of our sins through and in the Lord’s cross:&nbsp;<br/>·&nbsp;Jehovah-Jireh can mean “Yahweh will show Yah" (<em><a href='B:10 22:14'>Gen 22:14</a></em>), in eloquent prophecy of the crucifixion. There Yahweh was to be manifested supremely:&nbsp;<br/>·&nbsp;Paul speaks of how the cross of Christ should humble us, so that no flesh should glory in God’s presence (<em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>); as if God’s presence is found in the cross, before which we cannot have any form of pride.</p><h4>·&nbsp;The LXX uses the word translated “propitiation" in the NT with reference to how God forgave / propitiated for Israel’s sins for His Name’s sake (<em><a href='B:20 32:14'>Exo 32:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 79:9'>Psa 79:9</a></em>). That propitiation was only for the sake of the Lord’s future death, which would be the propitiation God ultimately accepted. Having no past or future with Him, Yahweh could act as if His Son’s death had already occurred. But that death and forgiveness for “His name’s sake" were one and the same thing. The Son’s death was the expression of the Father’s Name:&nbsp;<br/>·&nbsp;There was a Jewish tradition that the only time when the Yahweh Name could be pronounced was by the High Priest, when he sprinkled the blood of Israel's atonement on the altar. The Name was expressed in that blood:&nbsp;<br/>·&nbsp; <em><a href='B:450 11:13'>Zec 11:13</a></em> speaks of Yahweh being priced at thirty shekels of silver by Israel. But these words are appropriated to the Lord in His time of betrayal. What men did to Him, they did to the Father:&nbsp;<br/>-The Red Heifer was to be slain before the face of the priest, "as he watches" (<em><a href='B:40 19:3-5'>Num 19:3-5</a></em> NIV), pointing forward to the Lord's slaughter in the personal presence of the Father.</h4><p>- The blood of the sin offering was to be sprinkled “before the LORD, before the veil" (<em><a href='B:30 4:6'>Lev 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:17'>Lev 4:17</a></em>). Yet the veil was a symbol of the flesh of the Lord Jesus at the time of His dying. At the time of the sprinkling of blood when the sin offering was made, the veil the flesh of the Lord Jesus was identifiable with Yahweh Himself. The blood of the offerings was poured out “before Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 4:15'>Lev 4:15</a></em> etc:), pointing forward to how God Himself, from so physically far away, “came down" so that the blood shedding of His Son was done as it were in His presence. And who is to say that the theophany that afternoon, of earthquake and thick darkness, was not the personal presence of Yahweh, hovering above crucifixion hill? Over the mercy seat (a symbol of the Lord Jesus in Hebrews), between the cherubim where the blood was sprinkled, “there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee" (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>). There we see the essence of God, and there in the cross we hear the essential word and message of God made flesh:&nbsp;<br/>· The smitten rock was an evident type of the Lord’s smiting on the cross. And yet in Deuteronomy especially it is made clear that Israel were to understand Yahweh as their rock. And yet “that rock was Christ". God Himself said that he would stand upon the rock as it was smitten- presumably fulfilled by the Angel standing or hovering above / upon the rock, while Moses smote it. And yet again it is Yahweh who is described as smiting the rock in Psalms 78 and <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>. He was with Christ, directly identified with Him, at the very same time as He ‘smote’ Him.</p><p>Significantly, very few actual details are given by the Gospel writers of both the scourging and the crucifixion. It could be that they felt it impossible to dwell upon these things; or it could be that they and their readers knew what was involved in these practices, and we are left to dwell upon them in our own imagination. We are intended to reconstruct in our own minds what may have happened… We have a solemn duty towards Him to do this. This is perhaps why the tenses change so dramatically in the records. Take just <em><a href='B:480 15:23-26'>Mar 15:23-26</a></em>: “They offered… they crucify… and part… casting lots… crucified… was written". These arresting changes are surely to encourage us to re-live it all. Mark speaks of “they crucify him", going on to say that “then are there two crucified with him" (<em><a href='B:480 15:38'>Mar 15:38</a></em> RV), whereas Luke records the act in the past tense. Mark’s present tenses are arresting: “plaiting… they clothe him… they smote…" (:17,19 RV). Perhaps Mark is seeking consciously to make us imagine it all as going on before our eyes. <em><a href='B:470 27:38'>Mat 27:38</a></em> RV has a similar dramatic change: “Then are there crucified with him…".</p>


text:
<p>15:27&nbsp;<em>And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right hand and one on his left</em>- <em><a href='B:470 27:38'>Mat 27:38</a></em> RV has a dramatic change of tense: “Then are there crucified with him…". Mark’s present tenses are also arresting: “plaiting…&nbsp; they clothe him… they smote…" (:17,19 RV). Perhaps Mark is seeking consciously to make us imagine it all as going on before our eyes. Take just <em><a href='B:480 15:23-26'>Mar 15:23-26</a></em>: “They offered…&nbsp; they crucify…&nbsp; and part… casting lots… crucified… was written". These arresting changes are surely to encourage us to re-live it all. Mark speaks of “they crucify him", going on to say that “then are there two crucified with him" (<em><a href='B:480 15:38'>Mar 15:38</a></em> RV), whereas Luke records the act in the past tense. Significantly, very few actual details are given by the Gospel writers of both the scourging and the crucifixion. It could be that they felt it impossible to dwell upon these things; or it could be that they and their readers knew what was involved in these practices, and we are left to dwell upon them in our own imagination. We are intended to reconstruct in our own minds what may have happened… We have a solemn duty towards Him to do this. This is perhaps why the tenses change so dramatically in the records.</p><p>The crucified Christ is portrayed as King of criminals, King of the basest sort, enthroned between them, taking the place of their leader Barabbas, who ought to have been where the Lord was. Both Barabbas and the thieves are described with the same Greek word, translated "robber" (<em><a href='B:500 18:40'>Joh 18:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:27'>Mar 15:27</a></em>). The Lord uses the same word when He points out that His persecutors were treating him as a "robber" (<em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:48'>Mar 14:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:52'>Luk 22:52</a></em>); He seems to be aware that what the experience He is going through is setting up Barabbas as a kind of inverse type of Himself, the true 'Son of the Father' (= 'Barabbas'). Those low, desperate men, the dregs of society, were types of us. Barabbas especially becomes a symbol of us all. According to Jewish tradition at the time (<em>Pesach</em>&nbsp;8:6) “They may slaughter the Passover lamb…for one whom they the authorities have promised to release from prison". The Passover amnesty freed a man justly condemned to death- on account of the death of the lamb. We can imagine the relief and joy and almost unbelief of Barabbas, as he watched or reflected upon the crucifixion of Jesus- that he who rightfully should have been there on the cross, was delivered from such a death because of the cross of Christ. The image of condemned prisoners being released due to the death of Messiah is an undoubted Old Testament figure for our redemption from slavery. Some of the legal terms used in the NT for our redemption imply that Christ redeemed us from slavery through His death. And yet one could redeem a slave by oneself becoming a slave (<em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:5'>Gal 4:5</a></em>). This is why the crucified Jesus is typified by the suffering servant / slave of Isaiah’s prophesies. And Paul seems to have risen up to something similar when he speaks of giving his body to be branded, i:e. becoming a slave (<em><a href='B:530 13:3'>1Co 13:3</a></em> Gk:).</p><p>John’s Gospel has many references to Moses, as catalogued elsewhere. When John records the death of the Lord with two men either side of Him, he seems to do so with his mind on the record of Moses praying with Aaron and Hur on each side of him (<em><a href='B:20 17:12'>Exo 17:12</a></em>). John’s account in English reads: “They crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one” (<em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>). Karl Delitzsch translated the Greek New Testament into Hebrew, and the Hebrew phrase he chose to use here is identical with that in <em><a href='B:20 17:12'>Exo 17:12</a></em>. Perhaps this explains why John alone of the Gospel writers doesn’t mention that the two men on either side of the Lord were in fact criminals- he calls them “two others” (<em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>) and “… the legs of the first and of the other” (<em><a href='B:500 19:32'>Joh 19:32</a></em>). Thus John may’ve chosen to highlight simply how there were two men on either side of the Lord, in order to bring out the connection with the Moses scene.</p>


text:
<p>15:28&nbsp;<em>And the scripture was fulfilled, which said: And he was numbered with the transgressors</em>- Perhaps the idea is that in the eyes of men, the Lord was considered just another dying criminal, counted along with the two thieves. The idea of numbering might refer to some legal report of the crucifixion being made, numbering three victims. The context of <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em> is that it was through being numbered with sinners that the Lord could bare their sin. This means that sin no longer totally separates man from God; because the Lord was so identified with sinful man, feeling as a sinner although he never actually sinned. But the Hebrew idea of 'numbering' is of preparing (s:w. <em><a href='B:340 1:5'>Dan 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 1:10'>Dan 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:390 1:17'>Jon 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:390 4:6-8'>Jon 4:6-8</a></em>). Through the crucifixion experience, the Lord was prepared for His role of identification with us; and this was visually exemplified by His death amongst the worst of criminals.</p>


text:
<p>15:29&nbsp;<em>And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying: Ha You that would destroy the temple and build it in three days</em>- The Christian life, as crucified with Christ, cannot be kept secret from the world. This is why the place of crucifixion was so public- it was near a road, for passers by spoke to the crucified Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 15:29'>Mar 15:29</a></em>), and Simon was a passer-by coming in from the field (Gk:&nbsp;<em>agros</em>, <em><a href='B:490 23:26'>Luk 23:26</a></em>). The cross confronted people in their daily living, just as it should us today. Quintillian (<em>Declamationes</em>&nbsp;274) records how crucifixions were always held in the most public places where crowds would gather. For us, if we are living the crucified life with Jesus, it cannot be done in a corner. See on <em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em>.</p><p>This would have reminded Him that He was doing this to Himself, they weren't doing it to Him. He knew that the temple would be ripped apart stone by stone. And so He knew the temple of His body must be, for in that body He bore our sins on the tree. He had foretold that the tabernacle of His body would be 'taken down' as that in the wilderness was, taken apart piece by piece. In that lengthy procedure He had seen foretold the excruciating nature of His death, as every aspect of humanity was taken apart. ":::and buildest it in three days" would have taken His mind forward to that certain future. So their taunt would have aided His efforts to remain spiritual. Likewise their allusions to Psalms 22 ("He trusted in God::.") served to steer the Lord's mind there, and to take comfort from the rest of the Psalm and the context of their mocking quotations. Yet even in the mocking, the Lord’s Bible mind would have found some sort of encouragement. For the Lord was so clearly bearing the judgment of Israel’s sins: “All who pass along the way clap their hands at you: they hiss and wag their heads at the daughter of Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:310 2:15'>Lam 2:15</a></em>). And note too <em><a href='B:300 48:27'>Jer 48:27</a></em> (LXX 31:27): “Is Israel a laughing stock? Was she caught between thieves that you wag your head?". This is exactly the Lord’s position, between thieves, and mocked- but by Israel. These prophecies imply it was the Gentiles who would mock Israel; thus by treating the Lord as they did, they declared themselves to be no longer God’s people but Gentiles. The darkness that came down would have recalled <em><a href='B:300 33:19-21'>Jer 33:19-21</a></em> - when day and night no longer follow their normal sequence, God is breaking His covenant. Israel’s condemnation would be that “even at midday you will grope like a blind man in the dark" (<em><a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a></em>). And yet the Lord would have known that He was suffering for Israel, treated as an apostate Israel, and thus He was the more inspired to pray for their ultimate forgiveness and salvation, seeing He had borne their condemnation. The Lord suffered “for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due" (<em><a href='B:290 53:8'>Isa 53:8</a></em> RVmg:). There are therefore elements of the crucifixion sufferings of Jesus in every suffering of natural Israel.</p>


text:
<p>15:30&nbsp;<em>Save yourself and come down from the cross</em>- All the emphasis on save&nbsp;<em>yourself</em>&nbsp;was a temptation for Him to forget&nbsp;<em>us</em>. He would have reflected that He was saving Himself and us by staying where He was; coming down from the cross wouldn't lead to salvation. What the flesh understands by salvation and what the spirit understands by it are vastly different.</p>


text:
<p>15:31&nbsp;<em>In like manner also the chief priests mocked among themselves and the scribes, saying: He saved others. Himself he cannot save</em>- Matthew and Mark record the same incident. The priests said among themselves (Mk:); Matthew implies they said it to Him. They spoke in mock whispers, huddled in their group, but loud enough for Him to hear. Many of "the elders" believed in Him (<em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>), but were led to this awful behaviour by the need to keep up appearances and the fear of exclusion from the synagogue.</p>


text:
<p>15:32&nbsp;<em>Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so we may see and believe And they that were crucified with him ridiculed him</em>- "Come down from the cross" was a repeat of the wilderness temptation to come down from the temple pinnacle. This temptation was at the hands of the Jews, and there is every reason to think that the wilderness temptations likewise were somehow involved with the Jewish satan. The Lord had likened His death on the cross, His giving of His flesh for the life of the world, to the coming down of manna from Heaven (<em><a href='B:500 6:50-51'>Joh 6:50-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:58'>Joh 6:58</a></em>). 'Coming down' was the classic language of theophany and God manifestation; the Lord's ascension was on the very basis that He had indeed 'come down' (<em><a href='B:560 4:10'>Eph 4:10</a></em>). And He was indeed 'coming down', not a mere meter or so from the stake to the ground, but from Heaven to earth- for their salvation. Time and again the situations associated with the Lord's suffering were full of reference to His earlier teachings and beliefs. He was thus confirmed by the hand of providence in the path He had taken, realizing that this was not at all 'bad luck' or a suffering to simply be endured, but rather every detail of it was under God's hand controlled to confirm Him in His path to glory.</p><p>“Come down from the cross” was a repeat of the second temptation: Come down from the temple tower; throw yourself to death in Gehenna below, and perhaps the Angels will even then save you. This had been a temptation to commit suicide, to give up life without giving it for His friends, and hope that somehow the Angels would save Him personally. Victory in one temptation leads to victory again and again. All the wilderness temptations recurred during the crucifixion. Notice how the three temptations of Jesus in the desert are repeated in the three mockeries of Him on the cross recorded in Matthew and Luke. The comment that the devil departed from Him “for a season" may imply ‘he’ returned at the cross. And clearly enough, the temptations at the end were internal, even if voiced by an external person.</p>


text:
<p>15:33&nbsp;<em>And when the sixth hour had come, darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour</em>- Darkness is often associated in the OT with mourning. <em><a href='B:370 8:9-10'>Amo 8:9-10</a></em> speaks of earthquake and darkness at noon because "I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day", i:e. a funeral. The darkness was a sign of&nbsp;<em>Almighty God mourning for His Son</em>.<br/>Mark’s account of the crucifixion has 5 component parts. The third part, the centrepiece as it were, is the account of the actual death of the Lord; but it is surrounded by cameos of human response to it (consider <em><a href='B:480 15:22-27'>Mar 15:22-27</a></em>; the actual death of Jesus, <em><a href='B:480 15:33-37'>Mar 15:33-37</a></em>; then <em><a href='B:480 15:38-41'>Mar 15:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:42-47'>Mar 15:42-47</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>15:34&nbsp;<em>And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice: Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which means: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?</em>-</p><p>The Greek seems to mean "Why&nbsp;<em>did You</em>&nbsp;forsake me", perhaps implying that He had already overcome the feeling of being forsaken. Mark records "Eloi"; Matthew "Eli". Why? There&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;a difference. Did He say "Eli, Eli, Eloi, Eloi”? Four times calling upon God?&nbsp; We are going to suggest that these words indicate a crisis in the mind of the Lord Jesus. We would wish to write in almost every sentence of this study that the Lord Jesus was utterly sinless. Yet as one tempted to the limit, He must have come close to the edge. One of the superlative marvels of the Lord in His death was the way He never seems to have lost His spiritual composure, despite every physical and mental assault. Yet in these words we have Him perhaps nearer to such a breakdown of composure than anywhere else. Another example of His being 'close to the edge' was when He was in the Garden, asking for the cup to be taken away from Him. Compare those words with His clear understanding that He would have to die on a cross and later be resurrected. The clarity of His understanding is to be marvelled at. He went to the cross “knowing all things that should come upon him" (<em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>). He not only foresaw His death by crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, but many other details besides. Thus He spoke of how He was like a seed which would be buried in a&nbsp;<em>garden</em>&nbsp;(as He was) and then rise again (<em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em>). But compare all this with His plea for another way to be found in Gethsemane, and also the cry "Why hast thou forsaken me?". There is only one realistic conclusion from this comparison: those words indicate a faltering in the Lord Jesus, a blip on the screen, a wavering in purpose. One marvels that there were not more such occasions recorded.</p><p>The first blip on the screen was in Gethsemane. The second one was when He cried "Why have You forsaken me?". We should remind ourselves of the chronology of events around the crucifixion (1):</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>14th Nissan</td><td>9p:m.</td><td>Last Supper</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12p:m.</td><td>Arrest</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9a:m. (the third hour”)</td><td>Crucifixion</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12a:m. - 3p:m. ("sixth to the ninth hour")</td><td>Darkness</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3p:m. ("the ninth hour")</td><td>Death; Passover lambs killed</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15th Nissan</td><td>9p:m.</td><td>Israel eat Passover</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16th Nissan</td><td>6p:m.</td><td>Passover Sabbath ends</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5a:m.</td><td>Resurrection?</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6a:m.</td><td>Women at the tomb</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3p:m.</td><td>Walk to Emmaus</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table><p>The fact is, Christ died "at the ninth hour". It was at the ninth hour that he cried "It is finished" and "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit". Yet it was also&nbsp;<em>at&nbsp;</em>the ninth hour that He said "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (<em><a href='B:480 15:34'>Mar 15:34</a></em>). The conclusion is that&nbsp;<em>at the very last moment</em>&nbsp;our Lord faltered. It was 11:59, and He faltered. Enter,&nbsp;<em>please</em>, into the sense of crisis and intensity. This is the only time that he prays to God as “God" rather than “Father" /&nbsp;<em>abba</em>. This itself reflects the sense of distance that enveloped Him. For He was your Lord and your Saviour hanging there, it was your salvation which hung in the balance. There is a very telling point to be made from <em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>. There we read that at "<em>about</em>&nbsp;the ninth hour, Jesus cried" those words about being forsaken. Mark says it was at the ninth hour, and we know it was at the ninth hour that Christ uttered His final words of victory. Yet it must have been only a few minutes before the ninth hour when Christ faltered; hence Matthew says that it was "<em>about</em>&nbsp;the ninth hour". What is a few minutes? Only a few hundred seconds, only moments. Only moments before the sweetness of the final victory, "It is finished" or accomplished, the Son of God was faltering. The more we appreciate this wavering at the last minute, the more fully we will appreciate the power and sense of victory behind Christ's final two sayings on the cross, uttered only moments later.</h4><p>And so we come to the crux of the problem. How and why was Christ forsaken by the Father? Ultimately, of course, the Father did not forsake the Son in His time of greatest need and agony. I would suggest that Christ only&nbsp;<em>felt</em>&nbsp;forsaken; although if you&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;forsaken, in a sense you are forsaken. The prototype of Christ feeling forsaken was in David feeling forsaken by God when he fled from Absalom (<em><a href='B:230 42:9'>Psa 42:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 43:2'>Psa 43:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 88:14'>Psa 88:14</a></em>); but clearly he was not actually forsaken. But&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;did our Lord falter like this, at 11:59, one minute to twelve, at this agonizing last moment? Seeing the Father did not forsake the Son, there seems to have been some kind of intellectual failure in the Lord’s reasoning. In the terrible circumstances in which He was, this is hardly surprising. Yet such genuine intellectual failure, a real, unpretended failure to correctly understand something, usually has a psychological basis. The Lord, it seems to me,&nbsp;<em>feared death more than any other man</em>. He knew that death was separation from God, the wages of sin. Different people have varying degrees of fear of death (e:g. the unrepentant thief was totally resigned to it). It would seem that the Lord had the highest conceivable level of unresignation to death, to the point of being almost paranoid about it- even though He knew He must die. Two prototypes of the Lord had similar experiences. Abraham suffered “an horror of great darkness" (<em><a href='B:10 15:12'>Gen 15:12</a></em>), in an event rich in reference to the crucifixion. And Job’s sufferings were the very things which he “greatly feared" (<em><a href='B:220 3:25'>Job 3:25</a></em>). The Lord stood as a lamb dumb before His shearers; and the lamb is struck dumb with fear. This all makes the Lord’s death&nbsp;<em>for us</em>&nbsp;so much the more awesome.</p><p>We have elsewhere commented concerning the possibility that Christ felt that although He would be tied to the cross as Isaac was, yet somehow He would be delivered. <em><a href='B:10 22:22'>Gen 22:22</a></em> LXX speaks of Abraham not withholding his son- and the same word is found in <em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em> about God ‘not sparing’ His own son. Clearly the offering of Isaac is to be understood as prophetic of the Lord’s sacrifice. The Lord's growing realization that the entangled ram represented Him rather than Isaac would have led to this sense of panic which He now expressed. There is more evidence than we sometimes care to consider that Christ's understanding was indeed limited; He was capable of misunderstanding Scripture, especially under the stress of the cross. Earlier, in the garden, He had panicked; He was "sore amazed" (<em><a href='B:480 14:33'>Mar 14:33</a></em>, s:w. "greatly wondering", <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em>).</p><p>This desire for personal deliverance from the cross would have been there within our Lord throughout the six hours He hung there. And yet His only other earlier utterances which are recorded are all concerned with the welfare of others; us, the Jews, the thief, His mother. He supremely mastered His own flare of panic and desire for His personal salvation and relief, subjecting it to His spiritual and practical concern for others.</p><p>A study of Psalms 22 indicates deeper reasons why Christ felt forsaken. He had been crying out loud for deliverance, presumably for some time, according to <em><a href='B:230 22:1-6'>Psa 22:1-6</a></em>, both during and before the unnatural three hour darkness. He felt that His desire for deliverance was not being heard, although the prayers of others had been heard in the past when they cried with a like intensity. The Lord Jesus was well aware of the connection between God's refusal to answer prayer and His recognition of sin in the person praying (<em><a href='B:100 22:42'>2Sa 22:42</a></em> = <em><a href='B:230 2:2-5'>Psa 2:2-5</a></em>). It is emphasized time and again that God will not forsake those who love Him (e:g. <em><a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a></em>). Every one of these passages must have been well known to our Lord, the word made flesh. He knew that God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<em><a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a></em>). God would forsake Israel only if they forsook Him (<em><a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a></em>). It may be helpful to summarize the two strands of Bible teaching concerning being forsaken:</p><p>God will not forsake His people if they are righteous<br/>"When thou art in tribulation::. and shalt be obedient unto his voice::. he will not forsake thee" (<em><a href='B:50 4:18-19'>Deu 4:18-19</a></em>)<br/>"The Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee" (<em><a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a></em>)<br/>"The Lord will not forsake His people for his great name's sake: because it hath pleased the Lord to make you his people" (<em><a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a></em>)<br/>"If thou wilt walk in my statutes::. and keep all my commandments to walk in them::. I will not forsake my people" (<em><a href='B:110 6:12-13'>1Ki 6:12-13</a></em>)<br/>"Blessed is the man (Messiah) whom thou chastenest::. for the Lord will not cast off his people, neither forsake his inheritance::. all the upright in heart" (<em><a href='B:230 94:12-15'>Psa 94:12-15</a></em>)<br/>"When the poor and needy seek water::. I the Lord will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them" (<em><a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a></em>); i:e. God not forsaking was shown in His answering of prayer (cp. <em><a href='B:230 22:1-11'>Psa 22:1-11</a></em>).</p><p>God will forsake His people if they sin<br/>"Now the Lord hath forsaken us" because of Israel's disobedience at the time of the Judges (<em><a href='B:70 6:9'>Jdg 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a></em>)<br/>"Because Mannaseh hath done these abominations::. I will forsake the remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their enemies" (<em><a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a></em>)<br/>"Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people::. because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers and they please themselves" (<em><a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a></em>)<br/>"I am against the (false) prophets::. (therefore) I will even forsake you" (<em><a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a></em>)<br/>"If ye seek him, he will be found of you; but ye forsake him, he will forsake you" (<em><a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a></em>)<br/>"This people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the land::. and will forsake me::. then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them" (<em><a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a></em>).</p><p>Knowing all this, He cried out: "<em>Why</em>&nbsp;have You forsaken me?". He felt forsaken by God, and Biblically, without a doubt, being forsaken by God means you are a sinner. "<em>Why</em>&nbsp;(oh&nbsp;<em>why</em>) have You forsaken me?" is surely the Lord Jesus searching His conscience with desperate intensity, finding nothing wrong, and crying to God to show Him where He had failed, why the Father had forsaken Him. It may be that initially He assumed He had sinned (<em><a href='B:230 69:5'>Psa 69:5</a></em>), going through the self-doubt which David went through at the time of Absalom's rebellion (<em><a href='B:230 3:2'>Psa 3:2</a></em>). As David had felt then that God had cast him off, even though "My lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail", so the Lord felt (<em><a href='B:230 89:33'>Psa 89:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 89:38'>Psa 89:38</a></em>). But then with an unsurpassedly rigorous self-examination, He came to know that He really hadn't. This means that once over the crisis, our Lord died with a purity of conscience known by no other being, with a profound sense of His own totality of righteousness. Again, this enables us to better enter into the intensity of "<em>It</em>&nbsp;is finished".</p><p>The Lord understood His death as drinking a cup from God. But that cup was, in Old Testament language, the cup of God’s wrath against a disobedient people. The Lord knew that His death was a bearing of their judgment- which is not to say, of course, that the Lord’s murderers, as any sinners, have to also answer for their sins. He so wished to gather the “chicks" of Jerusalem under His wings, but they would not, and thus the house of the temple would be left desolate. The image seems to be of a farmyard hen in a fire, gathering the chicks under wings as the house burnt down, so that afterwards, beneath her charred and destroyed body, her brood would be found alive. The Lord so wished the burnt offering of the cross to result in the salvation of the Israel of His day- but they would not. This was His level of love for those who baited Him, irritated Him, dogged His every step.</p><p>Christ knew from Isaiah 53 that He was to bear Israel's sins, that the judgments for their sins were to fall upon Him. Israel ‘bore their iniquities’ by being condemned for them (<em><a href='B:40 14:34-35'>Num 14:34-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 5:17'>Lev 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:17'>Lev 20:17</a></em>); to be a sin bearer was therefore to be one condemned. To die in punishment for your sin was to bear you sin. There is a difference between sin, and sin being laid upon a person. <em><a href='B:40 12:11'>Num 12:11</a></em> brings this out: “Lay not the sin upon us… wherein we have sinned”. The idea of sin being laid upon a person therefore refers to condemnation for sin. Our sin being laid upon Jesus therefore means that He was treated&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;He were a condemned sinner. He briefly endured within Him the torment of soul which the condemned will feel. It seems that even our Lord did not appreciate the extent to which He would be identified with sinful Israel, the extent to which He would have our sins imputed to Him, the weight of them, the degree to which He would be made sin for us, although knowing no sin (<em><a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a></em>). And if He found this hard to come to terms with, no wonder we do too. The fact that the judgment for sin is sometimes equated with the sin itself was doubtless appreciated by the Lord (cp. <em><a href='B:120 15:23'>2Ki 15:23</a></em>); but the extent of this principle was what seemed to have been unappreciated by Him until the cross. Likewise, He would have meditated upon the way righteous men had taken upon themselves the sins of their people. Thus Jeremiah speaks as if he has committed Israel's sins; Ezra rends his clothes and plucks off his hair, as if&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;has married out of the Faith (<em><a href='B:150 9:4'>Ezr 9:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a></em>; the Lord received the same sinner's treatment, <em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em>). Moses' prayer for God to relent and let him enter the land was only rejected for the sake of his association with Israel's sins (<em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>). But the&nbsp;<em>extent</em>&nbsp;to which the Lord would bear our sins was perhaps unforeseen by Him. And indeed, through His sin- bearing and sin-feeling, He enabled God Himself to know something of it too, as a Father learns and feels through a son. Thus God is likened to a man who goes away into a far country (<em><a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a></em>)- the very words used by the Lord to describe how the sinner goes into a far country in his departure from the Father (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>). “My servant" was both Israel and the Lord Jesus; He was their representative in His sufferings. Which may well explain why in an exhibition of prisoners art from the Auschwitz death camp, there were so many crucifixes and ‘stages of the cross’ drawn by Jews, even in the wood of the huts, etched with their finger nails. They saw then, and will see again, the extent to which Jesus of Nazareth, through His cross, identifies with the suffering servant of Israel. Isaiah brings this point out Biblically- early in his prophecy he speaks of how “my servant" Israel will be wounded, bruised, tormented with “fresh stripes" (<em><a href='B:290 1:6'>Isa 1:6</a></em> RVmg)- exactly the language Isaiah later uses about the sufferings of the Lord Jesus in His death.</p><p>Christ died to save Israel rather than everyone in the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:290 49:5'>Isa 49:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:8'>Isa 53:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:4-5'>Gal 4:4-5</a></em>), He was “a servant to the circumcised" (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>), " the consolation&nbsp;<em>of Israel</em>”, unto&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;was born a saviour (<em><a href='B:490 2:11'>Luk 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:25'>Luk 2:25</a></em>), and therefore He had to be exactly representative of them. For this reason it was theologically necessary for Jesus to be Jewish in order to achieve the work He did. We are only saved by reason of becoming in Christ and therefore part of the Israel of God (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). The Jewish basis of salvation is absolutely fundamental to a correct understanding of the Gospel.</p><p>Consider the following evidence that fundamentally, Christ died to save Israel:<br/>"For unto us (Israel) a child is born, unto us a son is given" (<em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em>)<br/>"The Lord formed me in the womb to be His servant, to bring Jacob again to Him" (<em><a href='B:290 49:5'>Isa 49:5</a></em>)<br/>"For the transgression of my people was he stricken" (<em><a href='B:290 53:8'>Isa 53:8</a></em>)<br/>“God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law" (<em><a href='B:550 4:4-5'>Gal 4:4-5</a></em>)<br/>The good news of Christ’s birth was for “all the people" of Israel, primarily (<em><a href='B:490 2:10'>Luk 2:10</a></em> RV).<br/>The Lord laid down His life “for the sheep" of Israel (<em><a href='B:500 10:15-16'>Joh 10:15-16</a></em>).</p><p>Both Peter and Paul appealed to the Jews to repent because it was for them that Christ had died: "Ye are the children:::of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying:::. And in thy seed shall all the kindreds (tribes) of the earth (land) be blessed. Unto you first (i:e. most importantly) God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities::. God raised unto Israel a Saviour… men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham::. to you is the word of this salvation sent::. we declare unto you glad tidings (the Gospel), how that the promise (of salvation in Christ) which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children" (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:23'>Act 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:26'>Act 13:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:32-33'>Act 13:32-33</a></em>).</p><p>"For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision (<em><a href='B:520 15:17'>Rom 15:17</a></em>) has reference to Isaiah’s Servant prophecies of the crucifixion. But it is also, as so often in Paul, a reference to the Lord’s words; in this case, <em><a href='B:470 20:26-28'>Mat 20:26-28</a></em>: "It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many". The ‘becoming a servant’ refers to His death; and He became a servant, Paul says, to the Jews above all.</p><p>Because of all this, the sufferings of Christ on the cross have connections with the punishments for Israel's sins (e:g. being offered gall to drink = <em><a href='B:300 8:14'>Jer 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 3:5'>Lam 3:5</a></em>). Israel were temporarily forsaken by God because of their sins (<em><a href='B:290 49:14'>Isa 49:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:7'>Isa 54:7</a></em>), and therefore so was Christ. Christ was chastened with the rod of men "and with the stripes of the children of men", i:e. Israel (<em><a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a></em>), in His death on the cross. But punishment with rod and stripes was to be given if Messiah sinned (<em><a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a></em>). Yet Christ received this punishment; because God counted Him as if He were a sinner. His sharing in our condemnation was no harmless piece of theology. He really did feel, deep inside Him, that He was a sinner, forsaken by God. Instead of lifting up His face to Heaven, with the freedom of sinlessness, He fell on His face before the Father in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>), bearing the guilt of human sin. There are times when we may feel that the righteousness of Christ makes Him somehow inaccessible to us. Even among contemporary brethren and sisters, there are some who I feel somehow distanced from, simply because I know they are far more righteous than I. And I know that there are many of us who feel the same. We feel that they just don't know what it feels like to be spiritually down and out, to feel and deeply know the dirt of our own nature. And if we have this problem with each other, we will surely have it with the Lord Jesus too. For this reason many of us lack the dynamic, close personal relationship with Christ which we should have.</p><p>And yet here on the cross, we see our Lord with all the panic of the sinner who knows He is facing judgment and death, feeling every bit, right throughout His very being, the alienation from God which sin brings. He knew the agony of separation from God because of sin. He was a sin bearer (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>); and the idea of sin bearing was almost an idiom for being personally guilty and sinful (<em><a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 28:43'>Exo 28:43</a></em>). The Lord was our sin bearer and yet personally guiltless. This is the paradox which even He struggled with; no wonder we do, on a far more abstract level. <em><a href='B:290 63:2-3'>Isa 63:2-3</a></em> explains how in the process of obtaining salvation, the Lord’s clothing would be made red. Red clothes in Isaiah suggest sinfulness that needs cleansing (<em><a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a></em>). He was completely identified with us, to the point of feeling a sinner even although He never sinned. Perhaps this was why Pilate marvelled so greatly at Christ's silence when under false accusation (<em><a href='B:480 15:5'>Mar 15:5</a></em>); Pilate knew Jesus was innocent, and he had seen many innocent men being condemned in that court situation. Innocent men usually protest their innocence, desperately. But this innocent man didn't. Perhaps the paradox is explained by the fact that Jesus felt so closely identified with sinful, guilty humanity that He didn't do the natural thing, which would've been to loudly proclaim His own innocence.</p><p>The Greek word translated "forsaken" occurs also in <em><a href='B:510 2:27'>Act 2:27</a></em>, where Peter quotes from Psalms 16 concerning how Christ was always aware of His own righteousness, and therefore confidently knew that God would not "<em>leave</em>&nbsp;(forsake) his soul in hell". In <em><a href='B:230 22:1'>Psa 22:1</a></em>, our Lord was doubting His previous thoughts, as prophesied in <em><a href='B:230 16:10'>Psa 16:10</a></em>. He now feared that God had forsaken Him, when previously He had been full of confidence that God would not do so, on account of His perfect character. Because Christ felt such a sinner deep within Him, He even doubted if He really was the Messiah. This is how deeply, how deeply, our Lord was our representative, this is how thoroughly He bare our own sins in His own body on the tree, this is how deeply He came to know us, to be able to exactly empathize with us in our spiritual weakness; this was how He became able to have a fellow feeling with those who are out of the way, who have lost the faith, "for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity" (<em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em>). The way the Lord felt as a sinner without being one is possibly reflected in the way He framed the parable of the prodigal son. For like it or not, the prodigal is portrayed in terms which are elsewhere applicable to Jesus- the beloved son of the Father, given the Father's wealth as His inheritance, He who was rich becoming poor, going into the Gentile world, accused of companying with prostitutes, bitterly rejected by the elder brother cp. the Pharisees, accused of wasting wealth by Judas, received with joy by the Father. Of course, the Lord Jesus did not sin. But why is the sinner framed in the story in the very terms which are applicable to the sinless Son of God? Surely the Lord did this to reflect the degree to which He felt His identity with sinners, although He never sinned.</p><h4>The greatest fear within a righteous man is that of sinning. There are many Messianic Psalms in which David, in the spirit of Christ, speaks of His fear of being forsaken by God:&nbsp;<br/>"Leave me not, neither forsake me,&nbsp;<em>O God of my&nbsp;</em>salvation" (<em><a href='B:230 27:9'>Psa 27:9</a></em>; cp. "<em>My God</em>, Why hast thou forsaken me")<br/>"Forsake me not, O Lord:&nbsp;<em>O my God</em>&nbsp;be not far from me" (<em><a href='B:230 38:21'>Psa 38:21</a></em>)<br/>"Hide not they face from thy servant::. hear me speedily" (<em><a href='B:230 69:17'>Psa 69:17</a></em>)- implying that a lack of response to prayer (as He experienced on the cross) was perceived by the Lord as rejection.<br/>"Forsake me not:::&nbsp;<em>O God</em>, forsake me not" (<em><a href='B:230 71:9'>Psa 71:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 71:18'>Psa 71:18</a></em>)<br/>"I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not" (<em><a href='B:230 119:8'>Psa 119:8</a></em>)<br/>"Forsake not the works of thine own hands" (<em><a href='B:230 138:8'>Psa 138:8</a></em>).</h4><p>This points forward to how our Lord had this lifelong fear of being forsaken by God as a result of sin. Under the extreme pressure of the cross, amidst His constant self-examination, it is understandable that Christ's greatest fear, perhaps almost His paranoia, appeared to become realized. The crowd had been trying to brainwash our Lord with the idea that He had sinned; and because of His humanity and sensitivity of His personality, the Lord Jesus was perhaps subconsciously influenced by all this. He was no hard man, insensitive to the jeers of men. Remember how He was laughed&nbsp;<em>to scorn&nbsp;</em>both on the cross and in the home of Jairus, and how He did not hide His face from the&nbsp;<em>shame</em>&nbsp;which He was made to feel by men (<em><a href='B:470 9:24'>Mat 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 22:7'>Psa 22:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em>). Job's sufferings were another type of Christ's, and his sufferings (cp. Christ's experience on the cross) was the thing which He had greatly feared all his life (<em><a href='B:220 3:25'>Job 3:25</a></em>). The thing which Christ greatly feared, according to the Psalms, was being forsaken by God. And true enough to the Job type, this came upon Him:&nbsp;<br/>Because Christ truly felt a sinner, He felt forsaken by God. This is to me the explanation of one of Scripture’s most enigmatic verses: “Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? Who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord’s servant?" (<em><a href='B:290 42:18-19'>Isa 42:18-19</a></em>). The Lord Jesus, as the servant, was to share the blindness and deafness of an obdurate Israel. He identified with us even in our sinfulness; and yet He was the blind who was perfect; and this is the very thing that empowers the spiritually blind to see. When God made His soul sin on the cross AV “offering for sin" is not in the Hebrew text- it’s an interpretation,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;He saw Heb. to perceive / discern His seed (<em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>). This all seems to mean that it was through this feeling as a sinner deep within His very soul, that the Lord Jesus came to ‘see’, to closely identify with, to perceive truly, us His sinful seed / children. And He did this right at the very end of His hours of suffering, as if this was the climax of His sufferings- they led Him to a full and total identity with sinful men and women. And once He reached that point, He died. The total identity of the Lord with our sinfulness is brought out in passages like <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>, describing Jesus as being “in the likeness of sinful flesh" when He was made a sin offering; and <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>, which speaks of how He “his own self…in his own body" bore our sins “upon the tree". Note that it was at the time of His death that He was especially like this. I believe that these passages speak more of the Lord’s moral association with sinners, which reached a climax in His death, than they do of His ‘nature’. The Greek words&nbsp;<em>charis</em>&nbsp;grace and&nbsp;<em>choris</em>&nbsp;apart differ by one very small squiggle. This is why there’s an alternative reading of <em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em>: “So that apart from God&nbsp;<em>choris theou</em>&nbsp;he Jesus tasted death for us” (2). This would then be a clear reference to the way that the Lord Jesus felt apart from God at His very end. Not that He was, but if He felt like that, then this was in practice the experience which He had. Thus even when we feel apart from God- the Lord Jesus knows even that feeling.</p><p>In every other recorded prayer of His in the Gospels, the Lord addressed the Almighty as “Father"; but now He uses the more distant “My God", reflecting the separation He felt. But therefore His mind flew to <em><a href='B:230 22:1'>Psa 22:1</a></em>, and He quoted those words: "My God, why hast thou forsaken me". But the fact His mind went to the Scriptures like that was His salvation. There is reason to think that in His last few minutes, the Lord quoted the whole of Psalms 22 out loud. Thus He asked for a drink " that the Scripture might be fulfilled”, or finished, and then His words "It is finished" followed- which are actually an exact quote from the Septuagint of the last verse of Psalms 22. Psalms 22, 69 can be clearly divided into two halves; the first half speaks of the confused thoughts of the Lord Jesus as He hung on the cross, but then there is a sudden rally, and His thoughts become clearly more confident and positive, centred around the certainty of our future salvation. As Christ quoted or at least thought through Psalms 22, He came to the glorious conclusion: Of course this is how Messiah must feel, He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;feel forsaken, as Psalms 22 prophesied, but He would go on to save God's people Just because Messiah would&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;forsaken didn't mean that He Himself had sinned We can almost sense the wave of reassurance that swept over our Lord, that deep knowledge of His own good conscience. And therefore how desperate He was, despite that ravaging thirst, to utter to the world that cry, "It is finished"; to show to us all that He had achieved God's work, that He&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;perfectly manifested the Father, and that thereby He really had achieved our redemption:&nbsp;<br/>Notes<br/>(1) This chronology is my preferred one. Yet it presents the problem (for some) of reading "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (<em><a href='B:470 12:40'>Mat 12:40</a></em>) as an idiom rather than a literal time period. This problem is well handled in H:A:Whittaker, 'Three days and three nights',&nbsp;in&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels</em>:&nbsp;<br/>&nbsp;(2) A reading justified at length in Philip E. Hughes,&nbsp;<em>A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977) pp. 87-97.</p>


text:
<p>15:35&nbsp;<em>And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said: Look, he calls Elijah</em>- They were confusing "Eliyahu" with "Eloi, Eloi". With teeth loose or missing, throat parched from the fever induced by the iron nails in the blood stream, the difficulty of speaking because of being suspended by the arms::. this confusion isn't surprising.</p>


text:
<p>15:36&nbsp;<em>And one ran and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a rod and gave it to him to drink, saying: Leave him be. Let us see if Elijah will come to take Him down-</em>&nbsp;When we read that “someone” offered him a sponge with wine mixed with myrrh (<em><a href='B:480 15:36'>Mar 15:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:48'>Mat 27:48</a></em>), we recall the use of myrrh in preparing bodies for burial (<em><a href='B:480 14:3'>Mar 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:56'>Luk 23:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:39'>Joh 19:39</a></em>). Pliny (<em>Natural History</em>&nbsp;14:15:92,107) records: “The finest wine in early days was that spiced with the scent of myrrh…I also find that aromatic wine is constantly made from almost the same ingredient as perfumes, from myrrh”. This alerts me to the real possibility that the unnamed bystander who did this was Mary Magdalene. Earlier she had anointed the Lord’s body with myrrh “to the burial”. And now she has prepared the most expensive form of wine as some sort of pain killer. Perhaps the Lord was so touched by this that He accepted it, but didn’t drink it. His doing this is otherwise very hard to understand. Her love was on one hand inappropriate, and yet the Lord still accepted it, even though He couldn’t use it. He could have felt angry with her for tempting Him to the easier way. But He didn’t. And in so doing He showed her that the essence of the cross is that there is no easy way. The principles of all this are to be reflected in our cross carrying:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:37&nbsp;<em>And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed his last</em>- <em><a href='B:470 27:50'>Mat 27:50</a></em> suggests that this cry&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;the giving up of the spirit: “Then Jesus crying out again with a loud voice, expired". For the huge significance of this, see on <em><a href='B:490 23:46'>Luk 23:46</a></em>. The Lord gave His life, it was not taken from Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>); He consciously controlled the giving out of His last breath.</p>


text:
<p>15:38&nbsp;<em>And the veil of the temple was torn in two- from the top to the bottom</em>- The way into the most holy was now open to all, the veil torn from top to bottom because this was done by God. The High Priest's garments had been torn by him, and now the veil itself was open. Judaism was effectively over. Direct fellowship with God was now made possible through the Lord's death. We note by contrast how the same word is used to describe how the Lord's garment was&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;rent (<em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>). "From the top" indicates that this was done by God. He was no longer hidden behind ritual, stones and sacred space. The rending of the veil is clearly alluded to in <em><a href='B:650 9:3'>Heb 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a></em>; but as noted there, we must have boldness to enter in to the holiest. We all now are to act as the High Priest, going into the very presence of God for the same of others.<br/>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:39<em>&nbsp;And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw how he breathed his last breath, he said: Truly this man was the Son of God</em>-<em>&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>He said it twice: "This was a righteous man (Lk:), truly this man was the son of God" (Mk:). And he might well have added in his own thoughts: “And I’ve crucified him". The Lord died through an act of utter self control; consciously breathing out His last breath in the form of the words "Father into your hands I commit my spirit". He gave His life, it was not taken from Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>15:40<em>&nbsp;And there were also women watching from afar, among whom were both Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome</em>-Perhaps when He crossed Kidron He would have thought back to how Asa had to separate himself from his mother in the very same place (<em><a href='B:110 15:13'>1Ki 15:13</a></em>). The crucifixion record describes Mary the mother of Jesus as Mary the mother of James and Joses (<em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em>)- not Mary the mother of Jesus. It’s as if the record itself seeks to show that separation between mother and Son which occurred there. Both Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James- i:e. the mother of Jesus too (<em><a href='B:480 16:1'>Mar 16:1</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em>) came to the sepulchre, but Jesus chose to appear to Mary Magdalene first (<em><a href='B:480 15:9'>Mar 15:9</a></em>), and not His own dear mother. <em><a href='B:470 27:61'>Mat 27:61</a></em> almost cruelly rubs the point in: “There was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre”, but the Lord appeared to Mary Magdalene first. Indeed, there is no record that He ever appeared to His mother. This would presumably have been to help her in realizing that she must relate to Him as her Lord and Saviour now, like any other woman had to, and not as a woman with special maternal privileges in her relationship with her now Almighty Son. It must have so pained the Lord to do this- to not appear to his dear mother first. But as He oftentimes acts with us, so He did with her- doing something which even in Divine nature must have been so painful for Him, in order to help her in her growth. &nbsp;</p><p>We read in <em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em> that “Mary the mother of James the little one and of Joses” stood by the cross (RVmg:). I take this Mary to be Mary the mother of Jesus, for <em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em> records that James and Joses were brothers of Jesus and thus children of Mary. Remember that Mark is writing under inspiration a transcript of the preaching of the Gospel by the apostles, as they recounted the message of Jesus time and again. Could it not be that in the preaching of that Gospel, when it came to the cross, James asked to be surnamed “the little one”, remembering his earlier rejection of Jesus his brother? Now it is not at all surprising that Saul of Tarsus too decides to call himself ‘the little one’, through sustained meditation upon the cross. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>15:41&nbsp;<em>Who, when he was in Galilee, had also followed him and ministered to him; and many other women that also had come with him up to Jerusalem</em>- The connection is between following the Lord in the easier times, at the height of His popularity in Galilee; and also following Him when all seems hopeless, and there seems absolutely no human advantage from identity with Him. The reference to "many" women coming up to Jerusalem in support of Him would suggest that He may have had more female supporters than male.</p>


text:
<p>15:42&nbsp;<em>And when evening had come, because it was the Preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath</em>- This confirms that the Lord died at the same time as the Passover lambs were slain; just as He had planned. His "last supper" was therefore a Passover held in advance.</p>


text:
<p>15:43&nbsp;<em>Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honourable rank, who also was looking for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus</em>- Perhaps Old Testament 'Ramah', birthplace and home of Samuel. He was 'also' a disciple (Mt:), in God's eyes, in the same category as the women disciples who were so public about their discipleship (<em><a href='B:470 27:56'>Mat 27:56</a></em>). Whilst secret discipleship is not the Lord's intention, and He will arrange circumstances so that we 'come out' publicly, it is not for us to say that He doesn't count secret disciples as also His disciples, just as He did Joseph.</p><p>Joseph is now showing his open affinity with this crucified man; for only close family members could ask for the body. At that time, he didn't firmly believe in the resurrection. For sheer&nbsp;<em>love</em>&nbsp;of this crucified man, he was willing to sacrifice his standing in society, his economic position, risk his life, grovel before the hated Pilate to beg (Lk:), crave (Mk:) the body. This was something which only the close relatives of the crucified could presume to do. But he felt already that new relationship to the Lord, and whether or not He would ever be raised he wanted to show openly to the world his connection with Him, come what may. This was the effect of the Lord’s death upon him.</p><p>The text records that the Jews desired Pilate for the death of Jesus; but the very same Greek words are used to describe how Joseph desired Pilate to let him have the body of Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 27:58'>Mat 27:58</a></em>)- as if to show how Joseph openly undid his request for the crucifixion, by requesting the body. It is twice stressed that Joseph was on the Sanhedrin council. So was Nicodemus (<em><a href='B:500 3:2'>Joh 3:2</a></em>). Yet the whole council unanimously voted for the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:480 14:64'>Mar 14:64</a></em>). "The whole Sanhedrin" (<em><a href='B:480 15:1'>Mar 15:1</a></em> NIV) agreed the High Priests' plan of action. They&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;interrogated Him and “the whole multitude of them" led Jesus to Pilate (<em><a href='B:490 22:66'>Luk 22:66</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:70'>Luk 22:70</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:1'>Luk 23:1</a></em>). This is some emphasIs. Joseph “was not in agreement" with them, we are told, but it seems this was a position held within his own conscience; indeed, “many” of the elders actually believed in Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>). It was only the actual cross which brought faith into the open. “You shall not be in agreement with the wicked as an unjust witness" (<em><a href='B:20 23:1'>Exo 23:1</a></em>) probably tore out his heart. It may be that these men weren't present and that the Jews broke their own law, that the death sentence must be unanimously agreed. However, I have an intuitive sense (and nothing more) that these men voted for the Lord's death; and that they went along with the discussion in which " all" the council were involved, as to which incidents in His life they could remember for which they could condemn Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a></em>). They may not have consented to what was done in their hearts, but they still went along with it all on the surface. <em><a href='B:510 13:28-29'>Act 13:28-29</a></em> is at pains, almost, to associate Joseph, Nicodemus and the rest of the Sanhedrin: "<em>They</em>&nbsp;have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;found no cause of death in him, yet desired&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;Pilate that He should be slain:::&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre".</p><p>They were secret disciples, fearing the loss of standing among the Jews. It was only after the Lord's death that they came out in the open. It seems to me that they voted for the Son of God to die. But in His grace, the Father emphasizes in the record that Joseph was a good man, and a just; a disciple, although secretly. The grace of God shines through the whole record. Thus only Matthew speaks about the suicide of Judas; the other three records are silent. A human god would inevitably have stressed that the betrayer of His Son went out in shame and took his own life. But the God of all grace is higher than reflecting vindictiveness in His word:&nbsp;<br/>If the Lord died at 3p:m. and sunset was at 6p:m:, there were only three hours for Joseph to find Pilate, gain a hearing, make his request, for Pilate to verify that the body was dead, and then for Nicodemus to buy the spices and for the burial to be done. Joseph and Nicodemus must have decided almost immediately what they were going to do. And the lesson for us: Beholding the cross makes us see what we ought to do, it becomes urgently apparent, and then we give our all, with the spirit of 'nothing else matters', to achieve it as far as we can. But we can enter into their thoughts: I wish I'd done more for Him while He was alive, and now, even now, because of the pressure of time, I just can't bury and honour this body as I'd like to. All these things are against me. The self hate and loathing and regret would have arisen within them, mixed with that love and devotion to the Lord of all grace. And there would have been an earnest desire for God to accept what little they could do, with time, the surrounding world, the Jewish culture, the unchangeable past, and their own present natures, all militating against the height of devotion they fain would show.</p><p>John gives the additional detail about the concern that Jesus might not be fully dead, and the piercing of His side. It is difficult to tell if a body is dead or not. But there was something about the Lord's corpse which somehow shone forth the message that He had given up His life. " He that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe" (<em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em>). Do we not get the sense here of a man, even under inspiration, grasping for adequate words and finding there are none? This is an experience beyond the paradigm of verbal description. The description of blood and water flowing has raised the question as to whether the Lord had been fasting, or had emptied His bowels in Gethsemane, before the crucifixion. It has been suggested that for this to have happened the Lord would have been pierced from the right hand side above the fifth rib, piercing the right auricle of the heart (from which the blood came) and also the pericardium, from where the serum came which appeared like water. However there are critics of these suggestions, which leaves the possibility that the flow of blood and water was in fact a miracle- hence John’s insistence that yes, he actually saw this happen. And he says that he records it so that we might believe. The implication is that meditation upon the cross is what inspires faith, as well as conviction of sin and repentance. The way the Lord’s blood flowed out from His heart is highly evocative of powerful lessons. He gave out from the very core and foundation of His being. We may serve God in good deeds, in writing books, in labouring for Him, without any real demand being made on our innermost self. The challenge of the cross is to give from the very centre and fountain of our life, our very selves, our person, our most vital soul.</p>


text:
<h4>15:44&nbsp;<em>And Pilate wondered if he were already dead, and called the centurion. He asked him whether he was already dead</em>- Josephus records that victims usually lingered for two days or so before death. The Lord died so quickly. And the legs were broken so that the victims would die quickly (not, as has sometimes been supposed, to stop them running away). These things are harmonized by realizing that there was a support on which the victim could seek temporal relief in order to keep himself alive. Werner Keller (<em>The Bible As History</em>&nbsp;p. 356) explains: "There was often a small support attached called a "sedile" (seat). if the victim hanging there eased his misery from time to time by supporting himself on this, the blood returned to the upper half of his body::. when the torture of the crucified man was finally to be brought to an end, the "crucifragrum" was proceeded with: his legs were broken. That meant that he could no longer ease his weight in the footrests and heart failure quickly followed". It seems to me that in keeping with His refusal of the pain killer, His not requesting a drink until the very end, His willing giving of His life::. that the Lord didn't press down on the seat, so that effectively He tortured Himself to death. If the victim did not press down on the sedile, the dead weight of the body would cause the intercostal muscles that facilitate inhaling to become too weakened to function. The lungs, unable to empty, would become full of carbon dioxide and death would result from asphyxia. The fact the Lord was making the effort to talk to people and yet, it seems, not pressing down on the sedile… is simply an essay in His self control, in His love, to bother to talk to others… which should inspire us to rise out of our introspection and make the effort likewise to connect with others. Seneca (<em>Dialogue 3</em>) writes: “Is it worth to weigh down on one’s own wound and hand impaled on a gibbet to postpone something which Is::. the end of punishment i:e. death?". In practice, the victim was only prolonging his own agony by pressing down on the rest. If the Lord didn't do this, He must have been extremely faint. Keller also comments: "In the case of a person suspended by his two hands the blood sinks very quickly into the lower half of the body. After six to twelve minutes blood pressure has dropped by 50% and the pulse rate has doubled". The Lord must have felt His every heartbeat, and therefore been able to sense when He was approaching death. Yet amidst the faintness, the knowledge that His heart was about to give out, the Lord remained, I am convinced, completely intellectually consciousness. Deep within Him, that perfect mind was centred on the Father and His word. Several Psalms take on a literal reference to the Lord's final agony: "My heart panteth, my strength faileth me: as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from me::. my flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever" (<em><a href='B:230 38:10'>Psa 38:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:26'>Psa 73:26</a></em>).</h4>


text:
<p>15:45&nbsp;<em>And when it was confirmed by the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph</em>- We get the impression that the one thing Joseph wanted was to be given the crucified body of the Lord. And we are each "given" just that, as memorialized in the communion service. His body is given for each of us, and we should realize that it ought to cost us every penny we have and all our standing in society.</p>


text:
<p>15:46&nbsp;<em>And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock-&nbsp;</em>Luke's record that Joseph himself took the body down invites us to imagine him using a ladder, perhaps that used to place the title. However, <em><a href='B:510 13:29'>Act 13:29</a></em> suggests that the Roman soldiers on behalf of Jewish people (i:e. Joseph) took the body down; Pilate "commanded the body to be delivered", implying he gave a command to underlings. So in what sense did&nbsp;<em>Joseph</em>&nbsp;take the body down and wrap it? Are we to imagine him humbling himself before the crowd to assist those soldiers in the physical act of taking the nails out and lowering the body down? Or it could be that he attracted so much attention to himself and had to humble himself so much to ask the soldiers to do it, that it was effectively as if he did it. But there is no reason to think that he himself didn’t walk out in that no man’s land between the crowd and the cross and humble himself to take it down, hearing the gasp from the crowd as he touched the blood and dead body which would make him unclean for the feast. His act was a tremendous mental sacrifice as well as a social and physical one. He is described as "honourable", literally 'well-formed / bodied', as if to emphasis his deportment befitting a leader of men. But he humbled himself before that stake. "He took it down" may imply that the stake was left standing. Or was it laid backwards and lowered down horizontal, with Joseph's anxious hands guiding it down? His contact with the body meant that he couldn't keep the Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:9-10'>Num 9:9-10</a></em>). The people would have watched incredulous as one of the leaders of Israel openly showed his preference for the crucified Nazarene as opposed to keeping the Mosaic Law. The obsession with cleanliness at Passover time would have meant that everyone was extremely sensitive to what Joseph did.</p><p><em>And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb</em>- This apparently needless detail is added because the camera is as it were focused on the closed tomb, with Joseph now walking away from it.</p>


text:
<p>15:47&nbsp;<em>And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses observed where he was laid</em>- They didn't stay there long, but the camera is focused on Joseph, sealing the tomb and walking away from it, but in the background the camera picks up (blurred and out of focus, as it were) the women sitting there.</p><p>The crucifixion record describes Mary the mother of Jesus as Mary the mother of James and Joses (<em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em>)- not Mary the mother of Jesus. It’s as if the record itself seeks to show that separation between mother and Son which occurred there. Both Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James- i:e. the mother of Jesus too (<em><a href='B:480 16:1'>Mar 16:1</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em>) came to the sepulchre, but Jesus chose to appear to Mary Magdalene first (<em><a href='B:480 15:9'>Mar 15:9</a></em>), and not His own dear mother. <em><a href='B:470 27:61'>Mat 27:61</a></em> almost cruelly rubs the point in: “There was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre”, but the Lord appeared to Mary Magdalene first. Indeed, there is no record that He ever appeared to His mother. This would presumably have been to help her in realizing that she must relate to Him as her Lord and Saviour now, like any other woman had to, and not as a woman with special maternal privileges in her relationship with her now Almighty Son. It must have so pained the Lord to do this- to not appear to his dear mother first. But as He oftentimes acts with us, so He did with her- doing something which even in Divine nature must have been so painful for Him, in order to help her in her growth. &nbsp;We read in <em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em> that “Mary the mother of James the little one and of Joses” stood by the cross (RVmg:). I take this Mary to be Mary the mother of Jesus, for <em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em> records that James and Joses were brothers of Jesus and thus children of Mary. Remember that Mark is writing under inspiration a transcript of the preaching of the Gospel by the apostles, as they recounted the message of Jesus time and again. Could it not be that in the preaching of that Gospel, when it came to the cross, James asked to be surnamed “the little one”, remembering his earlier rejection of Jesus his brother? Now it is not at all surprising that Saul of Tarsus too decides to call himself ‘the little one’, through sustained meditation upon the cross.</p>


text:
<p>16:1&nbsp;<em>And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him</em>- As noted on Jn:, Joseph had bought a huge amount of spices to anoint the Lord, far more than used even for the burials of the Caesars. But the women still bought some more. They too made their sacrifice, in order to anoint the Lord. This all arose from their abiding belief that He was Jesus the Christ, the anointed one; and their duty was therefore to anoint Him. Belief in the Lord Jesus as Christ can roll off the tongue and be apparently painless; but it demanded all for Joseph and the women.</p>


text:
<p>16:2&nbsp;<em>And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun was risen, they went to the tomb</em>- The language hints very much at a new creation beginning. And yet it began in darkness, not only literally, but also in the darkness of the disciples' disappointment, misunderstanding and weak faith. From all this, great light was to arise:&nbsp;</p><p>Mary came seeking the Lord early in the morning… and this inevitably takes our minds to some OT passages which speak of doing just this:</p><p>- “O God, thou&nbsp;<em>art</em>&nbsp;my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is; To see thy power and thy glory” (<em><a href='B:230 63:1-2'>Psa 63:1-2</a></em>). The resurrection of Jesus showed clearly both the power (<em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em>) and glory (<em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>) of the Father. For Mary, life without her Lord was a dry and thirsty land. This was why she went to the grave early that morning. She was simply aching for Him. And she had well learnt the Lord’s teaching, that her brother’s resurrection had been associated with the glory of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 11:40'>Joh 11:40</a></em>). She went early to the tomb to seek the Father’s glory- so the allusion to Psalms 63 implies. She was the one person who had actually believed in advance the Lord’s teaching about resurrection. And yet even she was confused- half her brain perceived it all and believed it, and was rewarded by being the first to see the risen Lord; and yet another part of her brain was simply overcome with grief, believing that the gardener had somehow removed the body some place else. And our own highest heights of spiritual perception are likewise shrouded by such humanity too.<br/>- “I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me” (<em><a href='B:240 8:17'>Pro 8:17</a></em>) is written in the first instance of wisdom. And yet the Lord Jesus has “wisdom” as one of His titles (<em><a href='B:470 12:42'>Mat 12:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>). Mary sat at the Lord’s feet to hear His wisdom; to her, she showed in practice what it means to comprehend Jesus as “the wisdom of God”. She anxiously heard His words. And thus she sought Him early…because she so wanted to hear His wisdom again. Of course, she loved Him. But that love was rooted in respect and almost an addiction to His wisdom. It was this that she loved about Him, and it was this which led her to the grave early. And it was this which led her to the honour of being the first to see the risen Jesus.<br/>- “Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O LORD, have we waited for thee; the desire of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;soul&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee. With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early” (<em><a href='B:290 26:8-9'>Isa 26:8-9</a></em>) makes the same connection between seeking the Lord early, and loving His words. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:3&nbsp;<em>And they were talking among themselves: Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?</em>- The women who came to the garden tomb weren't looking for the risen Lord; they came to anoint the body. But their love of the Lord was counted to them as seeking Him (<em><a href='B:470 28:5'>Mat 28:5</a></em>). Here's an example of our prayers and needs being answered whilst we are yet speaking. They worried about what had already been sorted</p>


text:
<p>16:4&nbsp;<em>And looking up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled aside</em>- "Looking up" enables us to see them walking with their heads down in sadness. The Angel descended and did this before the women arrived; for on the way, they had worried about how they would roll the stone away, but when they got there, they found it done already (<em><a href='B:480 16:2'>Mar 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:4'>Mar 16:4</a></em>). Women unable to roll away a stone recalls the scene when Rachel and her girls were unable to roll the stone away from the well until Jacob did it (<em><a href='B:10 29:3'>Gen 29:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 29:10'>Gen 29:10</a></em>). The idea would therefore be that the Lord's tomb was in fact a well of living water, the gift of the Spirit, which would flow for God's people after and on account of His resurrection; and this idea is elsewhere stated specifically by the Lord in John's Gospel:&nbsp;</p><p>They apparently didn't see the Angel sitting on the stone who is mentioned in <em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em>. Perhaps the Divine plan was that they ought to have been searching for the empty tomb and rejoiced on finding it; and believed without the revelation of Angels. But eventually they needed the Angelic revelations. We too can walk by Angels sitting on stones::.</p>


text:
<p>16:5&nbsp;<em>And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed</em>- If "the right side" refers to where the Lord had lain, we are invited to see Him now as enthroned superior to Angels, with them at His right hand, subject to Him. This is visual representation of what Hebrews 1 states specifically.</p>


text:
<p>16:6&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Do not be alarmed-&nbsp;</em>The idea is '<em>You</em>&nbsp;do not need to be fearful, unlike these soldiers who are paralyzed by their own fears'. Their weakness is still apparent in the record, because <em><a href='B:470 28:8'>Mat 28:8</a></em> says that they left the scene "with fear::.":&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified. He is risen He is not here See the place where they laid him</em>- The women had come to anoint the Lord's dead body, with apparently no expectation that He would indeed rise the third day as He had predicted. And yet the Angel generously counts this to them (Mt. 'I know / perceive / accept / count it') as if they were actively looking for Jesus. Their obvious error- that they assumed Him to still be dead- is not rebuked because the good news is simply so much greater. The resurrection records are full of such imputed righteousness. <em><a href='B:490 24:5'>Luk 24:5</a></em> enquires why they are 'seeking the living amongst the dead'. They were not seeking the living- they had come to anoint a dead body. Yet they are graciously counted as seeking Jesus as if they were seeking for a living person. John's record has the Lord asking Mary&nbsp;<em>whom</em>&nbsp;she is 'seeking', and this is how John's Gospel opens, with the Lord enquiring of His followers&nbsp;<em>whom</em>&nbsp;they were seeking (<em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). This question as to the Lord's identity echoes down to us, for we too can feel a devotion and identity with the idea of 'Jesus' without perceiving that He really is alive and active. The Lord counted righteousness to them, they are commended by the Angels for ‘seeking the Lord’- even though that seeking was deep in their subconscious. Yet the record notices that even incipient faith and understanding in those women, and counts it to them. Would that we would be so generous in our perception of others. The weeping, helpless standing afar off at the cross are described as still following the Lord Jesus and ministering to Him, as they did in the happier Galilee days (<em><a href='B:480 15:41'>Mar 15:41</a></em>). Their essential spirit was understood and credited to them, even though their actions seemed to belie this. Likewise our essential desires are read as our prayers, even if the words we use seem quite different.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 16:6'>Mar 16:6</a></em> adds to the other records "Jesus of Nazareth", as if emphasizing the Lord's humanity and death as compared to the wonderful reality of His resurrection.</p><p>The idea may be that He is 'Not here in a tomb, in a place for the dead', in the spirit of <em><a href='B:490 24:5'>Luk 24:5</a></em> "Why do you seek the living amongst the dead?". There is no hint that the women obeyed and went to see the place where the Lord lay. They had arrived at the tomb and had gone in and found the body missing (<em><a href='B:490 24:3'>Luk 24:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:23'>Luk 24:23</a></em>), and then the Angels appeared to them. Now the Angels are inviting them to go into the tomb again and behold the place where the Lord's body had lain- perhaps because now there were Angels sitting at the head and feet of where the Lord's body had lain (<em><a href='B:500 20:12'>Joh 20:12</a></em>). Along with imputed faith and righteousness, the disobedience of the disciples is also emphasized by the records. They struggle to believe His clear predictions of resurrection, are disobedient to the various commands to witness about it, disbelieve the women, and still appear depressed and sceptical that it is really Him when He appears to them for the third time in Galilee. Or it could be that they did go and see the place where the Lord lay, and yet found the body missing and were confused (<em><a href='B:490 24:3'>Luk 24:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:23'>Luk 24:23</a></em>)- even with an Angel standing there telling them the Lord had risen as He had said</p>


text:
<p>16:7<em>&nbsp;Go tell his disciples, and Peter, that he goes ahead of you into Galilee. There shall you see him, just as he told you</em>-&nbsp;<br/>Angelic unity with the risen Lord Jesus is brought out by a comparison of the words spoken to the women after the resurrection. <em><a href='B:480 16:7'>Mar 16:7</a></em> has the Angels telling the women: “He is going before you to Galilee; they you will see him, as he told you”. But <em><a href='B:470 28:7'>Mat 28:7</a></em> has the Angel saying: “He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. Lo, I the Angel have told you”. Perhaps what the Angel said was: “… as he told you… Lo, I have told you”, thus bringing out the new unity between the risen Christ and the Angel.</p><p>The Lord's original plan to meet them first in Galilee was changed; for He appeared to them in Jerusalem after they had first disbelieved. He was so eager to see them; and their faith and obedience was weak. This addresses their obvious although unspoken question: 'Where's the body? When can we see Him?'. The answer was 'As He explained before, you must show your obedience to Him by going into Galilee and there you will see Him'. But this plan, explained by the Lord earlier and now repeated by the Angel, was cut short by the Lord Himself. For right after this, He appears to Mary and the women. Right there, and not in Galilee. And soon afterwards He appears to the eleven in Jerusalem; and when He does finally meet the disciples in Galilee, this was the third appearance He had made to them, the earlier two having been in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em>). This change of plan was perhaps partly quite simply from the excitement of love, emotions which are still possible even within Divine nature. But partly it may have been because of the very weak state of the disciples' faith, and the Lord's sense that He must act urgently so that they did not lose faith permanently; see on&nbsp;<em>Go quickly and tell::.</em>. The idea of the Lord going before them into Galilee is based upon the Lord's teaching in <em><a href='B:470 26:31-32'>Mat 26:31-32</a></em>: "I will smite the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am raised up, I will go ahead of you into Galilee". The 'going ahead' is also a sheep and shepherd allusion; although the sheep would be scattered, the Lord would go ahead of them into Galilee and like sheep obedient to the shepherd's voice, they would follow Him there. But perhaps the Lord now realized that their faith and obedience was just not enough for them to do that, and so He appeared to them anyway. Indeed, according to John, the disciples appeared to have finally returned to Galilee in order to return to their fishing business, despite having met the risen Lord in Jerusalem. They were very slow to really grasp the reality of His resurrection. The Gospels are their own account of their preaching, and it's as if they are telling the world how slow they had been to believe and were urging the world to do better than them, and to believe more quickly.</p><h4>The urgency required was partly because the wonder of the good news does itself impart an urgency to our presentation of it. And we need to analyse our own approach to witness and discern whether there is any sense of urgency to it; the record of baptisms in the early church was of immediate baptism, the very moment the person had believed, rather than waiting as many do today until a convenient time and place. But the urgency was also to tell the disciples before they totally lost their faith. The Lord was clearly concerned that they would lose faith entirely; and this explains His change of plans concerning revealing Himself to them in Galilee.</h4><p>The initial plan had been that the women also would need to go to Galilee before meeting the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 28:7'>Mat 28:7</a></em>). The Lord changed that plan and appeared to the women immediately; but His plan was still that He would reveal Himself to His male disciples for the first time in Galilee. But He soon changed that plan too, for the other records make it clear that the Lord twice appeared to them in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>Put together the following passages:<br/>-&nbsp;The disciples’ return to Galilee after the resurrection was a result of their lack of faith (<em><a href='B:500 16:31-32'>Joh 16:31-32</a></em>)<br/>-&nbsp;But the Lord went before them, as a shepherd goes before His sheep, into Galilee (<em><a href='B:470 28:7'>Mat 28:7</a></em>). Even in their weakness of faith, He was still their shepherd, they were still His sheep, and He led them even then.<br/>-&nbsp;The Lord told them to go to Galilee (<em><a href='B:470 28:10'>Mat 28:10</a></em>). He accepted their lower level of faith. And He worked through that and led them through it:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The return to Galilee is seen in an even worse light once we reflect on the circumstances surrounding the first calling of the disciples, nearly four years earlier. John’s Gospel implies that they were called at Bethany; whereas the other Gospels say they were called whilst fishing at the sea of Galilee. This is usually, and correctly, harmonized by concluding that they were called as John says in Bethany, but they then returned to their fishing in Galilee, and the Lord went there to call them again. So returning to their fishing in Galilee had already been shown to them as being a running away from the call of their Lord. And yet still they did it. And yet John’s inspired record is so positive; he speaks as if the disciples were called at Bethany and unwaveringly responded immediately. The point that they actually lost their intensity and returned home is gently omitted from specific mention.</p>


text:
<p>16:8<em>&nbsp;And they went out and ran from the tomb. Trembling and astonishment had come upon them, and they said nothing to anyone. For they were afraid</em>-There has always been opposition to spreading the Gospel outside our own environment. Jonah was unwilling to take it to Nineveh, Israel failed miserably in their intended role as a missionary nation, and the apostles showed remarkable reluctance to obey the command to take Christ into all the world in the first century. The women were told to go tell the disciples of the resurrection, but they went away and told nobody, Mark records (<em><a href='B:480 16:7-8'>Mar 16:7-8</a></em>). The other records say that they did tell the disciples. There is no contradiction here; Mark’s point is surely that they were reluctant to obey the great commission initially.</p><p>It was only later that they told the disciples, once their fear subsided and joy began to be their dominant emotion. We recall how the shepherds were told not to fear but to focus upon the joy of the Lord's birth (<em><a href='B:490 2:10'>Luk 2:10</a></em>). Fear and joy do not remain coexistent for long, and to their credit, the women's joy became greater than their fear. See on :10&nbsp;<em>Fear Not</em>. But putting meaning into words, what were they fearful about? Surely they now realized that they had so failed to believe the Lord’s clear words about His resurrection; and they knew now that since He was alive, they must meet Him and explain. So their fear related to their own sense of unworthiness; and yet it was paradoxically mixed with the “great joy” of knowing His resurrection. And there is reason to understand that those women are typical of all those who are to fulfil the great commission:&nbsp;</p><p>The accounts of the Lord’s resurrection and the imparting of that good news to others are studded with the idea of speedy response. “Go quickly and tell his disciples… and they departed quickly… and did run to bring his disciples word” (<em><a href='B:470 28:7-8'>Mat 28:7-8</a></em>). The accounts show how Mary “quickly” told the disciples, the women did likewise, the two on the way to Emmaus ran back to town and urgently told the others that the Lord had risen… and then the record climaxes in bidding us take that very same good news of the resurrection to the whole world. But the implication from the context is that it is to be done with the same spirit of urgency. We are merely continuing in the spirit of those who first spread that good news.</p><p>After initially saying nothing, they did eventually tell the disciples. Matthew and Luke omit this disobedience to the Lord's command to witness. The record in a beautiful way both covers their weakness, and yet also brings it out. In fact resistance to the command to tell others, or being slow to fulfil it, is another theme of the resurrection accounts.</p>


text:
<p>16:9<em>&nbsp;Now when he had risen from the dead early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons</em>-One would have expected that the Lord Jesus would have first of all appeared to His dear mother, after resurrecting. His mother could so easily have taken this as yet another snub, similar to the way in which He had rebuked her for not knowing He must be in His Father’s house, how He addressed her at Cana as “Woman” and asked her what He had to do with her; how He told those who informed Him that His mother was outside that all those who heard God’s word were His mothers; how He said that His mother wasn’t blessed for suckling Him, but rather, blessed were all those who heard God’s word. And the way He chose to appear to the other Mary rather than His own mother could have been taken by her as yet another snub. Yet these incidents weren’t snubs. The Lord loved His mother, with a depth of passion and emotion that maybe we and she will never know. Yet He wanted the best for her spiritually. He wanted her to relate to Him for who He really was, not for who she perceived Him to be. It must have so hurt the Lord to work with her in this way. And so it is with His workings with us, as He seeks to bring us to know Him in truth. It must be hard for Him to bring distress into our lives. Yet with His dear mother, it worked. For the next we read of her, she is meeting with the rest of the ecclesia in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>), and, according to how we read Revelation 12, the Lord Himself saw her as clothed with the sun in glory, responsible for the birth of Himself as the man child, who would bring the Kingdom of God on earth. She made it in the end.</p><p>Mary Magdalene was the least qualified to be a witness. Women's testimony was not accepted in the Roman world; and Mary had previously been seriously 'demon possessed', probably referring to mental illness. And in addition to that she had worked as a prostitute. Yet she was the one chosen by the Lord as His star witness. We should not therefore worry about our own apparent inadequacy as witnesses. The Lord delights to use our inadequacies in this work of witness.</p><p>Mary Magdalene is always noted first in the appearance lists in the gospels. It is unusual that the first appearance would involve women as in that culture their role as witnesses would not be well accepted. It is a sign of the veracity of the account, because if an ancient were to create such a story he would never have it start with women. But inspiration disregards this. The Lord so wanted those women to be His leading witnesses. Joachim Jeremias quotes extensively from Jewish sources to show that “a woman had no right to bear witness, because it was concluded from <em><a href='B:10 18:15'>Gen 18:15</a></em> that she was a liar”. And Josephus (<em>Antiquities Of The Jews</em>&nbsp;4:219) concurs: “Let not the testimony of women be admitted because of the levity and boldness of their sex”. And so it should not surprise us that He chooses today the most unlikely of witnesses, indeed, those who somehow shock and arrest the attention of others. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:10<em>&nbsp;She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept</em>-The account of the disciples' response to the realisation of the resurrection shows perfectly how men will rise above every barrier, both within them and without, to speak the good news of what they now realise to be absolute truth. Mary, bashful ex-hooker that she was, "went and told them that had been with him", the broken-down women "with great joy::. did run to bring his disciples word”, those on the Emmaus road "went and told it unto the residue", "the other disciples&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>”&nbsp;told Thomas, John told Peter "It is the Lord", and finally they all "went forth, and preached everywhere" the news of the resurrection (<em><a href='B:470 28:8'>Mat 28:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:10'>Mar 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:13'>Mar 16:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:20'>Mar 16:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:25'>Joh 20:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>). The speed and spirit of the narrative pounds away at a major theme: The natural desire to tell others the Gospel of the Lord's resurrection. This same spirit of&nbsp;<em>urgently&nbsp;</em>passing on good news pervades the preaching recorded in Acts.</p><p>Note that the disciples are described as "weeping" for the loss of Jesus, the Greek word meaning specifically to weep aloud (<em><a href='B:480 16:10'>Mar 16:10</a></em>). And yet the Lord appears to them in that state and upbraids them for not believing His words and for having&nbsp;<em>hard</em>&nbsp;hearts (<em><a href='B:480 16:14'>Mar 16:14</a></em>). Faith is&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;crucial- and for all their<em>&nbsp;love&nbsp;</em>of Him, they didn't have much&nbsp;<em>faith&nbsp;</em>in Jesus. Are there similarities with ourselves? Do we on one hand love Him, and yet remain hard hearted to His words?</p>


text:
<p>16:11&nbsp;<em>And they, when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, disbelieved</em>- There is a strong theme in the Gospels that the disciples repeatedly disbelieved the news of the resurrection. And yet they were appealing for people to believe the message of the Lord's resurrection and be baptized into it. But they made that appeal on the basis of their own weakness and slowness to believe. They considered it "Idle talk" (<em><a href='B:490 24:11'>Luk 24:11</a></em>), which means literally the talk of the crazy. They assumed this was a story of the once demon-possessed Mary Magdalene, an outcome of her previous mental disturbance. When the Lord had so clearly foretold His resurrection. Luke is pointing out their own disbelief, implying it was almost to the point of blasphemy. Each of the Gospel writers brings out a sense of inadequacy about themselves or the disciples, this self-criticism, in different ways.</p>


text:
<p>16:12<em>&nbsp;And after these things he was manifested in another guise to two of them as they walked on their way into the countryside</em>- The two could well have been Cleopas and his wife Mary, who had been at the crucifixion (see on <em><a href='B:490 24:13'>Luk 24:13</a></em>). We wonder why He appeared in various forms which as it were disguised Him. Perhaps this was because He wanted them to believe with a minimum of miracle; He wanted them, as He wants us, to join the dots and believe, rather than having His in-your-face revelation directly to as it were force belief. And maybe the lesson was also that the same Lord can reveal Himself to us in different ways and forms through the persons of various ordinary people. Note too that&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>, "guise" or "form", does not refer to His essential nature, but to His appearance and deportment. This is valuable to bear in mind when considering the usage of&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;in Philippians 2 "the form of God".</p>


text:
<p>16:13&nbsp;<em>And they went away, and told it to the rest, who did not believe them either</em>- Although the disciples accepted that Jesus had appeared to Simon, they didn't believe the account of Cleopas and his friend. The record emphasizes their refusal to believe- and then goes on to appeal to the hearers or readers of their message to learn from their slowness, and to believe and be baptized (:16). Their stubborn refusal to believe is so emphasized.</p>


text:
<p>16:14&nbsp;<em>And later he was manifested to the eleven themselves as they were eating; and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those that had seen him after he had risen</em>- The Lord “upbraided” the disciples for their immaturity and unbelief concerning His cross and resurrection. The Greek word is always used in a very severe context of ‘reviling’ (<em><a href='B:470 5:11'>Mat 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:20'>Mat 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:44'>Mat 27:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:3'>Rom 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 4:10'>1Ti 4:10</a></em>); it’s a tough and abusive word. It appears out of place when applied to the Lord. Yet what it indicates is that the Lord was so angry with them for not believing the witness of the women. Discounting people’s experience of Jesus merely on account of their gender or background was&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;angering to the Lord. And He’s the same today.</p><p>A read through the Gospels reveals the deep frustration and anger of the Lord Jesus because of the blindness of the disciples. Mark's record brings this out especially. The following comments by the Lord, almost under His breath, were all made within a matter of days of each other: "Peter said, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also&nbsp;<em>yet</em>&nbsp;without understanding? Do not ye&nbsp;<em>yet</em>&nbsp;understand?::. do ye not&nbsp;<em>yet</em>&nbsp;understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand? Perceive ye not&nbsp;<em>yet</em>::. having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?::. how is it that ye do not understand?::. O faithless generation,&nbsp;<em>how long</em>&nbsp;shall I be with you?&nbsp;<em>how long&nbsp;</em>shall I suffer you? (with reference to the disciples' faithlessness)::. the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answereth (i:e. responded)&nbsp;<em>again</em>, and saith unto them, Children :::and they were astonished out of measure::. Jesus went before them: and they were amazed::. and he took&nbsp;<em>again</em>&nbsp;the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen::. Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask" (<em><a href='B:470 15:17'>Mat 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:9'>Mat 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:18'>Mar 8:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:21'>Mar 8:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:19'>Mar 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:1'>Mar 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:24-32'>Mar 10:24-32</a></em>). Notice the stress on "how long" and "yet". The Lord clearly was disappointed at the slow rate of development. Their blindness was an agony to Him. Especially does this come out in His attitude to the disciples after His resurrection. The exalted Son of God,&nbsp;<em>the Son of God</em>, poured out His anger on those eleven men. You get the sense of them cowering before the presence of a super-human intellect, beneath a force of personality that could concuss men when turned against them. He&nbsp;<em>upbraided&nbsp;</em>them for their lack of perception, their lack of understanding (<em><a href='B:480 16:14'>Mar 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:25'>Luk 24:25</a></em>). As I read the record of this, there's part of me that feels so sorry for them. Thoughts of sympathy skate through my mind:&nbsp;<em>they weren't a bad crowd::. only ordinary men::. just poor little human beings down here on earth::. only men::. only human beings::. limited by their own nature</em>. But this wasn't how the Lord saw it at all. He was angry with them. The picture of the Son of God, the exalted Son of man with eyes as a flame of fire, upbraiding His friends, those he had died for::. because they hadn't understood something which he knew and they knew had been within their power to. The picture is awesome:&nbsp;</p><p>The experience of emotion on reflection at the Lord's sufferings can be yet another area where our spirituality isn't genuine. The scene of those 11 grown men mourning and weeping at the loss of their Lord makes me think 'They&nbsp;were a soft hearted lot really, behold how they loved him:::'. But then the Lord appears to them and upbraids them for being&nbsp;<em>hard&nbsp;</em>hearted and indifferent to His words (<em><a href='B:480 16:10'>Mar 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:14'>Mar 16:14</a></em>). His upbraiding of them must have really hurt- for they must have been sure that they were anything but hard hearted towards Him.</p><p>The even greater commission to go into all the world with the Gospel followed straight on from Christ upbraiding the eleven "with their unbelief and hardness of heart" (<em><a href='B:480 16:14-15'>Mar 16:14-15</a></em>). That 'upbraiding' must have left them wallowing in their weakness. It would have been quite something. The Son of God upbraiding His friends. But straight on from that: "Go ye::. go ye into all the world" (Mt. cp. Mk. shows “go ye” was said twice). And He told them to preach that those who believed not would be damned- after having just told them that they were men who believed not. Mark’s record stresses three times in the lead up to this that they “believed not”; and then, he records how they were told to go and preach condemnation on those who believed not (<em><a href='B:480 16:11'>Mar 16:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:13-14'>Mar 16:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:16'>Mar 16:16</a></em>). They were humbled men who did that. The idea of taking the Gospel world-wide was in fact alluding to <em><a href='B:290 66:17-20'>Isa 66:17-20</a></em>. Here those who are spared the ‘Gehenna’ of the last day judgment will have a sign placed on them, as upon Cain, and they will then be sent “unto the nations…and they shall declare my glory among the gentiles”. The rejection process glorifies God’s righteous Name, and this world-wide exhibition of the rejected will actually bring men “out of all nations” (:20) to God, just as Israel’s condemnation was an “instruction” unto the surrounding nations. The connection shows that in our obedience to the great commission, we go forth as condemned men who in our case, like the disciples, have known the wonder of grace.</p>


text:
<p>16:15- see on <em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he said to them: You are to go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation</em>- The essential spirit of the great commission was “Go”, following on as it does from the repeated commands to “go” and share the glorious news that Christ had risen. And yet so many congregations of believers seem to stress instead “Come in to us”. And every manner of carrot is dangled before the public to entice them to ‘come in’ to some church event. But the emphasis was clearly, and should still be, upon ‘going’ to people. Our turning of ‘Go’ into ‘Come to us’ is all part of a wider picture, whereby the group of hard core, desperate men who first followed Jesus, the whores, the gamblers, the mentally ill, the marginalized women… have all been diluted into a religion of conformists, a spiritual bubble in which we risk nothing, sacrifice nothing, and comfortably continue in the way of our fathers who were also members of the same church as we are.</p><p>The Lord twice told the disciples: "Go ye::. go ye" (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> and contexts). He was encouraging them to do the natural corollary of what they had experienced. We are to preach to “all the world” (16:15)- the&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>. In the last days, the Gospel will go to “all nations”- every&nbsp;<em>ethnos</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em>). The parallel record in <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> has Jesus saying that it must go to the whole world-&nbsp;<em>oikoumene</em>. What did He actually say? I suggest He used both words, in an emphasis of just how universal the witness would be: ‘The Gospel will be preached in the whole&nbsp;<em>oikoumene</em>, yes, to every&nbsp;<em>ethnos</em>…’. This is all some emphasis- every creature (individual), in the whole world system, every part of society (<em>kosmos</em>), of every nation (<em>ethnos</em>), on the whole planet (<em>oikoumene</em>) was to have the message. And this is our unmistakable mandate. The number of different words used by the Lord was surely intentional.</p><h4>As so often with reading the Gospels, it is profitable to imagine the tone of voice in which the Lord spoke the words which are recorded. "Go ye&nbsp;<em>into all the world</em>&nbsp;and preach the gospel to&nbsp;<em>every creature</em>". If only we could sense the intensity of desire, the deepness of spiritual meaning, which His voice would have conveyed. We&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;have the spiritual ambition to take the Gospel to the whole world- no matter how small our world may be. The world of our street, of our town, nation- and as far as we are able, the whole planet. Paul had this ambition, quite apart from any personal commission he received.<br/>The great commission is framed in language which picks up on the descriptions of the Lord’s own preaching earlier in His ministry. His idea clearly enough is that He will no longer be on earth; therefore His people must be ‘Him’ to the whole earth:</h4><table><tr><td></p><h4>The great commission to us</td><td>The personal preaching of Jesus</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Make disciples (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>)</td><td>Made disciples (<em><a href='B:470 4:18-22'>Mat 4:18-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:16-20'>Mar 1:16-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:1-11'>Luk 5:1-11</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Preach the Gospel, teach people (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>)</td><td>Proclaimed the Gospel (<em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>), taught people (<em><a href='B:480 6:30'>Mar 6:30</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Proclaim repentance (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>)</td><td>Proclaimed repentance (<em><a href='B:480 1:15'>Mar 1:15</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forgive and retain sins (<em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>)</td><td>Forgave sins (<em><a href='B:470 9:1-9'>Mat 9:1-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:1-12'>Mar 2:1-12</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retained sins (<em><a href='B:500 8:21-24'>Joh 8:21-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Witnessed to others in obedience to the great commission (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>)</td><td>Witnessed what he had seen and heard (<em><a href='B:500 3:11'>Joh 3:11</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cast out demons, heal (<em><a href='B:480 16:16'>Mar 16:16</a></em>)</td><td>Cast out demons (<em><a href='B:480 3:15'>Mar 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:7'>Mar 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:13'>Mar 6:13</a></em>), healed (<em><a href='B:480 6:13'>Mar 6:13</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p>16:16<em>&nbsp;He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieves shall be condemned</em>-In the very context of the Lord upbraiding them for their slowness to believe the Gospel of His death and resurrection, they were asked to go and teach others that he who didn’t believe this same message would be damned (<em><a href='B:480 16:15-16'>Mar 16:15-16</a></em>). Their witness, as it is recorded in the Gospel records, is therefore shot through with recognition of their own weakness. They record how Peter their leader was described by the Lord as a “satan” (<em><a href='B:480 8:33'>Mar 8:33</a></em>). They were good fishermen- yet their records show that never do they record themselves as catching a fish without their Lord’s help. In this they set a model for our witness; it must be shot through with a full recognition of our weakness, our own struggles to believe that which we invite others to believe. And the more real, the more credible. Not only did the Gospel writers portray their own weakness and slowness to believe; they write in such a way as to minimize their own personalities and presence. They don’t continually harp on about the fact they were really present.</p>


text:
<p>16:17&nbsp;<em>And these signs shall accompany them that believe- in my name shall they cast out demons, they shall speak with new tongues-</em>&nbsp;All the "they shall" clauses in :17 and :18 were fulfilled in various examples of Divine protection to the early preachers of the Gospel. "If they drink any deadly thing::." is worded in a conditional way, and we have no Biblical example of this happening, although traditions exist of various apostles being unharmed by poison.</p>


text:
<p>16:18&nbsp;<em>They shall pick up snakes, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no way hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover</em>- See on :17. In Old Testament times, God described His whole people as His anointed one, His Christ: “The Lord is a strength unto his people, and he is the saving strength of his anointed” (<em><a href='B:230 28:8'>Psa 28:8</a></em> RVmg:). The whole people were His anointed King, His Messiah, the anointed one. And so it is for all those today who are “in Christ”. Thus the prophecy about Christ personally that He would tread upon snakes and wild animals (<em><a href='B:230 91:13'>Psa 91:13</a></em>) is quoted as being fulfilled in the disciples, who ‘were’ Christ on their preaching mission (<em><a href='B:490 10:19'>Luk 10:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:18'>Mar 16:18</a></em>).</p><p>Not being hurt alludes to the promise of how the restored Israel would be in <em><a href='B:290 43:2'>Isa 43:2</a></em>. Those somewhat confused men and women were now the new Israel.</p>


text:
<p>16:19&nbsp;<em>So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God</em>- The emphasis is therefore on the fact that the great commission was His last word to His people; after He spoke that, He was received into Heaven. We might expect to read that He 'ascended', but Mark's focus is on His being received into heaven. The ceremony of His 'receiving into heaven' is recorded in more detail in Revelation 4, 5. Paul alludes here in saying that the Lord was received up into glory (<em><a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a></em>). The cloud which "received" Him (<em><a href='B:490 24:51'>Luk 24:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:9'>Act 1:9</a></em>) was therefore a cloud of glory. It was a sign of His acceptance by God, visible to the watching disciples.</p><p>The Ethiopic text brings out the reality more strongly: "Our Lord, the Lord Jesus" was received up to "his own Father". Our man is now there in Heaven, with His Father. He is God's right hand man, functioning as God without being God the Father Himself. As noted on <em><a href='B:510 7:56'>Act 7:56</a></em>, the Lord is seated at God's right hand; but He stands up in passion and intercession for His people on earth. He is not in that sense sedentary, passively sitting.</p>


text:
<p>16:20&nbsp;<em>And they went and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen</em>- Luke has the disciples returning to Jerusalem and focusing upon praise of their ascended Lord; Mark focuses upon their obedience to the great commission, the Lord's last word to them. That witness was made, as ours should be, in a spirit of homage and praise to the Lord Jesus. And He who was now in Heaven worked with them in their witness. Any obedience to the great commission will result in a definite sense of the Lord's working with us, even if the form of confirmation of our word has changed from miraculous gifts to more subtle forms of Spirit manifestation. The same word for 'working with' is used in <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>, again in the context of evangelism, when Paul remarks that the Lord Jesus is a worker together with "us". The promise of His co-working with us is not therefore limited to the disciples who first heard Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us</em>- "The things ["matters"]" believed are those of <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>, the things about the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. But the "things" of the gospel are the "things" of the gospel records. The gospels are transcripts of how e:g. Luke preached the gospel. So the gospel message, "the things" of the Gospel, are to be found in the gospels. The gospel is not a theology collected from the whole New Testament.</p><p>Luke saw the whole of the Old Testament as having its fulfilment in the story of Jesus. He introduces his Gospel record as an account “of those matters which have been fulfilled” (<em><a href='B:490 1:1'>Luk 1:1</a></em> RV). And “those matters” he defines in <em><a href='B:490 1:2'>Luk 1:2</a></em> as the things of “the word”. The RV especially shows his stress on the theme of fulfilment (<em><a href='B:490 1:20'>Luk 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:23'>Luk 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:37'>Luk 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:54-55'>Luk 1:54-55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:57'>Luk 1:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:70'>Luk 1:70</a></em>). In essence he is introducing his Gospel just as John does. </p>


text:
<p><em>Even as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word</em>- The "many" of :1 who had tried to draw up a narrative of the Lord's life and work had handed their eyewitness accounts to Luke, who was now collating them. Perhaps Luke did this in preparation of evidence for Paul's trials at Caesarea and / or Rome. Luke says that the eyewitness accounts had been handed to "us". He may be using the 'royal we' [i:e. referring only to himself] or to a group for whom he acted as inspired secretary. So Luke’s inspired Gospel was compiled from the testimonies of “those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and servants of the word” (<em><a href='B:490 1:2-3'>Luk 1:2-3</a></em>). Some of the events he records could only have been told him by women; and so the Spirit accepted their witness, and encouraged them to make it because <em>God</em> accepted their witness. Only women were witnesses of the Lord's burial- yet belief in His burial is listed by Paul as an essential part of the faith. Yet the only reason the early believers had to believe this was the testimony of women. </p>&nbsp;<p>Luke saw the link between the Lord’s death and His whole life when he says that they had been “eyewitnesses" of the Lord’s ministry, using the Greek word for autopsy- Luke saw his record of the Lord’s life as being an autopsy of His death (<em><a href='B:490 1:2'>Luk 1:2</a></em>). Here we find what we shall often note throughout Luke's writings- the usage of medical language.</p>


text:
<p><em>It seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus</em>- Luke's Gospel was written for the purpose of preaching to Theophilus, who had already been 'catechized', taught by rote (:4), one of the Gospels (probably Mark), but who wanted to have a more detailed and factual account. Luke later describes his Gospel as his <em>logos</em>, his 'word' about all Jesus did (<em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em> Gk:). The Lord seems to have foreseen this when He spoke of how "Wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, which this woman has done, be told for a memorial of her" (<em><a href='B:470 26:13'>Mat 26:13</a></em>). There is evident connection with the Lord's prophecy of how the Gospel would be preached in all the world (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>). He seems to have seen the 'Gospel' that would be preached as a re-telling of His life and incidents in it, such as the woman's anointing of Him. It is significant that her anointing is mentioned in all four Gospel records. In <em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em> we read that wherever the gospel was to be preached, what she had done would be narrated in memory of her. So ‘preaching the Gospel’ is defined there as a narration of the events and sayings of the Lord Jesus in His ministry. Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus" may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. </p>


text:
<p><em>That you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught</em>- The history of Jesus was something in which a new convert was “instructed” or [Gk:] catechized, as if the Gospel record was learnt by repetition. This is understandable given the largely illiterate nature of society at the time. Luke as a serious historian mentions his sources, describing them as "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word". The Greek <em>hyperetes</em> which translates"ministers" is the Greek form of the Hebrew <em>hazzan</em>. The word recurs in <em><a href='B:490 4:20'>Luk 4:20</a></em>, about the "minister of the synagogue". The task of the minister was to look after the scrolls- "the chest with the books was brought in to the synagogue when required from an adjoining room and brought back there afterwards". Luke's idea is that instead of humping a bunch of scrolls around, the 'ministers' were the eyewitnesses who recited what they had heard of Jesus. But because they would die out, there was a need for people like Luke to compose documents which recorded their testimony.</p>


text:
<p><em>There was in the days of Herod, king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah, and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron and her name was Elisabeth</em>- Luke is careful throughout to present everything with detailed historical accuracy, and his inspired accounts have held up against the bitterest critics. Any uninspired account would surely have gaping holes in it which the critics would by now have exposed. For writing history of events over a 50 year period in those days would surely reveal errors of history, geography and other fact unless the account was inspired.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless</em>- These words are applied to us all in <em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 3:13'>1Th 3:13</a></em>. We are to have the serene spirituality, all down the years, of Zacharias and Elizabeth. Zacharias was "blameless" in God's sight, even though in this very period of his life he was in some ways lacking faith that his prayers would be answered. Paul talks of being "righteous before God" in Romans, perhaps also borrowing this language; and he argues that we have this status only by faith in imputed righteousness. For of ourselves, none can be right before God. Nor of course can any man apart from the Lord Jesus claim to walk in the Father's laws "blameless". In God's sight / presence no man is justified (<em><a href='B:230 143:2'>Psa 143:2</a></em>). It could be that this status was applied to them through their faith in forgiveness, in the implications of the promises to David and Abraham, which Zechariah so well understood according to his song of praise at the end of this chapter. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they had no child, because Elisabeth was barren and they both were now well stricken in years</em>- The record is deconstructing the common idea that the fruit of the womb would be given to the righteous, and withheld from the unrighteous. They walked blameless, as Job apparently did (<em><a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a></em>), but still "trouble came".</p>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass, while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his division</em>- The very process of service and obedience leads to greater faith in practice. It was <em>whilst</em> Zacharias went about his service to the Lord that we was given the news that he would finally have a son. And we all find this true. As we enter more deeply and more passionately into the things of the Lord, so He leads us further into new understandings and fresh areas of endeavour. According to the AV of <em><a href='B:10 24:27'>Gen 24:27</a></em>, it was whilst Abraham's servant was "in the way" of going God's path, that he was led by God to find the fulfilment of his mission in getting a wife for Isaac: "I being in the way, the LORD led me to the house of my master's brethren". There is a similar idea in <em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>: "And as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said: Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work unto which I have called them". </p>


text:
<p><em>According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to enter into the temple of the Lord and burn incense</em>- This honour was chosen by lot, and it fell upon Zacharias. And surely we have here an example of how the drawing of lots is at times overruled by God (<em><a href='B:240 16:33'>Pro 16:33</a></em>). It was a tradition that no priest ever did this twice (<em>T. Bab. Yoma</em>, fol. 26. 1), and there were apparently 20,000 priests at this time. So Zacharias had waited all his life for this honour, and he was surely being nudged to see that he could also receive something he had waited all his life for, a child. This burning of incense had its reflection in the heavenly tabernacle (<em><a href='B:730 8:3'>Rev 8:3</a></em>); or rather, the earthly tabernacle was a reflection of the heavenly. Hence <em>elohim</em> is used in the OT for both priests and Angels; the priests were to act as a copy of the Angelic system in the heavenly throne room. This is a common idea in Revelation, the comfort being that situations on earth are acted out in heaven, and through the operation of the vast Angelic system above us, man is not alone in this world. The incense represented prayer, not only of the people but of the offering priest personally; and Zacharias was being again nudged towards believing that his lifetime of prayer was actually getting through to God. But his disbelief of the answer indicates that he failed to perceive these things as intended.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the whole crowd of the people were praying outside in the hour of incense</em>- There is a triple emphasis on Israel praying to God in the lead up to the Lord's birth (<em><a href='B:490 1:10'>Luk 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:13'>Luk 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:37'>Luk 2:37</a></em>). <em><a href='B:360 2:17'>Joe 2:17</a></em> and many other passages suggest that the faithful remnant will likewise devote themselves to prayer in the last days; for the events at the Lord's first coming are typical of those at His second coming. The prayer of the crowd was represented by the cloud of incense. But Zacharias failed to perceive as he might have done that the incense also represented his own personal prayers; he was too focused upon the external service, and the general concept of prayer, that he overlooked this. </p>


text:
<p><em>And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense</em>- Here we see the priest's offering of incense paralleled with the prayer of the people, and in reply to these prayers and those of Zacharias an Angel comes and stands at the right hand of the altar of incense to announce the granting of the peoples' request (for forgiveness), and Zacharias' request for a child, in the form of the birth of John and his ministry of reconciliation with God. The incense altar represented the offering of prayer- the Angel coming to stand at the right side of the altar indicates answered prayer. The command from the altar (of incense?) in <em><a href='B:730 9:14'>Rev 9:14</a></em> to the sixth Angel telling Him to loose other Angels was maybe from this same Angel of answered prayer. All these suggestions need very careful development, especially guarding against making the&nbsp;Angels rather than Jesus our mediator. There is only one mediator (<em><a href='B:610 2:5'>1Ti 2:5</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Zacharias was disturbed when he saw him, and fear fell upon him</em>- The contrast is with Mary, who after her initial surprise, rejoiced that an Angel had come to answer her prayers for the Messianic child. His fear was related to a sense of sin that had not been dealt with; even though as noted on :6, God counted him righteous. This is comfort indeed; that we may feel guilty for sin, fear before God in a wrong sense, when in fact we are counted righteous by Him. We can take false guilt [as opposed to the true guilt we at times need to feel]:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>But the angel said to him: Fear not, Zacharias, because your prayer is heard; your wife Elisabeth shall carry a son and you shall call his name John</em>- "Fear not" is said so often when Angels appear to men, and we will likely need to hear those words when the Angels are sent forth to gather us to judgment. Divine presence convicts of sin, and yet we are of course just as much in that presence constantly.</p><p>Because God responds to our spirit, our overall situation, sometimes He does things which seem to be an answer of prayers which were not properly believed in by the person who prayed. Examples include: <em><a href='B:10 30:16-17'>Gen 30:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:10-11'>Exo 14:10-11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:160 9:9'>Neh 9:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 31:22'>Psa 31:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:13'>Luk 1:13</a></em>. Belief and unbelief can quite comfortably co-exist in a man (<em><a href='B:480 9:24'>Mar 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:39-43'>Joh 12:39-43</a></em>). These prayers were answered because God saw the overall situation, He read the spirit of those who prayed and responded appropriately, even if their faith in their specific, vocalized prayers was weak. Perhaps in similar vein, <em><a href='B:660 4:6'>Jas 4:6</a></em> appears to teach that God will hear the prayers of the humble man when a proud man is praying at the same time; faith is not mentioned here. In the light of this we notice how all the prayers of Zacharias are called in the singular "your prayer". </p>


text:
<p><em>And you shall have joy and gladness, and many shall rejoice at his birth</em>- The Angel hoped that "many" would perceive in John's birth the good news of Messiah's soon appearing; for the rejoicing was to be because of his significance in God's plan (:15). But did "many" rejoice in this sense? Perhaps as with many such predictions, it is stating a potential rather than an actual truth. "Joy and gladness" is a term only used elsewhere about all of us as we look forward to the Lord's coming (<em><a href='B:670 1:8'>1Pe 1:8</a></em>). Zacharias and Elisabeth are therefore set up as every believer. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p><em>For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord. And he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb</em>- Paul seems to have admired the humility John the Baptist manifested in his preaching. He knew he had been chosen from the womb for his mission, as John had been (<em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em> =&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a></em>). Paul was keen for others to copy John the Baptist, to find in him the inspiration which he too had found. So he encourages his Ephesians not to drink wine but instead be filled with the Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 5:18'>Eph 5:18</a></em>)- the very language of John (<em><a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a></em>). In other words, 'Be like that Spirit-filled zealot John rather than enjoying the sloppy pleasures of this life!'.</p><p>"John did no miracle" (<em><a href='B:500 10:41'>Joh 10:41</a></em>) and yet he was filled with the Spirit. The promises of our likewise being filled with the Spirit are often discounted because we do not have the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. But being filled with the Spirit is not the same as having the ability to do miracles. John was filled with the Spirit from the womb; so the filling of the Spirit is not solely in response to our own efforts. The idea here is that God had a plan for John, and John chose to follow it and walk in step with the Spirit (<em><a href='B:550 5:25'>Gal 5:25</a></em>). This is why Paul can lament that in one sense the Corinthians had been filled with the Spirit, but were "not spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), they were not living according to the potential made possible by the gift of the Spirit which is purely on God's initiative. The same term "filled with the Spirit" is used of both John's parents (:41,67). This was a little family open to being filled with the Spirit, and so they were filled. The appeal to allow ourselves to be "filled with the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:560 5:18'>Eph 5:18</a></em>) shows we are to live open to and receptive of such filling.</p>


text:
<h4><em>And many of the children of Israel shall be turned to the Lord their God</em>- “Many” – relatively- would be converted to the true ways of God by the work of John the Baptist, whilst numerically the majority of those who heard John’s message eventually turned away from it, culminating in their crucifixion of the Messiah. See on <em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>. Or it could mean that many potentially could have been converted. Or many wereconverted- but fell away. This is the sense in which "many" is used in :14. "Many" were to rejoice at John's birth and significance before God. But how many did? "Many" potentially could have done. </h4><p>The idea of hearts being turned to the Lord alludes to the intended work of the historical Elijah (<em><a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a></em>) which was to be achieved by the Elijah prophet who heralded Messiah (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>). This was only potentially true; Elijah only converted a minority. John the Baptist is prophesied as achieving this with "many"; but again, this did not happen. And so the prophecy is rescheduled for fulfilment in the work of the latter day Elijah prophet. As we go out into this world and meet apparent disinterest, we need to remember that potentially, people can respond. They are actually actively resisting what is potentially possible for them. </p><p>We note too that this passage and <em><a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a></em> speak of the Elijah prophet turning hearts to the Lord their God, whereas <em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em> speaks of hearts being turned in reconciliation within families, the fathers to the children and vice versa. This is the two-dimensional approach taken in the New Testament, especially in John's letters; reconciliation to God involves reconciliation with our brethren, and the two cannot be divorced from each other. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord</em>- As noted on :16, if hearts turn to God then they turn to their own brethren. We cannot turn to God without turning to our brethren; baptism is into the body of Christ and not simply into a totally individual relationship with the Father and Son. Latter day Israel will <em>turn</em> to the Lord their God, and part-and-parcel of this process will be the <em>turning</em> of the hearts of the fathers to the children (<em><a href='B:490 1:16-17'>Luk 1:16-17</a></em>). When Israel earlier played traitor to their brethren, by doing so they broke their marriage covenant with God (<em><a href='B:460 2:10'>Mal 2:10</a></em>); their attitude to their brethren was essentially their attitude to their Heavenly Father. Our God and our brethren simply can't be separated. Asa’s broken relationship with God resulted in him ‘crushing’ the people at the same time (<em><a href='B:140 16:10'>2Ch 16:10</a></em> AVmg:). See on <em><a href='B:500 8:42'>Joh 8:42</a></em>. </p><p>gives the Spirit's commentary upon Elijah's achievement. The "spirit and power" of Elijah had been to turn "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just" and to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord". And yet Elijah felt his ministry had been a failure; that nobody had responded. And yet his achievement with a minority is used as a prototype for the later achievement of both John the Baptist and the latter-day Elijah prophet. There's a great encouragement for us here. We may feel our witness, our ministry, even our life's work- be it in formal preaching, in raising children, in seeking to be the salt of the earth- has been without fruit. But actually, according to the pattern of Elijah, we may achieve far more ultimately than we realize, even if the fruits are seen after our death. What's important, as it was in Elijah's life, is the spirit and power we personally develop and set as an example; even if concretely and materially we don't achieve what we aim to in the lives of others. It was in this sense that God used Elijah, and uses us. Elijah's own "spirit" was imperfect- elitist, judgmental, angry etc. But his more essential spirit was focused upon by a loving, positive Father. This comforts us in our immaturities, and encourages us to view positively our brethren who seem stuck within the parameters of their natural personality and cannot, it seems, overcome all weaknesses of their spirit.</p><p>John's ministry failed, in that he did not prepare much of a people for the Lord Jesus. They crucified Him. But it was potentially possible. "Prepared" in Greek carries the idea of to create or build; there is introduced here the idea of a new creation of persons who would have their existence in the new order predicated upon their faith in Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:490 22:45'>Luk 22:45</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Zacharias said to the angel: How shall I know this? For I am an old man and my wife well stricken in years</em>- Mary likewise had this question as to "how shall this be", but the same words were spoken with a different attitude. She believed, but was naturally curious to know the mechanical side of how a virgin was going to conceive. Zacharias asked the same question but from a motive of unbelief. The same words may be found on different lips, but are judged differently by God. This shows how we should not judge others' words not least because we cannot judge, we cannot see to the heart which is behind the external words and actions. In this case, like us so often, Zacharias listed all the human barriers to the fulfilment of God's word, and considered them more powerful than the word of God.</p><p>It seems Zacharias probably said far more than "How shall I know this?" when Gabriel told him he would soon have a son. It would seem the conversation went on for so long that the people outside wondered why he was staying so long. Presumably he remonstrated with the Angel with other, graciously unrecorded words, and thereby earnt the punishment of dumbness. At the shores of the Red Sea, it seems Moses' faith wavered, and he prayed something at best inappropriate. All we read is God's response: "Why do you cry to me? Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward" (<em><a href='B:20 14:15'>Exo 14:15</a></em>). It seems again that Moses' "cry" isn't recorded- by grace. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:710 1:11'>3Jn 1:11</a></em>. </p><p><em>And the angel answering said to him: I am Gabriel who stands in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you these good tidings</em>- Answers to prayer are uttered in the heavenly throne room, in the presence of God and the Angels. Zacharias had been demonstrating this by offering the incense which passed into the holiest place, visually teaching that prayer really does get through to the presence of God. But he failed to grasp the reality that <em>his</em> prayers actually were like this. And an Angel had been sent from that Heavenly presence to a man on earth with good news of an answer which had already been decided- and the man failed to believe it. This is the case with how the "good tidings" of the Gospel have likewise been issued and taken to men- and they disbelieve. </p>


text:
<p><em>And you shall be dumb and not able to speak until the day that these things shall come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season</em>- Again, the case of Zacharias is compared unfavourably with that of Mary who believed, and who opened her mouth in joyful praise after accepting the good news. His unbelief must have been stubborn and pronounced; as noted on :18, his words of disbelief must have been extended enough for the people to wonder why he delayed so long in the temple. The words of Zacharias were to be limited because he had not believed God's words. Therefore when his mouth was opened, he spoke God's prophetic words; his words wereGod's words. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the people were waiting for Zechariah, and they were wondering at his delay in the temple</em>- As noted on :18, the delay was long because he had apparently argued back with the Angel in denial that his prayers of his youth really could be answered now. It took half an hour to burn the incense (<em><a href='B:730 8:1-3'>Rev 8:1-3</a></em>); the long delay means that he may have argued back with the Angel for at least another half an hour. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he came out, he could not speak to them; and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple, and he continued making signs to them and remained dumb</em>- He was unable to utter the blessing of <em><a href='B:40 6:23-27'>Num 6:23-27</a></em>. His lack of faith therefore resulted in a lack of blessing for the people he served. The lack of blessing was surely a hint that something was wrong with Israel; they needed repentance and radical reformation. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, when his time of service was ended, he went to his home</em>- This could suggest that he retired from the priesthood. The raising of John the Baptist and preparation for Messiah were perceived by him as more important than continuing the Mosaic rituals. "Ended" is the same word used for how Zacharias and Elisabeth were "filled" with the Spirit (:41,67). We surely have here a hint at the passing over from the ministry of the law to that of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after these days Elisabeth his wife conceived; and she hid herself five months, saying</em>- To sleep with her on returning home was surely an act of faith. Perhaps this was why he went straight to his home (:23) rather than remaining in the temple. She "hid herself", perhaps by simply not going out of the house, in order to focus upon her relationship with the Father, and to avoid being caught up in all the inevitable gossip and conspiracy theories which would have arisen. The idea is that she hid herself because the Lord had done things to her.</p>


text:
<p><em>Thus has the Lord done to me in the days wherein he looked upon me, to take away my reproach among men</em>- She felt the Lord was looking upon her during her pregnancy; but she was blameless "before God", in His eyes / presence (:6). Yet the wonder of her status in His eyes was unappreciated as it might have been. We have the same problem. Her joy was that her "reproach among men" had been taken away, quoting the words of unspiritual Rachel in <em><a href='B:10 30:23'>Gen 30:23</a></em>; we would think that she might instead have focused upon the huge significance of John in God's salvation purpose. But for all these human weaknesses, she and her husband were accepted before God. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth</em>- The "sixth month" was presumably of Elisabeth's pregnancy. She concealed her pregnancy for five months (:24) and then announced it. Mary would have heard this, and been given the potential encouragement that with God, pregnancy was possible. And having been thus prepared for her challenge of faith, the angel comes and gives it to her. We too are prepared for our challenges to faith, often by meeting or hearing of others who have likewise endured. God chose a poor village girl who dreamt of being Messiah's mother, not one of the Jerusalem elite. The word "Nazareth" may mean nothing to us in our age, but in first century Israel it was a term of contempt, for nothing good ever came out of that town (<em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>). To that dumb mountain village, to an illiterate teenager, there came an Angel with the amazing news that she had been chosen to bear God's Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>To a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary</em>- As she was a betrothed virgin, we can assume she was still a teenager; as most girls were married by 20. She was "of the house of David" and therefore her child would have in any case been the legitimate Davidic king of Israel. Over 90% of Luke’s Greek is taken from the Septuagint. All the time he is consciously and unconsciously alluding to the Old Testament as having its fulfilment in the things of Jesus. As an example of unconscious allusion, consider <em><a href='B:490 1:27'>Luk 1:27</a></em>: “A virgin betrothed to a man”. This is right out of <em><a href='B:50 22:23'>Deu 22:23</a></em> LXX “If there be a virgin betrothed to a man…”. The context is quite different, but the wording is the same. And in many other cases, Luke picks up phraseology from the LXX apparently without attention to the context. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he came in to her and said: Greetings, you that are highly favoured, the Lord is with you!</em></p><p>- See on :38. Mary is set up as the representative and epitome of all Israel / the people of God should have been. She was the seed of David, the daughter of Zion from whom Messiah came. The “highly favoured… blessed” woman is the daughter of Zion of <em><a href='B:360 2:21-27'>Joe 2:21-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 3:14-17'>Zep 3:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. She “rejoiced” as the daughter of Zion was to rejoice at the coming of her king. She was the “servant Israel”, the “handmaiden” (the female form of “servant”) who was now “holpen” by God (<em><a href='B:490 1:54'>Luk 1:54</a></em>). “Blessed be the fruit (LXX offspring) of your womb” (<em><a href='B:50 28:1'>Deu 28:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:4'>Deu 28:4</a></em>) was the promise made to Israel- and these words are applied to Mary in <em><a href='B:490 1:42'>Luk 1:42</a></em>. See on <em><a href='B:730 12:5'>Rev 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>.</p><p>Mary was “highly favoured”; yet the only other place the word occurs is in <em><a href='B:560 1:6'>Eph 1:6</a></em>, where we are told that “He has made <em>us</em> accepted [highly favoured] in Christ”. Thus in the thinking of Paul and the Spirit, Mary is to represent all of us. &nbsp; </p><p>Hannah’s song was clearly a major influence in the mind of Mary. But there are some background similarities as well as the verbal ones. The LXX of <em><a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a></em> [not the Hebrew text] speaks of Elkanah and Hannah staying in a <em>katalyma</em> on their journey to Shiloh- the very word used of the “inn” in whose stable Mary had to stay. If we ask <em>why</em> Mary based her song so heavily on that of Hannah, we find a clue in considering how she was greeted by the Angel as “favoured” (<em><a href='B:490 1:28'>Luk 1:28</a></em>). The Greek <em>kecharitomene</em> virtually translates the Hebrew name ‘Hannah’. The record is written in Greek, but Mary was a Jewess and spoke Aramaic and Hebrew; and probably the Angel spoke to her in those languages. So the link would have been all the stronger- ‘Hail, Hannah-like one’. And this set the mind of Mary thinking about Hannah, and in the days between hearing these words and meeting Elisabeth, Mary had perceived the similarities between her position and that of Hannah. She allowed the spirit of Hannah to genuinely become hers, in perceptive obedience to the Angel’s bidding. She came to share God’s perception of her as a woman like Hannah. ‘Hannah’ comes from the Hebrew root <em>hnn </em>– favour. Mary is told that she has been favoured / ‘Hannah-ed’ by God (<em><a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a></em>)- as if to lead her to see the similarities between her and Hannah. And she responds magnificently, by alluding to Hannah’s song so closely. Tragically as we shall see, she later came to be more influenced by the world’s perception of both herself and her Son. The theme of joy is very great in her song- again, because she was obedient to the greeting “Hail!”, literally, ‘rejoice!’. The points of connection between the songs of Hannah and Mary's Magnificat are really quite detailed:&nbsp; </p><p>1 Samuel&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Luke / Magnificat<br/><em><a href='B:90 1:3'>1Sa 1:3</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:7'>Luk 1:7</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:38'>Luk 1:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:46'>Luk 1:46</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:2'>1Sa 2:2</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:3'>1Sa 2:3</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:5'>1Sa 2:5</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:69'>Luk 1:69</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:26'>1Sa 2:26</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a></em> anointed LXX “His Christ”- the first occurrence of ‘Messiah’ And there are plenty of allusions in the Magnificat to other parts of Scripture and well known Apocryphal writings, especially the Psalms, which Mary evidently had committed to memory:&nbsp; </p><p><em>My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, and my spirit has found gladness in God my Saviour;</em> <em><a href='B:230 35:9'>Psa 35:9</a></em> Then my soul will find gladness in the Lord; It will take pleasure in His salvation. <em><a href='B:90 2:1-2'>1Sa 2:1-2</a></em> (Hannah’s hymn): My heart is strengthened in the Lord; My horn is exalted in my God…I delight in your salvation:&nbsp; </p><p><em><a href='B:420 3:18'>Hab 3:18</a></em> (Habakkuk’s hymn): I shall find gladness in the Lord; I shall rejoice in God my Saviour.</p><p><em>Because He has regarded the low estate of His handmaid-</em> </p><p><em><a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a></em> (Hannah praying for a child): O Lord of Hosts, if you will look on the low estate of your handmaid,</p><p><em><a href='B:10 29:32'>Gen 29:32</a></em> (Leah after childbirth): Because the Lord has regarded my low estate.</p><p>4Ezra 9:45 (Zion speaking as a barren woman): God heard your handmaid and regarded my low estate, And considered my distress and gave me a son.</p><p><em>For behold, henceforth all generations will call me fortunate-</em> </p><p><em><a href='B:10 30:13'>Gen 30:13</a></em> (Leah after childbirth): Fortunate am I, for all women call me fortunate.</p><p><em>Because He who is mighty has done great things for me.</em> </p><p><em><a href='B:50 10:21'>Deu 10:21</a></em> (Moses to Israel): He is your God who has done great things in you.</p><p><em><a href='B:430 3:17'>Zep 3:17</a></em>: The Lord your God is in you, A Mighty One will save you.</p><p><em>And holy is His Name,</em> </p><p><em><a href='B:230 111:9'>Psa 111:9</a></em>: Holy and awesome is His name.</p><p><em>And His mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear Him.</em> </p><p><em><a href='B:230 103:17'>Psa 103:17</a></em>:</p><p>But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon those who fear Him.</p><p>Psalms of Solomon <em><a href='B:490 13:11'>Luk 13:11</a></em>: His mercy upon those who fear Him.</p><p><em>He has shown His strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their thrones</em> </p><p><em>and has exalted those of low degree. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty.</em> </p><p><em><a href='B:90 2:7-8'>1Sa 2:7-8</a></em> (Hannah’s hymn): The Lord makes poor and makes rich: He reduces to lowliness and he lifts up. He lifts the needy from the earth, and from the dung heap He raises up the poor to seat them with the mighty, making them inherit a throne of glory.</p><p><em><a href='B:230 89:11'>Psa 89:11</a></em>(10- a hymn praising God’s action for the Davidic king): You have reduced the proud to lowliness like a wounded thing: And by your powerful arm you have scattered your enemies.</p><p><em>Sir_10:14</em>: He has put down the thrones of princes and has seated the humble before them.</p><p><em><a href='B:220 12:19'>Job 12:19</a></em>: He has overthrown the mighty.</p><p>1QM xiv 10-11: You have raised the fallen by your strength, and have cut down the high and mighty.</p><p><em><a href='B:330 21:31'>Eze 21:31</a></em> LXX (26 Heb:): Having reduced the proud to lowliness, and having exalted the man of low degree.</p><p><em><a href='B:230 107:9'>Psa 107:9</a></em>: He has filled the soul of the hungry with good things.</p><p><em>He has helped His servant Israel in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke unto our fathers, to Abraham and his posterity forever.</em> </p><p><em><a href='B:290 41:8-9'>Isa 41:8-9</a></em>: You, O Israel, My servant Jacob whom I chose, seed of Abraham whom I loved, whom I have helped from the ends of the earth.</p><p><em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em>: He has remembered His mercy to Jacob and His goodness to the House of Israel.</p><p>Psalms of Solomon <em><a href='B:490 10:4'>Luk 10:4</a></em>: And the Lord will remember His servants in mercy.</p><p><em><a href='B:400 7:20'>Mic 7:20</a></em>: You will give truth to Jacob and mercy to Israel, as you have sworn to our fathers from days of old.</p><p><em><a href='B:100 22:51'>2Sa 22:51</a></em> (David’s hymn at the end of his life) Showing mercy to His anointed one, to David and his posterity forever.</p><p>And a few more:&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p><em><a href='B:490 1:47'>Luk 1:47</a></em> </p><p>= <em><a href='B:10 21:6'>Gen 21:6</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em> </p><p>= <em><a href='B:230 138:6'>Psa 138:6</a></em> LXX; <em><a href='B:10 30:13'>Gen 30:13</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em> </p><p>= <em><a href='B:230 126:2-3'>Psa 126:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 111:9'>Psa 111:9</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:490 1:50'>Luk 1:50</a></em> </p><p>= <em><a href='B:10 17:7'>Gen 17:7</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a></em> </p><p>= <em><a href='B:230 118:14-15'>Psa 118:14-15</a></em>.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 1:29'>Luk 1:29</a></em> </p><p><em>But she was greatly disturbed at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of greeting this might be</em>- She has a natural reaction of shock to the news, but unlike Zacharias, she gets over it and joyfully believes her ambitious prayers have been answered. "Cast in her mind" translates a word often used inLuke about people struggling within their minds to process the challenge of Christ, and coming down on the side of unbelief. Mary alone comes down on the side of belief (<em><a href='B:490 3:15'>Luk 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:21-22'>Luk 5:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:14'>Luk 20:14</a></em>). We all have these struggles, in which our faith and our unbelief struggle together. She wondered whether in fact the news was bad or good. And she came down to the obvious truth- that the Gospel of Christ is good news. Why should we wonder whether such positive greeting, "highly favoured::. blessed" should in fact be a bad kind of greeting? We also have such language applied to us. The message of Christ is either the sickest trick- or what it claims to be, good news. Many refuse to believe it because we are wired to not believe good news, pure grace. But she is set up as an example to us all. </p><h4><em>And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary. For you have found favour with God</em>- The emphasis is that she <em>had </em>found favour with God, and she need not doubt the truth of those words of grace; see on :29. </h4><p>When the LXX and Hebrew readings are combined, it becomes evident that the Angel is inviting Mary to see herself as the “daughter of Zion”:&nbsp; </p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Zephaniah 3 </td><td><em><a href='B:490 1:28-31'>Luk 1:28-31</a></em> </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rejoice [LXX <em>chaire</em>], daughter of Zion (Zephaniah 3) </td><td>&nbsp;Rejoice [<em>chaire</em>]…[Mary]Notice how <em>chaire</em> is also addressed to the Daughter of Zion in <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>, a passage also applied to Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 21:5'>Mat 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:14-15'>Joh 12:14-15</a></em>.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The King of Israel, the Lord, is in the midst of you [<em>en meso sou</em>] (Zephaniah 3) </td><td>&nbsp;The Lord is with you [<em>meta sou</em>]. “The king of Israel” was a well known Messianic title. He was in the midst of Mary in the sense that He was now in her womb. </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Do not be afraid, Zion (Zephaniah 3) </td><td>Do not be afraid, Mary</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Lord your God is with / in you (Zephaniah 3)- the Hebrew can imply ‘in your interior parts’, cp. the womb </td><td>You have found favour with God:&nbsp; We can perceive a double meaning now in Zephaniah’s words- the Lord God was with Mary, but was also within her manifest in His Son.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The mighty one will save you (Zephaniah 3) </td><td>&nbsp;“God my Saviour”- as if Mary picked up the allusions and responded to them. </td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>is alluded to in <em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>. When you ask for forgiveness, be like Mary in her spiritual ambition in asking to be the mother of Messiah. </p>


text:
<h4><em>And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary. For you have found favour with God</em>- The emphasis is that she <em>had </em>found favour with God, and she need not doubt the truth of those words of grace; see on :29. </h4><p>When the LXX and Hebrew readings are combined, it becomes evident that the Angel is inviting Mary to see herself as the “daughter of Zion”:&nbsp; </p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Zephaniah 3 </td><td><em><a href='B:490 1:28-31'>Luk 1:28-31</a></em> </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rejoice [LXX <em>chaire</em>], daughter of Zion (Zephaniah 3) </td><td>&nbsp;Rejoice [<em>chaire</em>]…[Mary]Notice how <em>chaire</em> is also addressed to the Daughter of Zion in <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>, a passage also applied to Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 21:5'>Mat 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:14-15'>Joh 12:14-15</a></em>.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The King of Israel, the Lord, is in the midst of you [<em>en meso sou</em>] (Zephaniah 3) </td><td>&nbsp;The Lord is with you [<em>meta sou</em>]. “The king of Israel” was a well known Messianic title. He was in the midst of Mary in the sense that He was now in her womb. </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Do not be afraid, Zion (Zephaniah 3) </td><td>Do not be afraid, Mary</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Lord your God is with / in you (Zephaniah 3)- the Hebrew can imply ‘in your interior parts’, cp. the womb </td><td>You have found favour with God:&nbsp; We can perceive a double meaning now in Zephaniah’s words- the Lord God was with Mary, but was also within her manifest in His Son.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The mighty one will save you (Zephaniah 3) </td><td>&nbsp;“God my Saviour”- as if Mary picked up the allusions and responded to them. </td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;


book_number:
is alluded to in <em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>. When you ask for forgiveness, be like Mary in her spiritual ambition in asking to be the mother of Messiah. </p>

text:
<p><em>And you shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus</em>- "You shall" may have the emphasis upon "shall"; her prayers for these things would indeed be answered. The whole language of conception, bringing forth, and the future tenses all combine to preclude the theory of any physical pre-existence of the Lord Jesus. He began, as a cell, dividing and subdividing until it became a foetus. And that was His personal beginning.</p>


text:
<p><em>He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his ancestor David</em>- Again we note the future tenses, precluding any personal pre-existence of the Lord. "He shall be great" is what Zacharias had just been told in :15. The response of Mary and Zacharias is clearly compared and contrasted; and the illiterate teenage girl comes out presented as a far stronger believer than the legally obedient Zacharias. Mary's Biblical mind [for she alludes to Scripture with such felicity] would have figured that God had to be the Father of the Davidic seed; and a woman in David's line, just like herself, hadto be the mother. But how that was to come about was of course a challenge to her faith.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end</em>- The Lord Jesus will have a Kingdom, the house of Jacob, which shall have no end. According to Isaiah, "of the <em>increase</em>" of His Kingdom there will be no end; surely meaning that the Lord's domination of the believers' minds will grow and grow; our relationship with Him will grow progressively deeper. The Lord's kingship over Jacob would be eternal, uninterrupted. It has not therefore fully begun. "His kingdom" and "the house of Jacob" are paralleled. His domain, over which He is King, is therefore essentially a group of persons:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be, seeing I do not know a man?</em>- So great is the depth of Mary’s perception that I am led to make the suggestion that she may have actually comprehended that <em><a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a></em> required a virgin to be made pregnant by God, and she was anticipating this happening. I am led to this possibility by musing upon her question here. She had been told that she was to bear the Son of God, Messiah, but initially she is not told that this would be due to the Holy Spirit coming upon her. Her response is to ask how this will be possible, seeing she doesn’t know a man. Yet she was engaged to a man, and engagements in Galilee rarely lasted longer than a year. The obvious deduction for her would have been to think that when her and Joseph married, their child would be Messiah. So why does she ask how it can be, seeing she doesn’t know a man sexually? Is there not here the implication that she had picked up on the Angel’s allusion to <em><a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a></em> and realized that it required a virgin to conceive in order to make the Messiah both Son of God and son of David through a woman? And so she asks how actually this is going to come about; as if to say ‘OK I understand it requires a virgin conception, but how physically is it going to work out?’. Most marriages were arranged marriages; she had been betrothed to Joseph, but was earnestly praying to be mother of Messiah, and yet she realized that it required a virgin conception. And yet soon, she would be married. She must have feared that her life was going to become just like that of any other woman. But now with ecstatic joy she realized that God had heard her, and intervened. She was to have a virgin conception before she got married to Joseph! It must have all seemed too wonderful to be true, and yet she believed. One can only be impressed at the speed and depth of her response to the Angel. The Lord’s same ability was surely at least partly inherited from His mother. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the angel answered and said to her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you. Therefore also the holy thing which is begotten within you shall be called the Son of God</em>- The Holy Spirit came upon her, and so <em>Mary’s</em> spirit was full of gladness (:35,47). She walked in step with the spirit (<em><a href='B:550 5:25'>Gal 5:25</a></em>). Because she believed that really the child she would bear would be “holy”, she can extol God as “holy” (<em><a href='B:490 1:35'>Luk 1:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em>). She says that God “<em>Has</em> done to me great things”- she believed that what was promised would actually happen, to the point she felt it had already happened. Now this surely is the essence of faith.</p><p>The Angel’s description of Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary&nbsp;could have sent her mind back to how the Spirit-Cherubim and the cloud of Spirit glory overshadowed the ark (<em><a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 28:18'>1Ch 28:18</a></em>). The LXX uses the word for “overshadow” about the cloud of glory overshadowing the ark in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:20 40:35'>Exo 40:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 9:18'>Num 9:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 9:22'>Num 9:22</a></em>). If Mary’s mind had been alerted to this possibility, she would have seen the relevance of Elizabeth’s words: “Who am I, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (<em><a href='B:490 1:43'>Luk 1:43</a></em>). For they are remarkably similar to the LXX of <em><a href='B:100 6:9'>2Sa 6:9</a></em>, where David asks “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”. As a result of this question of David’s, the ark remained three months in the house of Obed-Edom (<em><a href='B:100 6:11'>2Sa 6:11</a></em>). And was this why Mary, seeing herself as the ark, remained for three months in the house of Elisabeth straight after hearing this same question asked (<em><a href='B:490 1:56'>Luk 1:56</a></em>)? There are further links, between the gladness of <em><a href='B:490 1:44'>Luk 1:44</a></em> and the joy of <em><a href='B:100 6:12'>2Sa 6:12</a></em>; and the loud cry of <em><a href='B:490 1:42'>Luk 1:42</a></em> and that of <em><a href='B:100 6:15'>2Sa 6:15</a></em>. If one combines <em><a href='B:490 1:31'>Luk 1:31</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> we have the word of God becoming flesh and “tabernacling” among us in the womb and faith of Mary. If these connections are valid, then Mary would have felt that within her was He who would be the covenant of the Lord, the stones of the word of God made flesh in a little boy. This was perception indeed.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Elisabeth your kinswoman, she who was called barren, has in her old age alsoconceived a son; and this is the sixth month of her pregnancy</em>- Elisabeth only announced her pregnancy at the end of five months. So this may have been a second encouragement to Mary, that non-standard pregnancies are no problem to God. Or perhaps it was the first Mary had heard of it. The lesson is that meetings with others, or news about them, are providentially brought into our lives in order to encourage us in situations which are about to come upon us.</p>


text:
<p><em>For no word from God shall be void of power</em>- The various possibilities in translation offer various possible interpretations. The idea could be that Mary was not to worry about the mechanics of how God's prophetic words about the virgin birth and the birth of the Messianic forerunner would come about; there was and is power within the prophetic word to bring about its own fulfilment. This principle has wide relevance. Not least, we need not worry how all shall be fulfilled in the last days, nor seek to force fulfilment of prophecy; for the power of fulfilment is lodged within the prophetic word itself. But "void of power" can also simply mean "impossible". The only other time the Greek word occurs is in <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>: "If you have faith::. nothing shall be impossible unto you". The 'possibility' of the fulfilment depends partially upon our faith. And this would have been so appropriate to Mary, who had prayed in faith to be the mother of Messiah. The prophetic word is "possible", but it is made actual by our faith. When Mary says "Be it unto me according to your word" (:38) she is as it were enabling the fulfilment of that word. See on :45. This is not to say that God does not have sovereign possibility of Himself; but clearly His preference is to work within the parameters of human faith. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord! Be it unto me according to your word! And the angel departed from her</em>- Mary had probably said and later sung to the Lord Jesus: “Be it unto me according to your word”. In <em><a href='B:470 15:28'>Mat 15:28</a></em> we have the Lord addressing the Canaanite woman: “Woman…:be it unto you even as you wish”. The Lord had called His mother “Woman…” in Cana. That woman re-stimulated memories of His dear mother:&nbsp; We see here a window into His humanity, using language in reflection of how His mother had spoken to Him in childhood; and we see too Mary's abiding influence upon Him.</p><p>Not only did Mary see herself as representative of Israel [see on :28]; she also felt a strong connection between herself and her Messiah Son. Any woman would feel this connection and identity with her child; but in Mary’s case, her child was the Son of God, Messiah of Israel. And she had the spiritual ambition to see herself in some way, thereby, as Messiah. Consider the evidence:&nbsp; </p><p>- <em><a href='B:490 1:38'>Luk 1:38</a></em> “the handmaid of the Lord” uses the Greek female form for “servant of the Lord”, a clear title of Messiah.</p><p>-&nbsp;She appropriates words spoken in the spirit of Christ to herself: “You have reduced the proud to lowliness like a wounded thing: and by your powerful arm you have scattered your enemies” (<em><a href='B:230 89:10'>Psa 89:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 1:51-53'>Luk 1:51-53</a></em>). </p><p>- She refers to herself in saying that God has helped His servant Israel in remembrance of His mercy; yet His Servant was Messiah, according to Isaiah’s servant songs (<em><a href='B:490 1:54-55'>Luk 1:54-55</a></em>).</p><p>- <em><a href='B:490 1:28'>Luk 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:42'>Luk 1:42</a></em> “blessed among women” alludes to <em><a href='B:70 5:24'>Jdg 5:24</a></em>, as if Mary was already as Jael who had killed Sisera, an incident typical of the Lord's destruction of sin with the hammer of God's word. Mary is tied up with her son's victory- for He was part of her. There is a parallel between Mary and the "fruit of your womb”, they were both to be blessed together (:42), as if God recognized this link between the mother and Son. The fact He ‘allowed’ this, rather than just using a cold ‘channel’ for His purpose, is simply surpassing in its wonder.</p><p>-&nbsp;Her words of <em><a href='B:490 1:47'>Luk 1:47</a></em> “my spirit shall rejoice in God” allude to <em><a href='B:230 63:11'>Psa 63:11</a></em>: “But <em>the king </em>shall rejoice in God; every one that swears by him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped”:&nbsp;Mary parallels herself with “the King”, seeing herself as connected with Messiah. </p><p>-&nbsp;“The servant of the Lord" would rejoice in God: “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God" (<em><a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a></em>), and yet Mary as the female "servant of the Lord" also rejoices, sharing the joy of her Son. </p><p>-&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em> has Mary rejoicing: “All generations shall call me blessed”, alluding to how in <em><a href='B:230 72:17'>Psa 72:17</a></em> “all nations shall call <em>him</em> [Messiah] blessed”. Mary is equated with her son, Messiah, and she recognized this. He was part of her. </p><p>-&nbsp;Mary understood that through her conception, God had put down the mighty from their thrones and exalted <em>them</em> of low degree (<em><a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a></em>). This clearly alludes to <em><a href='B:330 21:26'>Eze 21:26</a></em>, where the princes are to be put down and <em>him</em> that is low is to be exalted, i:e. Messiah. But Mary felt that she had been exalted; thus she shared Messiah’s exaltation because He was in her and she in Him. We too are in Him, and we should feel something of the pride and joy, along with the suffering, that comes from that identification. She parallels <em>her</em> low estate with <em>them</em> of low degree (<em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a></em>)- perhaps referring to her and Jesus? </p><p>-&nbsp;She appropriated the promises to Abraham’s seed [which according to <em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em> is one man, Jesus] to her personally (<em><a href='B:490 1:55'>Luk 1:55</a></em>):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Mary arose in these days and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah</em>- One is hard pushed to find women-only scenes in contemporary literature written during Biblical times. The women are presented in terms of the men with whom they inter-relate. Yet Elizabeth and Mary are recorded as having a conversation with no male present (<em><a href='B:490 1:39-45'>Luk 1:39-45</a></em>); and there are other such passages in Scripture (<em><a href='B:10 19:32'>Gen 19:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:34'>Gen 19:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 30:14-15'>Gen 30:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:1-10'>Exo 2:1-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:28-30'>Jdg 5:28-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 1:6'>Rth 1:6</a></em> to <em><a href='B:80 2:2'>Rth 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 3:16-18'>Rth 3:16-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 4:14-17'>Rth 4:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 5:2-3'>2Ki 5:2-3</a></em>). The narrative of the women at the tomb and the resurrection is another example (<em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em> to <em><a href='B:490 24:4'>Luk 24:4</a></em>). In all these passages, the reader is invited to share the woman’s perspective.</p><p>Mary took the nudge from the Angel, to find encouragement at this time in the company of another believer who was going through a broadly similar experience. She would presumably have left Joseph at this time; and we see again his willing sacrifice in still marrying her despite this. To the worldly eye, it would look for all the world as if she had got pregnant whilst away in Judah, or had run off there after falling pregnant in Nazareth. But she was prepared for all that misjudgement of her, wanting to follow the Lord's leading in finding spiritual strength from a believer going through the same things, whose faith had also been amazingly rewarded.</p>


text:
<p><em>And entered into the house of Zacharias and greeted Elisabeth</em>- The usual girlie teenage thing would have been to go talk to her contemporaries about it. But not Mary. She went on probably the longest journey she had ever made, and probably alone, to see Elisabeth. She describes herself as the lowly, the hungry, who had been exalted and fed… whereas the proud and haughty had been disregarded. These words, and the evident allusions she makes back to Hannah’s song, could be read as reflecting what had actually been wrought in Mary’s own person and experience by some kind of persecution in her childhood. And it drove her within herself. It seems that she had been deeply humbled in order for her to be highly exalted. One wonders if she had been sexually abused. If Joseph was indeed much older than her, then we can understand how it happened that this girl, mature as she was beyond her years, got attracted to an older and spiritual man. Her spirituality and intelligence [for her allusions to Scripture indicate a fine appreciation of so much] would have been enough to spark plenty of village jealousy. <em><a href='B:500 2:11-12'>Joh 2:11-12</a></em> speak of three groups- the disciples, who believed, the brothers of Jesus who didn’t&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:500 7:5'>Joh 7:5</a></em>), and Mary, whose level of faith isn’t commented upon. She stands alone. Recognizing this tendency to isolationism within her, the Father seems to have encouraged Mary to open herself up to Elisabeth, encouraging her that her relative was in a somewhat similar position, having been barren for a lifetime and now expecting a child. Although Elisabeth was somewhat distant from Mary, Mary immediately goes to see her, following the prompting of the Lord. The record is styled to show the experiences of the two pregnancies as parallel:</p><p>-&nbsp;“The virgin’s name was Mary” (<em><a href='B:490 1:27'>Luk 1:27</a></em>) = “her name was Elisabeth” (<em><a href='B:490 1:5'>Luk 1:5</a></em>).</p><p>- Both were startled at the Angelic appearances (<em><a href='B:490 1:12'>Luk 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:29'>Luk 1:29</a></em>), and were comforted not to be afraid.</p><p>- “You will call his name John… you will call his name Jesus”.</p><p>- “He will be great… he will be great”.</p><p>- “How am I to know this?”, and the Angel responded; “How shall this be?”, and likewise the Angel responded.</p><p>- Both were given signs- the dumbness of Zacharias, and the pregnancy of Elisabeth.</p><p>- Both John and Jesus are described as growing up and becoming strong (<em><a href='B:490 1:80'>Luk 1:80</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:40'>Luk 2:40</a></em>). &nbsp; </p><p>This is not the only time when we see circumstances repeating between Bible characters. The similarities were to direct them back to former and contemporary examples, to find strength. And this is one of the basic reasons for Christian fellowship amongst believers. Yet it would seem that as time went on, Mary became more introverted, she stored up “all these things” in her heart and couldn’t share them with others. Whilst due to her unique path this is understandable, it may be related to the loss of spiritual perception and activity which it seems set in after she gave birth to Jesus:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the baby jumped within her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit</em>- The usual kicking within the womb [s:w. <em><a href='B:10 25:22'>Gen 25:22</a></em> LXX] was triggered by her being filled with the Spirit, just as the unborn child was filled with the Spirit within her womb (:15)- a good Biblical argument for the pro-life movement.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:490 1:28'>Luk 1:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>And she lifted up her voice with a loud cry and said: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!</em>- Elisabeth is repeating the words and ideas of the Angel in :28. Mary would have realized that the Angel was indeed from God, and the same Spirit was speaking through Elisabeth as through the Angel. We see the Father's gentle grace in providing her with confirmation after confirmation of the strange and lonely path she was being led along. </p>


text:
<p><em>But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?</em>- Elisabeth found mutual encouragement from Mary, although Mary had gone to her for encouragement. This is the mutual nature of true Christian fellowship. Clearly Elisabeth perceived that her son was to be the Elijah prophet, and Mary's was to be Messiah whom her son would herald. There was however no jealousy at all, as at times happens between pregnant women who believe they are bearing significant offspring, but rather just a sense of gratitude for the grace of it all. </p>


text:
<p><em>For when the voice of your greeting came into my ears, the baby jumped in my womb for joy</em>- Elisabeth would have been greeted by Mary with the traditional "Shalom!", a wish of peace to her. And her sensitive mind perceived that that peace was the Messianic peace with God which would save Israel and the world. </p>


text:
<p><em>And blessed is she that believed; for there shall be a fulfilment of the things which have been spoken to her from the Lord</em></p><p>- See on :53. Mary at this point was an inspiration to Paul in his trial (<em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 27:25'>Act 27:25</a></em>). Mary was blessed for believing, because therefore and thereby there would be a fulfilment of the things spoken to her (<em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em> RV). Without her faith, would those things have been fulfilled? She had to do her bit. And this is why she was called blessed. She made possible the prophetic word; see on :37. The Lord basically told the disciples to go into the world and preach in order that the prophesies of repentance being preached among all nations would come true (<em><a href='B:490 24:48'>Luk 24:48</a></em>). Paul’s preaching to the whole world was likewise driven by a desire to fulfil the prophecy that Christ would be a light to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>&nbsp;<p>In <em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>, Jesus unconsciously alludes to His mother's blessedness even after His glorification. Mary must have many times recounted the story of Elisabeth to Jesus, and His memory of it influenced His sentence construction even after His glorification. This gives a window into the extent to which we will be still who we are now in the Kingdom. Divine nature won't totally change who we are nor the influence of our parents upon us. This is a great encouragement to parents- who they influence their children to be, will be what they eternally will be. For Jesus alluded to the memory of His mother even in Divine nature. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And Mary said: My soul does magnify the Lord</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. This is alluded to by Paul, when he uses the same Greek word in <em><a href='B:570 1:2'>Phi 1:2</a></em>: “Christ shall be <em>magnified </em>in <em>my body / soul</em>”. If this is a valid allusion, then "the Lord" is a reference to Jesus. In <em><a href='B:490 1:43'>Luk 1:43</a></em> Elisabeth had just described Jesus as "my Lord". And then Mary here parallels "the Lord" with "God my saviour / my Jesus". She understood how God was to be manifest in Jesus, as she parallels “my soul" with "my spirit"(:47). It's amazing that an illiterate teenager should have risen to such heights of understanding, probably without learning much at all from the local synagogue. </p>


text:
<p><em>And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour</em></p><h4>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. This rang in Paul’s mind (<em><a href='B:610 1:1'>1Ti 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:3'>1Ti 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:3'>Tit 1:3</a></em>). Mary’s words “my spirit has rejoiced” are alluded to by Jesus unconsciously in <em><a href='B:490 10:21'>Luk 10:21</a></em> [the only time the Greek phrase "spirit::. rejoices” is used]. “In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit" and thanked God that the humble not the wise had been chosen- showing exactly the spirit of Mary's words of <em><a href='B:490 1:52-53'>Luk 1:52-53</a></em>, the words she had probably sung to Him around the house as a child. Unconsciously [?], the Lord Jesus was alluding to Mary His mother's attitude. Such was the Jesus-Mary relationship. Luke brings this out in his record in the connections he makes. Mary had an influence even on the Son of God- quite some encouragement to all parents and those who spend time with children as to the influence they have. &nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em>Because He has looked upon the low estate of His handmaid</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. Mary’s quotations and allusions to the OT are nearly all from the LXX, and it is almost certain that she would have been familiar with some of the Apocryphal books bound up with the LXX at that time. Consider the words of 4Ezra 9:45, where Zion speaks as a barren woman: “God heard your handmaid and regarded my low estate, and considered my distress and gave me a son”. Clearly she saw herself as the representative of Zion. Moses told Israel that God “has done great things in you” [in her womb?] (<em><a href='B:50 10:21'>Deu 10:21</a></em>). She felt that God had helped her as “His servant Israel”- alluding to <em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em> LXX “He has remembered His mercy to Jacob”. Unto <em>us</em>, Israel, a son was to be given (<em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 2:11'>Luk 2:11</a></em>), but it was actually given to Mary:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:490 1:28'>Luk 1:28</a></em>.</p><p>God recognized her “low estate” [humility] and exalted her above all women, just as He would His Son among men. He did not choose some well heeled Jerusalem girl, but a poor, barefoot teenager in despised Nazareth. The same Greek word is used in <em><a href='B:510 8:33'>Act 8:33</a></em>: “In his humiliation [‘low estate’] his judgment was taken away”. It occurs too in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>: “He <em>humbled himself</em>”. In the cross, indeed throughout the seven stage self-humiliation of the Lord which Philippians 2 speaks of, He was living out the spirit of His mother. She taught Him the life and the way of the cross. Hence the way she insisted on being there at the end, and the comfort she would have given Him, and the love He showed by asking for the only one who really understood Him to be taken away, for her sake as well as His own. The Lord directly alluded to His mother’s pattern of humiliation and exaltation by using the same word again in <em><a href='B:470 23:12'>Mat 23:12</a></em>: “Whosever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself [s:w. be abased- we must either humble ourselves or be humbled, it’s such a powerful logic] shall be exalted”. Thus the Lord Jesus alludes to His mother's words in order to set her up as our pattern [“whosoever”]. And yet He Himself showed the ultimate obedience to her pattern in the death of the cross. For this and many other reasons, the Lord’s mind was upon His mother in His time of dying. And according to the Messianic Psalms, He even asks God to have mercy upon Him <em>for Mary’s sake</em> (<em><a href='B:230 86:16'>Psa 86:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:16'>Psa 116:16</a></em>).</p><p><em>For from this time forward all generations shall call me blessed</em>- When Mary spoke of all generations calling her blessed, her mind was in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:10 30:13'>Gen 30:13</a></em>: "The daughters [i:e. future generations of them] shall call me blessed", and yet at the same time on Zilpah the servant maid [cp. Mary the handmaiden] bearing Asher [happy]. These women were seen by Mary as representatives of herself. She was so humble to compare herself with the servant girl. Yet she also had in mind <em><a href='B:240 31:28'>Pro 31:28</a></em>, where the virtuous woman is blessed by all. She saw herself as the virtuous woman who excelled all- yet she was so humble. She was the most highly favoured woman, but was so humble. It’s hard to know your true value without being proud about it. It seems to me that we must learn to value ourselves far more, to love our neighbour <em>as </em>we do really love / respect ourselves, without being proud. The ability to see your own worth and value in God’s purpose is crucial;&nbsp;we tend to be either proud, or too negative about ourselves. Mary was so spiritually ambitious to want to be the mother of Messiah, understanding He would be God manifest. &nbsp; </p><p>Mary realized that her great honour was being given in response to her humility- God had regarded her “low estate", her humility. She was humble enough to know God had noticed her humility- and still not be proud about it. She had enough self-knowledge to perceive this. It’s as if she is saying ‘'Thank you for taking note of my humility'. This is really a deep essay in humility-&nbsp; to recognize she was humble without being proud about it. And to be able to say it sincerely. Mary’s humility was programmatic for Jesus on the cross; for there He humbled Himself that He might be exalted. This was the theme that, according to Philippians 2, was ever in His mind:&nbsp; </p><p>Later Scripture seems to allude to Mary’s words of praise in Luke 1 and set her up as a representative of us all. She speaks in <em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em> of her “low estate”, alluding to&nbsp; <em><a href='B:230 136:23'>Psa 136:23</a></em>, which describes us all in this way.</p>


text:
<p><em>For He that is mighty has done to me great things, and holy is His name</em>- The Magnificat shows that Mary had a fair appreciation of God’s Names, in that she refers to Him as “He that is mighty”, interpreting for us the Old Testament idea of El Shaddai, the God of fruitfulness [Heb. <em>shad</em> = ‘breast’]. Note how neither Mary nor the NT writers transfer the OT Hebrew titles of God, e:g. ‘Yahweh’, rather they interpret them. She sees her conception of the Son of God as an example of how “holy is His Name” (<em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em>). The Lord Himself understood that “Hallowed be Your Name” is to be paralleled with the Father’s will being done. The Name of God speaks of His actions; because He is whoHe is, He will articulate this in how He acts. This is why all His actions are understandable and broadly predictable in terms of the basic characteristics that comprise His Name. The Name is not just a word, a lexical item. And Mary perceived all this- that the Holy Name of Jehovah was to be manifested ultimately and supremely in the Son she would bear. For this is the climax of God manifestation. Because “Holy is His Name”, she would bear a “holy thing” that manifested that Name. There is in Hebrew an ‘intensive plural’, whereby the plural form is used to reflect the greatness of a singular thing. Thus ‘Jehovah Elohim’, Jehovah who will be mighty ones, can be read as a specific prophecy of His definitive revelation in the ‘mighty one’ of His Son. And could it be that Mary grasped all this? I for one think she did. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And His mercy is to generations and generations on them that fear Him</em>- The subsequent generations who would bless her would do so because through her Son, "mercy" was experienced. She perceived that Messiah would bring mercy to sinners, indeed to all; rather than just the re-establishment of Israel's political Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>He has shown strength with His arm, He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. Through the Lord, God "scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts" (<em><a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a></em>). This is quoting from <em><a href='B:10 6:5'>Gen 6:5</a></em> LXX concerning the wicked imagination of man's heart at the flood. This is even more evidence that we can read the events of the flood as typical of two things; our salvation from the judgment upon sin, and also of the events of the last days, when that salvation will be physically manifested. We are in Noah's position; we can see clearly the judgments which must come upon sin.</p><p>Such a Bible minded woman inevitably had faith. For faith comes by hearing the word of God. Mary believed the Angel’s words fully- hence her rejoicing. The aorist tenses of <em><a href='B:490 1:51-53'>Luk 1:51-53</a></em> seem the equivalent of prophetic perfect tenses in Hebrew- Mary firmly believes that what is still future is as good as happened. She had the faith that considers what has been promised to have actually happened. At that moment it was as if God <em>had</em> scattered the proud, the rulers and the princes- even though this would only be achieved by the Lord’s life, death and glorification (<em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:24-27'>Act 4:24-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>He has put down princes from their thrones and has exalted them of low station in life</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. Despite all the undoubted spiritual perception in the Magnificat, she didn’t have totally pure understanding. It seems from her allusion here to <em><a href='B:330 21:26'>Eze 21:26</a></em> [the mighty being put down from their thrones and the humble one exalted] that she thought that Ezekiel’s prophesy about Messiah’s restoration of the Kingdom had already been fulfilled in her conception of Jesus. It could be that she was so sure that her child would one day do this that she saw the time of the coming of “Him whose right it is” as being right there and then; and yet we know that it is in fact still future. Likewise “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” <em>may</em> imply [although not necessarily] that she hadn’t grasped the implications that Messiah must be the result of a virgin birth, as per <em><a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a></em>. Yet for all this, she still had acceptability before God, and the required spiritual ambition to be Messiah’s mother:&nbsp;</p><p>Mary perceived the importance of humility. Her song of rejoicing is a consciously arranged poem by her. It is in two strophes, each climaxing with the themes of lowliness / exaltation. She saw humility as the true exaltation, and the structure of her little song reflects this. She perhaps prepared the song in her mind as she walked down from Nazareth to the Judean hills to meet Elisabeth; there is a rhyme established by the last&nbsp;words of the four lines in <em><a href='B:490 1:52-53'>Luk 1:52-53</a></em>: <em>thronon</em> with <em>agathon</em>, and <em>tapeinous</em> with <em>kenous</em>. In all this she reached a new paradigm for humility was a concept foreign to the first century mind. Strength, wealth and ability were to be demonstrated; to show strength by being humble was just unheard of. Only those who were forced into humble submission by the stronger were ‘humble’. To clean the toilets when nobody else notices, and the host of other such opportunities for service in ecclesial life::. this is the true humility, the real strength and exaltation before God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The hungry He has filled with good things and the rich He has sent away empty</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. Not only was the Lord Himself influenced by His mother. Paul and Peter allude to Mary and her words in their writings. The hymn to Jesus which Paul wrote in Philippians 2 is full of themes taken from Mary’s song- the same themes of God’s manifestation in His Son, humiliation and exaltation, occur there. There are several connections between the accounts of the early preaching of the Gospel in Acts, and Mary’s song of praise. Her words came to influence the brethren who stood up there and preached. Perhaps Mary, who was meeting with them (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>), sung the words to them and they all memorized it. Raymond Brown claims there are 18 words or items shared by the preaching of Peter (<em><a href='B:510 3:12-26'>Act 3:12-26</a></em>) and the Magnificat [Mary’s song of praise] (<em>The Birth Of The Messiah</em>, New York: Doubleday, 1993 p. 354). Mary had quoted <em><a href='B:230 107:9'>Psa 107:9</a></em> about how she had been filled with good things; but Zacharias quoted the next verse, <em><a href='B:230 107:10'>Psa 107:10</a></em>, shortly afterwards (<em><a href='B:490 1:79'>Luk 1:79</a></em>). Surely Mary had gotten him thinking in the same paths as she did. And she should likewise influence us.</p><p>Mary felt that through her being granted the honour of bearing Jesus, the hungry had been filled. The Lord in <em><a href='B:490 6:21'>Luk 6:21</a></em> alludes to all this. He speaks of how blessed [=Mary] are the hungry who will be filled, using the same three words as in Luke 1 - <em>blessed </em>was Mary, the <em>hungry</em>, who was <em>filled </em>in her stomach:&nbsp; He states that there is a blessedness upon all of us who believe (<em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>)- just as His mother was proclaimed blessed for her belief (<em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em>). &nbsp;Mary had felt that God had “Filled the hungry [i:e. their stomach, cp. the womb of Mary] with the good thing [Gk:]”- Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>). He calls Himself this good thing, using the very same Greek word in <em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>: "I am the good one"; <em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:12'>Joh 7:12</a></em> [where the "good thing" is Messiah]. Her perception of Him became his. And so with us; if we perceive our children as future brethren, so, hopefully and prayerfully, they will be. Jesus could have sinned; He could have failed. But Mary right from His babyhood believed that He wouldn’t. She believed in Him and in His successful completion of His destiny from when she first conceived Him. And surely this is a pattern for Christian mothers too.</p>


text:
<p><em>He has given help to Israel His servant, that He might remember mercy</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. As noted on :28, she saw herself as the "Servant" Israel. "Mercy" is a real theme with her; she saw Messiah as enabling mercy for multiple generations (see on :50). The fulfilment of the prophecies in Messiah she saw as a mercy, a grace, even though it was her faith which enabled them to work out as they did. "Given help" is literally to take hold of, and she is alluding to <em><a href='B:290 41:8-9'>Isa 41:8-9</a></em> LXX, where God helps or takes by the hand His servant Israel; but this was only going to be possible through Messiah, her son, because she realized that Israel of themselves had refused Yahweh's outstretched arm towards them. She was very far from the nationalism which was tied up with Messianic expectation at the time. She saw Messiah as the channel for the grace and mercy upon Israel which their sinfulness required.</p>


text:
<p><em>(As He spoke to our fathers) toward Abraham and his seed for ever</em></p><p>- See on :38 for the allusions to Hannah's song. </p><p>She speaks in <em><a href='B:490 1:55'>Luk 1:55</a></em> Gk. of “<em>the</em> seed of him”- she understood the seed of Abraham to be Messiah, her son, and makes many references and allusions to the promises to Abraham. She had clearly reflected upon the way that the things of the Gospel were all promised to Abraham (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Mary stayed with her about three months and then returned home</em>-&nbsp;As noted earlier, she took lessons from Elisabeth's example. She too therefore hid herself during the early part of her pregnancy. She must have returned home just before Elisabeth gave birth (cp. :36), seeking to avoid the public eye by being present at the birth of John. It was presumably at her return that she was "found with child" (<em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em>), as the end of the first trimester of pregnancy would have given her certain evidence that she was really pregnant. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she gave birth to a son</em>- "The time came" alludes to how the prophetic words "shall be fulfilled in their time" (:20). </p>


text:
<p><em>And her neighbours and her kinsfolk heard that the Lord had magnified His mercy towards her; and they rejoiced with her</em>- The idea of magnifying mercy is that we live by God's mercy, but in this open answer to prayer, that mercy was magnified, made the more visible before all. We can logically deduce from this that God's mercy is there even when prayer is apparently not answered; it is just that answered prayer magnifies that pre-existing and ever present mercy. We note the emphasis upon Elizabeth here- the time came for <em>her</em> to give birth, and the neighbours heard of God's mercy towards <em>her</em>, and they rejoiced <em>with her</em>. This is typical of Luke's inspired emphasis upon the importance of women; a secular account of those times would have focused upon how the famous priest Zacharias was now having a son etc. To claim the Bible is somehow against women is facile; it was far ahead of its time in being careful to honour both genders.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child, and they would have called him Zacharias, after the name of the father</em>- 'John' means 'Yahweh's grace / favour'; "Zacharias" means 'Yahweh has remembered'. God did indeed remember the prayers of Zacharias; and 'remembering' when used about God is a Hebrew idiom used about God answering prayer. But Zacharias had not lived up to his name. Instead the prayer was heard by grace, and righteousness was imputed to Zacharias, as noted on :6. It was therefore appropriate that there should be a break with tradition, and the child named 'John' rather than 'Zacharias'. </p>


text:
<p><em>But his mother answered and said: No, he shall be called John</em>- One of Luke's themes is the equality and dignity of women before God. For a woman to stand up against her male relatives and take the decision about the naming of a child, in defiance of tradition whereby a male firstborn child must have the name of his father, was quite something. Mary took encouragement from this by naming her child 'Jesus' rather than some form of 'Joseph'. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to her: There are none of your kindred that are called by this name</em>- This break with tradition was to reflect how God was beginning a new creation, in which family ties and names were of no significance. This was radical stuff for a kinship oriented society. We too, in our own times and over our contemporary issues, are asked to radically step out from societal expectations.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they made signs to his father, what he wanted him called</em>- The family, as noted on :60, were shocked that a woman could assert such dominance in this matter of naming the child. They refused to let her get away with it without at least some semblance of male agreement.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he asked for a writing tablet and wrote, saying: His name is John. And they all marvelled</em>- Perhaps he had used the same tablet in explaining to his wife what had happened in the temple, and the need to name the child 'John'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed and he spoke, blessing God</em>- This recalls the opening of Ezekiel's mouth so that he too could speak prophetic words. The context was similar- of a sinful Judah facing judgment unless they urgently repented and accepted God's prophetic word. The idea of the tongue being loosed is another example of wrong medical ideas being used to express healing; and the same is done with the idea of demons. The immediacy of healing demonstrated that the naming of the child was hard for Zacharias, who would have been tempted to want his own name continued in his only son. But he overcame that struggle in faith and obedience to the Father's revealed word.</p>


text:
<p><em>And fear came on all their neighbours. And all these things were talked about through all the hill country of Judea</em>- We might rather have expected 'joy'. But their secular joy turned to fear when they realized how close God was in all these things. And this in essence is why people struggle to believe the good news of the Gospel. The intellectual search is one thing, but coming face to face with 'John', Yahweh's grace, is quite another. And it is at that point that many turn away.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all that heard them laid them up in their heart, saying: What then shall this child be? For the hand of the Lord was with him</em>- Mary and Elisabeth are likewise described by Luke as laying these things up in their hearts. There was clearly a psychological expectation amongst the people that John was going to be significant. Somehow they perceived that God's hand was with the child and was going to use him; they were being prepared to be potentially open to the message he would preach. The "hand of the Lord" being "with" people is the language of the exodus (<em><a href='B:50 6:21'>Deu 6:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:8'>Deu 7:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:26'>Deu 9:26</a></em> and often). There was a sense that deliverance from bondage was at hand through this man's ministry. But of course they failed to perceive that the bondage in view was to sin rather than to Rome; and the freedom was not immediate political freedom, but the priceless gift of freedom from sin and death.</p>


text:
<h4><em>And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying</em>- Just as Ezekiel's dumbness was ended by "the hand of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:330 33:22'>Eze 33:22</a></em>) and he was able to immediately prophesy; it was the same hand of the Lord that was operating here (:66):&nbsp; </h4>


text:
<p><em>Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people</em>- Zacharias' song of praise was largely about the salvation to be achieved in the Lord Jesus, whom his son John was to herald. Zacharias therefore assumed that the work of John was going to be ultimately successful and thereby enable the Lord Jesus to appear and bring salvation. "He has visited His people" is a quotation from <em><a href='B:80 1:6'>Rth 1:6</a></em>. The same miraculous creation of a family that happened to Ruth and the elderly Boaz was happening to the family of Zacharias. Zacharias understood the Divine visitation of Israel to be through the dawning of the Messianic sun of righteousness (:78; <em><a href='B:490 7:16'>Luk 7:16</a></em>). He doesn't glory in his own son, but rather in Mary's son. This is an essay in how Christ-centeredness will displace our natural tendency to be self-centred. Mary would have taken great encouragement from this song; she would have recognized it was a Divinely inspired (:67) statement that John's birth guaranteed the birth of her son. The stress of the journey to Bethlehem, the lack of accommodation there etc. would have all been assuaged by meditating upon these Divine statements that the birth of John guaranteed, as it were, that of her son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David</em>- This again is a reference to the Lord Jesus and not to John; for John was a Levite whereas the Lord was from Judah via David. Zacharias was focused not upon his own son and his natural joy, but upon the far greater spiritual things portended by it. We need to likewise not focus solely upon our own immediate family experiences but to see the far greater picture in the perspective of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;The horn of David was Yahweh's anointed or Christ, which would sprout fruit (<em><a href='B:230 132:17'>Psa 132:17</a></em>). For David, Yahweh was the horn of his salvation (<em><a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a></em>); the idea is that this Divine salvation would appear as a horn arising within the family of David. This is the kind of human and Divine fusion which was implied in the great promises to David about his seed; this seed would be God's son and also David's son. The only way that could be achieved was through the virgin birth. Zacharias would have reflected on these things, recalling that Mary was in the line of David. His own son John is not in view at all, for he was a Levite. The focus of Zacharias was so completely upon the Lord Jesus, Mary's son, rather than his own son. And he seems to have passed on to his son John this focus upon the Christ. </p>


text:
<p><em>(As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets that have been since the world began)</em>- The promised Messianic seed was the message of all the prophets, and Luke concludes his Gospel with the Lord explaining these things from all the prophets to the two on the way to Emmaus. This is one of many points of contact between the opening and closing of the Gospel. The beginning of the world was seen as the time when the prophets began, presumably referring to Adam. The world and its beginning as presented in the Bible began then. All angst about the ultimate origins of the earth, previous creations, the process of creation etc. is all misplaced. We are asked to see the time when God's prophetic word began to be spoken as the beginning of the world. </p><p>The words could also be read as meaning that all the prophets somehow pre-existed at the beginning. This language of pre-existence is therefore not to be read literally, but in terms of them being within the Father's prophetic plan from the beginning. And this empowers us to better understand the language of the Lord's 'pre-existence'- not literally, but within the purpose of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>Salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 7:19'>Luk 7:19</a></em>. Clearly he understood Messiah as the One who would bring immediate relief from the Roman occupation. He'd misread, as many Jews do today, the Old Testament prophecies and types which involve two comings of Messiah, and the need for Him to firstly die the death of rejection. But all the same, we find no hint of condemnation, but rather of commendation, for this Godly man. </p>


text:
<p><em>To show mercy towards our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant</em>- This cannot mean that mercy was now given to the fathers, but that the fulfilment of the promised mercy to them had now come. This is why "mercy and truth" is a phrase used about the fulfilment of the promises to the fathers- the promised mercy had in truth been fulfilled, now in the utter "truth" which was and is Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:10 24:27'>Gen 24:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em> and often in the Psalms; <em><a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:20'>Mic 7:20</a></em>). The fulfilment of the promises was in the Christ and not in John the Baptist; but the focus of Zacharias is totally upon the Lord whom his son would testify to.</p>


text:
<p><em>The oath which He spoke to Abraham our father</em>- The path to Abraham was understood as "mercy" (:72). Peter likewise interprets the promises to Abraham as being ultimately about the turning away of his seed from sin, and personal salvation (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>To grant to us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, should serve Him without fear</em>- The promises were "to us". “Salvation is of the Jews” (<em><a href='B:500 4:22'>Joh 4:22</a></em>) in the sense that the promises concerning salvation were made only to Abraham and his seed. We can only have those promises made to us if we become <em>in </em>the seed, by being baptised <em>into</em> Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:22-29'>Gal 3:22-29</a></em>). Then, all that is true of the Lord Jesus becomes true of us. Thus Zacharias quoted prophecies about the seed of Abraham and David as applying to all believers (<em><a href='B:490 1:69'>Luk 1:69</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:73-74'>Luk 1:73-74</a></em>). As noted on :72 and :73, the essential salvation promised in Christ was of mercy towards our sins. These are our enemies, from which we are to be delivered in Christ; we can serve Him now "without fear"- the fear of ultimate failure, of condemnation. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:690 4:18'>1Jn 4:18</a></em> of how we can now live without fear, secure in his love and salvation by grace. This is the good news of the Gospel. The idea of serving <em>without</em> fear is in conscious contrast to the repeated Old Testament commands for those under the law to serve God <em>with </em>fear (<em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:20'>Deu 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 2:11'>Psa 2:11</a></em> and often). It would have been a strange, novel and challenging idea; and yet it was in fact implicit in the promises to Abraham. This is the good news.</p>


text:
<p><em>In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days</em>- We read in :6 that Zacharias and Elisabeth <em>"</em>were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless". But that holiness is now possible for all Israel, not just the Levites and dedicated religionists like that pious couple. And this holy walk in daily life and thought is motivated by the fact we are freed from fear of condemnation, the fear of ultimate spiritual failure; for we are saved by grace. This is a far stronger motivation than striving for obedience to any legal code, in the hope that we shall somehow one day be possibly saved by our obedience.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yes, and you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High- </em>We can imagine Zacharias now turning his eyes to his own newborn child. If he had received no more information than what is recorded, then he had done well to perceive that this child was the Elijah prophet, and therefore Mary's child was to be Messiah. </p><p><em>For you shall go before the presence of the Lord to make ready His ways</em>- John the Baptist was to “prepare” the way for the Lord’s coming- evidently a process- in reflection of how God had been working a long time to“prepare” [same Greek word] the way for His Son’s coming (<em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:31'>Luk 2:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>). We likewise, in our preaching work in these last days, are working in tandem and in step with God. The idea of God 'preparing' implies that there is therefore a gap between the plan being made, and it being executed- hence “The Lord has both planned and done what He spoke concerning the inhabitants of Babylon” (<em><a href='B:300 51:12'>Jer 51:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:28'>Jer 4:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 22:11'>Isa 22:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 37:26'>Isa 37:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 1:6'>Zec 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 8:14'>Zec 8:14</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>To give knowledge of salvation to His people in the remission of their sins</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>. The experience of forgiveness is a foretaste of salvation; as John's gospel puts it, we have eternal life now. Not in that we shall not die, but in so far as we live in the experience of sin forgiven, without fear of condemnation should the Lord return right now::. for this is "salvation", the present experience of the great salvation to be brought to us at the Lord's second coming. And we can share this knowledge of salvation with others; Paul alludes to these words, showing that he was to bring others to the light just as John had (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:79'>Luk 1:79</a></em> =&nbsp; <em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:23'>Act 26:23</a></em>). Luke is the only evangelist to continue the quotation of Isaiah 40 to include the words “all mankind will see God’s salvation”. And he focuses especially upon the wonder of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:48'>Luk 7:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:38'>Act 13:38</a></em>). Only he records the parable of the prodigal (<em><a href='B:490 15:11-32'>Luk 15:11-32</a></em>), and only he describes the great preaching commission as relating to “repentance and remission of sins” (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>).</p><p>The principles God will use in the final judgment are manifested now, and have been reflected in His previous judgments of men. In our very personal lives, there are foretastes of that future judgment. When we receive forgiveness we experience the essence of the future salvation (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). Indeed, whenever man meets with God, whenever His ways have contact with those of men (which so often happens in the life of the believer) there is a judgment experience; His holiness, His demands, the imperatives which lay within His very being, reveal quite naturally our failures. The Hebrew word used to describe God’s ‘meeting’ with men is also used in the senses of ‘summoning’ or gathering to a trial (<em><a href='B:20 30:6'>Exo 30:6</a></em>). And positively, the <em>degree to which </em>we have responded to Him will be revealed by our meeting with Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>Because of the tender mercy of our God- </em>The fact that God has a “heart of mercy”- a lovely phrase- is His glory. It leads Him to glory in overlooking sin. And on this basis John appealed to people to repent and claim that forgiveness, thus allowing God to glory. In the light of all this, one wonders in what tone of voice John spoke. The cold printed words in our Bibles can lead us to imagine him speaking in a gruff, austere manner.</p><p><em>When the sunrise shall dawn upon us</em>- "The sunrising (AVmg:) from on high hath visited us" through the Lord's mission, fulfilling the prophecy of <em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em> about Him as the sun of righteousness in the first century, although it clearly has reference also to the greater dawning yet to come:&nbsp; </p><p>Many of the incidents in the first coming of the Lord Jesus are intended to point us forward to events which will happen at the his second coming. There is clear indication in the records of Luke 1, 2 that there were a faithful remnant in Jerusalem at the time of our Lord's birth, whose attitude points forward to that of the latter-day remnant at the time of His second coming:&nbsp;Whilst only Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna are mentioned, we can be sure that there were others in this group - Anna "spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>);&nbsp;"many" rejoiced even at the birth of John, on the understanding that he was Christ's forerunner (<em><a href='B:490 1:14'>Luk 1:14</a></em>). It is possible that the shepherds, too, were in this group, which would confirm the impression that the 'remnant' were in the lower ranks of society - Zacharias a superannuated priest, Anna a servant of the temple (<em><a href='B:490 2:37'>Luk 2:37</a></em>) - the equivalent of a modern office cleaner. This connects with the 'remnant' left in the land by Nebuchadnezzar being the poorest of the poor (<em><a href='B:120 24:15'>2Ki 24:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:120 25:11-12'>2Ki 25:11-12</a></em>), and suggests a working-class Jewish 'remnant' in the last days. </p><p>There is much language used concerning he birth of Jesus which is easily applicable to His second coming:&nbsp;This in itself encourages us to see the record of those awaiting His first coming as typical of the last days. The birth of John and Jesus is described as God 'visiting and redeeming his people' (<em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>); what better way of describing God's latter-day intervention? "The sunrising from on high hath visited us" (<em><a href='B:490 1:78'>Luk 1:78</a></em> A:V. mg:) was Zacharias' comment upon God's purpose in John and Jesus, making an unmistakeable allusion to <em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em> concerning Christ's second coming being like the rising sun. Note how this sun rising is upon the righteous remnant of the last days (<em><a href='B:460 4:1-2'>Mal 4:1-2</a></em>) - identifying Zacharias with them. The Angels rejoiced that through Christ's birth there was "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men" (<em><a href='B:490 2:14'>Luk 2:14</a></em>), although this will only be fully done in the Kingdom. Simeon spoke of the baby Jesus as "a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel" (<em><a href='B:490 2:32'>Luk 2:32</a></em>), although this will only be fully true after the second coming (<em><a href='B:290 42:6'>Isa 42:6</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a></em>):&nbsp;The remnant "looked for redemption (to appear) in Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>);&nbsp;they could only have figured this out from realizing that the Old Testament 'kingdom' prophecies concerning Jerusalem, which we normally associate with the second coming, had a primary fulfilment in the birth of Christ.</p><p>John the Baptist commented that he preached repentance and baptized in Israel, <em>so that</em> the Messiah might be manifest to Israel (<em><a href='B:500 1:31'>Joh 1:31</a></em>). His work was a pattern for the Elijah ministry of the last days. It could be argued that Messiah was only manifest in the first century because of the success of John's work- for large numbers were baptized of him. Could it be that the timing of the final revelation of Messiah likewise depends upon the success of the Elijah ministry in leading Israel to repentance? And what implications are there in this, if actually <em>we</em> are the voice of that ministry::.</p><p>We can now scan the record for more detailed latter-day typology:-</p><p>-&nbsp; The remnant were in or around Jerusalem - as it seems the latter-day faithful will also be:&nbsp;&nbsp; They looked for Messiah to appear in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; If latter-day Jewry are persecuted to the extent that the only Jews left alive in the land are in Jerusalem (see previous studies, especially Chapter 8), then they, too, will expect Messiah to come to them in that same city. Note that the woman whose intense pleadings represent the prayers of the latter day remnant (<em><a href='B:490 18:2-8'>Luk 18:2-8</a></em>) "was in a city" - Jerusalem? </p><p>-&nbsp; They eagerly looked for the Lord's birth as a fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises, that through his seed "we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve (God) without fear" (<em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; Likewise the latter-day remnant will meditate how the Abrahamic promises concerning freedom from their (Arab) enemies are so relevant to them - perhaps due to the Elijah ministry turning their hearts to the Jewish "fathers", a phrase often used about the patriarchs who received the promises (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>).</p><p>-&nbsp; Israel in the first century were under the domination of Rome, the fourth beast of <em><a href='B:340 7:23'>Dan 7:23</a></em>:&nbsp;&nbsp; In the latter-day application of this, necessitated by the image upon which the beasts are based standing complete in the last days, the fourth beast with its horns corresponds to the Arab coalition which will then dominate Israel.</p><p>-&nbsp; Some of the remnant had the Spirit gift of prophecy (<em><a href='B:490 1:41'>Luk 1:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:67'>Luk 1:67</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:26'>Luk 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:36'>Luk 2:36</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; The latter-day remnant may also experience this - their old men (cp. Zacharias and Simeon) and young people (cp. Mary), may have the gift of prophecy around the time of the Lord's return - "before the great and terrible day of the Lord come" (<em><a href='B:360 2:28-31'>Joe 2:28-31</a></em>).</p><p>-&nbsp; The shepherds watching at night while the Lord was born (<em><a href='B:490 2:8'>Luk 2:8</a></em>) echoes the Passover:&nbsp;&nbsp; There is good reason to think that the second coming may be associated with Passover time:&nbsp;&nbsp; The vision of Angels which they saw may correspond to the remnant in Jerusalem seeing a literal "sign of the (coming of the) son of man in (literal) heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>), composed of the Angel-cherubim:&nbsp;&nbsp; This "sign of the son of man in heaven" must be alluding back to the literal portent which the shepherds saw in the sky, pointing to the Lord's first coming. Thus there will be no need to say "See here; or see there", because the Lord's return will be so evidently public (<em><a href='B:490 17:23'>Luk 17:23</a></em>). </p><p>-&nbsp; Zacharias and Elisabeth "were both righteous before God" (<em><a href='B:490 1:6'>Luk 1:6</a></em>) amidst a corrupt Jewish world that refused to prepare itself for God's manifestation in Christ, despite the availability to them of God's Word, which clearly prophesied it:&nbsp;&nbsp; This recalls the description of Noah as being "righteous before God" (<em><a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a></em>) in the context of the flood coming upon the world:&nbsp;&nbsp; We have earlier shown this to be full of reference to the last days.</p><p>-&nbsp; There is a triple emphasis on Israel praying to God in the lead up to Christ's birth (<em><a href='B:490 1:10'>Luk 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:13'>Luk 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:37'>Luk 2:37</a></em>):&nbsp;We know from <em><a href='B:360 2:17'>Joe 2:17</a></em> and many other passages that the remnant will likewise devote themselves to prayer in the last days, as will spiritual Israel.</p><p>-&nbsp; The appearance of Angels before Christ's birth (<em><a href='B:490 1:12'>Luk 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:26'>Luk 1:26</a></em>) is similar to their visiting Israel under persecution during the times of the Judges, bringing the news of deliverance from their Arab enemies through a 'saviour' ('Jesus').</p><p>-&nbsp; The conception of John (the Elijah prophet of the first century) preceded that of Christ - he was Christ's forerunner - there is therefore a necessity for this type to be fulfilled in the literal coming of the latter-day Elijah as a prelude to Christ's manifestation to Israel.</p><p>-&nbsp; The "joy and gladness" (<em><a href='B:490 1:14'>Luk 1:14</a></em>) of the remnant at Christ's birth will be but a dim foretaste of the ecstasy which the embattled remnant of the last days will experience at their Lord's return.</p>


text:
<p><em>To shine upon them that sit in darkness and the shadow of death; to guide our feet into the way of peace</em>- Without Messiah, Israel under the law were in darkness and under the shadow of death. This would have been hard for proud Judaism to swallow. The allusion is clearly to the Messianic prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 9:2'>Isa 9:2</a></em>, but sitting in "the shadow of death" means to live in the prospect of imminent death. And that is in fact where all humanity are situated- if only they would perceive it. For we are all terminally ill, on borrowed time, with an urgency to get out from under that shadow. The result of the Messianic sun would be to guide feet into the way of peace with God, living before Him without fear of death and condemnation because they are assured of their salvation in Him (see on :74,77). It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps into that way of peace; it is the Lord's work to guide human feet into that way. That guidance is by His Spirit, by grace:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the desert until the day he appeared publicly to Israel</em>- The reference to "spirit" could be to the work of the Spirit, active in the formation of his character from his mother's womb (:15). God's Spirit and John's spirit are clearly connected here; and this is how the Holy Spirit works in our spirit / lives too, through a collaboration, a conspiracy of the willing. Presumably at some point in his youth, John left his parents, or perhaps they died, and went to live "in the desert". He may have encountered the Essenes there, or even lived with them, for there are undoubted points of contact and allusion between his teaching and theirs. </p>


text:
<h4><em>Now it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered</em>- Clearly the term "all the world" doesn't refer to the globe. Many errors of exposition have arisen from failing to perceive that such global language is not to be taken literally, but is relative to the context in which it is used. Perhaps we are to see in the Lord's birth the reckoning of all the world. </h4>


text:
<p><em>This census first took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria</em>- Maybe Mary grasped the relevance of <em><a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a></em> LXX to the fact she gave birth to Messiah during a census: “In the census of the peoples, this one [Messiah] will be born there”. The relevance of this verse to the Lord’s birth may explain why Luke says that the census of Quirinius was part of a census of the whole world, which wasn’t strictly true. But as all historians do, he presents the facts within the framework of his wider intentions and themes.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all went to register themselves, everyone to his own city</em>- As noted on :1, we have global language used here, within the framework of the general thematic impression which the inspired historian wishes to give (see on :2). Not "everyone" in the Roman empire, let alone a poor backwater like Palestine, would have gone to their birth place to be registered. It is also unclear why everyone had to physically go to their birth place for registration. Surely the tax registration census was of people where they were then living and working. Old people and children were surely not required to journey to their birth place just to be counted. But the impression is given that everyone went to their birth place, and then the Lord was born. There is no such thing as pure, factual history. Every record of events reflects the agenda of the historian; and this is true of the inspired historian Luke. The idea is that everyone has a birth place; and so did the Lord Jesus. His humanity is thereby emphasized. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Joseph also went from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and family of David)</em>- As noted on :3, it is unlikely that everyone literally went to their birth place for this tax registration. Perhaps Joseph had enough income to require this; although there is every indication of poverty in the family. Perhaps he wished to be carefully obedient to every human law as far as he could; and this meant that Mary went with him and therefore gave birth in Bethlehem, David's city. </p>


text:
<p><em>To enroll himself with Mary, who was engaged to him, being great with child</em>- It could be that this is recorded as a fulfilment of how <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em> had predicted that Jesus would be “numbered with the transgressors”. He was numbered amongst humanity, and was born where both Mary and Joseph were, in Bethlehem. "With Mary" could suggest that she too had been born there; otherwise we are left to assume that only the males had to register, and so Mary tagged along with him. If indeed Mary had also been born in Bethlehem, as is here implied, then this would reinforce the idea that the Lord was truly David's seed, and should have been the legitimate king of Israel by descent.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, while they were there, the time came that she should give birth</em>- "While they were there" heightens the connection with the fact the Lord was born in Bethlehem, the birth place of His mother and adoptive father (see on :5). The time which came was that precise moment so carefully prepared and calculated by the Father; <em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em> surely alludes here in saying that "when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman". </p>


text:
<p><em>And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn</em>- <em><a href='B:300 14:8'>Jer 14:8</a></em> was addressed to the Lord and Saviour of Israel, Jesus-Messiah: “Why are you like an alien in the land, like a traveller who stays in <em>lodgings</em>?”. If Mary had made all these connections, the hurt of being told there was no room in the lodging, and having to give birth in a stable, laying her dear child in a cattle manger… would have been far less felt by her. These things would have thrilled and rejoiced her heart rather than hurt her, just as we can joyfully perceive how present sufferings are working out so analogous to a Biblical verse or character:&nbsp;</p><p>The whimpering, vulnerable <em>Son of God</em> was laid down in a cattle stall (Luke, the doctor who appreciated the need for hygiene, so emphasizes this: <em><a href='B:490 2:7'>Luk 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:12'>Luk 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:16'>Luk 2:16</a></em>), because the other guests in that cheap hotel couldn't make space for a heavily pregnant woman (again, Luke the doctor would've sensed the shame of it):&nbsp;<em>"</em>No room for them in the inn<em>" </em>can also be translated "The inn was not the place for them" (Lucien Deiss, <em>Joseph, Mary, Jesus</em> (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996) p. 28). It had to be this way- the way of rejection, of poverty. God's children ultimately know no other way in this world. Did Mary see the link between her giving birth in a stable and laying Jesus down in a “manger” (Gk. <em>phatne</em>), perhaps with oxen and donkeys onlooking, and <em><a href='B:290 1:3'>Isa 1:3</a></em> LXX: “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey knows the <em>phatne</em> (“manger’) of its Lord (<em>kyrios</em> as in <em><a href='B:490 2:11'>Luk 2:11</a></em>), but Israel has not known me”.</p><p>The serene paintings of the scene do no justice to it. The whole setting would have been dirty, noisy and inappropriate for a birth place. The Lord was born into rejection, poverty and desperation; with Mary in a strange place, far from home and her relatives, having her first child so humanly alone. And the Father continues His same style of working to this day, through the things which man despises.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there were shepherds in the same region staying in the field and keeping watch at night over their flock</em>- It has been observed that the choice to reveal the good news of Christ to the shepherds first of all was surprising; for these too were the poorest of the poor, deprived [along with tax collectors] of Jewish rights. They belonged to the "most despised" of all social groups. See Joachim Jeremias, <em>Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus </em>(London: S:C:M:, 1969) p. 304; Richard Horsley, <em>The Liberation Of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives In Social Context</em> (New York: Crossroad, 1989) pp. 102-106. </p><p>The fact they were in the fields with their flocks shows clearly enough that the Lord's birth was not in December- for then the flocks would have been kept under cover and not in the fields.</p>


text:
<p><em>And an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them; and they were terrified</em>- As noted on :8, shepherds were at the bottom of the social ladder; and there is a purposeful juxtaposition between them and the glory of God which shone about them. The picture is of them identified with the Angel which stood with them, so that the impression was given to an observer of a halo of glory shining about the despised shepherds. God's glory was identified with weak men, at the very bottom end of the social ladder; just as His Son was born in a stable amongst animals, and laid in a manger- the birth style of the lowest of the low:&nbsp; </p><p><em>But he that denies me- </em>The whole purpose of the true church is to be a light to the world- “the only cooperative society in the world that exists for the benefit of its non-members”, as William Temple put it. The Lord will tell some in the last day that He never knew them, He will deny them; and yet He will deny those who never confessed Him before men (<em><a href='B:470 8:23'>Mat 8:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:32-33'>Mat 10:32-33</a></em>). These people will have prophesied in His Name [i:e. preached to the ecclesia], and done “mighty works” for Him; but the fact they didn’t confess Him before men is seen as not knowing Him; for to know Him is to perceive that we are intended to confess Him before men. This, perhaps, is our greatest danger. The presence and witness of God is no longer in a tent in the Sinai, nor in a Jerusalem temple. God reveals Himself through the group of ordinary, mixed up folks who comprise the ecclesias. For the watching world, we present proof that Christ is indeed alive; we provide the visible shape of what God and Jesus are really like. This is how vital is the matter of witness. It is utterly fundamental to the whole purpose behind our having been called. If we deny Christ, we deny that Jesus is the Christ (<em><a href='B:690 2:22'>1Jn 2:22</a></em>); and yet we deny Christ if we don’t preach Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:33'>Mat 10:33</a></em>). It follows that if we really believe that Jesus was not just Jesus of Nazareth but the Christ of God, therefore we won’t deny Him but will preach Him. This is why there is connection between confessing Jesus as Christ and preaching Him (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:5'>Act 18:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:11'>Phi 2:11</a></em>). A grasp of who the Lord Jesus really is and the height of His present exaltation will naturally result in a confession of Him to the world, as well as a deep personal obedience to His word and will (<em><a href='B:650 2:1'>Heb 2:1</a></em>).</p><p>There are at least three Biblical examples of people denying Jesus- the same Greek word is used- and yet repenting. Peter denied the Lord “before all” (<em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>), and yet was restored. The entire crowd around Jesus, including the healed woman, initially ‘denied’ they had touched Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:45'>Luk 8:45</a></em>); but the woman then came out into the open and confessed Christ before all. The Jews ‘denied’ Christ (<em><a href='B:510 3:13-14'>Act 3:13-14</a></em>) but then repented and were baptized publicly. The point is, that in the moments when we deny Him, He denies us; but we can change the situation.</p><p>It’s tempting to wonder whether all this talk of confession and denial is only really relevant to those standing trial for their Christian faith, with the threat of death before them and the possibility of saving their life if they make some symbolic denial of Christ. But the words for confessing and denying occur together in <em><a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a></em> about those within the ecclesia who “Profess [s:w. ‘confess’] that they know God, but in works<em> deny</em>&nbsp;Him”. We can make the profession of faith before men, and in the public confession of baptism- whilst effectively denying the faith in our lives. There were some within the ecclesias of the first century who ‘denied’ the Lord (<em><a href='B:680 2:1'>2Pe 2:1</a></em>). External membership can appear as ‘confession’, but the point is that it isn’t necessarily. It can actually be a front for denial of Him…</p><p><em>In the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God</em>- The Lord Jesus in the last day will confess, or witness to in a legal sense, for His people "before the angels of God" (<em><a href='B:490 12:8-9'>Luk 12:8-9</a></em>); and yet He uses the same language to describe how right now, He confesses us in Heaven in the presence of His Father (<em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em>). Thus when we witness- or don't witness- to our relationship with Him, the Lord Jesus either confesses or denies knowledge of us before His Father. Right now. And this, therefore, is a foretaste of the final judgment. And we face these foretastes day by day in human life, as we encounter the choices of confessing or denying our Lord.</p><p>There is a direct correlation between our attitudes to witnessing before men now, and the attitude of the Lord Jesus about us in Heaven “before”, or ‘before the face of’, the Father. Witnessing is essentially personal, each of us individually “before men”. As modern life progresses in reducing relationships to online abstractions, we must remember this. An individual may press the right keys on their keyboard, send money online to a preaching organization- and yet never be making any witness about Christ before the faces of men. Indeed, those with whom the person does have face to face relationships may well be totally unaware he is a Christian. It’s this kind of thing which the Lord is addressing in such demanding terms- our witness&nbsp;<em>before men</em>, not in some anonymous world of avatars, is related to how we witnesses about us&nbsp;<em>before the face of God in Heaven</em>:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>So whoever denies the Lord before men will be denied before the Angels. Two words are used here, the first weaker than the second. If we deny Jesus, He will utterly deny us before the Angels- what we do now on earth is even more strongly reflected in Heaven and at judgment day. The Heavenly response to our words and actions is out of proportion to our words. This surely inspires us in our daily words and decisions.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the angel said to them: Be not afraid. For I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people</em>- Their fear was because of their own sense of unworthiness in the presence of the Lord's glory. But Luke has already begun the theme that the grace to be revealed in the Lord Jesus takes away our fear and sense of unworthiness (see on <em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). And it continues with this assurance to the shepherds, that the good tidings of the Gospel are that "all people" [implying the Gentiles too] could serve God without fear. It is this which is the greatest joy, and which is good news indeed; that we need not fear God's condemnation because we are identified with His Son. Anything less than this would make the "Gospel" not so much good news, but rather just a worrying and burdensome weight of responsibility before God.</p>


text:
<p><em>For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord</em>- They were not to "fear" (:10), because a Saviour had been born. The salvation in view was therefore from sin and the fear which arises from it. This was a great theme in the song of Zacharias (see on <em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). Salvation from the Romans was what everyone wanted, but the spiritual reality was far greater. "Christ the Lord" is an unusual phrase; the idea is that because of this great salvation, Messiah was to become the personal "Lord" and master of those shepherds. The implication is surely that those shepherds, famed for their dishonesty, petty crime and disobedience to the Law, actually came to believe in the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>And this will be a sign to you: You shall find a baby wrapped in birth clothes and lying in a manger</em>- The "sign" that this great salvation was for real was in the very absurdity of a Divine saviour being born in the very lowliest of human situations, placed in a manger from where animals ate, born amidst the smell and sound and dirt of animal excrement. The whole thing had the hallmark of the Divine. </p>


text:
<p><em>And suddenly there was with the angel a crowd of the heavenly host praising God, and saying</em>- It's important to realize that praise isn't just singing or using musical instruments. In Hebrew the same word means both 'worship' and 'service' (<em>abodah</em>). The supposition that praise = music is deeply ingrained in many minds. Thus there is the common assumption that the Angels sang to the shepherds; but in fact they <em>spoke</em> their praise.</p>


text:
<h4><em>Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those in whom He is well pleased</em>- The peace in view was peace with God, resulting in a lack of fear ofcondemnation before Him (see on :10,11 and <em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). This peace with God vertically also has a horizontal dimension. A major result of the existence of the Lord's work was unity amongst God’s people. If we are not at peace amongst ourselves, then God is not well pleased. The One in whom the Father was well pleased was His Son (<em><a href='B:470 3:17'>Mat 3:17</a></em>). Those who are "in Christ" are described therefore with the same language as He is described with. It is by being in Him that we find peace with God, and the grateful recognition and acceptance of this gives glory to Him.</h4>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 8:4'>Act 8:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>And it came to pass, when the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to each other: Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us</em>- We assume they left their sheep in the field, willing to sacrifice their careers and livelihood for the sake of obedience to the word about the Lord Jesus. The Lord surely had them in mind when He later taught that He was like the shepherd who left His sheep unattended in order to go to the one all important sheep. He reasons as if He identifies with them and they with Him. It could be that these shepherds were keeping flocks which would later be taken to Jerusalem and sold as sacrifices; in which case we wonder about how far they connected Messiah with the Passover lamb. They went to see the thing which they considered "has some to pass"; they absolutely believed the word spoken.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph and the baby lying in the manger</em>- The baby was asleep and not feeding; the "sign" had been that they would find the baby in a manger, and this is what happened as they opened the door of the shed. Their response to the word "with haste" fits in with a major Bible theme- that the faithful respond to God's word and the Divine calling immediately and with haste. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they saw it, they told people about the saying which was spoken to them about this child</em>- "The saying" was that about "the sign" (:12). It was indeed remarkable; that the Son of God, Israel's Messiah, should be born in the lowest way, in a strange place, to an unmarried teenager, without any human father present, with no money::. and the baby was laid down to sleep in a cattle manger in a shed. And this great Messianic secret was revealed not to intellectually rigorous theologians or pious priests, but to a bunch of secular despised shepherds sitting one night on a hillside, interrupted from their lowlife gossip and chatter by a vision of Angels who told them of this great sign. This is absolutely God's way. </p>


text:
<p><em>And all that heard it wondered at the things which were spoken to them by the shepherds</em>- As noted in :17, "shepherds" were not the most credible of witnesses, and so people "wondered at" rather than "believed" the message. We notice how at the end of Luke, the chosen witnesses include women, who were not allowed to bear credible legal witness, and men who had just been disgraced by their public disloyalty to the Messiah they testified about. And this is why the likes of you and me have likewise been chosen as witnesses.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Mary treasured up all these sayings, pondering them in her heart</em>- When the shepherds came to worship, Mary pondered within herself what it all meant, as if she was now rather lacking in comprehension. Luke describes his Gospel as a compilation of eyewitness accounts. Where did he get the material from about Mary pondering things in her heart [<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em>]? Was it from interviewing her himself? Or was her inward meditation and frozenness evident to others who on this basis told Luke?</p><p>We read that Mary “kept” God’s words in her, yet the Lord in one of His allusions to His dear mother says in <em><a href='B:490 5:38'>Luk 5:38</a></em> that we must preserve or “keep” [s:w:] the new wine of the Gospel in us. The Lord saw His mother as a pattern for us all. When He heard the comment “Blessed are the breasts which you sucked!”, His comment is to draw attention rather to the spiritual side of Mary: “Blessed are they [like My dear mother] who hear the word of God and keep it”. Thus He held her up as an example to them all; she shouldn’t be marvelled at just because of the fact she carried the Son of God (Catholics take note) but rather because of her reflective and tenacious attitude to the word of God. Mary’s song has so many Biblical allusions in it:&nbsp;Mary’s Bible minded-ness was really quite something. The Greek word translated “ponder” (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>) comes from syn, “with”, and <em>ballein</em>, “to throw”, as if she combined Scripture with her experience of life, seeking to find her place in the mass of OT allusion and teaching which she was being presented with. Her every phrase has multiple allusions to Scripture, which in itself indicates a fair level of intelligence to think on so many levels simultaneously. </p><p>The descriptions of Mary as keeping things in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), and the way it seems she didn’t tell Joseph about the Angel’s visit, but instead immediately went down to Elisabeth for three months… all these are indications that Mary, like many sensitive people, was a very closed woman. Only when Mary was “found” pregnant by Joseph (<em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em> - s:w. to see, perceive, be obvious) was the situation explained to him by an Angel. It seems His move to divorce her was based on his noticing she was pregnant, and she hadn’t given any explanation to him. She “arose” after perhaps being face down on the ground as the Angel spoke with her, and went immediately off to Elisabeth. And then, after three months she returns evidently pregnant (<em><a href='B:490 1:39'>Luk 1:39</a></em>). Mary is portrayed as somehow separate from the other ministering women. It would have been psychologically impossible, or at best very hard, for the mother of the Lord to hang around with them. The group dynamics would have been impossible. Likewise in Act 114 we have “the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus”, as if she is separate from them. She followed Him to Cana, uninvited, and also to Capernaum. Next she is at the cross risking her life, but she isn't among the women who went to the grave. Why not? It was surely natural that she would go there, and that the other women would go with her to comfort her. But she was a loner; either she went alone, as I think I would have tried to, or she just couldn’t face contact with the others and simply hid away. And could it be that Jesus, in recognition of her unique perception of Him, appeared to her first privately, in a rightfully unrecorded meeting? But by <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>, she was in the upper room, as if His death led her to be more reconciled to her brethren, to seek to get along with them::. although by nature, in her heart and soul, she was a loner, maybe almost reclusive. A struggler to understand. A meditator, a reflector, who just wanted to be alone, one of those who take their energy from themselves rather than from other people. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, just as it had been spoken to them</em>- Again we see a connection between the beginning and ending of Luke's Gospel; for he concludes with the disciples praising God in the temple. These shepherds are presented as believers, as converts. They rejoiced in the fulfilment of what had been prophetically told them; and likewise the disciples at the end rejoiced when they perceived how the Old Testament prophetic word had been so accurately fulfilled in the things that happened to the Lord. The "things heard and seen", the "things" preached by the shepherds (:18), the "thing" told by the Angels (:15), all clearly look forward to the "things" concerning the Kingdom and name of Jesus which Luke later says were the basis of the apostolic preaching (<em><a href='B:510 8:5'>Act 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>). The shepherds are being set up as examples of preachers, telling forth the "things" of the Gospel which they had personally experienced- even when they appeared so strange to secular ears, and were testified by those apparently least qualified to be witnesses.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after eight days, when he was circumcised, his name was called Jesus, which name was given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb</em>- The obedient naming of John as John rather than Zacharias no doubt encouraged Mary to be likewise obedient. For her son too had been given a name by an Angel before His birth. Our acts of obedience are likewise encouraged by our fellowship with other believers in similar situations who have likewise been obedient and responsive to God's word. We note the chronology; Mary's conception came<em> after</em> the Angel appeared to her. Presumably the conception only began after she had demonstrated her belief and desire to partner with God in this profound plan:&nbsp; <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p><em>And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord</em>- There was no Mosaic requirement to take a newborn child to Jerusalem, but despite their poverty, Mary and Joseph clearly tried to do the most they could for the Lord Jesus. Joseph's willing cooperation in all this is to be noted; for it was after all not his child. We can only conclude that he accepted the Lord's virgin birth and willingly went along with it- at least at that time. The Lord was perfect, without any barrier between Himself and the Father; "holy, harmless and separate from sinners" (<em><a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a></em>). The purification ritual was not therefore to remove any sin from Him; it is no sin to be human, to be alive, and this must affect our view of what 'human nature' really Is. For all we posit about it we posit about the Lord Jesus, who fully had our nature. The Greek translated "purification" here means literally a washing, and is used many times of how the Lord cleansed lepers and also sinners from their sins. The Lord did so knowing that He Himself had been likewise cleansed.</p>


text:
<p><em>(As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord)</em>- Again we note the medical language of the day; for the womb is not literally opened by the birth of a firstborn child. The quotation from <em><a href='B:20 13:2'>Exo 13:2</a></em> concerns how the dedication of the firstborn was to be a reminder of how the slain lamb had saved the firstborn from death at the time of the exodus. The dedication of the firstborn was therefore to effectively say: 'This child ought to have died. It will not die, but will be dedicated to the Lord as a living death, a life lived out for Him and not for self'. And the Lord was therefore the supreme firstborn, to the point that "the firstborn" is a title for Him (<em><a href='B:580 1:18'>Col 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord: A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons</em>- This was the sacrifice for the poor who could not afford an animal; and we have here a picture of their poverty. It was therefore all the more sacrificial for them to have made the journey to Jerusalem for this dedication, when this was not actually required&nbsp; by the Mosaic law. We must carefully note that the Mosaic legislation in <em><a href='B:30 12:8'>Lev 12:8</a></em> stated that the two birds were for the mother; there is no hint that they were a sacrifice for the cleansing of the human nature of the child born. They were for a sin offering and for a burnt offering. It could be fairly argued that they were not in fact necessary in the Lord's case, but Mary made the offering anyway and thereby the Lord's connection with sinful humanity was emphasized. It was for the same reason that He was baptized by John in a baptism which was "for the remission of sins"; not because He was a sinner, but to portray His unity with sinful humanity. They actually offered the birds, whereas Edersheim claims that at the time, the poor usually just dropped the coins which were the price of two birds into the temple coffers, and it was accepted as if the sacrifice had been offered. But Mary insisted on actually offering the birds. When the Lord paid such special attention to the widow woman casting two small coins into the same collection trumpets, He may well have thought of His mother doing the same at His birth, a coin for each of the two birds. Such restimulation is a profound window onto the total nature of His humanity.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel. And the Holy Spirit was upon him</em>- Simeon waited for "the consolation (comfort) of Israel", referring to the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 40:1-2'>Isa 40:1-2</a></em> - and saw it have a fulfilment in the first coming of the Lord. "Simeon", the hearing one or 'the one who was heard', had heard God's word and looked for its fulfilment; and perhaps the idea is also that he had prayed for Messiah's coming, and had been heard. Therefore he was assured that his prayers would be heard, and he would see the Messiah. The consolation of Israel is therefore paralleled with Messiah personally (:26), just as "the hope of Israel" refers to the One for whom Israel hoped, Jesus the Messiah. We should not over emphasize the material aspect of the Gospel; the implicit hope of eternityin God's Kingdom on earth is in fact secondary to the things about the Lord Jesus. He personally is the hope and consolation of Israel. This tendency is very human, and a reflection of our own deep reservations- to focus upon the material [the things of the material Kingdom on earth] rather than on upon a person, the Lord Jesus, with all the issues involved in a living relationship with that person. Israel at the Lord's time likewise had the emphasis misplaced- upon the material issues of freedom from the Romans, rather than upon the wonder of their King and Messiah coming to save them from their sins through self-sacrifice. The comfort / consolation which we need above all is the comfort that our sins shall not stand between God and us. The Lord refers to Himself as the comforter in John 14-16, promising that the gift of His spirit would mean that His comforting presence remained with His people even after His physical departure.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ</em>- The Spirit being "upon" Simeon (:25) did not make him infallible; but there had been a special revelation to him that his prayers for the coming of Israel's consolation, the Messiah, would be heard. And "Simeon" means just that, 'hearing', in the context of prayer being heard. Therefore he was comforted that he would live to see the Messiah.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law</em>- Mary did not legally have to bring the Lord to the temple; she was poor, as reflected in her inability to offer a lamb but rather two cheap birds. It was a Divinely overruled coincidence that she happened to be in the temple courts at just the time that Simeon entered; Anna likewise (see on :38). This kind of coincidence is simply called being "in the Spirit", and the Spirit is no less active in our encounters and coincidences today. "The parents" is obviously an example of the Biblical record being written from the viewpoint of secular observers; the language of demons is similar. Joseph was not the actual parent, just as demons don't actually exist, but the language of human perception is still used. For language is in a sense a matter of human perception. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then he took him into his arms and blessed God, and said</em>- It was of "the Spirit" (see on :27) that Simeon recognized that this particular baby, held in the arms of a poor couple offering the poor person's sacrifice, without the fanfare which attended the dedication of babies from more wealthy families, was in fact the Messiah. And in this again we see how God operates, through the lowly and unnoticed by the world:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Lord, now let Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word</em>- "Peace" usually refers to peace with God; we noted on the song of Zacharias that the Lord's birth was understood by the faithful as being essentially about the good news of peace with God through His work and death. Simeon felt he could die at peace with God because of Messiah; he clearly understood that He would atone for his sins. </p><p>This is all the language of Jacob being content to die after seeing Joseph. Joseph is simply one of the clearest types of Christ. There are many echoes of Christ which seem to have no specific purpose apart from to confirm us in our enthusiasm to constantly see the spirit of Christ in this record (e:g. <em><a href='B:10 46:30'>Gen 46:30</a></em> LXX = <em><a href='B:490 2:29-30'>Luk 2:29-30</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>For my eyes have seen Your salvation</em>- 'Jesus', Yehoshua, is literally 'the salvation of Yah'. The 'seeing' of salvation alludes to how Israel were redeemed from Egypt through the slain lamb (<em><a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a></em>); Simeon understood this to be representative of Messiah's victory against sin and all Israel's enemies. It is the fulfilment of the "mercy and truth" of the promises to the fathers which enables God's salvation to be seen by all the world (<em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em>). Simeon's desire for the coming of Messiah was therefore rooted in a deep appreciation of the huge spiritual significance of His work and sacrifice, and not from any passing nationalistic desire to see Israel justified. He surely had <em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em> in mind, for he goes on to speak in :31 of how all the peoples of the world would 'see' what he was now seeing; he realized that he was typical of all who would later come to 'see' the Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>Which You have prepared before the presence of all peoples</em>- As noted on :30, Simeon has in mind <em><a href='B:230 98:3'>Psa 98:3</a></em>, understanding himself as representative of all those worldwide in future ages who would 'see' God's salvation, His 'Jesus'. The translation here is difficult, and the idea is probably that he understood that this child was being prepared for exhibition in the presence of all the Gentile peoples; they in their time would see what he was now seeing. This idea is confirmed in :32.</p>


text:
<p><em>A light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel</em>- The light of Messiah was to be what Israel gloried in, and they were to share that light to the Gentiles. Here we have another reference to the great commission; the glorious light of Israel was to be revealed by them to the world. Simeon had in mind <em><a href='B:290 60:1-3'>Isa 60:1-3</a></em>, where Israel were to arise and shine just as their Messiah would. As the Lord said, "you are the light of the world", just as He personally was the light of the world. And because of that, the Gentiles would come to that light in Zion, just as Simeon had come into the temple and see the light. He is presented as representative of all future believers, and he himself perceived this.</p>


text:
<p><em>And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him</em>- There must have been certain similarities of personality type between the Lord and His mother. Thus in <em><a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a></em> Mary “marvelled”, and the same word is used about Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em>. Again we have here an essay in His humanity. And there is another echo of the Joseph story. "The men marvelled" at Joseph’s discernment. Ditto for the Lord Jesus- it is emphasized (<em><a href='B:470 8:27'>Mat 8:27</a></em>; Mat 98; <em><a href='B:470 9:33'>Mat 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:20'>Mat 21:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:22'>Mat 22:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:14'>Mat 27:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:27'>Joh 4:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:15'>Joh 7:15</a></em>). Mary had perceived that her son was God's Son, the Messiah; but clearly the extent of the prophetic implications of this were not fully perceived by her. Hence she marvelled at the Biblical allusions made by Simeon.</p>


text:
<h4><em>And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother-</em>Addressing himself to the mother rather than the father is another of Luke's emphases upon the high status of women before God. Simeon surely perceived that this was a virgin birth, and Joseph was not the true father- hence he addressed Mary.</h4><p><em>Behold, this child is set for the falling and the rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against</em>- Simeon knew that the good news of Messiah's coming was to balanced against the fact that the Old Testament taught that He would be the rock of offence over which many would stumble and be broken (<em><a href='B:290 8:14'>Isa 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em>). But he knew that many would rise up broken from that encounter into new life, and the "rising again" also therefore has reference to resurrection at the last day. He would be "spoken against", and yet out of that experience of rejecting Him, some would repent and rise again. Indeed, in <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em> Peter seems to assume that all believers will go through this- stumbling in spiritual failure, and yet rising again to new life in Him. Luke will go on in <em><a href='B:490 20:18'>Luk 20:18</a></em> to record the Lord developing this logic- He is a stone, and we either fall upon Him and join the community of the broken, or He shall fall upon us as members of this world, and grind us to powder in condemnation- clearly alluding to the stone of Daniel 2. Luke in Acts likes to use this idea of 'speaking against' for the opposition towards the message of the Lord Jesus and those "in Him", who were likewise spoken against; for all that is true of the Lord personally becomes true for we who are in Him (<em><a href='B:510 13:45'>Act 13:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:19'>Act 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:22'>Act 28:22</a></em>). We see in all this how the Lord works through our stumbling; there is hardly a strong believer I know who has not at some time seriously stumbled in their walk.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yes, and a sword shall pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed</em>-Mary’s lack of perception caused her great pain. The way the Lord refers to her as “Woman” both in Cana was, apparently, an unusually cold way for a man to refer to his mother. He effectively rebuffed her in Cana for her lack of perception; He responds to the woman who tells Him how blessed His mother is by saying that all who hear the word of God and keep it are equally blessed. And when His mother wants to speak to Him, He says in front of the whole crowd that His mothers are all who do God’s will. And the final pain must have been at the cross, where in His dying words He tells her that she is no longer His mother, but she must now be the mother of John. Simeon’s prophecy that a sword would pierce her soul (<em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em> - the Syriac text has ‘a spear’) may refer to her feelings on beholding the literal piercing of her son’s side- remembering that He was pierced with “the <em>staff</em> of a spear” (<em><a href='B:100 23:7'>2Sa 23:7</a></em>), it went in so deep. The fact water as well as blood came out is further evidence that the spear penetrated deeply. Yet there is an allusion surely to <em><a href='B:290 49:1-2'>Isa 49:1-2</a></em>, where Messiah’s mouth is likened to a sharp, piercing sword. Note how the passage has reference to Mary: “The Lord has called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother has he made mention of my name. And he has made my mouth like a sharp sword”. Could it not be that Simeon foresaw how the Lord’s words would pierce Mary to the quick? For in all the incidents above, she must have thought with a lump in her throat: ‘But come on Jesus… I’m your <em>mum</em>… the one who knitted and mended your clothes as a child… how can you speak to me like that…?’. And as a sensitive, reflective soul she would have reflected and hurt deeply at these words. &nbsp;</p><p>The sword / spear that pierced the Lord pierced her heart, “that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed”. The cross is therefore the ultimate source of self-examination. The Greek for “thoughts” means “inmost thoughts”, and all 13 uses of <em>dialogismos</em> in the NT are negative- bad thoughts, vain thoughts, doubting thoughts. The five other references in Luke are all very pointedly like this (<em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:8'>Luk 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:46-47'>Luk 9:46-47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:38'>Luk 24:38</a></em>). We all find self-understanding and self-examination difficult; and we find it hard to feel our sinfulness as we should. Yet the crossis the ultimate stimulus to self-examination, to conviction of sin, and then of salvation and the reality of grace and God’s love. This same process happened for Mary “also”. Over the years she had perhaps lost something of her initial humility, feeling that her exalted place in God’s plan was due to some personal righteousness, and therefore the cross experience had to pierce her too, so that she too had the inmost thoughts of her heart revealed to herself. We have shown earlier how Mary so identified herself with her dearest Son that she felt in some way part of Messiah. Yet over the years of repetitive domestic life in Nazareth, the height of the call to be “in Christ”, really part of Him and His work, must have been ground away. Yet at the cross, her soul was as it were pierced with the same sword / spear that pierced her Son. <em><a href='B:230 22:20'>Psa 22:20</a></em> prophesied how the Lord would suffer “the sword” on the cross, and 2 Samuel 24 had spoken of Him being filled with a spear. “A sword shall pierce through your own soul <em>also</em>” meant that as Mary was part of Jesus, so she must also share in His sufferings too. The proud and happy mother as she stood before Simeon was so thrilled to be as it were “In Christ”, connected with Messiah. But she had to be reminded that to share in His life is to share in His death- and it was only the actual experience of the cross which brought this home to her. And so with us, brethren in Christ, and rightfully proud of the high calling and association with Him which we have… there is a darker side to our being in Christ. It involves sharing in His death, that we might share in His life. Mary’s achievement of this is perhaps reflected in the way the mother of the man child [Jesus] in Revelation 12 is persecuted after the pattern of her Son Jesus, and yet survives:&nbsp;</p><p>As Simeon held the baby Jesus in his arms, he saw in that beautiful little boy something terrible; for he looked ahead to how His soul would one day be pierced in crucifixion, “that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed". The same word is used for how thoughts will be revealed at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 10:26'>Mat 10:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). In the piercing of the Son of God, the thoughts of hearts would be revealed. But the question arises: revealed to whom? We may (rightly) assume: to ourselves. But Luke’s Gospel emphasizes the ability of the Lord Jesus to know human hearts (<em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:8'>Luk 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:2'>Luk 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:6'>Luk 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:47'>Luk 9:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:38'>Luk 24:38</a></em>). Could it not be that the cross is used by the Father and Son to know the minds of men? They see in our response to it the real you and the real me. See on <em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>.</p><p>The cross leads to thoughts being <em>revealed</em>; and the judgment process likewise will lead to thoughts being revealed (s:w. in <em><a href='B:470 10:26'>Mat 10:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). The Lord’s death is described as His washing “his garments in wine, and his vesture in the blood of grapes" (<em><a href='B:10 49:11'>Gen 49:11</a></em> RV). Treading out the grapes is a Hebraism for judgment, and yet it is used here and in <em><a href='B:290 63:1-3'>Isa 63:1-3</a></em> regarding the Lord’s treading of the winepress alone in His death. Indeed, the Isaiah passage is clearly applicable to both the crucifixion and the final judgment of the Lord Jesus. The reason being, that in His death was the judgment of this world.</p><p>We should note that as Mary's soul was pierced at the death of her son, so was the Father's. For "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" (<em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em>) in its context speaks of the Father and not the Son. So in the Son's piercing, the Father and mother were likewise pierced. The Divine-human family were united at that tragic moment.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, having lived with a husband seven years from her virginity</em>- </p><p>Hannah’s example not only influenced Mary, but also Anna’s. ‘Anna’ is an unusual first century name; “of the 247 Jewish women in Palestine from the period 330 BCE -&nbsp; 200 CE whose names are known, Anna [in Luke 2] is the only one who bears this name” (Tal Ilan, ‘Notes of the distribution of Jewish women’s names in Palestine’, Journal of Jewish Studies Vol. 40 (1989) pp. 186,193). She therefore named herself this after Hannah, the Hebrew equivalent of Anna; she was inspired by Hannah’s example of waiting and praying in the sanctuary for a child. For Anna, the coming of Messiah was equivalent to having her own child. Her hope for Messiah’s coming was something which she felt personally. We too are awaiting the Lord’s coming- but with anything of her intensity and feeling? She looked for redemption to appear in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 2:25'>Luk 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>), clearly alluding to the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 52:9'>Isa 52:9</a></em>: “The Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem”. She saw the coming of that little baby as the redemption of God’s people; she had the faith to see things yet unseen. The Hebrew for ‘redemption’ can imply ‘with blood’- is it going too far to suggest that she perceived the need for that little baby to grow up and then shed His blood for Israel’s redemption? Her father’s name, Phanuel, is the Hebrew ‘Peniel’,meaning ‘the face of God’. And ‘Hannah’ means ‘God’s grace’. Straight away we see a link to <em><a href='B:40 6:25'>Num 6:25</a></em>: “The Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you”. The connection implies God’s passionate joy at her attitude and existence. Her remaining in the temple was perhaps inspired by passages like <em><a href='B:230 27:4'>Psa 27:4</a></em>, where David spoke of his desire to dwell in the temple all the days of his life in order to see God’s beauty- which she understood in terms of His Son. And especially, <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>, which speaks of the Lord’s coming to His temple. We must ask ourselves what our Bible study and knowledge actually leads to. A study of Romans 6 may lead to baptism; but all God’s word demands of us an actual and concrete response in the things of real life. She allowed the example of another woman, Hannah, to influence her, perhaps even to the point of changing her name; what of us?</p>


text:
<p><em>And she had been a widow eighty four years. She departed not from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day</em>- She "departed not" in the sense that she was regularly present for the morning and evening sacrifices and prayers. She "came up" to the temple to worship (:38) so she was not actually there all the time. Again we have the language of observed experience, as we have with demons. It appeared that she never left the temple, just as small children have the impression that their school teachers live at the school.</p><p>Men like David, Hezekiah and Daniel appreciated that God knew already. In a sense, all that will happen has happened; so prayer is an opening up of ourselves to God, a <em>service</em> ['worshiping'] of God (<em><a href='B:340 6:16'>Dan 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:37'>Luk 2:37</a></em>), for His glory and for our benefit, rather than a means of communicating information to Him. Therefore they opened themselves up to Him, expressing their understanding that He knew the situation, and didn't present a long list of concrete requests to Him. Their relationship with Him went far beyond that kind of surface level. What of ours?</p>


text:
<p><em>And coming up to worship at that very same hour, she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all those that were looking for redemption in Jerusalem</em></p><p>- See on :36. The loyal band of Bible students in the temple expected redemption to appear in Jerusalem, presumably because of the Old Testament prophecies like Joel 2 concerning Christ being manifested in Jerusalem at His second coming and Kingdom. But their first century application of these was not wrong. "At that very same hour" reflects the same kind of Divine coincidence that we noted on :27. No meeting is by chance for those who are led by the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city Nazareth</em>- Mary “performed [fulfilled] all things according to the law” in her dedication of Jesus. In doing this, she anticipated the spirit of the cross and whole ministry of Jesus, where He performed [s:w. fulfilled] all things of the law- <em><a href='B:490 18:31'>Luk 18:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:29'>Act 13:29</a></em>. These passages each use the same three words for all things, law, and fulfilled. She brought the Lord up in the way of the cross; and He continued in that path:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him</em>- "Grace" often refers to the gift of the Spirit. The parallel is with the growth of John the Baptist in <em><a href='B:490 1:80'>Luk 1:80</a></em>, who was strong in the Spirit, and filled with the Spirit from the womb:&nbsp; </p><p>Hebrews always speaks of Him as “perfected”, as a verb (<em><a href='B:650 2:10'>Heb 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:9'>Heb 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:28'>Heb 7:28</a></em>)- never with the adjective ‘perfect’. Apart from being a major problem for Trinitarian views, this simple fact sets Him up as <em>our</em> pattern, whom the Father seeks likewise ‘to perfect’. Yet the path the Lord had to take to achieve this was hard indeed. Not only did it culminate in the cross, but His growth as a young man is described by the word <em>prokoptein</em> (<em><a href='B:490 2:40'>Luk 2:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), defined by Karl Barth [<em>Church Dogmatics</em> I 2, p. 158] as meaning ‘to extend by blows, as a smith stretches metal by hammering’. Through childhood crises and the turmoil of adolescence, this is what He went through, to lead Him to the final ‘perfection’ of being able to say “I am”:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And his parents went up every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover</em>- It was only the enthusiasts who went to Jerusalem every year. The Mosaic command was that every male should appear; but Mary went too. Perhaps she was motivated by the example of her heroine Hannah, who also went up to the tabernacle each year (<em><a href='B:90 1:7'>1Sa 1:7</a></em>). We can conclude that Joseph was indeed a spiritual person, and that Mary supported him in this. For her to go to Jerusalem every year for the first 12 years of marriage indicates that she placed great priorityon it; for she would surely at times have been pregnant, yet she still made the pilgrimage.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to the tradition of the feast</em>- There was no legal requirement for this; but they are presented as obedient to Jewish tradition. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had finished the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not</em>- "The days" which they "finished" may refer not to Passover but to the traditional dedication of a 12 year old boy. The Lord clearly wanted to remain in Jerusalem, and may well have arranged circumstances so that His parents would not initially notice His absence. He must have felt some need to do His true Father's business in His house at that time; perhaps He felt the need to make a first appeal to the Jewish leadership at that time.</p>


text:
<p><em>Supposing him to be in the company, they went a day's journey; and then they looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances</em>- It has been speculated that men and women travelled in different companies, and so Joseph assumed the Lord was with Mary, and vice versa. But we cannot avoid a suspicion of negligence on their part, especially given that He was known by them to be God's Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him</em>- The Lord gently rebukes them for not knowing that He would be in the temple; we note that they searched for three days (:46) before thinking to look for Him in the temple. Presumably He had made some comment to them about His need to remain three days in the temple, and they had not perceived His sense at all. This all paves the way for how His clear predictions of His three days disappearance in death were likewise not understood. His followers came seeking Him at that time, but in the wrong way and place. His clearly stated words at this time were not understood, just as His later words about His resurrection would not be.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them and asking them questions</em>- The three days were clearly a significant period; see on :45. The Lord presumably slept rough, perhaps on the mount of Olives. By that age He would already have perceived much about His death and how it would all transpire, and wished to familiarize himself with the city where it would all happen. He is often portrayed later as sitting in the midst of His students; here, at 12 years old, the teachers are already His students. His asking of questions may not necessarily mean that He asked them things He didn't know; it could refer to the rabbinic method of teaching by asking rhetorical questions, a style frequently used by the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 2:7'>Act 2:7</a></em>. These men who were so impressed by His intellect and insight would have had amongst them some who 18 years later would have encountered Him again, and become filled with the same envy which perhaps began to well up within them even then. As He posed rhetorical questions to them, so they did to Him; and they were amazed at His answers. Despite this intellectual and spiritual supremacy which the Lord had as Son of God, His neighbours and family considered Him a mere carpenter and were offended when He indirectly claimed to be Messiah. We can deduce that He clearly held Himself back from revealing Himself as radically different from the rest of them. It would have been so frustrating and irritating to be so intellectually and spiritually more developed than others, and yet to say nothing, time and again, and relate with them on their level. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him: Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you</em>- "Anxiously searching" is “sorrowing”, using a word elsewhere used about despair and anguish for the loss of life (<em><a href='B:490 16:24-25'>Luk 16:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:38'>Act 20:38</a></em>). She feared He was dead. But where, then, was her faith in the promise that He would have an eternal Kingdom…? The distraction of poverty, the demands of the other children, perhaps an unsupportive partner, self-doubt… all these ground away at her earlier spirituality and faith, just as happens to so many of us after baptism too.</p>&nbsp;<p>“Why have you done this to us?” is a rebuke- as if she implied that Jesus had sinned / done wrong by what He had done? Surely her faith in a sinless Messiah was now put to a brutal test by a domestic upset; just as, in barest essence, ours is too by such things. Yet notice that she frames those words in the LXX language of <em><a href='B:10 3:14'>Gen 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 13:11'>1Sa 13:11</a></em>. Those allusions would imply that she felt Jesus had sinned; and yet at the same time as revealing that gross lack of perception, another part of her mind is still back in Scripture. Unlike 12 years previously, she is now using Scripture without correct context; but she has far from totally lost her spirituality. </p><p>Mary and Joseph were “astonished”. She shared Joseph's amazement; and the word is only used of the amazement / incomprehension of the crowds- <em><a href='B:470 7:28'>Mat 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:54'>Mat 13:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:25'>Mat 19:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:33'>Mat 22:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:26'>Mar 10:26</a></em>. Slowly she became influenced by the world's view of her son- not totally, but partially, to the extent that she lost that keen perception and height of spiritual ambition which she had earlier had. And so it can be for so many of us; the world comes to influence our view not only of our own children, but of all things in spiritual life. </p><h4>Mary scolds Him that his father [Joseph] and her have been seeking for Him. The surrounding world perceived Him as the carpenter’s son (<em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em>), the son of Joseph (<em><a href='B:500 6:42'>Joh 6:42</a></em>). He was “as was supposed” [‘reckonedlegally’?] the son of Joseph” (<em><a href='B:490 3:23'>Luk 3:23</a></em>). Even Philip perceived Messiah to be “the son of Joseph” even after he had accepted Him (<em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em>). Hence Jesus gently rebuked her that He was about His true Father’s business, in His true Father’s house. Her description of Joseph as “thy father” is surely worthy of the Lord’s rebuke. She had allowed the views of the world to influence her view of the Lord. “Is not this the son of Mary?” (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>) is paralleled in <em><a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a></em> by “the carpenter's son”, and in <em><a href='B:490 4:22'>Luk 4:22</a></em> Joseph's son; everyone assumed they were His natural parents, the son of Mary & Joseph, and this came to influence her. Jesus told them that they should have sought Him in His true Father’s house- and this may not only be a reference to the temple, but to the way in which they had assumed He was somewhere with the house / family of Joseph in the convoy; and perhaps they had gone round Joseph’s relatives in Jerusalem hunting for Him. &nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: How is it you searched for me? Did you not know that I would be in my Father's house?</em>- I suggested on :45 that the Lord had in fact told them that He was going to be in His Father's house, the temple, for three days. They had misunderstood or ignored His words; just as His followers would do to His later predictions of His three days 'disappearance'. </p><p>There are Biblical examples of refusing to take guilt when others feel that it should be taken. The Lord’s own parents blamed Him for ‘making them anxious’ by ‘irresponsibly’ remaining behind in the temple. The Lord refused to take any guilt, didn’t apologize, and even gently rebuked them (<em><a href='B:490 2:42-51'>Luk 2:42-51</a></em>). In similar vein, Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Even if I made you sorry with a letter, I do not regret it” (<em><a href='B:540 7:8'>2Co 7:8</a></em>). He would not take guilt for their being upset with him. Likewise Absalom comforted his raped sister not to ‘take it to heart’, not to feel guilty about it, as it seems she was feeling that way, taking false guilt upon her (<em><a href='B:100 13:20'>2Sa 13:20</a></em>).</p><p>A window into the Lord's self-perception is given here in the record of His behaviour in the temple at age 12. Within the psychological matrix in which the young Jesus existed, as well as within the cultural norms of first century Palestine, it was rude for a 12 year old to retort to his mother: "Didn't you know I would be about my father's business?". It appears insolent towards Joseph too. But that statement, in the Lord's case, was not a sin, nor a typically precocious childish comment- although it would've been on the lips of any other 12 year old. Instead it reflects an abnormal degree of detachment from His mother and step-father, and a remarkable statement as to how much He was Himself, how mature and strong was His sense of identity as the uniquely begotten Son of God. </p><p>A sense of compulsion was found in the Lord’s whole life of service, leading up to the cross as it did (see on <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>):</p><p>“Wist ye not that <em>I must be</em> about my Father's business?" (<em><a href='B:490 2:49'>Luk 2:49</a></em> AV). “And he said unto them, <em>I must preach </em>the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent" (<em><a href='B:490 4:43'>Luk 4:43</a></em>). “He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. And he <em>must needs </em>go through Samaria" (<em><a href='B:500 4:3-4'>Joh 4:3-4</a></em>). This is significant, as this was not from geographical necessity. The Lord was in the Jordan valley (<em><a href='B:500 3:22'>Joh 3:22</a></em>) and could easily have taken the valley road north through Bethshan into Galilee, avoiding Samaria entirely. “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work" (<em><a href='B:500 9:4'>Joh 9:4</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And they did not understand what he spoke to them</em>- He had told them that He would be in His Father's house for three days. But they did not understand. And now they see plainly what has happened, they still do not understand. This is exactly the situation we find at the end of Luke's gospel, where the resurrected Lord [after three days disappearance] is still not understood. </p><p>records that Mary "understood not”, using the same phrase as is on the lips of the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 13:13'>Mat 13:13</a></em>, speaking of those without who " hear not neither do they understand”; and ominously, Mary stood without and asked to see Jesus, only to be told that His real mothers were those women sitting around Him listening to His words. In passing, note how the disciples also often "understood not" (<em><a href='B:470 16:12'>Mat 16:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:52'>Mar 6:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:17'>Mar 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:21'>Mar 8:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>). And yet the Lord counted them as more understanding than they were. As with Mary. She “understood not” (<em><a href='B:490 2:50'>Luk 2:50</a></em>) the clear enough statement that He was in <em>His</em> Father’s house. And the Lord rebuked her for spending so long, three days, looking elsewhere when she should have perceived quicker that He was going to be in the house of His true Father. I take His words not as a sharp rebuff but rather more of grief, that Mary had known him so poorly, sad at her loss of perception. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he left with them and went to Nazareth, and was subject to them; and his mother treasured all these sayings in her heart</em>- It could be that she had pondered from the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:11'>Gen 37:11</a></em> how Jacob “observed” (s:w:) the saying of Joseph / Jesus, and therefore felt that she too must meditate on all the words associated with her Son. The Lord at 12 years old displayed such piercing knowledge and spirituality, but it seems He returned to Nazareth and suppressed the expression of it. This is why the villagers were so amazed when He stood up in the Nazareth synagogue and on the basis of Old Testament exposition, indirectly declared Himself the Messiah. He must have stored up so much knowledge and spirituality within Him, but hid it from the eyes of men. This was quite an achievement- to be perfect, and yet not to be noticed as somehow other-worldly. The Lord was “subject unto” Mary- to train Him for the time when we would be subject to Him as we are now (<em><a href='B:530 15:27-28'>1Co 15:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:22'>Eph 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:24'>Eph 5:24</a></em>), and all the world subject unto Him (<em><a href='B:670 3:22'>1Pe 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 2:8'>Heb 2:8</a></em>). And so, wondrous thought that it is, the training of His mother has effect even now; with literally <em>all</em> subject to Him, He was prepared for this by having been subject unto His mother:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:480 6:2'>Mar 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Jesus developed both in wisdom and body, and in favour with God and men</em>- A Joseph allusion: "The Lord::. gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison" (<em><a href='B:10 39:21'>Gen 39:21</a></em>). As noted on :40, Hebrews always speaks of Him as “perfected” or as we have it here in Luke, "developed", as a verb (<em><a href='B:650 2:10'>Heb 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:9'>Heb 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:28'>Heb 7:28</a></em>)- never with the adjective ‘perfect’. Apart from being a major problem for Trinitarian views, this simple fact sets Him up as <em>our</em> pattern, whom the Father seeks likewise ‘to perfect’. Yet the path the Lord had to take to achieve this was hard indeed. Not only did it culminate in the cross, but His growth as a young man is described by the word <em>prokoptein</em> (<em><a href='B:490 2:40'>Luk 2:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), defined by Karl Barth [<em>Church Dogmatics</em> I 2, p. 158] as meaning ‘to extend by blows, as a smith stretches metal by hammering’. Through childhood crises and the turmoil of adolescence, this is what He went through, to lead Him to the final ‘perfection’ of being able to say “I am”:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene</em>- Luke's careful attention to historical detail is understandable if his Gospel was partly written for use in Paul's defence whilst imprisoned in Caesarea and / or Rome. And the material is also used specifically to seek to convert Theophilus.</p>


text:
<p><em>In the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness</em>- John came preaching the word (<em><a href='B:470 3:1'>Mat 3:1</a></em>); and the word came to John. All witness and evangelism is a reflection of an ongoing mutual relationship between God and the preacher, mediated through His word. John's message of repentance (:3) was taken from the word of God in the Old Testament; and so the word of God which came to him was perhaps the command to begin his ministry. He had been in the wilderness from a young man, awaiting the call to begin his ministry. We have here another example of a man experiencing a period in the wilderness before starting his ministry; Moses, Paul and the Lord Jesus are other examples. And in essence the same is often the pattern in human life today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins</em>- Presumably this connects with <em><a href='B:470 2:23'>Mat 2:23</a></em>, meaning that whilst the Lord was still living in Nazareth, John began preaching. One wonders whether John maybe began his ministry up to three and a half years before the baptism of Jesus, seeing his work was typical of the three and a half year Elijah ministry preparing for the&nbsp;<em>second</em>&nbsp;coming of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;</p><p>The two clauses in this sentence appear to be the wrong way around. We would expect to read that John came preaching baptism, and then baptized people. One way around the problem is to imagine that the second clause ("preaching the baptism::.") is as it were in brackets, explaining that the baptism he performed was not Christian baptism but simply a sign of repentance and request for remission of sins. But<a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a> makes it explicit that his baptism <em>preceded</em> the call for repentance. "Baptize::. unto repentance" alludes to the Isaiah 40 passage which offered forgiveness in order to provoke repentance. John baptized in order to lead people to repentance, rather than baptizing only those who had repented and got their lives in order. Even the NET Bible's "baptize::. for repentance" could be read the same way- baptism was for the end of provoking repentance, rather than being baptism only for the visibly repentant. This likelihood is strengthened once we realize that there is surely an allusion here to <em>Wis_11:23</em>: "You overlook the sins of men, unto repentance". Repentance in any case is an internal attitude (see on <em><a href='B:470 3:6'>Mat 3:6</a></em>), and John as he stood in the Jordan River was totally incapable of judging whether or not in practice his hearers had actually changed their lives. He baptized them because they had confessed their sins and re-thought, re-pented. Not because they had actually changed in practical, ongoing lifestyle issues. Likewise the apostles who baptized 3000 people in Acts 2 had no way of measuring repentance in practice. <em><a href='B:480 1:15'>Mar 1:15</a></em> records John’s message as being: “Repent ye and believe the Gospel". This might seem to be in the wrong order- for we have come to think that surely belief of the Gospel comes before repentance. And so it does very often- but there is another option here- that the repentance is ongoing. Life after conversion is a life of believing the basic Gospel which led us to conversion and repentance in the first place. </p><p>The Greek <em>metanoia</em> ["repentance"] was used as a legal term describing the re-thinking of a sentence. Paul uses this figure in Romans to describe how we are condemned as guilty, but the sentence is re-thought because we are in Christ. Strong's lexicon claims that the word can mean "by implication, reversal of another's decision". Our re-thinking thus becomes God's re-thinking. In this we see something of the intimacy and connection between God and man achieved by human repentance. The legal metaphor continues in the word translated "remission"- the idea is of legal pardon or freedom from the accusation.</p><p>John the Baptist's audience responded to his preaching by being baptized "with the baptism of repentance" (<em><a href='B:480 1:4'>Mar 1:4</a></em>); and yet the Lord Jesus built on this by appealing to people to repent because the Kingdom was at hand (<em><a href='B:480 1:15'>Mar 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>). Their repentance was therefore only surface level. The Lord cursed the fig tree (cp. Israel) because they had only leaves, an appearance of repentance and spiritual fruit, but actually there was not even the first sign of real fruit on that tree when it was really analysed. Earlier, Israel had appeared to have fruit, when actually, they didn't have any at all (<em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>). The man in the parable built his spiritual house, but in fact he didn't get down to the real nitty-gritty of obedience to the Lord's words; and so it miserably, pathetically fell at judgment day. The seriousness of sin becomes de-emphasized in our lives, until repentance comes to mean a vague twinge of guilt. This, again, was the problem of Old Testament Israel. "They return, but not to the Most High" (<em><a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos 7:16</a></em>);&nbsp;they had the sensation of regret, of turning back- but it wasn't real repentance. A few verses earlier God had commented: “They do <em>not</em> return to the Lord their God” (<em><a href='B:350 7:10'>Hos 7:10</a></em>); but they on a surface level <em>did</em> return to Him. Hosea continues his theme: “Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself” (<em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>). Did they or did they not bring forth fruit? They did- but only in their own eyes. They felt they had repented, and brought forth spiritual fruit. But not in God’s estimation. And we too can have the sensation of spirituality and even spiritual growth, but only in our own eyes. “Though they called them to the Most High, none at all would exalt him” (<em><a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos 11:7</a></em>) in the way which true repentance requires. "Judah hath not turned unto me with her <em>whole</em> heart, but feignedly" (<em><a href='B:300 3:10'>Jer 3:10</a></em>). They did turn back to Yahweh- but not in their heart. Israel rejoiced in the light of John’s teaching- and he taught real, on-your-knees repentance. They thought they’d repented. But the Lord describes John as mourning, and them not mourning in sympathy and response (<em><a href='B:490 7:32'>Luk 7:32</a></em>). They rejoiced in the idea of repentance, but never really got down to it. </p>


text:
<p><em>As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: The voice of one crying, In the wilderness make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight</em>- Just as the preaching of the Gospel was to make straight paths for the Messiah to come, so we are to make <em>our</em> paths straight (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>)- as if somehow we are the Lord Jesus; His revelation to this world at the second coming will in a sense be our revelation. Hence the final visions of Revelation speak of the Lord's second coming in terms which are applicable to the community of those in Him [e:g. a city of people coming down from Heaven to earth]. John’s preaching was in order to make [s:w. ‘to bring forth fruit’] His [the Lord’s] paths straight- but the ways of the Lord are “right” [s:w. “straight”] anyway (<em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>). So how could John’s preaching make the Lord’s ways straight / right, when they already are? God is so associated with His people that their straightness or crookedness reflects upon Him; for they are His witnesses in this world. His ways are their ways. This is the N:T. equivalent of the O:T. concept of keeping / walking in the way of the Lord (<em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 21:22'>2Ki 21:22</a></em>). Perhaps this is the thought behind the exhortation of <em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em> to make straight paths for our own feet. We are to bring our ways into harmony with the Lord’s ways; for He is to be us, His ways our ways. Thus <em><a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a></em>, which is being quoted in <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>, speaks of “Prepare ye the way <em>of the Lord</em>”, whereas <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em> speaks of “Prepare ye the way <em>of the people</em>”. Yet tragically, the way / path of Israel was not the way / path of the Lord (<em><a href='B:330 18:25'>Eze 18:25</a></em>).</p><p>There was an intensity and critical urgency about John and his message. John urged people to make their path “straight”- using a Greek word elsewhere translated “immediately”, “forthwith” (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 1:12'>Mar 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:28'>Mar 1:28</a></em> and often). Getting things straight in our lives is a question of immediate response. He warns people to “flee from the wrath to come” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). This was what their changed lives and baptisms were to be about- a fleeing from the wrath to come. He speaks as if that “wrath to come” is just about to come, it’s staring them in the face like a wall of forest fire, and they are to flee away from it. And yet Paul (in one of his many allusions to John’s message, which perhaps he had heard himself ‘live’) speaks of “the wrath to come” as being the wrath of the final judgment (<em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>), or possibly that of AD70 (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>). But both those events would not have come upon the majority of John’s audience. And the day of ‘wrath to come’ is clearly ultimately to be at the Lord’s return (<em><a href='B:730 6:17'>Rev 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>). Yet John zooms his hearers forward in time, to perceive that they face condemnation and judgment day right now, as they hear the call of the Gospel. This was a feature of John; he had the faith which sees things which are not as though they already are. Thus he looked at Jesus walking towards him and commented that here was the “Lamb of God”, a phrase the Jews would’ve understood as referring to the lamb which was about to be sacrificed on Passover (<em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>). John presumably was referencing the description of the crucified Jesus in <em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em>; for John, he foresaw it all, it was as if he saw Jesus as already being led out to die, even though that event was over three years distant. And so he could appeal to his audience to face judgment day as if they were standing there already. We need to have the same perspective.</p>


text:
<p><em>Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked paths shall become straight, and the rough ways smooth</em>- John the Baptist's ministry was so that the 'crooked' nation of Israel should be 'made straight' and ready to accept Jesus as Messiah. God's enabling power was present so that this might have happened; but the same word is used in <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em> and <em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em> to describe Israel as still being a 'crooked' nation. John's preaching, like ours, was potentially able to bring about the conversion of an entire nation. So instead of being discouraged by the lack of response to our witness, let's remember the enormous potential power which there is behind it. Every word, witness of any kind, tract left lying on a seat::. has such huge potential conversion power lodged within it, a power from God Himself. </p><p>John's mission was to prepare Israel for Christ, to figuratively '<em>bring low' </em>the hills and mountains, the proud Jews of first century Israel, and raise the valleys, i:e. inspire the humble with the real possibility of salvation in Christ. Paul uses the same Greek word for "bring low" no fewer than three times, concerning how the Gospel has humbled him (<em><a href='B:510 20:19'>Act 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:12'>Phi 4:12</a></em>). It's as if he's saying: 'John's preaching did finally have its’ effect upon me; it did finally make me humble enough for the Lord Jesus'. And as John made straight paths for men's feet that they might come unto Christ (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>), so did Paul (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And all flesh</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>. </p><p><em>Shall see the salvation of God</em>- John perceived how eager God is to forgive, and how our acceptance of that forgiveness is His glory and His salvation. John says, quoting <em><a href='B:290 40:5'>Isa 40:5</a></em>, that if men repent and ready themselves for the Lord’s coming, then “all flesh shall see the salvation of God”. But he is changing the quotation- Isaiah said that all flesh shall see the glory of God. But saving men and women is the thing God glories in. </p>


text:
<h4><em>He said to the crowds that went out to be baptized by him: You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath tocome?</em>- The ideas of fleeing wrath and preparing a way are surely based upon the Law’s command in <em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em> that a way or road should be prepared to the city of refuge (symbolic of Christ- <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>), along which the person under the death sentence for manslaughter could flee for refuge. John was preparing that way or road to Christ, and urging ordinary people to flee along it. They didn’t like to think they were under a death sentence for murder. They were just ordinary folk like the soldiers who grumbled about their wages, and the publicans who were a bit less than honest at work. But they had to flee. But they wouldn’t be alone in that. If a man prepares his way after God’s principles (<em><a href='B:140 27:6'>2Ch 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 4:26'>Pro 4:26</a></em>), then God will ‘prepare’ that man’s way too (<em><a href='B:230 37:23'>Psa 37:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:5'>Psa 119:5</a></em>), confirming him in the way of escape.</h4><p>This intense, urgent presentation of the ultimate issues of life and death, acceptance and rejection, brought forth a massive response. People lined up for baptism. And John was hardly polite. He called his baptismal candidates a “generation of vipers”, alluding obviously to the seed of the serpent in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. Yet his tough line with them, his convicting them of sin, led them to ask what precisely they must do, in order to be baptized. They didn’t turn away in offence. They somehow sensed he was for real, and the message he preached couldn’t be ignored or shrugged off as the ravings of a fanatic. Time and again we see the same- the very height of the demand of Christ of itself convicts men and women of Him. And it’s for this reason that it seems almost ‘easier’ to convict people of Christ and the need for baptism into Him in societies [e:g. radical Moslem ones] where the price for conversion to Him is death or serious persecution… than in the easy going Western countries where being ‘Christian’ is the normal cultural thing to do. </p><p>The Gospel was presented in different forms by the early preachers, according to their audience. John the Baptist set the pattern in this. Having quoted the prophecy about the need for the rough to be made smooth and the proud to be humbled in order for them to accept Jesus, John “said <em>therefore</em> to the multitude… ye offspring of vipers” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em> RV). He used tough and startling language because that was what the audience required. He had set his aims- to humble the proud. And so he used “therefore” appropriate approaches. The early preachers as Paul became all things to all men, so that they might win some. They therefore consciously matched their presentation and <em>how</em> they articulated the same basic truths to their audience.</p><p>But perhaps even his comment “Generation of vipers” was said with a heart of love and appeal, reflecting the “heart of mercy” which he had come to know in the Father. He was “the friend of the bridegroom” (<em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>)- the one who introduced the groom to the bride and arranged the marriage and then the wedding. John’s “Generation of vipers” stuff was all part of his attempt to persuade the bride, Israel, to accept the groom, the Lord Jesus. He wasn’t angrily moralizing, lashing out at society as many a dysfunctional preacher does today, working out his own anger by criticizing and condemning society in the name of God. No, John was appealing. He had an agenda and an aim- to bring Israel and the Son of God together in marriage.</p><p>When asked who he was, John’s reply was simply: “a voice”. He was nothing; his message about Jesus was everything. In all this there is a far cry from the self-confident, self-projecting speaking off the podium which characterizes so much of our ‘preaching’ today. So John’s appeal to repentance was shot through with a recognition of his own humanity. It wasn’t mere moralizing. We likely don’t preach as John did because we fear that confronting people with their sins is inappropriate for us to do, because we too are sinners. But with recognition of our own humanity, we build a bridge between our audience and ourselves. In this context it's worth reconsidering <em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>: "Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?". John said these words to those who were coming to him wishing to be baptized by him- exactly because he had warned them of the wrath to come. It's possible that John meant this as a rhetorical reflection, thus enabling us to paraphrase him something like this: 'And what kind of man am I, who am I, just another sinful guy like you, who has warned you to flee? I'm nothing- don't get baptized because of me, but because you repent and are committed to bringing forth the fruits of repentance". And it’s worth meditating that if Israel had responded to his preaching, then the glorious salvation of God might have even then been revealed in the form of the Kingdom coming on earth, even then. But instead of heeding John’s message, Israel in the end crucified their King, necessitating a latter day John the Baptist mission (<em><a href='B:470 11:13-14'>Mat 11:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:11-12'>Mat 17:11-12</a></em>). And it’s not going too far to suggest that our latter day witness to Israel and indeed to the world is to conducted in the spirit of John’s preaching; hence the crucial importance of understanding the spirit and content of his witness.</p>


text:
<p><em>Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves: We have Abraham as our father. For I say to you, that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones</em>- The eagerness of John for the inculcation of faith is seen in the way He foresees the likely thought processes within men. “Begin not to say within yourselves:::." (<em><a href='B:490 3:8'>Luk 3:8</a></em>), He told a generation of vipers; and the Lord eagerly strengthened the centurion’s faith when it was announced that faith was pointless, because his daughter had died. Always the Biblical emphasis is upon internal thought processes and the need to be aware of them. John's great convert Paul several times uses the same device in his letters- foreseeing the likely thought process in response to his message, and answering it ahead of time (e:g. 1Co 1535).</p><p>"These stones" was said perhaps pointing to the stones. Perhaps they were the 12 stones set up after the Jordan crossing (Joshua 3, 4). There is a word play between&nbsp;<em>avanim</em>, stones, and&nbsp;<em>banim, </em>sons:&nbsp;<em>Avanim</em>, stones, in turn sounds like&nbsp;<em>evyonim</em>, the term for the poor, the social outcasts- these were the "stones" which were being accepted into the covenant of grace:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:13'>Col 3:13</a></em>:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><em>And even now, the axe also lies at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bring forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire</em>- John's words about cutting down the fruitless tree are directly quoted by the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:33'>Mat 12:33</a></em> - as if to show His solidarity with John's teaching. Perhaps the Lord Jesus had heard these very words being preached by John when He went to be baptized by him. "Now [also]", right now; John felt that the day of Christ's judgment was very close. The language of gathering grain into the barn and burning the chaff is used by the Lord concerning the future judgment at His second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>). John saw the Lord Jesus as already having the winnowing fork in His hand (<em><a href='B:470 3:13'>Mat 3:13</a></em>), meaning that in essence, judgment began with the ministry of Jesus. In essence, we stand before His judgment right now. Judgment day is not some unknown future entity which has no connection with this life:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the crowds asked him, saying: What then must we do?</em>- Luke phrases this in the same language he uses of the crowds who responded to Peter's preaching in Acts 2. The answer was the same- repent, accept Jesus as Messiah and be baptized. John saw the essence of the Christian gospel as just that, and it was essentially the same message taught by both John and Peter. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he answered and said to them: He that has two coats, let him give to him that has none, and he that has food, let him do likewise</em>- In order to prepare the way of the Lord, to make a level passage for Him, the man with two coats should give to him who had none, and likewise share his food. So the ‘equality’ and levelling was to be one of practical care for others. We have to ask, how often we have shared our food, clothing or money with those who don’t have… for this is all part of preparing for the Lord’s coming. It could even be that when there is more of what Paul calls “an equality” amongst the community of believers, that then the way of the Lord will have been prepared. And He will then return.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there came also tax collectors to be baptized; and they said to him: Teacher, what must we do?</em>- There is a parallel between desiring baptism and realizing that they must <em>do</em> something concretely in their lives. The baptism process brings us into the realm of God's gracious forgiveness and redemption, and into living contact with the real Christ. There is no way we can be passive to this and do nothing about it. Note that Matthew himself was a publican and also records this- this is an example of the Gospel records being a transcript of the message standardly taught by e:g. Matthew. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Collect no more than what you have been ordered to</em>- John the Baptist showed a spirit of concession to human weakness in his preaching. He told the publicans: “Extort no more than that which is appointed you” (<em><a href='B:490 3:13'>Luk 3:13</a></em> RV). He tacitly accepted that these men would be into extortion. But within limits, he let it go. Likewise he told soldiers to be content with their wages- not to quit the job. And seeing there were no Roman Legions in Judaea at his time [Josephus, <em>Antiquities</em> 18:5:1], these were likely Jewish soldiers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And soldiers also asked him, saying: And we, what must we do? And he said to them: Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages</em>- </p><p>The nature of how demanding John was is reflected in his response to the soldiers and publicans. He didn’t tell them to quit their jobs, but to live with integrity within those jobs. He told the soldiers to be content with their wages- implying he expected them to not throw in their job. And seeing there were no Roman Legions in Judaea at his time [Josephus,&nbsp;<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;18:5:1], these were likely Jewish soldiers. He didn’t tell them to quit their jobs, but to live with integrity within those jobs. He told the soldiers to be content with their wages- implying he expected them to not throw in their job. This is juxtaposed with the command for them to do no violence. But not grumbling about wages was as fundamental an issue for John as not doing physical violence to people. To have as Paul put it “Godliness with contentment” [another of his allusions to John’s preaching?] is as important as not doing violence. And yet our tendency is to think that moaning about our wages is a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do, whereas violence is of an altogether different order. It’s like Paul hitting the Corinthians for their divisiveness, when if we’d been writing to them we would likely have focused upon their immorality and false doctrine. John would have been far less demanding had he simply told the publicans and soldiers to quit their jobs. By asking them to continue, and yet to live out their lives within those jobs with Godly principles, He was being far more demanding.</p><p>John places complaining about wages [a common human fault] in juxtaposition with doing violence to others (<em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em>)- to show that in his serious call to a devout and holy life, there are no such things as little sins. <em><a href='B:330 16:49-50'>Eze 16:49-50</a></em> defines the sins of Sodom as including “pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor… they were haughty, and committed abomination”. The abomination of their sexual perversion is placed last in the list, as if to emphasize that all the other sins were just as much sin. Likewise Paul writes to the Corinthians about their failures, but he doesn’t start where I would have started- with their drunkenness at the memorial meeting. Instead he starts off with their disunity. Those things which we may consider as lesser sins, the Bible continually lists together with those things we have been conditioned into thinking are the greater sins. Clearest of all is the way Paul lists schism and hatred in his lists of sins that will exclude from the Kingdom. The Anglo-Saxon worldview has taught that sexual sin is so infinitely far worse than a bit of argument within a church. But is this really right…?</p>


text:
<p><em>And as the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether he was the Christ</em>- </p>


text:
<p><em>John answered, saying to them all: I indeed baptize you with water, but there comes he that is mightier than I, whose shoelaces I am not worthy to untie. He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire</em>- The Greek for "mightier" is that translated 'stronger' and the idea of Jesus as the one 'stronger / mightier than' recurs in <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em>, where Jesus is 'mightier than' the 'strong man' who had previously possessed the house of Israel. That there is a connection of thought here cannot be denied, but the existence of such a connection doesn't of itself mean that there is a detailed semantic connection. Perhaps John's words had simply left a subconscious impression upon the word choice of the Lord.</p><p>Christ "shall baptize&nbsp;<em>you</em>" plural was deeply meditated upon by Paul, until he came to see in the fact that we&nbsp;<em>plural</em>&nbsp;are baptized the strong implication that therefore we should be one body, without unnecessary divisions (= <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>).</p><p>John prophesied that the disciples would be baptized with fire; this was fulfilled by tongues of Spirit descending which looked like fire (<em><a href='B:510 2:3'>Act 2:3</a></em>). Evidently this was not literal fire or else it would not have rested on the heads of the disciples. So the words here spoke of how things would&nbsp;<em>appear&nbsp;</em>to the disciples, without saying so explicitly.</p><p>John described himself as a preacher of Christ who was not "worthy" to do so. The same Greek word is used by Paul when he says he is "not&nbsp;<em>meet</em>&nbsp;(s:w:) to be called an apostle" (<em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>); and that it was God's grace alone that had made him an "<em>able</em>&nbsp;(s:w. "worthy") minister of the Gospel" (<em><a href='B:540 13:6'>2Co 13:6</a></em>). He knew that his "<em>sufficiency</em>" (s:w. "worthy") to give knowledge of salvation (John language- <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>), to be a preacher, was from God alone (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:5'>2Co 3:5</a></em>); and that in fact this was true of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;preachers. But do we really feel like this in our preaching? John was a burning and shining light to the world (<em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>), just as we should be (<em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>). And therefore, if we are to witness as John did, we need to have the humility of John in our preaching. He was 'in the Truth' from a baby, he lived a spiritual, self-controlled life. And yet he had this great sense of personal sinfulness and unworthiness as a preacher. It's difficult for those raised Christian to have the sense of sinfulness which Paul had, and thereby to have his zeal for preaching. But actually his zeal was a reflection of John's; and John was a 'good boy', brought up in the Faith. Yet he had a burning sense of his spiritual inadequacy. Anglo-Saxon Christianity urgently needs to capture his spirit:&nbsp; Truly Paul 'bore' Christ to the world just as John 'bore' (s:w:) Christ's Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). If ever a man was hard on himself, it was John the Baptist. His comment on his preaching of Christ was that he was not worthy (RVmg. ‘sufficient’) to bear Christ's sandals (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). The sandal-bearer was the herald; John knew he was heralding Christ's appearing, but he openly said he was not worthy to do this. He felt his insufficiency, as we ought to ours. Would we had that depth of awareness; for on the brink of the Lord's coming, we are in a remarkably similar position to John. Paul perhaps directs us back to John when he says that we are not “sufficient” to be the savour of God to this world; and yet we are made sufficient to preach by God (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:5-6'>2Co 3:5-6</a></em> RV). To carry the master’s sandals (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>) was, according to Vine, the work of the lowest slave. This was how John saw himself; and this is what witnessing for Jesus is all about, being the lowest slave and servant of the Lord of glory. It's interesting in this context to note how the Lord Jesus states that in some sense, John 'was Elijah', whereas he himself denies this (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:13'>Mar 9:13</a></em>). Such was his humility.</p><p><em>"</em>He shall baptize you" points up the contrast is between John baptizing unto repentance, and Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit. The contrast is between 'repentance' and 'the Holy Spirit'. I suggest that the idea is that the gift of the Holy Spirit would empower repentance and new-mindedness far more than what was achieved by unaided, steel-willed human repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whose fan is inhis hand, to cleanse his threshing-floor thoroughly, and to gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire</em>- John says that the axe is laid to the root of the trees; his hearers were about to be cut down and thrown into the fire of condemnation. And He says that the Jesus whom he heralds is about to come and divide the wheat from the chaff in judgment, gathering in the wheat, and burning the chaff with “unquenchable fire” (<em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em>). But the ‘fire’ of condemnation and the division of wheat and chaff is to be done ultimately at the Lord’s second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:48'>Mar 9:48</a></em>). But for John, the moment his audience met Jesus, they were standing before the Lord of judgment, the Judge of all the earth. In their response to Him, they were living out the final judgment. And this is just as true of us, both as preachers and hearers of the Gospel.</p><p>"He (Jesus) shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit (even) with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and::. he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (<em><a href='B:470 3:11-12'>Mat 3:11-12</a></em>). John put a choice before them: fire, or fire. Either we are consumed with the fire of devotion to God, or we face the figurative fire of condemnation. This is the logic of judgment. John says that the axe is laid to the root of the trees; his hearers were about to be cut down and thrown into the fire of condemnation. And He says that the Jesus whom he heralds is about to come and divide the wheat from the chaff in judgment, gathering in the wheat, and burning the chaff with “unquenchable fire” (<em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em>). But the ‘fire’ of condemnation and the division of wheat and chaff is to be done ultimately at the Lord’s second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:48'>Mar 9:48</a></em>). But for John, the moment his audience met Jesus, they were standing before the Lord of judgment, the Judge of all the earth. In their response to Him, they were living out the final judgment. And this is just as true of us, both as preachers and hearers of the Gospel. The message that the Lord will "burn with unquenchable fire" those who reject Him is described as preaching "good tidings unto the people" (<em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em> RV). Likewise the stark teaching about the mortality of man in Isaiah 40 is quoted in 1 Pet. as being the Gospel. The harder side of God is in fact the good news for those who reflect deeply upon the essential message and nature of the Almighty. In <em><a href='B:300 26:2'>Jer 26:2</a></em>, Jeremiah is warned to “diminish not a word, if so be…” Israel may repent. His temptation of course was to water down the message which he had to deliver. But only the harder, more demanding side of God might elicit response in them. By making the message less demanding, it wouldn’t have any chance of eliciting a response.</p>


text:
<h4><em>With many other appeals he preached good tidings to the people</em>- The need to repent is in fact good news. The message that the Lord will "burn with unquenchable fire" those who reject Him is described as Jesus preaching "good tidings unto the people" (<em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em> RV). Likewise the stark teaching about the mortality of man in Isaiah 40 is quoted in 1 Pet. as being the Gospel. The harder side of God is in fact the good news for those who reflect deeply upon the essential message and nature of the Almighty. In <em><a href='B:300 26:2'>Jer 26:2</a></em>, Jeremiah is warned to “diminish not a word, if so be…” Israel may repent. His temptation of course was to water down the message which he had to deliver. But only the harder, more demanding side of God might elicit response in them. By making the message less demanding, it wouldn’t have any chance of eliciting a response.</h4>


text:
<p><em>But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for marrying Herodias his brother's wife, and for all the evil things which Herod had done</em>- Josephus claims that she was in fact married to another relative, not Philip, before she married Herod (<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp; 18:136). We can simply decide to trust the Biblical record over Josephus. Or it could be that Josephus refers to a previous relationship she had. See on <em><a href='B:470 14:10'>Mat 14:10</a></em> for another conflict with Josephus. John's example here raises the question of whether we should protest immoral behaviour in society. It could be argued that Herod claimed to be Jewish and therefore responsible to Divine law.</p><p>The laws of <em><a href='B:30 18:16'>Lev 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:21'>Lev 20:21</a></em> were applicable to Jews; which opens the wider question as to whether we ought to be drawing the attention of the world to their disobedience to Biblical principles, even though they do not claim any faith in the Bible. Criticizing others’ ways of living leads to anger if the point isn’t accepted; and we have a classic case of it here. The Herods were from Idumea, but although they weren’t ethnic Jews, they claimed to be religious Jews. So it could be that John’s attitude was that if someone considered themselves as being under God’s law, then they should be obedient to it and were therefore culpable before Him for disobedience to it. In this case, we do not actually have here any reason to think that a Christian’s duty is to lobby the unbelieving world leaders to be obedient to God’s law.</p>


text:
<p><em>Also added this, that he locked John up in prison</em>- Even with very sinful men, their continual sins still register in the feelings of God. The way God progressively senses the weight of accumulated sin is reflected in His description of the Amorites' iniquity filling up (<em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em>); or Israel marrying Gentiles “to increase the trespass of Israel" (<em><a href='B:150 10:10'>Ezr 10:10</a></em>). “The iniquity of Israel is bound up, his sin is kept in store” (<em><a href='B:350 13:12'>Hos 13:12</a></em>). God sees some wicked men as more wicked than others; for He is sensitive to every one of their sins (e:g. 2Ki 172). "For three transgressions and for four" of Israel or the Gentiles, God would still punish Jew and Gentile alike (Amos 1, 2)- i:e. He still feels the fourth sin, He doesn't become insensitive after the third sin. And this doesn't only apply to His people; but to all sin, committed by anyone, anywhere. Thus Herod "added yet this above all" when he imprisoned John after also sinning with another man's wife. We have an uncanny ability to become numb to sin the more we see or do it. But not so Almighty, all righteous God. This is a feature of His nature that needs meditation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also having been baptized and praying, the heaven was opened</em>- The Lord's baptism was in his case not for forgiveness, but as a sign of identity with "all the people". And Luke in his words here recognizes that. Sometimes God indicates from what perspective the record is written; at other times He doesn’t. Thus <em><a href='B:470 3:16'>Mat 3:16</a></em> makes it clear that the Lord saw Heaven opened at his baptism, and the Spirit descending like a dove. But <em><a href='B:490 3:21-22'>Luk 3:21-22</a></em> just says that “the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended”. Luke doesn’t say that this is only what happened from the Lord’s perspective. This problem of perspective is at the root of the misunderstanding of the demon language in the Gospels.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in a bodily form as a dove, and a voice came out of heaven: You are My beloved Son- </em>Surely an allusion to <em><a href='B:10 22:2'>Gen 22:2</a></em> (LXX), where the sacrificed Isaac was Abraham's beloved son.</p><p><em>In you I am well pleased</em>- Combining references to <em><a href='B:230 2:7'>Psa 2:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>. Klausner: "In whom I shall be blessed". Quoted about the Lord also in <em><a href='B:470 12:18'>Mat 12:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:5'>Mat 17:5</a></em>. The contrast is with how the Father was not "well pleased" with Israel when they were in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:530 10:5'>1Co 10:5</a></em>); but He was well pleased with His Son in the wilderness. Many prophecies about Israel, the 'servant' of Isaiah's prophecies, come true in Jesus. God's plan in Israel failed due to their disobedience, but the intention behind it came true in Jesus; He was the Son who fulfilled the Father's wishes after Israel failed Him. Jesus thus became the embodiment of Israel; He was their representative before God. It is in this context that the representative nature of the Lord Jesus was first established; He was God's Son who was fully representative of Israel. It is thereby through Him that Israel can be finally restored to their Father:&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:680 1:17'>2Pe 1:17</a></em>. The voice had the same intonation as the voice on the mount of transfiguration; it was the voice of God Himself in person. The Father's 'pleasure' spoke also of His 'will'. His will was done, and His pleasure thereby achieved, "in" His Son; because of the Lord's internal state of mind. And this sets the path toward understanding our own status "in Christ". </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age- </em>Thirty was the age at which priests began to minister; and yet Luke connects this with the Lord's beginning to teach. For the duty of priests was to teach.</p><p><em>Being the son (as was legally reckoned) of Joseph, the son of Heli</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 2:49'>Luk 2:49</a></em>. The genealogies focus upon Joseph because Mary has already been stated to be the descendant of David, in his direct line. Giving the genealogies of Joseph is however a kind of concession to human weakness in not accepting genealogies through the mother; for Joseph was of course not the Lord's biological father. But even he could be traced as the rightful inheritor of Israel's throne had there been a monarchy at the time of Jesus. Jesus was his adopted son; he was "as was supposed", or 'as was reckoned by law', the son of Joseph. And the genealogy is included for the sake of those who reckoned by law. And yet the record in Luke appears to effectively be that of Mary; Joseph being "the son of Heli" was probably by reason of marrying Mary, the daughter of Heli; the Talmud speaks with gross vitriolic about Mary the daughter of Heli going to hell for her blasphemy, referring to Mary the mother of Jesus. This shows that the Jews accept that Mary was the daughter of Heli. Heli's father was Matthat, who can be equated with Matthan the grandfather of Joseph. Thus Mary and Joseph were cousins (hinting at an arranged marriage?), and therefore Jesus was a son of David through both his mother and father by adoption. In the light of this it is evident that the question mark over the validity of a genealogy through Joseph is an irrelevancy, seeing that Joseph and Mary had a common grandfather. The point has to be made that a humanly fabricated genealogy would be sure to make some glaring errors, especially if it was produced by simple, uneducated men as the Jews claim the New Testament was. The wonder of the New Testament genealogies is that closer study reveals ever more intricate internal evidence for their truth and reliability, rather than exposing more problems.</p>&nbsp;<p>The Talmud (<em>Treatise Bava Bathra</em>, 110a) claims that Mary the mother of Jesus was called the daughter of Heli. In this case we would then effectively have here the genealogy of Mary; and this is rather confirmed by the fact that Matthew's genealogy gives a man called Jacob as the Lord's grandfather, whereas Luke gives "Heli". Both can be correct, if one [i:e. Luke] is the genealogy of Mary as it were attached to Joseph, the "supposed" father of Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph</em>- This "Jannai" is identified by Philo with Hyrcanus the second, who reigned sixteen years. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai</em>- These are all identified by Philo as being kings during the period of the Maccabees. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda</em>- "Joda" or "Juda" is identified by Philo with Hyrcanus the first, in whom the kingly and priestly lines crossed, making him and his offspring 'king-priests'. This is how the Lord is portrayed, as a king who is also priest after the order of Melchizedek.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri</em>- Luk 327 in some versions describes Zerubbabel as the head / chief / leader. The term Rhesa is incorrectly rendered in many versions as a name. Perhaps Luke’s point was that the Lord Jesus was the final Messiah, after the failure of so many potential ones beforehand. ‘Zerubbabel the chief’ would then be a similar rubric to “David the king” in Matthew’s genealogy (<em><a href='B:470 1:16'>Mat 1:16</a></em>). It could be that Shealtiel adopted Zerubbabel.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er</em>- From verses 28 to 31 we have 20 names; Matthew for the same period has 14, demonstrating that the genealogies do not cover every generation; "son of" can mean grandson or descendant of. Those named are clearly for a purpose.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi</em>- The mention of a "Levi" could suggest that although this is the line through Judah, there was some intermarriage with the Levites; this made the Lord a king-priest, as required for the Messianic priest after the order of Melchizedek. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim</em>- We read of a Levi in :29; now of a Simeon, Judah and Joseph. And yet this is the genealogy through Judah (:33). We can assume from these names that the tribes intermarried. This was far from ideal and was not God's intention; and yet all this was in the genetic pool and background of the Lord Jesus. Yet none of these factors make us inevitable sinners, and the Lord overcame them as we can.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David</em>- The line is traced not through Solomon but rather through Nathan, named perhaps after the prophet Nathan who had rebuked David, and whom he so respected that he names a son after Nathan. Yet Nathan openly rebuked David for what he had done with Uriah and Bathsheba. This in the end led to deep respect. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon</em>- Boaz was unashamed to marry Ruth the Moabitess and raise up his seed to his relative, meaning that his inheritance would have to be further divided. This was at a time when the fields were split up into strips, as we also learn from the book of Ruth, and further subdividing the strips made farming difficult and unprofitable. The nameless relative who was closer to Ruth than Boaz refused to marry her because he didn't want to spoil the inheritance he was going to hand over to his existing children. And yet he who was so concerned about secular things and the good continuance of his name- found himself anonymous in the final account. It was Boaz, the one prepared to have more children and further subdivide his inheritance, who goes down in history as an ancestor of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah</em>- Perez was born by the strange and immoral set of events recorded in Genesis 38, whereby Judah's daughter in law Tamar acted as a prostitute to seduce Judah to get her pregnant- and Perez was the result. So often it seems that pre-existing background, family and genetic issues all set up a person for spiritual failure. One lesson of these genealogies is that sin is not inevitable. The Lord Jesus had all this, and far more, in His ancestry- and yet He never sinned. We are a new creation in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor</em>- This is a clear statement that the Lord was indeed the promised seed of the Jewish fathers. His humanity was critically important to the fulfilment of those promises. </p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah</em>- "Eber" has been suggested as the first occurrence of "Hebrew". The Lord is being presented as a well qualified Jew, despite the admixture of Gentile blood at many points. We note that it is Matthew, writing to Jews, who tends to mention the Gentile connections of the Lord's genealogy; whereas Luke, writing to Gentiles, doesn't emphasize them. Perhaps this was in order to demonstrate to them that indeed "salvation is of the Jews" (<em><a href='B:500 4:22'>Joh 4:22</a></em>); Gentile salvation was brought about by the Lord being Israel's Messiah and fulfilling the promises to the Jewish fathers.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech</em>- The apparent differences with the genealogy in <em><a href='B:10 10:24'>Gen 10:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:12'>Gen 11:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 1:24'>1Ch 1:24</a></em> are because Luke is following the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text. It is common for the New Testament writers to do this. We note that Shem's grandson was called Cainan; clearly there was intermarriage between the descendants of Noah, and the theory that different coloured human beings emerged from the three sons of Noah is simply fantasy.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan</em>- Luke is concerned with the facts of the genealogy; he could have done what people tend to do in presenting genealogies, and present the hero as continuing a prestigious line. Positive things could have been noted about Enoch and Methuselah, as we find when we read their histories in Genesis; but there is not a word about this. The great truth presented is that the Lord is truly the seed of Abraham and David, and really had our nature and connection with us all.</p>


text:
<p><em>The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God</em>- The Roman emperors and Greek heroes sometimes traced their pedigree back to a god- and therefore the genealogies of Jesus we find in Matthew and Luke were quite radical in this regard. For they traced the pedigree of Jesus back to God- as if He were the emperor. This would have made this gospel record forbidden literature at some periods of the Roman empire and emperor cult.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness</em>- The Lord Jesus was led of the Spirit at His time of testing; and Paul uses just those words of us in our present experience of trial (<em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em>). &nbsp;His victory in the wilderness therefore becomes a living inspiration for us, who are tempted as He was (<em><a href='B:650 4:15-16'>Heb 4:15-16</a></em>). Note how Mark speaks of Jesus being 'driven' at this time. Being driven by circumstances can be a form of leading- it just depends which perspective we have.</p>


text:
<p>. </p><p>The only other two men recorded as doing this are Moses and Elijah (<em><a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 19:8'>1Ki 19:8</a></em>). The Lord chose to seek to enter into their experience; it was presumably His decision to fast for this period. And the Father responded to that by giving Him the encouraging vision of those same two men at the transfiguration. We see here how God is in dialogue with man; if we wish to identify with some Bible character, the Father will respond His side to enable us to do so yet more.</p><p>With His familiarity with Scripture, Christ would have seen the similarities between Himself and Elijah, whose morale collapsed after 40 days in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:110 19:8'>1Ki 19:8</a></em>) and Moses, who forfeited his immediate inheritance of the land at the end of 40 years in the wilderness. Jesus at the end of 40 days, was in a similar position to them - faced with a real possibility of failure. Moses and Elijah failed because of human weakness - not because of a person called “the devil”. It was this same human weakness, the “Satan’, or adversary, that was tempting Jesus.</p><p>The temptations were controlled by God for the Lord’s spiritual education. The passages quoted by the Lord to strengthen Himself against His desires (“devil”) are all from the same part of Deuteronomy, regarding Israel’s experience in the wilderness. Jesus clearly saw a parallel between His experiences and theirs:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4><em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em> “The Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments (word), or no."</td><td>Matthew 4 / Luke 4 “Jesus led up of the spirit” “forty days” “in the wilderness”. Jesus was proved by the temptations. Jesus overcame by quoting the Scriptures that were in His heart (<em><a href='B:230 119:11'>Psa 119:11</a></em>), thus showing it was the Scriptures that were in His heart. </td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em>. “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna::. that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word:::of the Lord::."</td><td>“He was afterward an hungered". In John 6 manna is interpreted by Jesus as representing the Word of God, which Jesus lived by in the wilderness. Jesus learnt that spiritually He lived by the Word of God. “He answered:::it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word :::of God”:,</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em><a href='B:50 8:5'>Deu 8:5</a></em> “Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee”</td><td>Jesus no doubt reflected on His experiences. God chastened His Son, Jesus- <em><a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 89:32'>Psa 89:32</a></em>.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Thus the Lord showed us how to read and study the Word - He thought Himself into the position of Israel in the wilderness, and therefore took the lessons that can be learnt from their experiences to Himself in His wilderness trials. The description of the Lord Jesus as being in the wilderness with beasts and Angels (<em><a href='B:480 1:13'>Mar 1:13</a></em>) is another connection with Israel’s experience in the wilderness- they were plagued there by “wild beasts” because of their disobedience (<em><a href='B:50 32:19-24'>Deu 32:19-24</a></em> and context). </h4>


text:
<p><em>And the Devil said to him: If you are the Son of God, command these stones that they become bread</em>- The first temptation- to turn stones into bread- would not in itself have been a sin if He had agreed to it. But it would have been choosing a lower level, by breaking His fast. But the next temptations were to actually sin. If He had agreed to the first suggestion, obedience to the next ones would have been harder. It could even beargued that to put the Lord to the test was permissible on a lower level- for passages like <em><a href='B:230 34:8'>Psa 34:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a></em> almost encourage it for those with a weak faith. Gideon likewise put the Lord to the test and was answered. But the Lord chose the higher level: and He knew Scripture which could support it. But the fact He chose the highest level first of all, meant that He was better able to take the higher level again, and to finally overcome the third temptation, which was definitely a clear choice between right and wrong. More than this, anything other than a desire to make the highest maximum commitment can lead to failure. “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left” (<em><a href='B:250 10:2'>Ecc 10:2</a></em> NIV) has been understood as referring not so much to right and wrong, good and evil, as to the highest good and lesser good (cp. how the left hand can stand for simply lesser blessing rather than outright evil, e:g. <em><a href='B:10 48:13-20'>Gen 48:13-20</a></em>). The fool inclines to lower commitment. The wise will always incline to the maximum, wholehearted level.</p><p>It's perhaps noteworthy that in the wilderness temptation, the Lord responds to the "If you are the Son of&nbsp;<em>God</em>::." by quoting <em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em> "<em>man</em>&nbsp;shall not live by bread alone"- and the Jonathan Targum has&nbsp;<em>bar nasha</em>&nbsp;[son of man] here for "man". If we are correct in understanding those wilderness temptations as the Lord's internal struggles, we see Him tempted to wrongly focus upon His being Son of<em> God</em>, forgetting His humanity; and we see Him overcoming this temptation, preferring instead to perceive Himself as Son of&nbsp;<em>man</em>. The&nbsp;<em>if::. then</em>&nbsp;structure here (a 'first class conditional') effectively means 'Because:::' (See Craig A. Evans,&nbsp;<em>Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 2012) p. 83). In this case, we are clearly being given an insight into the internal thinking of the Lord Jesus. 'Because You are Son of God, why not:::'. A truly human Jesus would inevitably have had such thoughts, and the record here makes that clear. Seeing that Mary appears to have become somewhat influenced by the surrounding view of Jesus as her illegitimate son, it's likely the Lord too had moments when He wondered whether this could all be true- whether He really was God's Son:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answered him: It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone- </em>The Lord&nbsp;overcame&nbsp;all&nbsp;His&nbsp;temptations&nbsp;by&nbsp;quoting&nbsp;from Deuteronomy, showing that His mind was seeking strength from the words of the Angel leading Israel through the wilderness. There are clear similarities between the Angel's leading of Israel through the wilderness and the Lord's experience in the wilderness:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Deuteronomy 8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Luke 4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>v. 2 "The Lord your God [an Angel] led you::. in the wilderness"</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>v. 1 Jesus led by the spirit (an Angel?) into the wilderness.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forty years in the wilderness</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Forty days in the wilderness</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>v. 3 "He (the Angel who led them in v. 2) suffered you to hunger".</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>The Angel made Jesus hunger.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Angel "fed you with manna" (<em><a href='B:230 78:25'>Psa 78:25</a></em>)</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Jesus was tempted to ask the Angel to provide bread as He did to Israel in their testing.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Man does not live by bread alone"</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>v. 4 "Man does not live by bread alone"</td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>Thus the Lord Jesus surveyed His own experience in the wilderness, and saw that He could take to Himself personally the lessons given to Israel. The Angel led Israel through the wilderness "to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments or no" (<em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em>). God Himself knows anyway, so this must be regarding the Angel, seeking to know the spiritual strength of Israel, as Job's&nbsp;Satan Angel sought to know Job's strength. Similarly, theLord’s&nbsp;Angel led Him into the wilderness, suffering Him to hunger, to humble and&nbsp;prove Him, to reveal His real attitude to the word of God. His quoting of the word to answer the temptations surely proved this to the Angel, especially since the Lord showed Himself so capable of thinking Himself into Scripture, and therefore taking the lessons most powerfully to Himself. The Lord was made to realize the importance of His memory of the word, as He would have later reflected that this was the only way He had overcome- that man spiritually lives by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". As a result of their wilderness temptations, both Israel and Christ were led to "consider in (their) heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God (the Angel) chasteneth thee". The chastenings of the Lord spiritually&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;wilderness&nbsp;were therefore arranged by the Angels. There did not have to be Angels actually tempting Christ in the wilderness temptations- because they can act directly on a man's heart, they can lead us into temptation. The fact we pray for Him not to implies that He does- through the Angels, as He Himself tempts no man (<em><a href='B:660 1:13'>Jas 1:13</a></em>), although the Angels tempted Abraham, and Israel among others. Thus the Angels may arrange an external stimulus, e. g. the fruit of the tree of knowledge, knowing it must produce certain internal desires within us which tempt us. Note how the temptation to throw Himself off the top of the temple was a temptation to misuse Angelic care. He answered it by a quotation which has an Angelic context: "You (Jesus) shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted Him in Massah" (<em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em>). At Massah the Israelites put the Angel to the test by questioning whether He could provide water (<em><a href='B:20 17:2-7'>Exo 17:2-7</a></em>).</h4>


text:
<p><em>And he led him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time</em>- This was surely a vision or imagination of the Kingdom, when "the kingdoms of this world" becomes those of the Lord Jesus. It can hardly be that a fiendish being took the Lord Jesus literally up the highest mountain (Everest) from where He could see all the world. Nor would being up a tall mountain enable the Lord to see "the glory of them". Surely a non-literal event is implied here- within the Lord's mind.</p><p>The temptations are hard to take literally:</p><p>- <em><a href='B:470 4:8'>Mat 4:8</a></em> implies that Jesus was led up into a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world in their future glory, “In a moment of time”. There is no mountain high enough to see all the world. And why would the height of the mountain enable Jesus to see what the world would be like in the future? The earth, being a sphere, there is no point on its surface from which one can see all the parts of the world at one time. </p><p>- A comparison of Matthew 4 and Luke 4 shows that the temptations are described in a different order. <em><a href='B:480 1:13'>Mar 1:13</a></em> says that Jesus was “in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan”, whilst <em><a href='B:470 4:2-3'>Mat 4:2-3</a></em> says that “when he had fasted forty days::. the tempter (Satan) came to Him::.". Because Scripture cannot contradict itself, we can conclude that these same temptations kept repeating themselves. The temptation to turn stones into bread is an obvious example. This would fit nicely if these temptations occurred within the mind of Jesus. Being of our nature, the lack of food would have affected him mentally as well as physically, and thus his mind would have easily begun to imagine things. Just going a few days without food can lead to delirium for some (cp. <em><a href='B:90 30:12'>1Sa 30:12</a></em>). The similarity between rolls of bread and stones is mentioned by Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 7:9'>Mat 7:9</a></em>, and doubtless those images often merged in his tortured mind - although always to be brought into swift control by his recollection of the Word </p><p>- Jesus probably told the Gospel writers the record of His temptations, and to bring home in words the intensity of what He underwent, He could have used the figurative approach seen in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. </p><p>- It seems unlikely that several times the devil led Jesus through the wilderness and streets of Jerusalem and then scaled a pinnacle of the temple together, all in view of the inquisitive Jews. Josephus makes no record of anything like this happening - presumably it would have caused a major stir. Similarly, if these temptations occurred several times within the forty days as well as at the end of that period (which they did at least twice, seeing that Matthew and Luke have them in different order), how would Jesus have had time to walk to the nearest high mountain (which could have been Hermon in the far north of Israel), climb to the top and back down again, return to the wilderness and then repeat the exercise? His temptations all occurred in the wilderness - He was there for forty days, tempted all the time by the devil (he only departed at the end). If Jesus was tempted by the devil each day, and the temptations occurred only in the wilderness, then it follows that Jesus could not have left the wilderness to go to Jerusalem or travel to a high mountain. These things therefore could not have literally happened. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Devil said to him: To you will I give all this authority and the glory of them. For it has been delivered to me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it</em>- The Lord knew full well that "all things" (Mt:), the Kingdom of God when the kingdoms of this world have been subsumed beneath it, could only be given to Him to God. He was tempted to play God, to assume that by His own action He could grasp it for Himself without the cross. It is perhaps to this that Paul alludes when he writes that the Lord did not consider such equality with God a thing to be even grasped after (<em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em>). Again we see how the essence of the wilderness temptations returned to the Lord on the cross. For <em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em> specifically speaks of the Lord in His time of dying.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, if you will worship me, it shall all be yours</em>- All the kingdoms of the world will indeed be the Lord's. This was the subtlety of the temptation. The question was when and how that was to be achieved. The Lord knew that the cross must come before that crown. But the temptation would have been to try to circumvent that, and this is portrayed as falling down and worshipping self.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answered and said to him: It is written, you shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve</em>- The record of the Lord’s wilderness temptations is almost certainly a reflection of <em>His</em> self-perception; He spoke to the ‘devil’ / personification of sin which was within Him, He saw Himself as two people, and His spiritual man triumphed gloriously against the man of the flesh. He understood that we can only serve two masters: God or the flesh (“mammon” is another personification of the flesh, similar to ‘satan’). He saw His own flesh, His own internal thoughts, as a master begging to be served which He must totally reject. His words are a quotation from <em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em>, which warns Israel to serve Yahweh alone and not idols. He perceived His own naturalmind and desire as an idol calling to be served. When the Lord explained what had happened in the wilderness to the disciples and thereby to the Gospel writers, He opened His heart to them. He gave us all a window on how He perceived Himself, as He sought to explain to men the internal struggles of the Son of God. Bringing it all back home, I must ask firstly how much we even <em>struggle</em> with temptation? And as and when we do, would we not be helped by the Lord’s example of talking to ourselves, and personalizing Scripture as He did? ‘You don’t want to do <em>that</em>! Give up your place in the Kingdom, for that::. drug, that girl, that job? Of course not! Come on. There <em>is</em> a way of escape; Paul told me God won’t try me beyond my strength, He will make me a way of escape’. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he led him to Jerusalem, set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him: If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down from here</em>- The idea may well be that He was imagining being received into rulership of the Messianic Kingdom, and was wondering whether that would be possible through accepting 'the devil', be it His own flesh or the Jewish system, who humanly speaking seemed able to offer a path to this. Likewise '<em>set him</em>' in <em><a href='B:470 4:5'>Mat 4:5</a></em> carries the idea of being appointed, established in authority:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For it is written: He shall give His angels charge concerning you, to guard you</em>- The Angels were given “charge concerning thee” (Jesus)- in the court of Heaven, God’s purpose was declared and His charge made clear concerning His Son (<em><a href='B:490 4:10'>Luk 4:10</a></em> RVmg:). </p><p>Presumably this was to be taken literally- the Angels physically with Him would have literally held Him under the arms if He jumped from the temple. So we see the literal physical presence of the Angels in our lives. The eyes of God, an evident reference to the Angels, are associated with the temple (<em><a href='B:110 8:29'>1Ki 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 5:6-8'>Psa 5:6-8</a></em>). The implication surely is that the Angel[s] specifically functioned in the temple / sanctuary. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen.</p><p>The ‘devil’ of the Lord’s own thoughts tempted Him to apply <em><a href='B:230 91:11'>Psa 91:11</a></em> in a wrong context, and jump off the pinnacle of the temple. But if the Lord had gone on, as surely He did, He would have found the words: “You shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shall you trample under feet” (<em><a href='B:230 91:13'>Psa 91:13</a></em>). This promise would have been of wonderful comfort, as throughout the wilderness temptations the Lord “was with the wild beasts” (<em><a href='B:480 1:13'>Mar 1:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And on their hands they shall carry you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone- </em>Presumably this was to be taken literally- the Angels physically with Him would have literally held Him under the arms if He jumped from the temple. So we see the literal physical presence of the Angels in our lives. The eyes of God, an evident reference to the Angels, are associated with the temple (<em><a href='B:110 8:29'>1Ki 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 5:6-8'>Psa 5:6-8</a></em>). The implication surely is that the Angel[s] specifically functioned in the temple / sanctuary. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen (<em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus answering said to him: It is said, you shall not test the Lord your God</em>- The Greek in Matthew effectively means 'On the other hand, it is also written:::'. The Lord Jesus did not try to reconcile the two verses, He accepted them as part of a dialectic whereby this verse says that but this verse says this- which is typical Hebrew reasoning. Geek reasoning would seek to explain that this verse says this, but that is qualified by this other verse, so the truth is a mixture between the two verses. The Hebrew style of reasoning leaves apparent contradictions to the Western, Greek reasoning mind. But they are not this at all, just dialectical style.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the Devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him for a time</em>- The essence of all the temptations returned to the Lord, particularly in Gethsemane and on the cross. Every time we discern them returning, they are at the hands of the Jews- to become king immediately in John 6, to come down from the cross. Which leads us to perceive that the 'devil' in the wilderness may have been manifested through the Jewish satan; the idea of the Jewish system as the great satan or adversary to the Lord and His later work is continued throughout the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and the news about him went out throughout all the region</em>- This was no glorious entry into Galilee; He withdrew into Galilee (<em><a href='B:470 4:12'>Mat 4:12</a></em>) after cleansing the temple (Joh 213-22), taking the imprisonment of John as the sign to begin His ministry. He felt He was withdrawing, heavy in spirit at the loss of John the Baptist to prison, but in the eyes of the world, it was a triumphal entry (:15). "The power of the Spirit" may mean that He began doing miracles, thus accounting for news of Him spreading like wildfire, or simply that He was propelled by the leadership of the Spirit as we can be today. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all</em>- The entry to Galilee could be that of <em><a href='B:500 4:43'>Joh 4:43</a></em>, meaning that by this stage He had already turned water into wine at Cana (John 2). The miracles had begun, but the 'glorifying' of Jesus is presented as in connection with His teaching rather than His miracles. This is an important theme- that His teaching was far more significant than His miracles. And that teaching we have recorded for us. It ought to elicit the same desire to glorify Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read</em>- This suggests He had been a regular synagogue attender and reader, but somehow this time, as He read the Messianic prophecies, it was clear that He was the word made flesh. He was the One. He must have previously somehow contained the fact He was the Messiah, living His life of perfect obedience in a somehow obscured manner. Now, He let down the mask and revealed Himself for who He was. </p>


text:
<p><em>And there was delivered to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written</em>- The record is as it were of a video capture, focusing on every detail of His body language- He stood up to read (:16), the scroll was delivered into His hands, He opened it and He found the place in the scroll. All this is to present in more visual form what John states more enigmatically- the word was made flesh.</p><p>Although the Greek <em>euangelion</em> is not used, the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:290 60:1-2'>Isa 60:1-2</a></em> clearly envisage a Messianic figure proclaiming the "good news" of Israel's freedom from oppression and sin. The Lord seems to assume that His audience would know what 'good news' He had in view. Perhaps He was alluding to those Servant Songs in Isaiah, and saying that the good news is of "the Kingdom of God". And He goes on in Matthew particularly to explain that this good news is of the life of forgiveness and grace lived out now, under the rulership of God, and coming to its material climax in His second coming and the literal establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. </p>


text:
<p><em>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and the recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those that are bruised</em>- The Lord began His ministry by proclaiming a freedom from burdens through Him (Luke 4). And He concludes it by telling the disciples to proclaim the same deliverance (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). Consider how He brings together various passages from Isaiah in His opening declaration in <em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>: <em>“</em>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives,&nbsp;&nbsp; and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach [proclaim] [Heb. ‘call out to a man’] the acceptable year of the Lord”<em>. </em>This combines allusions to <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:30 25:10'>Lev 25:10</a></em>); <em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em> LXX&nbsp;and&nbsp; <em><a href='B:290 61:2'>Isa 61:2</a></em>.<em>&nbsp;</em> </p><p><em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em> AV: “To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free (cp. <em><a href='B:50 15:12'>Deu 15:12</a></em> re freedom of slaves, s:w:), and that you break every yoke” is in the context of an insincerely kept year of Jubilee in Hezekiah’s time, after the Sennacherib invasion. Isaiah 58 has many Day of Atonement allusions- the year of Jubilee began on this feast. We are as the High Priest declaring the reality of forgiveness to the crowd. Hence <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em> asks us to proclaim a Jubilee of atonement. The Greek for “preach” in <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em> and for “preach / proclaim the acceptable year” in <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em> are the same, and the word is used in the LXX for proclaiming the Jubilee. And the LXX word used for ‘jubilee’ means remission, release, forgiveness, and it is the word used to describe our preaching / proclaiming forgiveness in <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>. It could be that we are to see the cross as the day of atonement, and from then on the Jubilee should be proclaimed in the lives of those who accept it. It’s as if we are running round telling people that their mortgages have been cancelled, hire purchase payments written off:::and yet we are treated as telling them something unreal, when it is in fact so real and pertinent to them. And the very fact that <em>Yahweh</em> has released others means that we likewise ought to live in a spirit of releasing others from their debts to us: “The creditor shall release that which he hath lent…<em> because</em> the Lord’s release hath been proclaimed” (<em><a href='B:50 15:2'>Deu 15:2</a></em> RV). </p><p>Isaiah 61 was the Jewish synagogue reading for the Day of Atonement and especially on the first day of a jubilee year, and it could be that the Lord is alluding to this when He said that "today" those words were coming true. Perhaps that day was a day of atonement. He was the means for atonement, on which basis the Jubilee was proclaimed; the good news of Messiah was not so much a political kingdom free from the Romans but the good news of atonement for sin.</p><p>Christ means 'Messiah', the&nbsp;anointed one. He was anointed in order "to preach the Gospel"; and we too have been anointed insofar as we are in Christ, the anointed one (<em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em>). Therefore as He was ordained a preacher of the Gospel to the world, we too share that honour (as we do all His honours, to some extent). He was anointed (‘oiled’) by God in order to give the oil of joy to His people; He shared His experience of anointing with us, and we must go out and do likewise (<em><a href='B:290 61:1-2'>Isa 61:1-2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord</em></p><p>- See on :18. To preach [proclaim] the acceptable year of the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>) is thus parallel with “You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” (<em><a href='B:30 25:10'>Lev 25:10</a></em>). Likewise there are to be found other such allusions to the proclamation of Jubilee: “We as workers together with him, beseech you also that you receive… the grace of God… a time accepted… in the day of salvation [the Jubilee] have I succoured you: behold, now is the accepted time” (<em><a href='B:540 6:1-2'>2Co 6:1-2</a></em>) “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached [proclaimed, s:w. <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>] in his name among all nations” (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). </p>


text:
<h4><em>And he closed the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him</em>- “The word was made flesh” in daily reality for Jesus. The extraordinary connection between the man Jesus and the word of God which He preached and spoke is reflected here, as noted on :17. Here we have as it were an exquisite close up of Jesus, His very body movements, His handling of the scroll, and the movement of the congregation's eyes. Notice that at this stage He had only read from the scroll, and not yet begun His exposition of what He had read. The impression I take from this is that there was an uncanny connection between Him and the word of His Father. The Son reading His Father’s word, with a personality totally in conformity to it, must have been quite something to behold. He was the word of God made flesh in a person, in a way no other person had or could ever be. See on <em><a href='B:490 4:36'>Luk 4:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:10'>Joh 14:10</a></em>.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And he began to say to them: Today has this scripture been fulfilled in your hearing</em>- It was fulfilled "today" in that it was on that day that He chose to remove the mask He had worn before His neighbours, and reveal Himself for who He was- the Messiah. </p><p>Some prophecies are fulfilled according to the acceptance of their fulfilment by believers, and therefore have their fulfilments in different ways at different times. Thus for those who received it, Malachi’s ‘Elijah’ prophecies were fulfilled in John the Baptist, for those who accepted him (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>). The implication is that for those who didn’t, those prophecies weren’t fulfilled. He didn’t mean that His reading those words in a synagogue had fulfilled them. He speaks of “your ears” or "hearing" as standing for ‘your correct perception / understanding’ in <em><a href='B:470 13:16'>Mat 13:16</a></em>. What He was surely saying was that for those of them who perceived who He was, Isaiah’s words were ringing true. For those who rejected Him, of course, they weren’t fulfilled, and therefore their complete, universal acceptance&nbsp;/ fulfilment would be delayed until a future day; just as it was with the ‘Elijah’ prophecy. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And all bore him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth; and they said- </em>Because of the gracious words and manner of speaking of Jesus, therefore God so highly exalted Him (<em><a href='B:230 45:2'>Psa 45:2</a></em>). The Father was <em>so </em>impressed with the words of His Son. <em><a href='B:490 4:22'>Luk 4:22</a></em> records how people were amazed at the gracious words He spoke, as in <em><a href='B:500 7:46'>Joh 7:46</a></em>; there was something very unusual in His manner of speaking. Evidently there must have been something totally outstanding about His use of language. God highly exalted Him because He so loved righteousness and hated wickedness (<em><a href='B:230 45:7'>Psa 45:7</a></em>), and yet also because of His manner of speaking (<em><a href='B:230 45:2'>Psa 45:2</a></em>); so this <em>love </em>of righteousness and hatred of evil was what made His words so special. &nbsp; </p><p><em>Is this not Joseph's son?</em>- Mary had clearly not shared with others what had happened around the Lord's conception. She had perhaps come to see Him as Joseph's son by the time she rebuked Him at age 12 in the temple, when she refers to Joseph as His father. She became influenced in her view of the Lord by the view of others. And we can take a warning from this. Such was His humanity that He appeared to have just followed the profession of His supposed ‘father’ on earth. In essence, the same is happening to Trinitarians. They just can't hack that Jesus, Son of God, perfect human being::. was truly human, with a human brother, mother and relatives. And so they have stumbled off into various wrong theories and theologies about Jesus to try to rationalize and spiritually legitimise their lack of faith in Him as a human person:&nbsp;</p><p>One of the most surpassing wonders of the Lord’s character was that He could live for 30 years in a small town in Galilee, never ever committing sin, and never ever omitting an act of righteousness::. and yet when He stood up and basically proclaimed Himself to be Messiah, the people were scandalized. They were shocked that this carpenter’s son should think He was anything much more than them. Yet whenever we try to be a bit more righteous than our fellows, it’s always noticed and held against us. Yet the Lord Jesus was both perfect, and also in favour with men. He came over as the ordinary guy, and yet He was perfect, and the light of this world. In this there is a matchless example for us. This wondrous feature of the Lord’s achievement in His own character is reflected by the way His own brothers, who knew Him better than any, perceived Him to be just an ordinary person. When He started implying that He was the Son of God, they thought He’d gone crazy. When He declared Himself as Messiah, the people who had grown up with Him were scandalized. He was <em>so</em> human that even though He never sinned, the people who intimately knew Him for 30 years thought that He was truly one of them. In our making the word flesh, we tend to irritate people by our apparent righteousness, or turn them away from us by our hypocrisy. But the Lord truly made the word flesh, to the extent that the very dregs of society could relate to Him as one of them. There is a wonder in this that requires sustained meditation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Doubtless you will say to me this proverb: Physician, heal yourself. Whatever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in your hometown</em>- The nobleman's son had been cured in Capernaum, as recorded in John. "Heal yourself" could suggest the Lord had some illness or physical weakness. The language of Isaiah 53 is full of allusion to leprosy. He may have had the appearance of leprosy, some skin condition, whilst not having leprosy itself. This would speak much of the Lord's relationship with sin.</p>


