# comment

text:
<p><em>And the younger of them said to his father: Father, give me the inheritance of property that is coming to me. And he divided his property between them</em>- The somewhat sad picture of the loving Father dividing between his sons “his living", for them to go off and make what they will of, to either squander in the world or selfishly and self-righteously hoard to themselves, is a picture of the vast and genuine delegation to us by the Father. The Father has given us huge freewill and an amazing amount of self-determination. Divine delegation is one of His great characteristics as a Father. It would have been highly unusual for any father to agree to liquidate part of the family estate ahead of time, just so as to give in to the will of a wayward son who totally rejected him. And yet the father did this; he liquidated part of the family inheritance to give it to a son who wanted to openly quit the family. This is how much the Father is willing to give us the essential desires of our own hearts, how much He is willing to allow us to go our own way, so that we may serve Him of our own freewill.</p><p>For those Palestinian peasants, politeness and respect to your father was paramount. Even if you didn’t obey your father, you had to be polite to him. Rudeness to your father or public disobedience to him was the worst thing you could do, and you shamed yourself. The Lord turned that understanding on its head in His parable of the two sons in <em><a href='B:470 21:28-32'>Mat 21:28-32</a></em>. He taught that the <em>better</em> son was the one who rudely refused to do what his father asked, but later relented and did it. The Lord saw this son as better than the one who politely agreed, and yet never fulfilled his promise. Perhaps that parable needs reflection upon today, where ‘nicespeak’ has become paramount- so long as you say something nicely, what you actually are saying and what you <em>do</em> isn’t so important. <em>How</em> we speak <em>is</em> of course important; but it can be exalted to the point where words rather than real action become paramount. But that aside, the point is that both the sons were <em>extremely</em> rude to their Father. And he was the most loving, self-sacrificial dad that two kids ever could’ve had. We feel hurt for the lovely old boy. One element of unreality is that he only had two sons- a small family for those days. How tragic that both his sons went so wrong and rebelled against him. And we sense something of his hurt, our heart starts to bleed for him, and we think of <em>our</em> Heavenly Father’s hurt. And then the penny drops- those two boys are us. &nbsp;</p><p>The younger son was more than rude in demanding his actual share of the inheritance immediately. He was effectively wishing that his father was dead. He had the neck to treat his lovely father as if he were already dead. There arose in Europe after the second world war the ‘Death of God’ philosophy and theology. We may distance ourselves from it in disgust, finding even the words grating and inappropriate, but let’s remember that the younger son ends up the son who is found in the end abiding in the Father’s house and joyful fellowship. This is how <em>we</em> have treated our wonderful Father. We know from the examples of Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 25:5-8'>Gen 25:5-8</a></em>) and Jacob (Genesis 48-49) that the actual division of the inheritance was made <em>by the father</em> as his death approached. For the son to take the initiative was disgusting. Although the sons could have some legal right to what their father gave them before his death, they were strictly denied the right of actually having it in possession [i:e. the right of disposition]. This awful son was therefore each of us. And the father responds with an unreal grace. He agrees. He did what he surely knew was not really for the spiritual good of the son. And according to <em><a href='B:50 21:7'>Deu 21:7</a></em>, the younger son’s share was one third. But the father gives him <em>half</em>. The younger son turns it all into cash within a few days [the Greek for “gathered all” definitely means ‘to turn into cash’]. This would’ve meant selling the fields and property quickly- and the father would’ve had to give agreement for this and have been involved in the contracts. Buying and selling takes a long time in peasant culture- selling quickly would’ve meant selling very cheaply. It would’ve been the laughing stock of the whole area. The way the son sells the inheritance would've been a more awful and unreal thing in the ears of the Lord's first hearers than it is to us. Naboth would rather have died than sell his inheritance- even to the King (1Ki 213). The lifetime’s hard work of the father and family was wasted. And the father went along with it all. This was more than unusual; it would’ve been outrageous in the ears of the Lord’s hearers. But this is the outrageous nature of God’s grace. He must be so torn by our prayers- as a loving Father, wanting to give us what we ask for materially, whilst knowing it’s not for our good… and sometimes doing so. The father made himself look a fool because of his enormous love for this obnoxious son who wished him dead, this young man who clearly thought solely in terms of ‘Gimme the money and I’m outta here for good’. And he thought this with no thought to the huge damage he was bringing upon the rest of the family. For they would’ve lost so much through losing half the property. We sense the pain of the father, of the family, and the selfishness of the son. And time and again we are breathless at the love and grace of the father. &nbsp;</p><p>Significantly, the son asked for his share of the property- not his inheritance. To receive inheritance carried with it responsibility, of building the house of your father, upholding the family name etc. But this son didn’t want that. And the father could quite rightly have said ‘No, you get the inheritance when you take the responsibilities that come with it’. But no, this son wants to quit with his lovely father and the whole family name. In that culture, to cut your ties with your home family, your inheritance, your land… was almost unheard of. It was almost impossible to do. But that’s what this angry young man wanted. The incredible thing is, the father allowed him to do this! That element of unreality signposts the extent to which God allows us freewill, genuine freedom of determination- and how much it costs Him emotionally and as a person to do so. This is the frightening thing about freewill- how much it hurts and costs God to give it to us. This insight alone should lead to a far more careful and responsible use of our freewill. William Temple said somewhere, something to the effect that God gives us freedom even to reject His love. It’s no good reflecting on the younger son and thinking ‘But I’m not that kinda guy’. The whole point of the parable is that yes, we are. That’s us. We’re either like that son, or the self-righteous son who is left standing outside of the father’s fellowship. Clearly enough, the God whom Jesus was revealing was <em>not</em> based upon some village patriarch. Freud rightly observed that many people’s image of God is based upon their experience of human father figures. For the true believer however, the Lord Jesus is revealing a Father-figure radically different to anything they’ve ever met:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Not many days later, the younger son gathered into money all he had, and took a journey into a far country; and there he squandered his inheritance in reckless living</em>- The same Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:670 4:4'>1Pe 4:4</a></em> concerning Gentiles (and also the latter-day apostasy within the ecclesia?) living in "excess of riot". The corrective to the elder brothers' attitude is provided by the following parable of the unjust steward which comes straight afterwards in Luke 16. The steward was accused of 'wasting' his master's goods (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>), using the same Greek word translated "substance" in <em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>, concerning how the son wasted his father's substance. The steward forgave others, and therefore ultimately found a way of escape from his dilemma. The implication is that it was on account of the prodigal being willing to do this, not daring to point the finger at others in the Father's household because of his awareness of his own sins, that he was eventually saved. We can also infer that the elder brother walked out of the Father's fellowship because of his refusal to do this. Again we see how God works through our sins. Because of the prodigal's experience of sin and forgiveness, he was better able to show that vital love and tolerance towards others, without which we cannot receive God's ultimate acceptance. In a sense, it was much <em>more</em> difficult for the elder brother.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that country, and he began to be in want</em>- The prodigal "spent all", just as the diseased woman had "spent all" her living (<em><a href='B:480 5:26'>Mar 5:26</a></em>), and now came to take hold of Christ's mantle of righteousness. This we do at baptism. Other similarities between the prodigal and that widow are to be found in <em>Studies In The Gospels</em> by H:A. Whittaker. It's bankruptcy, or bankruptcy. Paul spoke of spending and being spent in the Lord's service (<em><a href='B:540 12:15'>2Co 12:15</a></em>), alluding to how the prodigal spent himself in dissipation. That sense of losing all must come- either in sin's service, or in that of the Lord. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed pigs</em>- The son was attached to a "citizen of that country", perhaps a personification of the Biblical devil to which we are joined before conversion. He was made free from him the moment he started his journey back. He "was dead, and is alive again" is also baptism language (cp. <em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>). "He arose" from the pigs (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>) certainly implies new life and resurrection. </p><p>We don’t like to think of ourselves as that thankless young man; but even more do we revolt at the idea that we were and are at times out there feeding pigs. Anyone who’s travelled in the Middle East will know the annoyance of a beggar attaching themselves to you and just refusing to leave you. But watch how the locals deal with those types. They don’t shout at them, or chase them. They will ask them to do something which is beneath even their dignity as a beggar to do. And they walk away shamefaced. I knew a brother who was a schoolteacher. The boss wanted to fire him because of his Christianity. The boss didn’t say ‘You’re fired! Clear off!’. He simply transferred him to a remote village in the middle of nowhere. And so the brother did the only reasonable thing- he resigned. The young man ‘joining’ or ‘gluing’ himself to the rich Gentile citizen was like the beggar who glues himself to you, and you don’t know how to shake him off. The pig owner told him to go and feed his pigs- thinking that this would surely be beneath this once-wealthy Jew who was hassling him. But so desperate was the young man, that he had to swallow every drop of pride, national and personal- and go do it. And he felt like a pig- he was willing to eat what they ate. <em>This</em> is the picture of our desperation at every sin- but we need to feel it, if we are to experience the path back to the Father. In an age when sin is often more about the words you type on your keyboard than actual physical debauchery, this parable hits home hard. Of course it was pride which was in the way for the son, and it is swallowing pride which is the essence of repentance. And again, it was fear of shame that delayed the young man’s return- fear of having to go through the <em>kezazah</em> ceremony of being officially disowned, fear of how the mob of young kids which roam every village street would whistle and shout and sing insults at him. And we need to pause and reflect whether we contribute to this significant barrier which surely hinders so many from returning to the Father’s house. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he would gladly have filled his belly with the husks that the pigs ate, but no one gave him anything</em>- The son was joined to a Gentile, and totally ritually unclean by working with the pigs. All hope of justification by the law was long gone.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when he came to his senses he said-</em>The sense that the prodigal had of having come to a complete end, realizing the ultimate wretchedness of sin, should be ours when we repent. The prodigal's repentance is ours. The prodigal among the pigs, rising up to return, should be a cameo of our repentances throughout each day. The allusion to the Septuagint of <em><a href='B:240 29:21'>Pro 29:21</a></em> shows how that despite having reached such an "end", there is still a way back: "He that lives wantonly from a child shall be a servant, and in the <em>end</em> shall grieve over himself". Yet we know that after that "end", the prodigal returned. The son 'coming to his senses' implies that his life of sin was madness, lived in a haze of semi-consciousness of his real spiritual self. This spiritual anaesthesia is <em>always</em> present when we sin. Yet it does not mean that God sees and feels our sins as we do; He has a constancy of spiritual awareness. An appreciation of this may help us in our struggle to sense the true seriousness of sin. </p><p><em>How many of my father's hired servants have bread enough to spare, but I perish here with hunger!</em>- The prodigal's perishing with hunger and desperately needing bread suggests a connection with <em><a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a></em>: "I am the bread of life: he that comes to me (cp. the prodigal's return) shall never hunger::. him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out" (cp. the receiving back of the prodigal). This coming to Christ is both ongoing and also specifically at baptism.</p><p>God hoped through the hope of Hosea that 'Gomer' would say "I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now" (<em><a href='B:350 2:17'>Hos 2:17</a></em>). But Gomer / Israel would not; and so the Lord picked up the idea and puts it in the mouth of the returning prodigal son in <em><a href='B:490 15:17'>Luk 15:17</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>I will rise and go to my father, and will say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight</em>- His plan was to use the phrase “I have sinned against heaven and against you”- but this is almost quoting verbatim from Pharaoh’s words of insincere repentance in <em><a href='B:20 10:16'>Exo 10:16</a></em>! He still failed to grasp that he was his father’s <em>son</em>- he didn’t ‘get it’, that <em>this </em>would be the basis of his salvation, rather than a master-servant relationship with his father based on hard work. It was the father’s amazing grace which swept him off his feet just along the street from his father’s home; it was the father’s unconditional acceptance of him which made him realize what sonship and repentance was really all about. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants</em>- The young man hadn’t quite learnt the need for total grace when he decided to return home. He decided to return and ask to be made “as one of your skilled craftsmen” (Gk:- he uses <em>misthios </em>rather than <em>doulos</em>, the usual word for ‘slave’). Presumably he figured that he could work and pay off what he had wasted. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he rose and went to his father. But while he was yet far away, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran and embraced and kissed him</em>- The Father's speed and zeal is captured by the repeated use of the conjunction "and": "His father saw him, <em>and</em> had compassion, <em>and</em> ran, <em>and</em> fell on his neck, <em>and</em> kissed him". The son's careful preparation of his request for mercy was needful for him, but not for the Father. This is a precise allusion to the spirit of <em><a href='B:290 65:24'>Isa 65:24</a></em>: "Before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear". This is primarily concerning God's relationship with men in the Kingdom. Yet our daily experience of forgiveness now should give us a foretaste of the glorious sense of restoration with God which will be ours in the Kingdom.</p><p>There was a Jewish custom called <em>Kezazah</em>, ‘the cutting off’. If a Jew lost the family fortune amongst Gentiles, he would be greeted at home by the whole family, who would break a pot and scream ‘XYZ is cut off from his people’ Kenneth E. Bailey, <em>The Cross And The Prodigal</em> (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005) p. 52). The family and community would have no more fellowship with the person (Kenneth E. Bailey, <em>Jacob And The Prodigal</em> (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003) p. 102). Moulton and Milligan describe the record of a public notice by which parents declare their dissociation from their son who had wasted their wealth (J:H. Moulton & G. Milligan, <em>The Vocabulary Of The Greek New Testament Illustrated From the Papyri And Other Non-Literary Sources</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952) p. 89). This is what the Lord’s Jewish audience would’ve expected to come next in the story, when the son returns. But no! There is the very opposite. Law and traditional expectation and even human perception of justice is thrown away, as the father races along the street towards his son and accepts him. For an elderly man to run publicly was yet again an unreal element in the story- mature men always walk, at a slow and dignified pace. Not gather up their robes and run, let alone publicly. Actually the Greek word translated “run” in <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em> is that used about sprinting (<em><a href='B:530 9:24'>1Co 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:26'>1Co 9:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:7'>Gal 5:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:1'>Heb 12:1</a></em>). Here again we see the self-humiliation of the father before men, as he expressed a radical acceptance. Even we from our distance expect there to be a ‘telling off’, a facing of the issues. But there isn’t. The grace of God which meets the returning sinner leads him to repentance. It of itself, by its sheer magnitude, elicits the state of contrition which is indeed vital; but this is inspired&nbsp;by the huge initiative of the Father and Son. &nbsp;</p><h4>The father’s radical acceptance is the very basis of our salvation. It is challenging, supremely so. Perhaps we handle ‘classic’ repentance easier- someone does wrong, goes off for a long time, is out of sight and out of mind, comes back, asks for our forgiveness with tears and humility. It’s actually psychologically hard to say ‘No’. <em>That</em> kind of forgiveness is relatively easy. But what is so much harder is to show forgiveness and the nature of the father’s love and grace time and again in daily life; to keep looking and hoping for the one who has offended us, ruined us, destroyed us, used and abused us… to be coming home. Actually I know virtually none amongst us who rise up to the father’s love and grace in this. It remains a stark, sobering challenge to us all. &nbsp;</h4><p>It needs to be understood that the father had to act as the village expected him to. They expected him to enact the <em>kezazah</em>, to hand the son over to them in some form for judgment, to make an example of this awful man. No village member is an island, all have to act within the expectations of the group. But the father breaks through all that. He again humiliates himself before the villagers by doing what he did. He likely angers them- for anger so often comes as a result of being confronted by the grace shown by others. We see it so often in the life of our spiritual community. Indeed, the Lord got at this in another parable, where He speaks of how some were angry at the extreme grace shown by the generous vineyard owner (<em><a href='B:470 20:1-16'>Mat 20:1-16</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>The Father offered forgiveness without repentance to the prodigal son before there was any direct evidence of repentance- just a sign of general regret or desire to be in the Father’s house. Indeed, it would see that the very fact the son <em>wanted </em>to return to the Father’s house was quite enough to warrant his acceptance there- and the killing of the fatted calf. </p><p>The Lord's zeal for our redemption and His enthusiasm to see us as righteous is brought out in the parable of the prodigal. The Father (manifest in the Lord) runs out to meet the son. That story was masterfully tied back in to <em><a href='B:290 64:5-8'>Isa 64:5-8</a></em>: "You meet him that rejoices and works righteousness, those that remember you in your ways::. we have sinned::. we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags::. but now, O Lord, You are our father". The patient, hopeful father saw in the son a boy rejoicing and working righteousness; but this was hardly how <em>he</em> felt! And so it will be with Israel in the last days. And so it is with each of us now, in our times of repentance. That surpassing grace is ours; we are seen as working righteousness when all we have is a bitter self-loathing and desire to somehow get back to God. But the crucial point is: <em>how often</em> do we have such a true repentance? We repeatedly sin, that we admit. But how frequently is there this kind of repentance which calls forth such grace, to see us as so righteous when we are so unrighteous, the grace of Jesus so great, so free:::?&nbsp;</p><p>The parables so often allude to contemporary Jewish conceptions of grace, and show how God's grace is so far beyond them. The Father is watching for the return of the prodigal, even while the son was "far off" (Gk. <em>makron</em>); and this is the same word used about the "far (Gk. <em>makros</em>) country" where the son was (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). The Divine eyesight sees the person who is far off in sin, and longs for their return. This was quite contrary to all Jewish and human notions of showing grace to those who return - <em>after</em> they return. There was a contemporary Jewish story about a son who wished to return to his father; and the father sends a message to him saying "Return as far as you can and I will come the rest of the way to you". The Lord's parable showed how the care of the Father for His children is so far more than that. And He is there watching billions of cases, simultaneously::. such is the passionate heart of God for the individual.</p><p>We must grow in our realization of the <em>enthusiasm</em> of God for our salvation. Consider how the Father ran unto the pathetic son and fell on (Gk. violently seized) his neck and kissed him (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>; the same Greek as in <em><a href='B:510 20:37'>Act 20:37</a></em>). The Father restlessly watching for the prodigal's return matches the woman searching for the lost coin “till she find it” or the unusual shepherd who searches for his lost sheep “until He finds it” (<em><a href='B:490 15:4'>Luk 15:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). This involves God in huge activity- setting up providential encounters, nudging consciences through circumstance. The huge amount of ‘work’ is one thing; but the mental energy of concern and thoughtfulness is phenomenal beyond our comprehension. God rises up early seeking His people- rather like us somehow being able to wake up early in the morning without an alarm clock, because our internal clock is restlessly wanting to be up and on our mission for the day. In all this we are to manifest God- for we too are to seek and save the lost.</p><p>The elder brother in the prodigal story shows an unbelievably self-righteous attitude. Yet, this truly is the position of the legalists of Christ's day and this. The love of the Father [God] for the son [repentant Israel] is quite something. Would a father really rush out and kiss him, i:e. forgive him (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:100 14:33'>2Sa 14:33</a></em>) without first requiring an explanation and specific repentance? For this unusual Father, the mere fact the son wanted to return was enough. And when the vineyard workers refused to work and beat and killed the Owner’s servants that were sent, the response we expect is that the Owner sends in some armed men and re-establishes control. But He doesn’t. Why ever keep sending servants after some are killed? But this is the loving, almost desperate persistence of the Father for our response. This is what the parables of Israel teach. In the end, He does something humanly crazy. He sends a single Man walking towards them- His only Son. Or think of the parable of the older son. The loving Father divides all that He has between the two sons- and the son who remained at home therefore ended up with <em>all</em> that the Father had, seeing the younger son had blown the other half of it (<em><a href='B:490 15:31'>Luk 15:31</a></em>). This was the extent of God’s love for Pharisaic, hypocritical Israel. He gave them His all- the blood of His only Son. Elderly oriental gentlemen never run in public. But the Father will do so when the younger son returns. Such will be His joy, and such is His joy over every sinner who repents! </p>


text:
<p><em>And the son said to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. I am no more worthy to be called your son</em>- The son admitted that he had sinned "in your sight", exactly as David confessed after his sin with Bathsheba (<em><a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a></em>). In the same way as David openly recognized that he deserved to die, so the prodigal wanted to be made a hireling. Yet in reality, God did not take David's life, the prodigal was not allowed to even get around to saying he wanted to be made a slave (:21 cp. 19), shoes being immediately placed on his feet (:22) to distinguish him from the barefoot slaves:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>But the father said to his servants: Bring quickly the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet</em>- The prodigal was not allowed to even get around to saying he wanted to be made a slave (:21 cp. 19), shoes being immediately placed on his feet (:22) to distinguish him from the barefoot slaves. The honour bestowed upon the son by the father is totally unreal. Without the slightest sign that the son is now responsible, is truly repentant, has the right motives… the father gives him the best robe, which is what was done for the person whom a leader wished to honour above all (<em><a href='B:190 6:1-9'>Est 6:1-9</a></em>). And the father gives the son his signet ring (cp. <em><a href='B:10 41:41-42'>Gen 41:41-42</a></em>). All this, before the prodigal has in any way proved himself. All he’s done is come home, still not wanting to be a son, just a craftsman; and he was only driven home by his desperation. Such is the huge significance attached by the Lord to our turning up home. And in our dealing with returning sinners, which is every one of us day by day, we should reflect the same attitude. </p><p>The record of the prodigal's treatment at the homecoming suggests that we are to see in this the sharing of Christ's personal reward with repentant sinners. Removing his rags and clothing him with the best robe recalls <em><a href='B:450 3:4'>Zec 3:4</a></em>, concerning the very same thing happening to Christ at his glorification. Being given a robe, ring and shoes takes us back to Joseph/Jesus being similarly arrayed in the day of his glory (<em><a href='B:10 41:42'>Gen 41:42</a></em>). This parable is rich in reference to the Joseph story, with Joseph's brothers typifying Israel and all sinners. But now there is a powerful twist in the imagery. The sinners (cp. the brothers) now share the reward of the saint (cp. Joseph). This is the very basis of the Gospel of justification in Christ, through having his righteousness imputed to us, so that we can share in his rewards. This will fully be realized at the marriage supper of the lamb, although it also occurs in a sense each time we repent, and live out the parable of the prodigal's repentance again. See on <em><a href='B:730 6:11'>Rev 6:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And bring the fatted calf, kill it and let us eat and make merry</em>- The joyful homecoming and celebration feast after the prodigal's repentance then equates with the Messianic banquet. The fatted calf which was killed therefore connects with the "fatlings" which were killed for the marriage supper of the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>. And those Jews who refused the invitation to join in that feast easily equate with the elder brother. "Let us eat and make merry" is alluded to by the Lord in his later description of the marriage supper: "Let us be glad and rejoice::. for the marriage of the lamb is come" (<em><a href='B:730 19:7'>Rev 19:7</a></em>). "Enter into the joy of your lord" (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>) is the equivalent in the parable of the virgins. There is good reason to think that our Lord consciously designed his parables to allude to each other, and thus build up a more complete picture of his teaching.</p><p>The context of the parable is set in :2. It was in response to the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus that he received sinners and ate with them. Jesus is replying by showing that the meal he ate with them was in the spirit of the joyful feasting occasioned by the finding of the lost coin, and the return of the prodigal. The prodigal's repentance is thus likened to those who were responding to Christ's gospel.</p><p>Compare "Slay and make ready" (<em><a href='B:10 43:16'>Gen 43:16</a></em>). Joseph's welcome of his brothers is the basis of the prodigal son parable (<em><a href='B:10 45:14-15'>Gen 45:14-15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>); in this case another line of interpretation opens up, with the father representing Christ, and the prodigal is the repentant Jews, wanting to be servants and nothing else.</p><p>"The fatted calf" of Christ is 'killed' by God on our repentance in the sense that He is aware once again of the death of Christ whenever we are granted forgiveness. The spirit of Christ groans for us when we sin, as he did on the cross and in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>). Thus God looks on the travail of Christ's soul when He bears our sins away from us (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>). To crucify Christ afresh as it were puts Christ through the process of death on behalf of sin once again, but because the believer does not 'resurrect' to newness of life in forsaking the sin, neither does God 'visualize' the Lord's triumph over the sufferings of sin in the resurrection. Such a person has left Christ suffering, travailing in soul, groaning with tears, without any triumph or resurrection.</p>


text:
<p><em>For this my son who was dead, is alive again! He was lost and is found! And they began to be merry</em>- The prodigal son was a favourite of Paul's. At least four times (<em><a href='B:490 15:24'>Luk 15:24</a></em> = <em><a href='B:560 2:1'>Eph 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:5'>Eph 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:14'>Eph 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>) he makes the point that he saw the repentant son as a type of every one of us: not just those who publicly disgrace themselves and go out of church life for a time:&nbsp;</p><p>As God took His repentant wife back to her former status, speaking of her once again as a virgin, so the Father emphasizes: "This <em>my son</em> was dead::.". The prodigal was dead, but then became alive (:32), in the same way as baptism marks both a one-off coming alive with Christ, and also the start of a newness of life in which we are constantly dying to sin and coming alive to God's righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em>). Our repentance and subsequent acceptability with God at our baptisms should therefore be on a similar level to our confessions of sinfulness to God after specific sins in our daily lives, and also related to our doing this at the day of judgment. </p><p>Yet in the daily round of sin and failure, it is sometimes difficult to sense the degree to which God is actively seeking our return, and willing to slay the fatted calf. The earlier parables of the lost sheep and coin show God actively working to find us; whilst that of the prodigal implies that He is not doing anything physical. Yet the clear connections with the preceding parables show that the woman zealously turning the house upside down must therefore be a figure of the mental energy expended by the Almighty in seeking out our repentance. In our semi-aware spiritual days and hours, before we 'come to ourselves', the Father's active mind is urgently seeking us. Surely this should motivate us in our stronger moments to be aware of the need <em>not</em> to sleep into the sleepy madness of spiritual indifference and sin. This indifference is effectively spending our substance with whores and riotous living. <em><a href='B:240 29:3'>Pro 29:3</a></em> is one of the root passages for the prodigal parable: "Whoever loves <em>wisdom</em> rejoices his father: but he that keeps company with harlots spends his <em>substance</em>". There is a parallel here between wisdom and the Father's substance; continuing a popular Biblical theme that God's spiritual riches are to be found in His words of wisdom. An indifference to the spiritual riches which we have been given in the word of Christ is therefore being likened to the prodigal squandering the Father's substance with whores. </p><p>It is hard to appreciate that this parable really is intended to be read as having some reference to our daily turning back from our sins- such is the emotional intensity of the story. Yet such is the seriousness of sin that we must see in it an ideal standard to aim for in this regard. The parable alludes to a passage in Job which helps us better appreciate this. The prodigal's confession "I have sinned::. in your sight", and his returning from spiritual death to life (<em><a href='B:490 15:21'>Luk 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:32'>Luk 15:32</a></em>) connect well with <em><a href='B:220 33:24-30'>Job 33:24-30</a></em>: "His flesh (of the forgiven sinner) shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth (cp. the prodigal): he shall pray unto God, and He will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy::. if any say (like the prodigal), I have sinned::. and it profited me not; He will deliver his soul from the pit, and his life shall see the light. Lo, all these things worketh God <em>oftentimes</em> with man". The prodigal's experience will often be worked out in our lives, the fatted calf slain time and again, and as such we will come to know and appreciate the Father's love even more. </p><p>The joyous feast around the fatted calf can therefore speak of the full fellowship with God which we enjoy each time we come to repentance. The return of Israel in Hosea 2 was one of the source passages for the parable. The feast at their return is there described as a betrothal feast. This is obviously a one-off act. Yet such is the constant newness of life which we can experience through continued repentance, that the feasts of joy which we experience can all have the intensity of a betrothal feast. In like manner our relation with Christ in the Kingdom is likened to a consummation which lasts eternally. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now his elder son was in the field- </em>The elder brother coming in from the field must be related to the parable about the servant coming home from the field in <em><a href='B:490 17:7-10'>Luk 17:7-10</a></em>. The servant should then have prepared the meal, on the master's command, and then admitted that despite having been perfectly obedient, he was still unprofitable. The prodigal parable points the great contrast. <em>God</em>, while having every right to order the servant/ elder brother to prepare the meal, is the one who has actually prepared it. <em>God</em> asks the elder son to come and eat immediately after returning from the field, rather than ordering him to prepare the meal, as He could so justly have done. Yet despite God's boundless love, the elder son refused to act and think in the spirit of the Father's love.</p><p><em>And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing</em>- A calf, dancing and music recall the scene on Moses' return from the mount (<em><a href='B:20 32:17-19'>Exo 32:17-19</a></em>); the elder brother's response as he returned from the field and beheld this sight may well have been rooted in his attempt to place himself in Moses' place. He zealously protested at what he liked to see as rank apostasy when it was actually the display of the real spirit of Christ, in receiving back a lost soul. For all this, the lesson is never learned. Schism after schism have been experienced over this very issue of having repentant brethren take their place at the memorial feast. The bad grace and bitterness of the elder brother as he stormed away from the happy feast is seen all too often amongst us. &nbsp;</p><p>The parable of the prodigal contains multiple allusions to the record of Jacob and Esau, their estrangement, and the anger of the older brother [Esau] against the younger brother (K:E. Bailey, <em>Jacob And The Prodigal</em> (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003) lists 51 points of contact between the Jacob / Esau record and the prodigal parable). There is a younger and an elder son, who both break their relationships with their father, and have an argument over the inheritance issue. Jacob like the prodigal son insults his father in order to get his inheritance. As Jacob joined himself to Laban in the far country, leaving his older brother Esau living at home, so the prodigal glued himself to a Gentile and worked for him by minding his flocks, whilst his older brother remained at home with the father. The fear of the prodigal as he returned homematches that of Jacob as he finally prepares to meet the angry Esau. Jacob's unexpected meeting with the Angel and clinging to him physically is matched by the prodigal being embraced and hugged by his father. Notice how <em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em> records how Jacob felt he saw the face of Esau as the face of an Angel. By being given the ring, the prodigal "has in effect now supplanted his older brother" (A:J. Hultgren, <em>The Parables Of Jesus</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) p. 79); just as Jacob did. As Esau was "in the field" (<em><a href='B:10 27:5'>Gen 27:5</a></em>), so was the older brother. </p><h4>What was the Lord Jesus getting at by framing His story in terms of Jacob and Esau? The Jews saw Jacob as an unblemished hero, and Esau / Edom as the epitome of wickedness and all that was anti-Jewish and anti-God. The Book of Jubilees has much to say about all this, as does the Genesis Rabbah (See e:g. Jacob Neusner,<em> Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary To The Book Of Genesis</em> (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) Vol. 3 p. 176). The Lord is radically and bravely re-interpreting all this. Jacob is the younger son, who went seriously wrong during his time with Laban. We have shown elsewhere how weak Jacob was at that time. Jacob was saved by grace, the grace shown in the end by the Angel with whom he wrestled, and yet who finally blessed him. As <em><a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a></em> had made clear, Jacob weeping in the Angel's arms and receiving the blessing of gracious forgiveness is all God speaking to us. The older brother who refused to eat with his sinful brother clearly represented, in the context of the parable, the Jewish religious leaders. They were equated with Esau- the very epitome of all that was anti-Jewish. And in any case, according to the parable, the hero of the story is the younger son, Jacob, who is extremely abusive and unspiritual towards his loving father, and is saved by sheer grace alone. This too was a radical challenge to the Jewish perception of their ancestral father Jacob. </h4><p>The parable demonstrates that both the sons despised their father and their inheritance in the same way. They both wish him dead, treat him as if he isn't their father, abuse his gracious love, shame him to the world. Both finally come to their father from working in the fields. Jacob, the younger son, told Laban that "All these years I have served you::. and you have not treated me justly" (<em><a href='B:10 31:36-42'>Gen 31:36-42</a></em>). But these are exactly the words of the older son in the parable! The confusion is surely to demonstrate that both younger and elder son essentially held the same wrong attitudes. And the Father, clearly representing God, and God as He was manifested in Christ, sought so earnestly to reconcile both the younger and elder sons. The Lord Jesus so wished the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees to fellowship with the repenting sinners that He wept over Jerusalem; He didn't shrug them off as self-righteous bigots, as we tend to do with such people. He wept for them, as the Father so passionately pours out His love to them. And perhaps on another level we see in all this the desperate desire of the Father and Son for Jewish-Arab unity in Christ. For the promises to Ishmael show that although Messiah's line was to come through Isaac, God still has an especial interest in and love for all the children of Abraham- and that includes the Arabs. Only a joint recognition of the Father's grace will bring about Jewish-Arab unity. But in the end, it will happen- for there will be a highway from Assyria to Judah to Egypt in the Millennium. The anger of the elder brother was because the younger son had been reconciled to the Father without compensating for what he had done wrong. It's the same anger at God's grace which is shown by the workers who objected to those who had worked less receiving the same pay. And it's the same anger which is shown every time a believer storms out of an ecclesia because some sinner has been accepted back::. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he called one of the servants, and inquired what these things might mean</em>- Wondering what things might mean is an idea used by Luke several times, especially concerning Mary and others at the time of the Lord's birth. The ultimate meaning is grace in God's son. That was the meaning those earlier people were intended to come to, and it was the same for the prodigal. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Your brother came, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound</em>- We are left to imagine in what tone of voice they replied. And whether in fact the elder son already knew what was going on, but was seeking to persuade some of the servants to adopt his perspective. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he was angry and would not go in; and his father came out and encouraged him</em>- The elder son would not 'go in' to the wedding (<em><a href='B:490 15:28'>Luk 15:28</a></em>); and the Lord surely constructed that story to use a word which so often is used about going in to the Kingdom (in Matthew alone: <em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:9'>Mat 18:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>). His point clearly is that those who don't enter into His Kingdom <em>chose themselves not to do </em>so, they keep themselves out of the Kingdom, because they cannot bring themselves to show a true love to their brother. In the end, the very end, we receive our dominant desire.</p><p>To refuse a father’s invitation to a family celebration was seen as totally unacceptable, rude, and a rejection of one’s father. Hence the rudeness of the guests refusing the King’s invitations. The older brother would usually have played a prominent role in such feasts. But this son refuses to attend. This would’ve struck the Lord’s initial audience as incredibly rude. Remember how Vashti’s refusal to attend her husband’s feast resulted in her being rejected (Esther 1). What the older son did would’ve been seen as an insult to all the guests; and many fathers would simply have rejected and disowned their son for this, or at least, expressed significant disapproval. Indeed, this was expected of him by society and the other guests. But yet again, the father humiliates himself and breaks all Jewish norms and expectations of correctness and decency. He leaves the feast! For the host to walk out was yet again seen as totally rude to the other guests- it of course echoes the shepherd leaving the 99 sheep and going off after the one lost sheep. &nbsp;The father doesn’t go out and giving the arrogant, unloving, disobedient son a good talking to, as the audience would expect. Again, as so often, the Lord’s parables set up an expectation- and then dash it. The father goes out into the darkness of the courtyard, and “entreats” his son (<em><a href='B:490 15:28'>Luk 15:28</a></em>). The Greek <em>parakaleo</em> means literally to come alongside, as if the father is inviting the son to stand alongside him in his extension of grace. Perhaps Paul is making one of his many allusions to the Lord’s parables when he uses the same word to speak of how he ‘beseeches’ his legalistic brethren (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>But all this grace is ignored by the elder son. He insults his father. It may not be so apparent to us, but it would’ve been picked up by the Lord’s first hearers. A son should always address his father in this context with the term “O Father”. But he doesn’t. He speaks of his brother as “Your son” rather than his brother. He speaks of how the prodigal “devoured <em>your</em> living”. And he speaks of how he has faithfully served his father <em>as a servant</em>- like his younger brother, he failed to perceive the wonder of <em>sonship</em>. His awful outburst is doing in essence what his younger brother had done some time before. He was saying that he didn’t want a part in his father’s family. The “living” or wealth of the family was no longer <em>his.</em> He wasn’t going to respect his father as his father any more. He didn’t want to be in the family, so he wouldn’t go to the family reunion. That poor, dear father. And what is the father’s response? He calls him his <em>teknon</em>, his dearly loved son. Notice how the more common <em>huios</em> is used for “son” throughout the story (<em><a href='B:490 15:11'>Luk 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:19'>Luk 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:21'>Luk 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:24-25'>Luk 15:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:30'>Luk 15:30</a></em>). In the face of such awful rejection, he shows his special love. It’s like the Lord giving “the sop”, the sign of special love and favouritism, to Judas- as he betrays Him. There’s a powerful lesson here for those of us who find ourselves irked and angered by legalistic, arrogant brethren who refuse to fellowship with the rest of us. There was no anger and irksomeness in the father’s attitude. He was only deeply sorry, hurt, cut up… but he <em>so</em> loved that arrogant elder brother. He goes on to say that he gives that son all that he has. But he could only actually do that through being dead! The father is willing to die for that arrogant older brother, whose pride and anger stops him wanting anything to do with his father, whom he has just openly shamed and rejected. And the father wants to die for him. This is to be our attitude to the self-righteous, the divisive, those who reject their brethren. &nbsp;</p><p>But of course, there’s a real and obvious warning not to be like the older brother. It worries me, it turns me, right in my very gut, when I see so many refusing to fellowship with their brethren because ‘He’s in that church… they’ve had her back… she’s divorced and remarried… he’s never said sorry, his motives aren’t right, she only said those words…’. And those attitudes are made out to be expressions of righteousness. It is not for me to judge anyone; I seek to love those who act like this with the love and grief of the father for the elder son. But they must be gently warned as to the implications of their position. By refusing to fellowship with the rest of the family, by making such a fuss about the return of the prodigals, they fail to realize that they are in essence doing what the prodigals have done; and they are de facto signing themselves out of the Father’s family. The issues are that serious. The parable isn’t just a story with a possible interpretation which we can shrug our shoulders at and get on with life. The Lord’s teaching, His ‘doctrine’, was and is in these parables. &nbsp;</p><p>The lost son story finishes, as do the other stories, with a banquet of rejoicing- rejoicing in the father’s love. But it’s no accident that Luke 15 is preceded by the parable of <em><a href='B:490 14:15-24'>Luk 14:15-24</a></em>, where we have another great banquet- symbolic of our communion in the future Kingdom of God. The connection is clear. We will “eat bread in the Kingdom of God” if we eat bread with the Lord in the banquets of this life. And yet <em>so, so often</em> it is said amongst us: ‘I won’t break bread there. They have X or Z… who is divorced… who’s not repentant… they have Q from that fellowship attending there… I’m not going in there’. It is not for us to judge. And I do not do so in what I write here. But it is the fairly obvious teaching of the Lord here that if we won’t eat bread with Him in joy now, if we won’t celebrate His grace and love for the lost in this life, then we will not in the future banquet. His grace is likely large enough to cover even the self-righteous; but we need to realize the eternal gravity of our decisions and feelings about our brethren in this life. Especially must we come to see ourselves as the prodigal. If we plan on being in the Kingdom, we must identify ourselves with the prodigal, and not with the self-righteous elder son who is left outside of the Father’s fellowship, because he placed himself there:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>But he answered and said to his father: Look! For so many years I have served you, and I never transgressed a commandment of yours, and yet you never gave me a kid that I might make merry with my friends</em>- He clearly represents the self-righteous Pharisees, who refused to eat with sinners. In the same way as the Jews refused to appreciate the spirit in which Christ was feasting with the repentant sinners who responded to his message (:2), so the elder brother refused to attend the celebrations. Thus he is set up as representative of hard hearted Israel; and all those in the new Israel who share his characteristics proclaim themselves to be aligned with the legalistic Pharisaism which failed to discern the real spirit of Christ when he was among them.</p>&nbsp;<p>Yet the Lord is also talking obliquely to Himself. It was so much harder for the Lord to be as patient with sinners as He was, seeing that He Himself never sinned and experienced God's forgiveness. There is good reason to think that Jesus was speaking about the elder brother partly to warn himself. Hewas the favoured son, having the right of the firstborn. He alone could say to God "neither transgressed I at any time your commandment". The Father's comment "All that I have is yours" (:31) connects with the references to God giving <em>all things</em> into the hands of the Son. His constant abiding in the Father's house echoes <em><a href='B:500 8:35'>Joh 8:35</a></em>: "The servant abides not in the house for ever: but the Son abides ever". Our Lord seems to have been indirectly exhorting himself not to be like the elder brother, thereby setting us the example of framing necessary warning and rebuke of others in terms which are relevant to ourselves. If our perfect Master was so sensitive to His own possibility of failure, how much more should we be, ever analysing our attitudes to our brethren, "considering (ourselves) lest we also be tempted". </p>


text:
<p><em>But when this your son came, who has devoured your living with prostitutes, you killed for him the fatted calf</em>- Association with harlots is a common Biblical symbol of committing sin (see <em><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a></em>); all our sins are unfaithfulness against Christ our husband. They are not just passing adulteries; the Spirit uses the even more powerful figure of harlotries. There are quite a number of other references in James to this parable, which indicate that the prodigal's experience can apply in an ongoing sense to the believer after baptism. The&nbsp;son '<em>spending all'</em> uses the same word which occurs in <em><a href='B:660 4:3'>Jas 4:3</a></em> concerning the believer who 'asks amiss' (cp. the prodigal's request to his father), that he might "<em>consume</em> it (same word) upon (his) lusts". <em><a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a></em> continues: "Ye adulterers::. know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?". This is all prodigal language. The next verses then seem to go in their allusions, implying that the prodigal is ultimately far more acceptable than the elder brother in the ecclesia: "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy (cp. the elder brother)::. God::. giveth grace (forgiveness?) unto the humble::. draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you (cp. the prodigal's return being matched by the Father coming to meet him)::. let your laughter (cp. the son's "riotous living") be turned to mourning::. he that speaketh evil of his brother (is) <em>not</em> a doer of the law (as the elder brother thought he was), but a judge" (<em><a href='B:660 4:5-11'>Jas 4:5-11</a></em>).</p><p>The parables are full of almost incidental indications of how well the Lord knew our nature and how accurately He foresaw the future struggles of His body. He foresaw that the elder brothers would be self-righteous and unwilling to accept back into fellowship the repentant. Yet instead of making the father address the older boy with words like "You hypocrite! You yourself are disobedient! Get away from me, you callous hypocrite!", the Lord puts the words of grace themselves in the father's mouth: "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" (<em><a href='B:490 15:30'>Luk 15:30</a></em>). The Lord foresaw that the elder brethren's relationship with the Father would be damaged by their harshness. But in the way the story ends, I see real hope for the hard line, right wing Christian who condemns his brother, in the light of the Lord's teaching that we will be judged as we have judged. Wrong such brethren certainly are; but their Lord is gracious enough, it seems, to still work with them. In the same breath as the Lord warned that by our words we will be justified and condemned, and that we will have to account for them at the judgment, He also said that whoever speaks words against Him, He will forgive. I'd like to concentrate on other examples of where the Lord Jesus in His sensitivity foresaw this problem of dealing with apparently weak believers. &nbsp;</p><p>The prodigal son parable has as its end stress the problem of the self-righteous elder son. This is in fact the crux of the whole story. He refuses the invitation from his father to come in to the feast- an image used elsewhere in the parables to describe rejection of God’s invitation. To refuse such an invitation was a public insult and rejection of his Father. He refuses to address his father as “Father” and refuses to call his brother “brother” [cp. “thy son”]. By breaking his relationship with his brother, he broke his relationship with his Father. As we do likewise. And the end stress of the whole wonderful parable is that we are left wondering how the story finished. The elder brother is left standing there, temporarily rejecting his father, wondering… whether to storm off into the evening darkness, or to turn back and go in to the feast and accept his brother. And this is really the essential point of the story, and the appeal which it makes to us. We may just mindlessly forget some disfellowship case of years ago, leave the decision to others, forget in our own minds that there is a brother or sister begging for our renewed fellowship and forgiveness. Yet it is exactly these issues and our response to them which may decide our eternal destinies. And this was the end stress of the parable…</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Son, you are ever with me, and all that is mine is yours</em></p><p>- See on :29. Who does the father represent? The context for the three stories is the Lord Jesus justifying his eating with sinners. The fact that the father had received the sinful younger brother is phrased in the same way as the Pharisees’ complaint about the Lord Jesus receiving sinners (<em><a href='B:490 15:2'>Luk 15:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:490 15:27'>Luk 15:27</a></em>). And each of the stories involve a closing scene featuring a joyful meal of celebration. The father would appear therefore to refer to Jesus; and yet clearly enough we are intended to see the father as also our Heavenly Father. I don’t go for the primitive equation ‘Jesus = God’. I’m not a Trinitarian. So I take this to be an exemplification of how “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their iniquities unto them” (<em><a href='B:540 5:19'>2Co 5:19</a></em>). Notice in how many ways the father humiliates himself before everyone, and breaks all traditional Jewish expectations to do so. He gives the younger son what he asks, and more than the Law allowed; he runs to meet the son; he accepts the son; he leaves the banquet where he is the host in order to plead with his older son; he doesn’t discipline either of his sons as expected. He makes a fool of himself time and again, upsetting Jewish rules and norms. And the younger son pestering the father to divide up the inheritance may indicate that the father was about to die. Likewise, when the father says to the older son that he gives him there and then all that is his… this is language only really appropriate if the father is about to die, or has actually died. Does not all this speak of the cross as the basis for the Father’s love, grace and acceptance? That there, God was in Christ to reconcile us to Himself, not imputing sin to us… there the Father was humiliated in Christ, made a fool of, ridiculed. The Almighty God came this low… to the public shame and death of the cross. The suffering of God in the cross was all about rejected and unaccepted love; and so it is to this day. </p><p>Much homework awaits someone to work out all the times when the Lord was speaking <em>to Himself</em> in the parables, through the elements of unreality. Perhaps He saw Himself tempted to be like the elder brother in the Prodigal parable, who was “always” in the Father’s house (as Jesus per <em><a href='B:500 8:35'>Joh 8:35</a></em>) and ‘everything the father has is his’ is the very wording of <em><a href='B:500 17:10'>Joh 17:10</a></em>. Or is it co-incidence that the only time the Greek word translated "choked" is used outside the sower parable, it's about the crowds 'thronging' Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:42'>Luk 8:42</a></em> - note how they're in the same chapter and section of the Lord's life)? Was the Lord not aware of how the pressure of the crowds, whom He carefully tried to avoid, could choke His own spiritual growth? Was it for this reason that He begged those He cured not to generate big crowds to throng Him? And thus yet another layer of the Lord's mind and thinking will be revealed to us. </p>


text:
<h4><em>But it was fitting to celebrate and be glad. For this your brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost and is found</em>- We are left, as so often, to imagine how the story finished. How hard it would’ve been for the younger son to live with the older brother! And one day, dear, darling dad would’ve died. The younger son would’ve had <em>his</em> sons, been called upon to uphold the family honour, make decisions in the village. We are left to imagine how his experience of grace would’ve made him judge differently to all others. </h4><p>The three parables of the lost which climax in the parable of the lost son all depend for their power upon the many elements of unreality found within them; and the lost son parable requires us to fill in many details, try to finish the story, and to take due note of the crescendo of ‘end stress’ which there is. To appreciate the full power and import of these parables, we need to try to read them through the eyes of the Palestinian peasants who first heard them. Correct understanding of Scripture requires us to read it and feel it within the context in which it was first given. Bombarded as we are by billions of pieces of information each day, especially from the internet, we only cope with it all by letting it all fit into the worldviews and assumptions which we’ve adopted. Words and information and ideas tend to only fit in to what we’ve already prepared to house them, rather than us seeing <em>God’s</em> word as something radically different, and allowing it to totally upset and change our cherished worldviews, constructs and approaches to life. God’s word is still words- although they are inspired words. The problem with words is that we read or hear them, and interpret them within our frames of reference and culture. Take an example: “She’s mad about her flat!”. An American takes this to mean that she’s angry and frustrated about the puncture / ‘flat tire’ which she has on her car. But in British English, the phrase would mean: ‘She’s really happy and enthusiastic about her apartment’. To understand what the speaker or writer means by those words, we have to understand their cultural background. And so it is with the Lord’s teaching, aimed as it was to first century peasants. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said also to the disciples- </em>The Lord Jesus without doubt focused upon the twelve disciples; they were His special love, His predominant concern. And when they came to write up their records of their experience of this amazing Master, they bring this out very much. He clearly chose them in order to impress His character upon them, and then left them to continue the witness to Him. Even in high society, surrounded by the elitist Pharisees, He spoke parables which were to them- even though the others heard (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:14'>Luk 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:45'>Luk 20:45</a></em>). There is a repeated feature, in Luke particularly, of the Lord teaching the twelve in front of a multitude- as if the huge crowds were there just listening to what the Lord was speaking specifically to the twelve. When one of the crowd interrupts, the Lord quickly returns His focus to the twelve (<em><a href='B:490 6:19-20'>Luk 6:19-20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 7:1'>Luk 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:13'>Luk 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:22'>Luk 12:22</a></em>). For Jesus, the disciples were His focus and priority:&nbsp; </p><p><em>There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused of wasting his goods</em>- The corrective to the elder brothers' attitude is provided by the following parable of the unjust steward which comes straight afterwards in Luke 16. The steward was accused of 'wasting' his master's goods (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em>), using the same Greek word translated "substance" in <em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>, concerning how the son wasted his father's substance. The steward forgave others, and therefore ultimately found a way of escape from his dilemma. The implication is that it was on account of the prodigal being willing to do this, not daring to point the finger at others in the Father's household because of his awareness of his own sins, that he was eventually saved. We can also infer that the elder brother walked out of the Father's fellowship because of his refusal to do this. Again we see how God works through our sins. Because of the prodigal's experience of sin and forgiveness, he was better able to show that vital love and tolerance towards others, without which we cannot receive God's ultimate acceptance. In a sense, it was much <em>more</em> difficult for the elder brother.</p><p>The parable of the unjust steward must be read in the context of the preceding parables of forgiveness. The man is in debt to his Master, surely speaking of our sinfulness (<em><a href='B:490 16:3-4'>Luk 16:3-4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 18:24'>Mat 18:24</a></em>). He has wasted his goods- which are given to us at baptism (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>). He <em>could have</em> begged, but he was too proud. Therefore <em>in order to get forgiveness</em> he raced roundforgiving everybody else. This suggests a spiritual selfishness which surely isn't ideal. And yet "the Lord commended the unjust steward":&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And he called him and said to him: What is this that I hear of you? Render the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 20:25'>Luk 20:25</a></em>. The parable of the unjust steward suggests that there are times in this life when we are called to give an account of our stewardship- and how we react to those judgment calls is what will affect our ultimate destiny (<em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>). We have a tendency to consider God as passive to our failures and acts of righteousness, simply because His judgments are not openly manifest. We may forget that on, say, 6:6:96 we swore under our breath in anger… but God, in this sense, doesn't forget. The passage of time doesn't act as a pseudo-atonement for Him as it does in our consciences. The tendency for human beings to assume that God forgets our wrong actions and will never judge them is frequently commented upon in Scripture. "They consider not in their hearts that I remember all their wickedness", i:e. to judge them for it at a future date (<em><a href='B:350 7:2'>Hos 7:2</a></em>). The day of judgment is likened to God 'awaking' (<em><a href='B:230 68:1'>Psa 68:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:20'>Psa 73:20</a></em>). Not that He is now sleeping; but then, the principles of His judgment which now appear to lie dormant will be openly manifested. Peter warns that the condemnation of false teachers is given by God in an ongoing sense, and that damnation doesn't slumber (<em><a href='B:680 2:3'>2Pe 2:3</a></em>).</p><p>The 'unjust steward' was saved because he forgave others their debts after getting into a mess himself. He wasted his Lord's goods, as the prodigal did (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em> connects with <em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>). Seeing the prodigal represents all of us, the lesson is surely that we all waste our Lord's goods, therefore the basis of salvation is through our forgiving others as an outcome of our own faith in the Lord's grace. This is one explanation of why the parable of the steward flows straight on from that of the prodigal.</p><p>One of the most telling examples of an unfinished ending is to be found in the parable of the unjust steward. This is perhaps the hardest parable to interpret; but I suggest the thought is along the following lines. The steward has done wrong; but the element of unreality is that he isn't jailed or even scolded, it's just left as obvious that he can't do the job of steward any longer. The usual response of a master would be to jail servants for running up debts (<em><a href='B:470 8:23-25'>Mat 8:23-25</a></em>). But the Master is unusually gracious. The steward now faces poverty, and so he takes a huge gamble. Before news of his fall is common knowledge, he urgently runs around to those in his master's debt and tells them that their debts are forgiven. His haste is reflected in the way he says "Write quickly::. and you::. ". He has to write off their debts before his master finds out, and before the debtors know that he now has no right to be forgiving them their debts. His gamble is that his master is indeed such a generous and gracious guy that he will actually uphold these forgivenesses or reductions of debt, and that therefore those who have received this forgiveness will be grateful to the steward, and be generous to him later, maybe giving him employment. The story reflects a theme of the other parables- how the servant knows and understands his master extremely well, and can guess his response. The way the servant invites the beggars to the feast even before his master has told him to do so is an example. But the power of the parable is in the unended story. Does the gracious Master indeed forgive those in his debt? And seeing he is impressed by how the steward has acted, does he in fact re-instate him, impressed as he obviously is by this sinful steward's perception of his grace? From the other parables we are led to believe that yes, the Lord and Master is indeed this gracious. And of course we are to see ourselves in the desperate position of the steward, staking our whole existences upon His grace and love beyond all reason. For me, this approach to the parable is the only one which can make any sense of the master dismissing the steward for fraud, and then praising him for his apparently 'dishonest' behaviour in forgiving the debtors (<em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:8'>Luk 16:8</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 10:34'>Luk 10:34</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the steward said to himself: What shall I do, seeing that my master takes away the stewardship from me? I do not have strength to dig. To beg I am ashamed</em>- This continues the linkage with the ideas of the prodigal son parable which precedes it. The desperate son at rock bottom feeding the pigs is this disgraced steward. He is unable in his own strength to get himself out of this awful situation. He is ashamed to beg, rather like the son proposes to return to his father and ask to become a hired servant, so that he can repay his debt. </p><p>"What shall I / we do?" is a question which keeps occurring in the Gospels and Acts. It is one of those phrases which flies out of the text, forcing us to engage with it and to ask ourselves the same question (<em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:40'>Mat 21:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:22'>Mat 27:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:47'>Joh 11:47</a></em>). And especially in <em><a href='B:490 3:10'>Luk 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em> [the whole account of the gospel begins with people being forced to ask this question]; <em><a href='B:490 10:25'>Luk 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:3-4'>Luk 16:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:18'>Luk 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:41'>Luk 18:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>. And Luke brings the question to a head when the crowds ask Peter: "What shall we do?", and the same question is on the lips of the repentant Saul (<em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Act 2:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:6'>Act 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:6'>Act 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:10'>Act 22:10</a></em>):The answer of course is to repent and be baptized; and in the context here in this parable, it is to madly forgive others. But the rich fool ignored that and identified himself with his possessions (<em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>), and answered accordingly. </p>


text:
<p><em>I have resolved what to do, so that when I am discharged as steward, others may receive me into their houses</em>- The parable of the unjust steward must be read in the context of the preceding parables of forgiveness. The man is in debt to his Master, surely speaking of our sinfulness (<em><a href='B:490 16:3-4'>Luk 16:3-4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 18:24'>Mat 18:24</a></em>). He has wasted his goods- which are given to us at baptism (<em><a href='B:490 16:1'>Luk 16:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>). He <em>could have</em> begged, but he was too proud. Therefore <em>in order to get forgiveness</em> he raced round forgiving everybody else. And we are to take this same full blooded 'resolution'. This suggests a spiritual selfishness which surely isn't ideal. And yet "the Lord commended the unjust steward"- He makes concessions to our weakness:&nbsp;We all live within parameters of personality and spiritual development which we should exceed but will not- because none of us shall attain total moral perfection in this life. Pride in various forms is typical of those kinds of parameters. This is not to suggest that we are not to try; rather is this observation merely some comfort in our weakness.</p><p>The man envisaged having to declare bankrupt and losing absolutely all things, even his family- for he reasoned that if he forgave the debts of these debtors, they might have him as a family member, just allowing him to live out his days in their homes. It is this same spirit to which we should all be driven by the realization of our sin; willing to cast ourselves upon the mercy of our brethren, to live out our days in humbled fellowship with them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And calling to him each one of his master's debtors, he said to the first: How much do you owe my master?</em>- The steward knew how much they owed. Quite possibly, the debtors stated a reduced figure, or didn't come clean about every aspect of their debt. But whatever they acknowledged, however they wanted to see it- he forgave them. And this is a pattern for our forgiveness of others, knowing the inevitability of our own shameful judgment. Forgiveness does not involve an agreed version of events and issues. We are to simply and frankly and urgently forgive.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: A hundred measures of oil. And he said to him: Take your bill and sit down quickly and write fifty</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em>. "Quickly" is the essence of all this; knowing that our judgment is just around the corner, there is no time to be lost in forgiving others. The steward reduced the debt rather than totally writing it off. That may be merely the furniture of the parable, but perhaps we are left to imagine that the further he reduced the debt, the more likely they were to later accept him as a family member (:4). And maybe we are intended to deduce that he would have been better to offer them a total forgiveness rather than some negotiated settlement. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then said he to another: And how much do you owe? And he said: A hundred measures of wheat. He said to him: Take your bill and write eighty</em>- The man who owed oil was forgiven more than the man who owed wheat (100 reduced to 50, compared to 100 reduced to 80). Perhaps this reflects how our forgiveness is not of the frank and total measure of the Lord's, for in another parable we read of the Lord Himself frankly forgiving the total debt of His servant, rather than just reducing it somewhat. The steward had the power to act in his lord's name in reducing or even cancelling debt. Perhaps here we see here some reflection of the idea that what we unloose on earth is unloosed in heaven; our forgiveness of others is in a way accepted by God. How exactly this works out, and the mechanism and theology of it, is not explained. But there is some connection, however vaguely expressed, between our forgiveness of others and God's forgiveness of them. Whilst the steward is commended (:8), he could have totally forgiven them. We too tend to make limited deals of forgiveness with others, at least in our own minds; writing down the debt of one more than for another. When we ought to scribble the whole thing.</p>


text:
<p><em>And his master commended the unrighteous steward, because he had done wisely. For the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light</em>- </p><p>There were times when the Lord used shock tactics to get His message over. He did and said things which purposefully turned accepted wisdom and understanding on its head. Thus He touched the leper, spoke of drinking His blood::. and used leaven, the usual symbol for sin, as a symbol of the quiet influence of His Gospel. And His parables feature the same element. Because the parables are so familiar to us, we can overlook the fact that their true character is intended to be shocking and disturbing- they are most definitely not just comfortable, cosy, moralistic tales. Consider the way He chooses to take a lesson from a crook who fiddles the books. The 'hero' of the story was a bad guy, not a good guy. Yet the point of the story was that we must realize how critical is our situation before God, and do literally anything in order to forgive others. We can't let things drift- disaster is at the door unless we forgive others <em>right now</em>. Everything is at stake in our lives unless we forgive others. The parables didn’t give simple teaching to those who first heard them. He used that form of teaching so that men would <em>not</em> understand Him; and even His disciples had to come to Him in order to receive the interpretations. </p><p>The way "the children of this world" are so zealous in forgiving others their debts so as to get themselves out of major trouble is an example to us, the Lord said. It could be that His comment that they were "wiser than the children of light" was a rebuke to the children of light- that those in the world are more eager to forgive, more zealous in their secular lives, than many of us are. The unjust steward in the parable of Luke 16 ran round forgiving others their debts, so that in his time of crisis and judgment he would have a way out of his own debt problems. And in the context of forgiving our brethren, the Lord holds him up as an example. But He laments that sadly, the children of this world are often wiser than the children of the Kingdom, i:e. the believers. I take this as meaning that the Lord is sorry that His people don’t see the same obvious need to forgive each other, in view of their own inadequacies and the coming of judgment. The children of this world see the coming of their judgments and the urgency of the need to prepare, far more strongly than many of us do; we who face the ultimate crisis of sinful, responsible man meeting with an Almighty God.</p><p>The story of the indebted steward likewise stresses the importance of true forgiveness. The master commends the steward because he had told others that their debts to his master were reduced. No <em>human</em> master would ever commend his steward for acting so irresponsibly. But the Lord Jesus does commend us for forgiving those who sin against Him, even though our forgiving of those indebted to us and Him is against all the laws of human common sense. See on <em><a href='B:470 18:23'>Mat 18:23</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And I say to you: Make to yourselves friends by means of worldly riches; that, when they shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings</em>- The parable has been about forgiveness, following on from that of the prodigal son. But the Lord makes this parable have another meaning- concerning the need to use wealth wisely. </p><p>The Bible has a lot to say about the sacrifice of 'our' material possessions; not because God needs them in themselves, but because our resignation of them to His service is an epitome of our whole spirituality. So great is the Lord's emphasis about this, that He suggests in the parable of the crafty steward that if we use our worldly things prudently, when we spiritually fail, the fact we have used them wisely will bring us into the Kingdom. This implication that we can almost buy our way into the Kingdom is hyperbole. This is a device the Lord commonly used in His parables: an exaggerated statement to make a point. When He spoke of the good shepherd leaving the 99 good sheep to go chase the foolish one, this doesn't really mean that He does in fact leave us. He will never leave us. But so great is His love of the lost that it's <em>as if</em> He leaves us for the sake of finding them. Or the command to gouge out our eye if it offends us. This is a gross exaggeration; but our self-deprival of those things which lead us into sin requires the same self-will and self-mastery. So here, the Lord is saying that the use of our material possessions is <em>so</em> important that it's <em>almost as if</em> (in the hyperbole) we can buy our way into the Kingdom. See on <em><a href='B:490 11:41'>Luk 11:41</a></em>.</p><h4>We have nothing now, we own nothing, all we have is given for us to use wisely, so that when we fail (morally, in the failures of our lives), our use of these things may prepare the way for our entry into the everlasting place of the Kingdom. We fall so easily into the trap of thinking 'this is <em>my</em> money… <em>I</em> worked for it, saved it…’. It's God's money. The danger of materialism is to think it is <em>ours. </em>Israel were told that every seventh year they were to cancel debts, release each other from the debt they had; and yet it was "the <em>LORD's </em>release". You released a man from his debt, Yahweh released him. What it meant was that your money was Yahweh's money. He released the debt, you released it. In being generous spirited, then, and realizing 'our' money is God's, we are Yahweh-manifest. We are invited to see ourselves as the Levites- whose inheritance was Yahweh, and not anything material in this world. Relationship with God and the honour of doing His service was seen as the ultimate antidote to materialism. Eliphaz seems to have perceived this when he told the wealthy Job: “Lay thou thy treasure in the dust… and the Almighty shall be thy treasure” (<em><a href='B:220 22:24-25'>Job 22:24-25</a></em> RV).</h4><p>There is no doubt that our attitude to materialism is a sure indicator of our real spiritual position. We are to make friends of mammon [riches] by giving it away, forsaking all we have- the implication being that riches / mammon are our spiritual enemy, no matter how little of them we possess. And yet we are surrounded as never before by a materialistic, money <em>loving</em> world.</p>


text:
<p><em>He that is faithful in a very little, is faithful also in much, and he that is unrighteous in a very little, is unrighteous also in much</em>- God Himself ‘detests’ the mammon which man so highly esteems (<em><a href='B:490 16:13-15'>Luk 16:13-15</a></em> NIV). A day will come when man <em>will</em> despise material possession. "In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold::. to the moles and to the bats; to go into the clefts of the rocks::. for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty" (<em><a href='B:290 2:20-21'>Isa 2:20-21</a></em>). But for us, today is the day of the Lord's coming in judgment. If we will be forsaking all we have in that day; we ought to now, in spirit. The parable of the unjust steward surely teaches that our attitude to the “mammon of unrighteousness” will determine our eternal destiny. The wealth of this world is called “that which is least… that which is another’s [i:e. God’s]” (<em><a href='B:490 16:10'>Luk 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:12'>Luk 16:12</a></em> RV). We are told: “make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail [at the Lord’s return], they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles” (<em><a href='B:490 16:9'>Luk 16:9</a></em> RV). There will come a day when money will fail, and when we will despise it for what it was- “that which is least”.</p>


text:
<p><em>If therefore you have not been faithful in the handling of worldly riches, who will commit to your trust the true riches?</em>- <em><a href='B:490 16:11-12'>Luk 16:11-12</a></em> draws a parallel between the "true riches" and "that which is your own"; both phrases, in the context, refer to our reward in the Kingdom. The true riches is the spiritual knowledge of God. In Christ are hid all the riches of God. David rejoiced at the truths of the word more than at finding great riches. We can look forward to a highly personal knowledge of God in the Kingdom; the riches of knowledge "which is your own". This is in the same sense as <em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em> speaks of each believer receiving a stone with "a new name written, which no man knows saving he that receives it". No other being will be able to enter into the personal knowledge of God which we will then have; as even in this life, it is scarcely possible to enter into another believer's spirituality and relationship with God. To some degree, the Kingdom will be something different for each of us, although this diversity will be bound together by the great unity of all being the collective bride of Christ, and all manifesting the same God, all having the same "penny a day".</p><p>If we are faithful with the riches we have been given, <em>then</em> we will be given the true riches of eternal salvation. This "unrighteous mammon" is not our own, it is the wealth of "another man", i:e. God, just as the steward was dealing with money which was not his but his lord's; whereas in the Kingdom, we will have our very own "true riches". This is an altogether lovely idea. Whatever we have now is not ours; we come into this world with nothing, and at death we carry nothing out (<em><a href='B:610 6:7'>1Ti 6:7</a></em>). We must give our all if we are to attain the Kingdom.</p><p>If we are faithful in how we use the things lent to us by God in this life, we will be given "the true riches". What we now have is "the Truth", because this is how the Spirit speaks of it. But Truth is relative, and the Truth God wants us to accept as Truth is doubtless designed by Him to be acceptable by mere mortals. But it isn't "the true riches" spoken of here. We are asked to be faithful in that which is God's, and then we will be given "that which is your own" (:12) in the Kingdom, as if we will be given "true riches" which somehow are relevant to us alone, the name given which no one knows except ourselves (<em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>). "Riches" represent the riches of wisdom and knowledge (<em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>), and they are paralleled with "that which is your own", as if somehow in the Kingdom we will be given a vast depth of spiritual knowledge and perception which is in some way relevant to us alone. To me, those few words of <em><a href='B:490 16:11-12'>Luk 16:11-12</a></em> take me to the brink of understanding what the Kingdom will be about. We can go no further.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if you have not been faithful in what is another's, who will give you that which is your own?</em></p><p>- See on :11. The time is soon coming when I will be given that which <em>is</em> my own- the things associated with being in the Kingdom. We are slaves now, owning nothing (<em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>), but then we will be gloriously free (<em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>). So this idea of owning nothing, not even ourselves, is only true of this life; the day of release from slavery will dawn, we will receive that true freedom and that true concept of personal possession- if <em>now</em> we resign it. Abraham really grasped this idea that we now can own nothing. He swore to Yahweh as "the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take anything that is yours::." (<em><a href='B:10 14:22-23'>Gen 14:22-23</a></em>). He knew that Yahweh is the owner of all, and <em>therefore</em> he was not going to yield to the temptation to increase what appeared to be 'his' possessions. See on <em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>.</p><p>We are asked to be faithful in that which is God's, and then we will be given "that which is your own" in the Kingdom, as if we will be given “true riches" which somehow are relevant to us alone, the name given which no one knows except ourselves (<em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>). "Riches" represent the riches of wisdom and knowledge (<em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>), and they are paralleled with "that which is your own", as if somehow in the Kingdom we will be given a vast depth of spiritual knowledge and perception which is in some way relevant to us alone. The reward given will to some degree be totally personal. Each works out his <em>own</em> salvation, such as it will be (<em><a href='B:570 2:12'>Phi 2:12</a></em>)- not in the sense of achieving it by works, but rather that the sort of spirituality we develop now will be the essential person we are in the eternity of God's Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p><em>No servant can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or else, he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money</em>- The Lord Jesus surely based His words on those of Elijah in <em><a href='B:110 18:21'>1Ki 18:21</a></em>: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon”. So although on one hand the Lord Jesus Himself quotes Elijah’s ‘truth’ approvingly, there is evidence galore that at the very same time, Elijah’s attitudes were far from Christ-like. At the very same time, Elijah mocks the Baal worshippers, teasing them to shout louder, because maybe their god has gone ‘in a journey’- a Hebraism for ‘gone to the toilet’ (<em><a href='B:110 18:27'>1Ki 18:27</a></em>). This kind of mockery and crudeness is surely not how the Father and Son would have us act. Yet Elijah did this whilst at the same time deeply believing the fire would come down, and bringing it down by his faith. And saying other words which were alluded to with deep approval by the Lord.</p><p>Mammon is an “abomination” (:15)- a word associated in the Old Testament with idol worship. We are to not only be free of such idolatry, but despise materialism. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him</em>- Scoffing at Divine wisdom recalls so many passages in Proverbs. They were "fools" for all their appearance of wisdom. They justified their love of money (:15), seeing their wealth as a reward for piety, just as the false gospel of wealth does today. They scoffed because they claimed that wealth was the reward for righteousness. But the rest of this chapter records the Lord's deconstruction of that position. They scoffed at the idea of reducing the debts of another- they would've tried to get out of the problem by some other way. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: You are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God- </em>As noted on :14, they justified their love of wealth by claiming it was a reward for righteousness. But the Lord says that wealth is abomination to God. He saw as it were the wealth in their hearts, and hated it, treating it as an "abomination"- a term the Old Testament uses for idols. </p>


text:
<p><em>The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached- </em>This is an explanation of the cut-off point between the time of the Kingdom, and the period of the law and prophets. It was as if their work was being done up until John. The&nbsp;<em>law</em>&nbsp;prophesied until John (<em><a href='B:470 11:13'>Mat 11:13</a></em>) in the sense that in the Messiah whom John proclaimed, the law’s prophecies were fulfilled. Note that the law just as much as the prophets is to be seen as prophesying. And yet other changeover points or boundaries are suggested within the New Testament. The law would ‘pass’ when all was fulfilled, which seems to hint at the ‘finishing’ of all when the Lord cried “It is finished!” on the cross. The law would not pass&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;this point (<em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em>). The Lord’s death was clearly a major ending point for the old system. And yet <em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em> speaks of the old system as decaying and becoming old, and being about to vanish away- surely in the destruction of the temple in AD70. There are other hints in the NT that the old system somehow operated with some level of acceptance from God until AD70. Why the different potential changeover points? Presumably because the hope and intention was that John would successfully prepare the way, and the Messianic reign would be ushered in by Israel’s acceptance of their Messiah. And yet they killed Him. That point in itself was the theological changeover moment. But still not all Israel accepted the apostolic preaching of repentance for the crucifixion. And so in practice, the changeover point came when the temple was destroyed and any serious obedience to the old covenant was thereby rendered impossible. In all this we see God’s amazing grace and desire continually to work with people, factoring in the possibility of their repentance.</p><p><em>And every man enters violently into it</em>- Just as the unjust steward urgently ran around trying to forgive others once he realized his own soon coming judgment, so John's declaration of judgment soon to come led repentant people to urgently dash into the Kingdom. </p><p>This can be seen as constructing a parable from the idea of Roman storm troopers taking a city. And those men, the Lord teaches in his attention grabbing manner, really represent every believer who responds to the Gospel of the Kingdom and strives to enter that Kingdom. The same word translated 'take by force' is used by the Lord here in <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>; true response to the Gospel of the Kingdom is a struggle. Entering the Kingdom is a fight (<em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:7'>2Ti 4:7</a></em>), and we are right now in process of entering the city of God's Kingdom. It's not that we have no idea as to whether we shall enter it, waiting for judgment day to inform us. We have a sense of purpose to us, being in process of entering now. We either violently snatch / take the Kingdom by force (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>), or the devil of our own nature will snatch us away (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). The choice before us is that pointed: fight or fall. The Lord graciously and generously saw the zeal of the mixed up, uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going. The cause of the Kingdom must be forcefully advanced by “violent men”. This was the sort of language the Lord used. He wasn’t preaching anything tame, painless membership of a comfortable community. The Lord saw the zeal of the uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going.</p>


text:
<p><em>But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall</em>- <em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em> speaks of jot and tittle. Vine comments: "Jot is for jod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Tittle is the little bend or point which serves to distinguish certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance. Jewish tradition mentions the letter jod as being irremovable; adding that, if all men in the world were gathered to abolish the least letter in the law, they would not succeed. The guilt of changing those little hooks which distinguish between certain Hebrew letters is declared to be so great that, if such a thing were done, the world would be destroyed". The Lord is reminding them that they were under the Mosaic law. All their schemings to get around its more inconvenient requirements, in order to preserve and extend the wealth which they loved (:14), was in fact a breaking of the law which they were under. </p>


text:
<p><em>Everyone that puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he that marries one that is put away from a husband commits adultery</em>- The context here speaks of the need for forgiveness and a lack of materialism, which the Pharisees tried to cleverly get around by their various twists of the Mosaic law. Hence :17 has reminded them that they are still under that law. These two issues were particularly relevant to how and why they divorced their wives; and so this talk about divorce is exactly in context. And the next parable goes on to criticize them for their attitude to wealth. The divorce and remarriage in view is therefore specifically that practiced by the Pharisees, and is being criticized for not showing forgiveness and for being motivated by a love of wealth and its preservation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now there was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen, dining sumptuously every day</em>- The context is of the need to hold feasts to celebrate fellowship with the dirty prodigal who had been licked by pigs in chapter 15. The Pharisees loved wealth (:14), and have been set up as the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal. Their dining whilst excluding Lazarus equates with the older brother refusing to have a feast with the presence of the dirty, smelly, unclean younger son. This exclusion went on "every day". The clothing in purple and fine linen could mean that it is specifically Annas or Caiaphas the high priest who is in view. We marvel that the Lord would even bother to try to get him to see the error of his ways; but such was His desire that literally all men repented. Purple and fine linen recalls Babylon in <em><a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a></em>, which in its first century application refers to the Jerusalem temple cult who were persecuting the Christians whilst enjoying huge wealth. Dining sumptuously" is the word used of the rich fool (<em><a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a></em>). The Lord is calling Caiaphas / Annas and the Jewish leadership no more than fools. </p>


text:
<p><em>And a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores</em>- The "gate" is s:w. "porch" as in the temple porch, <em><a href='B:470 26:71'>Mat 26:71</a></em>. 'Lazarus' is a form of Eleazar- 'God is my help'. He was the helper of those excluded by the Pharisees of the temple cult. </p>


text:
<p><em>Desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores</em>- "Desiring" continues the linkage with the prodigal parable, where the prodigal 'desired' to be fed with pig food (<em><a href='B:490 15:16'>Luk 15:16</a></em> s:w:). The rich manshould have invited Lazarus to his feast just as the Lord invited sinners to his. And the same word is used of the Gentile woman who wanted to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the table of orthodox Jewry (<em><a href='B:470 15:27'>Mat 15:27</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, that the beggar died; and he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's breast, and the rich man also died and was buried</em>- "Abraham's breast" or bosom was a Rabbinic phrase referring to Paradise. The Lord is not teaching that the faithful literally go anywhere on death let alone to Abraham's breast; He is clearly using the terms and ideas which the Jews were familiar with, and telling a story within those frames of reference. Adam Clarke comments: "By the phrase, Abraham’s bosom, an allusion is made to the custom at Jewish feasts, when three persons reclining on their left elbows on a couch, the person whose head came near the breast of the other, was said to lie in his bosom. So it is said of the beloved disciple, <em><a href='B:500 13:25'>Joh 13:25</a></em>".</p><p>Carrying by Angels after death is not a Biblical idea, but again is alluding to apostate Jewish beliefs.</p>&nbsp;<p>The way the Lord constructed His parable about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is proof enough that He Himself alluded to false ideas without correcting them, but rather in order to make a moral point within the faulty framework of understanding of His audience. Indeed, the Bible is full of instances of where a technically ‘wrong’ idea is used by God without correction in order to teach a higher principle. Thus an eagle doesn’t bear its young upon its wings; it hovers over them. But from an earth-bound perspective, it would appear that [looking up], the eagle is carrying its young on its wings. God accommodates Himself to our earthly perspective in order to lead us to Heavenly things. He doesn’t seek to correct our knowledge at every turn, or else His end aim would not be achieved.</p><p>We assume too quickly that the Lord's reference to the Angels carrying Lazarus to the bosom of Abraham means 'straight after his death'. But not necessarily so. He died, was buried, and then at the Lord's return, the Angels will carry the faithful to judgment / the Kingdom- they will go forth and gather the elect. The rich man would only be thrown into Gehenna at the last day, as Jesus so often taught elsewhere. The only element of accommodation to, or parody of, existing Jewish beliefs was in the rich man asking that Lazarus be returned from the dead to warn his brethren. And this element is doubtless inserted into the story by the Lord as a prophecy of how even His resurrection would not convert those who did not truly listen to the Old Testament.</p><p>So serious is the tendency to material acquisition that the Lord uses a telling hyperbole in Luke 16 (in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus): He implies that the rich man was condemned just for being rich. This is hyperbole, an exaggeration to make a point. And the point was, that being rich is <em>very likely</em> to lead you to condemnation. The rust of riches is likened to the fire of condemnation and rejection (<em><a href='B:660 5:3'>Jas 5:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<h4><em>And in Hades- </em>As noted on :22, the Lord used ideas current amongst the Jews for reward, i:e. "Abraham's breast", and here He likewise uses their ideas of what happened as punishment. But this doesn't mean He approved their ideas as true. <em><a href='B:220 21:13'>Job 21:13</a></em> clearly explains what happens to the rich on death: "They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave". </h4><p><em>He lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his breast</em>- Forget, for one moment, that 'the rich man and Lazarus' is a 'difficult passage'. Focus on how Lazarus is “in" Abraham's 'bosom' or chest. This doesn't mean literally inside it. He was 'in' Abraham's arms, on his chest; and this is explained to us in :25 as meaning that Lazarus was receiving "comfort" at the same time as the rich man was experiencing torment. <em><a href='B:400 7:5'>Mic 7:5</a></em> uses the same figure of being “in" a man's bosom to describe how a wife is held by her husband. And <em><a href='B:310 2:12'>Lam 2:12</a></em> uses it again to mean 'receiving comfort'. This is what the Kingdom will be like, especially immediately after our reward. For this is what the parable is about- the rich man will not be eternally tormented, his torment will be on knowing the reality of the fact that he stands there rejected. But while he is temporarily tormented, some poor beggar brother is getting comforted by Abraham. Both of them with Divine nature. Abraham holding the other brother to his chest and comforting him. And, in passing, this would interpret for us John's words in <em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>: "The… son, who is in the bosom of the Father" (after His ascension). After His ordeal, Jesus was as it were receiving comfort from His Father. There was and is an emotional bond between them. And so there will be between us all in the Kingdom. The parable of Luke 16 goes on to say that there will be those who will want to cross over from rejection to acceptance, and <em>also</em>- and note this- there will be some who will want to go the other way to save those in the group of the rejected- weeping, screaming, gnashing their teeth as they will be. But it won't be possible for them. Even in Divine nature, some of us will have the desire to do the impossible- to save those rejected. It will be rather like the Angels in the time of Ahab suggesting their plans of action to God, but they were all turned down except for one. To have Divine nature, as Angels do, doesn't preclude having emotional thoughts. Nor does it mean we will have 100% understanding of God's ways beamed into us.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he cried and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame</em>- The rich man appeals to his physical descent from Abraham ("father Abraham"), but this is of no value. As Lazarus had begged crumbs, so now the man begs for drops of water. His hard heartedness to Lazarus is exactly related to his punishment. </p><p>In the day of judgment, that man will cry out "father::. have mercy / pity on me", just as Lazarus used to cry out to him daily. The apparent terseness and indifference of Abraham's response in the parable is surely intended as a reflection of the attitude which the rich man had shown to Lazarus in his mortal life. A great gap had been <em>fixed</em> between the saved and the rejected; and the language begs the question, 'Fixed by whom?'. Clearly, by the rich man in the attitude he adopted in his daily life. For it would not be God who fixed a gap between the damned and the saved; through His Son He seeks to save and bridge such gaps. The lesson is that whenever we hear the voice of the desperate, we hear inverted echoes of our own desperation at the final judgment. And how we answer now is related to how we will be answered then. We make the answer now.</p><p>Note that the parable talks in terms of tongues, fingers etc:- bodies and not 'immortal souls' are in view. Note that only 11 of the 26 parables recorded in Luke are called "parables". This is clearly a parable and not to be taken as a literal description of things. G. B. Caird, <em>The Gospel of St. Luke</em> (Penguin Books), p. 191 concludes that "the story of the wicked rich man and the pious poor man, whose fortunes were reversed in the afterlife, seems to have come originally from Egypt, and was popular among Jewish teachers:&nbsp; :::It was not the intention of Jesus to propagate a strict doctrine of rewards and punishments:::or to give a topographical guide to the afterworld."</p>


text:
<p><em>But Abraham said: Son, remember how you in your lifetime received your good things and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now here he is comforted, and you are in anguish</em>- "Son" reflects the Lord's pity and tenderness even towards the condemned. Or it could be that this continues the idea of the rich man appealing to Abraham as his father. Indeed he was a son of Abraham- but that was of no avail. Abraham is dead and not yet rewarded (<em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:13'>Heb 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:39-40'>Heb 11:39-40</a></em>) so the idea of Abraham being alive after death is all the language of the Jewish beliefs being used. In the same way the Lord spoke as if Beelzebub really existed, when this was a pagan god (<em><a href='B:470 12:27'>Mat 12:27</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:110 1:2'>1Ki 1:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And besides all this, between us and you there is fixed a great gulf, so that they that would pass from here to you cannot, and none may cross over from there to us</em>- The eternal chasm between them was foreseen by the Psalmist: "As for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity [cp. the condemned goats]: but peace shall be upon Israel [the sheep, looking on at the rejection of the wicked]" (<em><a href='B:230 125:5'>Psa 125:5</a></em>). Those who will want to cross the chasm then will be unable to (<em><a href='B:490 16:26'>Luk 16:26</a></em>); the great gulf is fixed. In the context of describing the establishment of the Kingdom, we read that God's servants will eat, drink and rejoice, singing for joy of heart, at the same time as the rejected will be ashamed, hunger and thirst and howl for "breaking of spirit"- all the language of the rejected (<em><a href='B:290 65:13-14'>Isa 65:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:17-18'>Isa 65:17-18</a></em> RVmg:). It seems that this is a picture of the rejected watching the accepted eating with Christ as the Passover is eaten anew. Hence their howling and shame; for shame implies being naked in the presence of others. Thus the rejected will in some sense be in the presence of the accepted.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Therefore I beg you father that you would send him to my father's house</em>- The point of the parable is at the end, and such 'end stress' is common in the parables. After death, there is no literal communication between the rewarded faithful and the wicked; these were all incorrect Jewish ideas which the Lord was using to construct a story which led up to His major point. He as God's messenger had indeed been sent to the father's house, the people of Israel and their leadership, with an appeal to urgently repent. </p>


text:
<p><em>For I have five brothers- </em>The High Priest Annas had five sons who each succeeded to the Priesthood,—Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Annas. These therefore were the brothers in law of Caiaphas, who appears to be the rich man in view.</p><p><em>That he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment</em>- The fact that sin really does result in eternal death, and that death is really unconsciousness, there is no immortal soul, the Hebrew word nephesh doesn't mean that, leads us to preach the hope of resurrection which we have. It must do- for otherwise we would be plain selfish. And it makes us realize for ourselves the decisiveness and finality of this life's decisions for the determining of eternal destiny. The hope of resurrection is the first and most basic need of our fellows. It was said of the 18th century British preacher Richard Baxter that "he preached as a dying man to dying men". Our mortality, and our appreciation of that of others, should lead to an intensity of appeal to them. Knowing the truth about death leads to a great desire to testify to others. Recall how the rich man in the parable, once he perceived the truth about the death state, earnestly wished to testify to his brethren and persuade them to believe (<em><a href='B:490 16:28'>Luk 16:28</a></em>). Elie Wiesel tells how victims of the holocaust either facing death or reflecting upon it later, felt an overbearing desire to testify to others: "We [victims of the holocaust] have all been witnesses and we all feel we have to bear testimony::. and that became an obsession, the single most powerful obsession that permeated all the lives, all the dreams, all the work of those people. One minute before they died they thought that was what they had to do". We don't- quite- have to go through those starings of death in the face to perceive death as we should; for the Bible has a lot to say about it, and if we accept the Biblical definitions, then we too will feel this strong compulsion to testify to others.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Abraham said: They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them</em>- The Lord’s argument was that hearing the Old Testament was going to be more motivational to change than meeting the risen Jesus. In John 14-16 He likewise seems to discount His personal presence; the disciples were so upset that He would not be physically with them, but He assures them that the presence of His Spirit in their hearts was going to be of far greater spiritual moment for them than His physical presence. Resurrected persons of themselves were not going to be a powerful source of persuasion to the Jews unless the hearers first of all respected Moses and the prophets. And this very thing, in which Jewish Orthodoxy were so proud, was actually their weak point. The Lord in <em><a href='B:500 6:45'>Joh 6:45</a></em> makes the same point; every man who had truly “heard” the prophets would come to Jesus as Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: No father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent</em>- Reflect on what the Lord was really saying in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It was Abraham who showed the rich man how useless were human riches. The rich man thought that his natural ancestry was enough- he appeals to “father Abraham”. But the point of the parable was surely that the rich man was not a true son of Abraham because he had been materialistic and had neglected the needs of his poorer brother. <em>This</em> was and is the implication of being a true son of Abraham. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, even if one rises from the dead</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 24:11'>Luk 24:11</a></em>. "Persuaded" is parallel with "repent" (:30). Repentance is a persuasion; whether it takes seconds, minutes or years, we are persuaded towards it.</p><p>The parable of the rich man and the poor beggar Lazarus surely carried with it the message that we ought to be generous to the poor; and that there is a need to do this in view of the judgment to come and sense of the future we may miss because of our selfishness in this life. The condemned rich man wanted to warn others of the need to be generous to the poor so that they would not be condemned. The Lord's comment was that it was His resurrection from the dead which was intended to "persuade" people of this (<em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>). Accepting the import of His resurrection therefore should result in our being "persuaded" towards a life of generosity to the marginal- just, of course, as the Lord's death and resurrection was God's grace to us, the marginal beggars in spiritual terms. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to his disciples: Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!</em>- The context of chapter 17 has been an appeal to the Pharisees to accept the likes of the prodigal son and the beggar Lazarus, and not to make them stumble by refusing to have them present at their fellowship table- continuing a theme which began at the beginning of chapter 15. The Lord is urging the disciples not to have any part in the system which caused stumbling. The Jewish religious system caused men to stumble, as the Lord often pointed out (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em>). But there would be an especial woe to the individuals who caused the stumbling, because for doing this they will be liable to personal condemnation. The Jewish world, the system, was to face the "Woe" of Divine judgment specifically because it made men stumble spiritually. That's what these words of Jesus seem to be saying, and His criticisms of that system recorded elsewhere would accord with that view- the 'Woes' He pronounces on the Jewish system in Matthew 23 particularly focus on the damage that system did to people, and the barrier it became between God and man.</p>


text:
<p><em>It would be better for him if a millstone was hung about his neck and he was thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble</em>- As noted on :1, the "little ones" in view are the likes of the prodigal son and Lazarus. Our attitude to the spiritually "little", the spiritually vulnerable, is critical to our discipleship. And not having them at our table, like the elder brother of Luke 15 and the "rich man" of chapter 16, is to cause them to stumble. So often, those turned away from fellowship then stumble. And the woe pronounced is so great that we have to urgently enquire of ourselves whether we are in any way responsible for such exclusions. Even if we are separated from this world externally, we can still act in a worldly way, and share the world’s condemnation. The Lord taught that the believer who makes his brother stumble should have a millstone hung around his neck and be cast into the sea (<em><a href='B:490 17:2'>Luk 17:2</a></em>). This is exactly Babylon’s judgment (<em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>). The unloving in the ecclesia will be treated like the unloving world whose spirit they share. </p>


text:
<p><em>Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him- </em>The context of :2 is that we must not make little ones stumble; and we make them stumble by not forgiving them, not welcoming them at our table, like the elder son of chapter 15 and the "rich man" of chapter 16, which forms the context for these words<em>. </em>This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>, where Paul says we should <em>take heed to ourselves</em> of the likelihood of false teachers. Surely what he's saying is 'Yes, take heed to forgive your brother personal offences, take heed because you'll be tempted <em>not </em>to forgive him; but have the same level of watchfulness for false teaching'. But the Lord is not necessarily teaching that we are to only grant forgiveness upon repentance; for the implication of much Bible teaching is otherwise. He may be setting us up to think that this is what He means, and then in :4 He challenges us by saying we should forgive even if repentance is so evidently insincere that effectively it is not repentance.</p><p>The Greek and Hebrew words translated ‘repentance’ strictly mean a change of mind, and not necessarily any works / actions. God in this sense can ‘repent’. It seems to me that we have to recognize a changed state of heart in our repentant brother, without demanding ‘works’. In <em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>, the Lord says of a sinful brother: “If your brother sins… go and point out the fault… if he listens to you, you have regained your brother”. But in <em><a href='B:490 17:3'>Luk 17:3</a></em>, He says: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him”. This would parallel the brother’s ‘repentance’ with him ‘listening’ to you. Seeing repentance is a state of the heart, and we simply can’t know the hearts of others, it seems to me very hard indeed to judge the level of another’s repentance.</p><p>“See that you despise not one of these little ones” is how the parallel account puts it (<em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>). We offend people by ‘despising’ them, as the "rich man" did to Lazarus and the older brother did to the prodigal. To&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;seek others’ salvation by forgiving them is to despise them. We may not think we are despiteful people. But effectively, in His eyes, we are…if we neglect to actively seek for their salvation until we find it. To not offend others is thus made parallel to seeking their salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if he sins against you seven times in the day and seven times turns again to you, saying: I repent: You shall forgive him</em>- Peter found it hard to grapple with the idea that the degree or amount of sin was irrelevant. But "seventy times seven" indicated how far out he was. Even when a brother's repentance seems humanly unlikely (the 490th time in the day, the seventy sevens of Matthew, takes some believing!), we must still have that covenant mercy for him. Note that only a verbal repentance was required- and the Lord said that the forgiver was to just accept this, rather than demand evidence of 'forsaking' in physical terms. The Greek word for repentance is a compound meaning ‘to think differently after’. Repentance is essentially a changed <em>attitude of mind</em>. This is why it’s difficult to judge whether it exists within the heart of another person. and the Lord seems to be saying that we are not to judge the quality of another's' repentance, which effectively means not demanding repentance before forgiving. We live constantly in need and receipt of mercy, every second of our existence. The New Covenant is often spoken of in the Old Testament as "mercy" and/or "truth". If we are <em>in</em> that Covenant, we are permanently living <em>in</em> grace/mercy. Mercy is not something which we just receive in the few moments while we pray for forgiveness. It is something constantly ongoing. We live <em>in</em> it. If we appreciated this, we would not see our forgiveness of others as something we occasionally 'grant'; we will extend mercy to them constantly, as God does to us. So the Lord's apparent requirement for repentance before forgiveness in :3 is tempered by this explanation- that we are to forgive when repentance seems so insincere that it is not repentance. This is rather typical of His teaching style and usage of language and ideas.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith- </em>The disciples asked that as a community, their faith may be increased so as to forgive others as Jesus requires them to. They believed, correctly, that faith can be given directly by the Lord; and through His Spirit He likewise works on human hearts today too. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:480 4:24'>Mar 4:24</a></em> of how the Lord adds spirituality to those who have it. The Lord's response is that they should on an individual level realize that even if they were perfectly obedient, they were "unprofitable servants" (<em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em>)- and the only other time that term occurs on the Lord's lips is when speaking of how the unprofitable servant will be cast away to condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). What He's saying is: 'Imagine condemnation. Being cast away as you stand before the judgment seat. That's you- that's what <em>should</em> happen, even if you "do" all. Get it- you're saved by grace, an amazing grace- respond to that, and forgiving others and zealous service will flow easily and naturally enough from that'. </p>


text:
<h4><em>And the Lord said: If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you would say to this sycamore tree: Be rooted up and be planted in the sea- and it would obey you</em>- As noted on :5, the faith in view concerns the ability to accept and forgive others. And the Lord says that if they had faith, then the sycamore tree could be planted in the sea. Israel was then covered with sycamore trees (<em><a href='B:110 10:27'>1Ki 10:27</a></em>) to the point that the tree became emblematic of Israel (<em><a href='B:290 9:10'>Isa 9:10</a></em>). By faith, they could extend Israel to the Gentiles, the sea of nations. The choice was either to be cast into the sea in condemnation for refusing to accept the spiritually little ones (:2), or to take the hope of Israel into the sea and plant it there, so that the sea of nations became as the land of Israel. 'Planting' is a metaphor regarding the teaching of the Gospel in <em><a href='B:530 3:6-8'>1Co 3:6-8</a></em>, and the parables of the 'planting' of a vineyard likely have the same sense. It was by faith, the disciples' faith in inclusivity and grace, that the gospel of the hope of Israel could be taken to the Gentiles. And the mustard seed is a symbol of the basic Gospel, which grows up into a tree giving shelter to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em>). Here, it refers to their faith in grace, forgiveness and inclusivity toward others- which was necessary for them to take that Gospel to the Gentiles.</h4>


text:
<p><em>But who is there of you, having a servant ploughing or keeping sheep- </em>Not all the disciples were dirt poor. Their fishing business employed hired servants. The parable about “one of you” having a servant ploughing and preparing his food was spoken to the twelve. This continues the theme so far developed in the chapter; that we should have the love, faith and vision to be forgiving and radically inclusive of others. The disciples had asked for more faith to forgive effectively without repentance [when repentance is patently insincere]; and the Lord gives part of the answer in this observation that we are all desperate sinners. The motivation for radical forgiveness of others is because we recognize that even if we are fully obedient, we are "unprofitable servants"; and even the highest standard of behaviour, as was seen uniquely in the Lord, is simply what is expected of us as God's servants.</p><p><em>That will say to him when he comes in from the field: Come immediately and sit down to eat</em>- We are not worthy to sit at the table of our master and eat. Eating together has been a theme of this entire section, beginning in chapter 15, where the Lord answers the objection that He eats with sinners. The elder brother of chapter 15 and the "rich man" of chapter 16 refuse to eat with the likes of the prodigal son or Lazarus. To motivate us in not being exclusive and rejecting our brethren from the Lord's table, we are here reminded that our place at His table is by grace. For in no secular situation at that time would a servant ever eat at his lord's table as an equal, let alone have his master serve him there. And yet this is that the Lord Jesus does to us; this is the unique nature of His table. </p>


text:
<p><em>Does he thank the servant because he did the things that were commanded? I think not- </em>A master doesn't thank his slave for ploughing all day. When he comes home in the evening, the slave's job is to get the Master's food ready, and then when the Master has been looked after, he can get himself something. The Master has no need to thank (Gk. <em>charis</em>, s:w. to give "grace") the slave, and the slave expects nothing else. This is how the Lord sees our works; He expects us to serve Him for nothing, because of our role as His slaves, and not because we expect any gratitude, recognition or reward. We serve because we are His slaves. The parable teaches that absolute obedience should be the norm of our lives, not the exception, and that this is only what our Master demands and expects. From the way He told the story, the Lord framed our sympathy to be with the slave. But His point is that when we have done all, worked all day and then gone the extra mile in the evening, we should still feel unprofitable slaves, slaves who aren't mush profit to their Master. The passive, unspoken <em>acceptance</em> seen between Master and slave in the parable should be seen between us and the Lord. There is no attempt by the Lord to ameliorate the Master : slave figure; "You call me master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am" (<em><a href='B:500 13:13'>Joh 13:13</a></em>). And yet we are told that at the judgment we will receive "praise of God" (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). This can not, therefore, be praise of our efforts at obedience; it will be praise for the status we are in on account of being in Christ, being counted as righteous as Him. The parable was spoken in the context of the disciples thinking that God would be very happy with them if they forgave their brother seven times a day (<em><a href='B:490 17:3-6'>Luk 17:3-6</a></em>). But the Lord is replying that things like this, which to us may seem going more than the extra mile, should be the norm; such heights of spirituality are only the daily ploughing of the field, and are only the obvious minimum which Christ accepts. He won't shew us grace ("thank") for doing this- with the implication that His grace is totally undeserved, not related to our forgiveness of others or other acts of obedience. The story paints the Master as being rather ungrateful and hard, to see his servant work so hard, then go the extra mile, and not utter a word of thanks. And the Lord is saying: 'Yes, to the natural mind, that's how I am':&nbsp;Christ says that the slave will not expect the Master to say to him "Sit down to meat", but will expect to be told, tired as he is, to gird himself and serve his Master (<em><a href='B:490 17:7-8'>Luk 17:7-8</a></em>). The Lord's words here are surely intended to recall when He said that in the Kingdom He would make us each sit down to meat and come forth and serve us (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). The point of the connection is to show that Christ's treatment of us in the Kingdom <em>will</em> be different from that of an ordinary Master, but we really, honestly shouldn't expect it; we should serve because we are His servants, not expecting any praise or response from him. And this experience of grace should motivate us to forgive whether or not the repentance seems sincere (:5). As it happens, He will give us all this in the Kingdom, but we shouldn't expect this at all. As the slave would have been dumbfounded if his Master did this, so should our response be in the Kingdom. What makes it difficult is that we <em>know</em> our Master is like this, that He's a most unusual Lord, one who washes our feet (<em><a href='B:500 13:13-14'>Joh 13:13-14</a></em>); and the extraordinary relationship we have with Him ought to make us eagerly desire to show a similar service to our brethren, and to forgive them whether or not their repentance appears sincere.</p><p>The story of the slave who worked all day in the field and was then expected to come home and cook for his master without a word of thanks to him seems to be more realistic, lacking the element of unreality usually seen in the parables. But the Greek word <em>charis</em>, usually translated "grace", is the one used for "thank" here. The point is that we don't receive grace because of our going the extra mile, as we are inclined to think. We receive grace, but not as a result of all our special efforts; these are what are expected of us, on account of the fact that we have become salves to our Master, the Lord Jesus. At the end of all our special efforts (in whatever sphere), we must consciously make an effort to recognize that we are "unprofitable servants" (<em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em>). This must surely connect with <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>, which describes the rejected at the day of judgment as unprofitable servants. If we judge / condemn ourselves, we will not be condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). This is just one of many examples of where the Lord's parables seem intended to be linked with each other- which further proves that they are not stories with a deeper meaning, whose storyline is not intended to be carefully considered. We must recognize not only that we are unprofitable servants, but that we have only done what was our "duty" or debt to do- the implication being that we were sold into slavery on account of an unpayable debt. This is exactly the figure used by the Lord to describe us in <em><a href='B:470 18:25'>Mat 18:25</a></em>. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Even so you also, when you shall have done all the things that are commanded of you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do- </em>It may be that this is taking us forward to the Kingdom; it is at the judgment that we 'do all' (<em><a href='B:560 6:13'>Eph 6:13</a></em>), it is in the Kingdom that we will obey all the commandments (<em><a href='B:230 119:6'>Psa 119:6</a></em>). This parable is a glimpse into the appreciation of grace we will have as we enter the Kingdom; once we are fully righteous, we will realize how unprofitable we are of ourselves (notice we may still feel in a sense "unprofitable" then). We will realize that all our service is only the repaying of the huge debt incurred by our sinfulness. <em>Then</em>, and perhaps only then, will we see works in their true perspective. This surely is the purpose of the judgment seat. We will walk away with the sense of wonder at the grace of Jesus that filled the one-hour workers as they walked away from the pay table with a day's wages:&nbsp; </p><p>The sin offering to be offered after the Nazarite vow had finished (<em><a href='B:40 6:14'>Num 6:14</a></em>) suggests the principle of <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em> was being taught even back there. There was to be no spiritual pride in commitment made apparently over and above God's minimal requirements. The language of "have done all those things which are commanded" recalls the language of the priests and Moses doing all things which were commanded them under the old covenant (<em><a href='B:20 29:35'>Exo 29:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:36'>Lev 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:18'>Deu 1:18</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em> would therefore be hinting that even complete obedience to God's law was not of itself enough to make a man profitable unto God, which was something Job likewise concluded (<em><a href='B:220 22:2'>Job 22:2</a></em>). And the legislation about concluding the Nazarite vow was teaching the same. </p><p>We shouldn’t be discouraged if in our self-perception we see ourselves as serious sinners. We must say of ourselves that “we are unprofitable servants”- i:e. condemned, for this is how the phrase is used elsewhere in the Lord’s thinking (<em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). This is the finest paradox of all. If we perceive ourselves as worthy of&nbsp;condemnation, we will be saved. If we would judge [i:e. condemn] ourselves, we will not be judged / condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). If we understand the seriousness of our sin, then forgiveness of others will come easier- and this is the purpose of the story (:5). If we realize our utter spiritual desperation, our worthiness of rejection, our betrayals of our Lord's love, if we condemn ourselves in our own judgment; <em>then</em> we will not have to go through this process when the Lord comes. Yet if we don't do this, Paul says, then we are drinking condemnation to ourselves at the last day. It's a powerful, terrifying argument. Such <em>must be</em>- not ought to be- our level of self-analysis and knowledge of our desperation. If we so know our desperation now, we will not be condemned. Knowing and feeling our desperation is the key to so many Christian problems: monotony and boredom in spiritual life, problems with our partner, with our ecclesia, pride, a critical, ungrateful spirit, a lack of heartfelt praise, a reserve in witnessing. Even division amongst us would be outlawed by a true sense of our personal desperation. See on <em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em>.</p><p>As slaves, we serve without expecting any thanks at all; and the service in the immediate context is forgiving our brother whether or not his repentance appears sincere. We do what is our duty to do by reason of who we are- sinners. The Lord spoke this in response to the disciples saying it was impossible for them to accept His teaching about unconditional forgiveness of each other (:5). Man’s ingratitude is perhaps one of the hardest winds to weather, and it can so easily blow us off course in our service. But as the Lord’s slaves, judged by Him alone, we didn’t ought to look for recognition of our labours nor our forgiveness of others; neither should we demand apologies for <em>anything</em>. The Lord humbled Himself to wash the feet of His brethren, even though He was their leader (<em><a href='B:570 2:4-11'>Phi 2:4-11</a></em> is full of allusion to the foot washing incident, as if there the Lord exemplified the spirit of the cross). There may be brethren who consider it beneath them to talk to others or forgive others, who think it is not for them to help wash up or move furniture or all the host of other tasks that our gatherings require. But in these things lies the spirit of Christ. Paul didn’t lord it over others, but was a fellow-worker with them (<em><a href='B:540 1:24'>2Co 1:24</a></em>). It is one of the finest paradoxes: that he who is the greatest must be the servant of all. See on <em><a href='B:480 10:45'>Mar 10:45</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as they were on their way to Jerusalem, that he was passing along the borders of Samaria and Galilee</em>- Time and again, the Gospel records reveal how the disciples manifest the Lord Jesus. There are several passages where the text is unclear, as to whether it should read, e:g:, “As <em>they </em>were on the way” or “As <em>He </em>went” (<em><a href='B:490 17:11'>Luk 17:11</a></em> RV cp. AV). The textual confusion may reflect the unity between the Lord and His preachers. Even within the Gospels, incident after incident shows the Lord doing something alone, and then the disciples somehow being presented as doing the same.</p><p>Even when He was heading away from Jerusalem during the course of that final journey, He's still described as going to Jerusalem. This was the degree to which His focus was upon His journey unto death; when He passed through a Samaritan village, His whole body language was as if He were going up to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 9:53'>Luk 9:53</a></em>). And we are asked to have the same focus and sense of direction as we carry His cross.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men who were lepers, who stood far away- </em>Reflect how the group of ten lepers huddled together, Jew and Samarian together, their differences sunk in their common appreciation of their desperation. In deep seated humility, we can wait with unfeigned faith for the day of acceptance to dawn, serving with a true love, not interested in feuding with our brethren, thankfully partaking of the emblems with them, not forgetting <em>how</em> we were cleansed from our past sins (cp. <em><a href='B:680 1:9'>2Pe 1:9</a></em> RV- a sure allusion to the nine ungrateful lepers who forgot the wonder of their cleansing). If we remember how we were cleansed, then there will abound in us virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, culminating in a true love (so Peter’s logic runs in <em><a href='B:680 1:5-9'>2Pe 1:5-9</a></em>). For our desperation, the cross of the Lord Jesus, the frankness of the Father's forgiveness- these things will ever <em>live</em> within our grateful, gracious souls. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they lifted up their voices, saying: Jesus, master, have mercy on us!</em>- The grammar suggests they the many had one voice. And yet they included at least one Samaritan, with whom normal Jews would have nothing to do. The basis of our unity should be our desperation for grace and healing.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he saw them, he said to them: Go and show yourselves to the priests. And it came to pass, as they went, they were cleansed</em>- The motive for this in <em><a href='B:490 5:14'>Luk 5:14</a></em> had been in order to make a testimony to the priests. Such was His zeal for their salvation. And the fact that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>) shows how this apparently hope-against-hope desire of the Lord for the conversion of His enemies somehow came true. We noted on <em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em> that the work of the priests was to cleanse the leper- but this had been done by the Lord. The man was therefore to show himself to the priests- in order to demonstrate to them that another priest and priesthood was already coming into operation.</p><p>The healing happened "as they went". There had to be an element of faith and obedience before the cure- in this case. For the Lord operated variously when it came to preconditions for healing. </p>


text:
<p><em>And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, glorifying God in a loud voice</em>- He turned back from going to the priests to thank the Lord, because he perceived that not only would he as a Gentile not get much audience with them, but because he saw that the Lord Jesus was far greater than the priesthood. He took the initiative in technically disobeying the Lord's commandment to come and thank the Lord. It was when he saw that he was healed that he praised God. The others presumably thought that their full healing would only be once they appeared before the priests. But the Samaritan perceived that the total power of healing was with the Lord and that the priests had no role to play in this. Being a Samaritan and therefore separated from the community of Israel made this perception somewhat easier for him, just as those outside religious systems find it easier to perceive the direct hand of the Lord Jesus in their lives- once they encounter Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he fell upon his face at his feet, giving him thanks- though he was a Samaritan</em>- Jews and Samaritans had no dealings, and yet they lifted up their voices as one voice (:13 Gk:). They were united in their desperation, just as we ought to be. This is one of many hints that the work of the Lord Jesus was for non-Jews as well as Jews, and that the Gentiles would respond better to it. The command to go and teach "all nations" the Gospel seamlessly follows from all these hints throughout the Lord's ministry, and the disciples and the early church were all the more culpable for initially refusing to perceive it. But such is the power of assumed correctness of inherited positions, prejudice, nationalism and elitism- even within the hearts of otherwise sincere believers. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus responded: Were not ten cleansed? Where are the other nine?</em>- The Lord's response was to the Samaritan. The implication was that the Lord was deeply disappointed in the Jewish response, and in their consideration of the priestly acceptance of them as being far more important than gratitude to their healer-Messiah. And He wanted the Samaritan to know that indeed, Israel were not OK with God. The Lord Jesus was on that man's side and not, in that sense, approving of Israel just on the basis of their ethnicity. The question as to "Where are the other nine?" was a leading one. The answer was 'With the priests'. The implication was that they should have been with the Samaritan at the Lord's feet, and not, in the first instance, with those priests. </p>


text:
<p><em>Were there none found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger?</em>- This comment seems more towards the disciples, or perhaps the Lord was just speaking to Himself. The Samaritan had returned to Jesus, glorifying God (:15). It would be far too simplistic to assume that Jesus as He stood there was God Himself. For no man can see God. Further reflection reveals a far profounder situation. By returning to Jesus in gratitude, the man was glorifying God. The worship and glorification of the Son is therefore to the glory of God the Father, as Philippians 2 makes explicit. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Arise and go your way. Your faith has made you whole</em>- The healing had occurred "as they went" to the priests (:14). It could be that the Lord is saying that the man's faith had made him so whole that he didn't need to go to the priests. He was to go his way, back to his Samaritan community, as the living witness to the Lord's passionate care for non-Jews. Luke seems to stress the role of faith in the cures (<em><a href='B:490 7:50'>Luk 7:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:48'>Luk 8:48</a></em>). He also speaks more about Samaritans than any other gospel; perhaps because his material was partly aimed at converting Samaritans and other Gentiles. </p>


text:
<h4><em>And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God comes, he answered them and said: The kingdom of God comes not with observation</em>- The disciples repeat the Pharisees' question about when the end will come- in almost the same words. They were clearly influenced by them (<em><a href='B:490 17:20'>Luk 17:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em>). "When will the Kingdom come?" was another perennial question- again answered by the Lord redirecting the entire enquiry. "The kingdom of God is within you::. as it was in the days of Lot::. one shall be taken and the other shall be left" (<em><a href='B:490 17:34'>Luk 17:34</a></em>). 'Don't worry about the calendar date, don't let a fascination with prophecy distract you from the personal reality that whenever I do come, some will be left behind. Will that be <em>you</em>?'. See on <em><a href='B:490 19:11'>Luk 19:11</a></em>. The implication could be that the Kingdom of God is hastened by action- by the repentance of Israel, the spiritual maturity of God's believing children, intense prayer, outreach to the Gentile world and other preconditions for the Lord's return. It will not be hastened by attempts to match current events with Bible prophecies- which perhaps is what the Lord refers to by "observation" here. It's as if He is warning against the obsession with latter day political prophecies which has stymied so much spirituality over the ages. </h4><p>And yet "observation" translates a word which only Luke uses to describe how the Jews critically "watched" Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 6:7'>Luk 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a></em>). They were actually looking at Him; the Kingdom was amongst them. They need not observe / look around / watch out for Messiah any further.</p>


text:
<p><em>Neither shall they say, Here it is, or, There it is! For the kingdom of God is among you- </em>The life that He had and now lives is the essence of the Kingdom life. Who He was and is, this is the definition of the Kingdom life. It’s why one of His titles is “the kingdom of God”. And it’s why it can be said that we ‘have’ eternal life now, in that we can live the essence of the life we will eternally live, right now. "The kingdom of God is within you" (AV) is more correctly translated "the kingdom of God is <em>among</em> you" (see A:V. mg:):&nbsp;The context shows that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees (:20);&nbsp;the "you" therefore refers to them:&nbsp;They were certainly not Christian believers- the kingdom of God was not established in <em>their</em> hearts. The Jews were making a great public show of their zeal in looking for Messiah:&nbsp;In this passage, "the kingdom of God" seems to be a title of Messiah, seeing He is to be the king of the kingdom:&nbsp;Thus when the Lord Jesus entered Jerusalem, the people shouted, "Blessed is he (Messiah) that comes in the name of the Lord:&nbsp;blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that comes in the name of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:480 11:9-10'>Mar 11:9-10</a></em>):&nbsp;This parallels Messiah and "the kingdom":&nbsp;Thus John the Baptist preached that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand:&nbsp;For this is he (Jesus) that was (prophesied)" (<em><a href='B:470 3:2-3'>Mat 3:2-3</a></em>):&nbsp;So here, the Lord answered their question about "when the kingdom of God should come", by speaking about the coming of "the son of man". His point was that the Jews were making so much show of being on the look out for Messiah's coming, expecting Him to be suddenly revealed in power, that they failed to realize that that Messiah- "the kingdom of God"- was already among them in the humble person of Jesus:&nbsp;Thus He warned them:&nbsp;"The kingdom of God (Messiah) comes not with outward show::. behold, the kingdom of God is among you" (<em><a href='B:490 17:20-21'>Luk 17:20-21</a></em>). A well known theologian, Joachim Jeremias, has come to the same conclusion: “The meaning ‘indwelling in’ can certainly be excluded. Neither in Judaism nor elsewhere in the New Testament do we find the idea that the reign of God is something indwelling in men, to be found, say, in the heart; such a spiritualistic understanding is ruled out both for Jesus and for the early Christian tradition” (Joachim Jeremias, <em>New Testament Theology</em> (London: SCM, 1972) p. 101):&nbsp;He goes on to draw out the parallel between <em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 17:23-24'>Luk 17:23-24</a></em>: “Neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you…And they shall say to you, Lo, there! Lo, here! go not away, nor follow after them: for as the lightning, when it flashes out of the one part under the heaven, shines unto the other part under heaven; so shall the Son of man be in his day”. </p><p>The parallel is between the Kingdom of God coming at the return of Christ at the last day- and the Kingdom being ‘within’ or ‘among’ you. Jeremias suggests on this basis that “the Kingdom of God is within / among you” means ‘The Kingdom of God will come among you suddenly and visibly, at the last day- so it’s no good expecting it right at this moment now’.</p><p>Who He was and is, this is the definition of the Kingdom life. It’s why one of His titles is “the kingdom of God” (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). And it’s why it can be said that we ‘have’ eternal life now, in that we can live the essence of the life we will eternally live, right now. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to the disciples: The days will come, when you shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man and you shall not see it</em>- Yet <em><a href='B:500 8:56'>Joh 8:56</a></em> implies it is always possible to see one of the days of the Son of man through faith in Him. As explained in John 14-16, the promised Comforter would enable believers to always have the same sense of the Lord's presence as His followers had during His ministry. Is the Lord not hinting here that there will be a clouded spiritual vision amongst His latter day followers, even though they will “desire” this not to be the case? And can we not see uncomfortable similarities with our position and feelings today, realizing our vision is somewhat clouded, desiring for things to be different, but still not seeing…? </p><p>The Lord's coming is "the day of the Son of man"; and yet He speaks of the days of His ministry as the days of the Son of Man. The Lord is the same yesterday, today and forever. The same Jesus who was then in Palestine, speaking from the larynx of a Palestinian Jew, is essentially the same who shall return, likewise as judge, friend and patient saviour. <em><a href='B:490 17:24-26'>Luk 17:24-26</a></em>&nbsp;speaks of&nbsp;the "days of the Son of man" and refers them to three things: </p><p>1. The days of the Lord's ministry</p><p>2. The time leading up to His return</p><p>3. The day of judgment, of His actual second coming.</p><p>Putting these together, we come to the following conclusion: those living in the very last days will effectively be living with the actual presence of the Lord, it will be as if He has physically returned, although He has not done so. This may well be in order to provide encouragement to the persecuted saints in their latter-day tribulation; but it surely suggests that they will <em>know</em> that the Lord is about to return, that they are living in the days of the Son of man. The Comforter will be poured out, or accepted, so that the believers feel strongly the Lord's presence:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And they shall say to you, Look there, or, Look here. Do not go, nor follow after them</em>- The Lord has been teaching that He is "amongst" them; there is no need to go looking for Him anywhere. But His thought moves on specifically to the time of His return. For the Lord repeats this warning in the Olivet prophecy. There will be false Christs and bogus claims that the Lord has returned. Spoken to the disciples, this suggests that they were the ones who would see these things associated with the return of Christ. But they did not. And in any case, all twelve of them were being addressed, and one of them would turn away from Christ. So there was in any case a conditionality attached to the Lord’s words:&nbsp;</p><p>“Lo” [AV] suggests the actual pointing out of a person. “Here… or there” is poor translation, because the same original word is behind both “here” and “there”. The impression is given of people pointing out actual individuals and claiming that ‘This is Christ’. The faithful are to flee once the sign is obvious that the Lord is about to be revealed, and in those days [and they may literally be days or hours] the world will know that His return is imminent, and therefore all manner of charlatans will start claiming ‘It’s me!’. The relatively few claims to be Jesus Christ which are made today are hardly credible, no temptation at all for the faithful, and nearly always the person making the claim is mentally ill. But the Olivet prophecy suggests that these claims by false Christs will be so credible that even the faithful will be sorely tempted to believe them. The risk of deception would be so great that the Lord repeatedly warned against it. If there is some worldwide sign that the Lord is about to return, perhaps literally in the sky, as “the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven”, then in those days, such claimants will have far more credibility. It could be that one claimant is particularly persuasive, leading to the final show down on Mount Zion between the true Christ and the anti-Christ, the fake duplicate of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>For as the lightning shines from one part under the heaven to the other part under heaven, so shall the Son of Man be in his day</em>- This is the "lightning" and earthquake associated with the return of Christ when His people, natural and spiritual, are at the nadir of persecution and tribulation (<em><a href='B:730 4:5'>Rev 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 8:5'>Rev 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:19'>Rev 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:18'>Rev 16:18</a></em>). Lightning doesn’t do as described here. The reference is therefore to the Old Testament manifestation of lightning as part of the Cherubim, which flashed with lightning (<em><a href='B:330 1:4'>Eze 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 1:14'>Eze 1:14</a></em>). Ezekiel saw the Cherubim depart from the temple (<em><a href='B:490 24:1'>Luk 24:1</a></em> has alluded to this already), go Eastward to the mount of Olives and then mount up to Heaven (<em><a href='B:330 10:19'>Eze 10:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 11:22-23'>Eze 11:22-23</a></em>). This is why “the Glory”, the lightning of the Cherubim chariot, was seen as returning to the Mount of Olives "by the way of the east" into the temple (<em><a href='B:330 43:2-4'>Eze 43:2-4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>As the Lord stood amongst them, He was the Son of Man in His day. Those who accepted Him as Messiah were accepting His 'coming' to them. For those who did not, and who argued about whether or not He fulfilled all the prophecies they were analysing ["with observation"], He would 'come' unmistakably, but in judgment. The day of the Lord was right upon them, if only they would realize it; and they made the decision standing right there as to whether they would then be saved or condemned.</p>


text:
<p><em>But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected by this generation</em>- We wonder whether the Lord's tone of voice and body language changed; having talked of the glories of His second coming, He returns to the reality that He must be crucified by His people. The Lord's rejection by Israel is a major theme (<em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:31'>Mar 8:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 12:10'>Mar 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:22'>Luk 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:17'>Luk 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:4'>1Pe 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em> all use the same word). Any who struggle with rejection find an instant connection with the Lord. It has been given to us to "suffer for His sake", the same word used here for "suffer" (<em><a href='B:570 1:29'>Phi 1:29</a></em>). His sufferings are reflected in our experience, that we might experience in practice the status of being "in Christ". The passages just listed mainly state that the Lord would be rejected by "the builders", by the "elders::. priests::. scribes". Now He extends that to all "this generation". They followed their religious leaders- to reject God's Son and all His love. This is the danger of following religious leaders without thinking things through for ourselves from God's word. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as it was in the days of Noah, even so shall it also be in the days of the Son of Man</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:680 2:5-8'>2Pe 2:5-8</a></em>. “The days” are parallel with “the coming” of the Lord. The scenario outlined elsewhere is of the Lord ‘coming’ for the faithful, them consciously choosing to go to meet Him, and then their ‘coming’ along with Him in judgment upon the unfaithful and Israel’s immediate enemies. Therefore a period of time is made parallel with the Lord’s “coming”. The "days of Noah" may refer to the way in which God told Noah of the flood, but in <em><a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 7:4'>Gen 7:4</a></em> told him that now there were "yet seven days" until the flood actually came, and he must now enter the ark. The gathering of the animals was done within those seven days (<em><a href='B:10 7:1-3'>Gen 7:1-3</a></em>). In this lies the similarity with the last days. We know the outline picture- that judgment will come, and there are reasons and signs of that. But only a few days before judgment breaks will the faithful be invited to go to meet the Lord, to enter the ark. And in that period the Gospel will be spread to all nations, the last final appeal will be made. Just as Noah filled the huge ark, which could have saved so many people, with any animal willing to agree to come on board. The shutting of the door of the ark would then directly correspond with <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>: "The door was shut". Just as desperate people would've knocked on the shut door of the ark, so the unfaithful will knock on the door which the Lord has now closed. In this life we can knock on the closed door, recognizing our condemnation- and it will be opened (<em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:8'>Rev 3:8</a></em>). But after the Lord has 'come' in the sense of inviting us into the ark, to go forth and meet Him, the door will be shut.</p><p>Perhaps those seven days were a period of feasting in the world around Noah, just as there will be a brief period of hedonistic prosperity in the world before Christ's coming, perhaps because of some international agreement which offers prosperity to the entire planet in return for some nominal acceptance of false religion [Islam?]. We note the period of "seven days" used for funeral celebrations (<em><a href='B:10 50:10'>Gen 50:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 31:13'>1Sa 31:13</a></em>), wedding celebrations (<em><a href='B:70 14:12'>Jdg 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 14:17'>Jdg 14:17</a></em>) and general feasting (<em><a href='B:190 1:5'>Est 1:5</a></em>; Job 1). The people around Noah were doing this right up until the last day of the seven days. Passover, a clear type of the final deliverance of God's people at the Lord's second coming, required a similar seven days preparation period (<em><a href='B:20 12:19'>Exo 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:6'>Exo 13:6</a></em>) followed by a "day of the Lord", the actual feast, and "a solemn assembly" (<em><a href='B:160 8:18'>Neh 8:18</a></em>). Indeed, the feasts of Yahweh all required a seven day period (Leviticus 23), and each of them was in some way typical of the second coming:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>A number of passages describe the AD70 judgments of Israel in terms of the flood; which suggests that they also have reference to the last days:</p><p>- 2 Peter 3 is a clear example, describing the destruction of the Jewish system in AD70 as being by fire as opposed to water used in Noah's time. Yet the chapter also has reference, e:g. through its links with the new Heavens and earth of Isaiah 65, with the destruction of the present age at the Lord's return.</p><p>- Nahum 1 describes the coming judgements on Israel in terms of mountains and hills splitting, and there being a great flood; all Genesis flood language.</p><p>- <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em> describes the Romans in AD70 destroying "the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood", the LXX implying with a sudden flood, as in Noah's time.</p><p>- <em><a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a></em> describes the judgments on Israel being "as the waters of Noah". The end of the flood, the end of Israel's judgments, therefore typifies the second coming.</p><p>- In the light of this the Lord's parable about the man building on sand whose house was destroyed when the heavy rain came (<em><a href='B:470 7:25'>Mat 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>) must have primary reference (as so many of the parables do) to the judgement on the Jewish house in AD70. Those who built on sand as a result of not hearing Christ's words were the Jews- also described as shoddy builders in <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 3:10'>Mic 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 22:13'>Jer 22:13</a></em>.</p><p>- The flood waters were upon the earth for 5 months. The siege of Jerusalem in AD70 lasted for the same period, coming after 3 years of the Roman campaign against Israel which started in AD67. The three and a half year suffering of Israel which culminated in AD70 may well point forward to a similar period in the last days; in which case the flood would typify the final months of that period, during which the judgments will be poured out most intensely. The five month tribulation of <em><a href='B:730 9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em> may also have some relevance here.</p><p>Thus the state of Israel in AD70 was typified by the world of Noah's time, which therefore looks forward also to the last days, in the light of the evident connections between that period and our last days which are made in 2 Peter 3 and the Olivet prophecy.</p>


text:
<p><em>They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all</em>- <em><a href='B:490 21:34'>Luk 21:34</a></em> is specific: "And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, so that day come upon you unawares". It could fairly be asked 'Why is there this warning, if the believers of the last days are to be actively persecuted?'. This verse implies that the world will be in a materially prosperous state in the last days; it will be possible for us to become so preoccupied with it that we do not prepare for the time of tribulation, so that it comes as a sudden surprise. Of if "that day" is the day of Christ's coming, then it may be that by opting out of the persecution, we will be able to continue to enjoy the materialism of the world, in which case we will be caught unawares by the second coming. Thus while the saints are persecuted, the world enjoys a time of prosperity as it did in the times of Lot and Noah.</p><p>The flood "came", Gk:&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>. This is effectively the same word as used about Noah "entering" or 'coming into' the ark (<em>eis-erchomai</em>). The coming of the flood represents the coming of Jesus to the world-<em> erchomai</em>&nbsp;is so often used in the context in that connection (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:42-44'>Mat 24:42-44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:48'>Mat 24:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>). The 'coming in' of Noah into the ark seven days before the flood (cp. the response of the faithful to the call to go out and meet the returning Lord Jesus) is essentially the coming of the Lord, even if His public 'coming' may be a few days after the 'coming' to the believers. Keil translates <em><a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a></em>:&nbsp;“The city, together with the sanctuary, shall be destroyed by the people of the prince who shall come, who shall find his end in the flood; but war shall continue to the end, since destruction is irrevocably decreed. That prince shall force a strong covenant for one week on the mass of the people, and during half a week he shall take away the service of sacrifice, and borne on the wings of idol abominations [cp. <em><a href='B:230 18:10'>Psa 18:10</a></em>, where the true God is also borne on wings] shall carry on a desolating rule, till the firmly decreed judgment shall pour itself upon him as one desolated” (<em>Commentary&nbsp;</em>&nbsp; p. 373). Antichrist’s destruction with&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;flood [note the definite article] comfortably connects with the Lord’s usage of the flood as a symbol of the latter day judgment upon His enemies (<em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>). The person spoken about will be involved in war until the end of his days; he will die at the end of his military campaign against God’s people. This was certainly not true of Titus in AD70.</p><p>In <em>Contra Celsum</em> we read Origen justifying the Christian church against Celsus’ criticisms that it is a church of poor, simple people. That the majority of Christians would be poor and simple was indeed the expectation of both the Lord Jesus and Paul. Yet Origen seeks to justify the Christian church as middle class and respectable, with respected intellectuals amongst its membership. It was and is this desire to be seen as worldly-wise and ‘normal’ which is the death-knoll for any revival of Christianity. It was this which led to the acceptance of the Trinity; and it is this which robs true Christianity of its radical nature and appeal today. Perhaps in our last days this lesson needs to be learnt as never before. The Lord’s picture of the world of the last days is of a household eating and drinking, absorbed with being normal (<em><a href='B:470 24:38'>Mat 24:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:27'>Luk 17:27</a></em>). But the Lord’s point is that this very ‘normal’ behaviour done in the wrong spirit is what He finds so wrong.</p>


text:
<h4><em>Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot- they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built</em>- There can be no doubt that the sexual aspects of Sodom's sins have great similarity to the moral filth of our present world. But significantly it was not this aspect which our Lord chose to highlight when speaking of how "the days of Lot" typified those of His return. Instead He spoke of those things which were more likely to ensnare His people: "<em>They</em> (as well as our present world) did eat, <em>they</em> drank, <em>they</em> bought, <em>they</em> sold, <em>they</em> planted, <em>they</em> built". Their obsession with daily activities without an awareness of God was as bad as their other sins; a point we would do well to be aware of. However, their eating and drinking must have been to gross excess- <em><a href='B:330 16:49'>Eze 16:49</a></em> defines "the iniquity of Sodom" as being "fullness of bread" among other things. Some lavish Christian lifestyles frequently feature "fullness of bread" - but because it is not perceived as a gross sin, this unhealthy similarity with Sodom slips by unchallenged:&nbsp;"They bought, they sold" suggests that Sodom was a major trading centre, rapidly increasing in wealth; "they planted, they built" implies a real boom town. Such success resulted in the people being proud and haughty (<em><a href='B:330 16:49-50'>Eze 16:49-50</a></em>); the wealth created at the expense of others brought about "abundance of idleness in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (<em><a href='B:330 16:49'>Eze 16:49</a></em>). It is these aspects of Sodom which are so precisely matched by our self-centred, money mad world. As our Lord realized, it is these aspects which are most likely to ensnare the child of God. Yet Sodom's people were not completely unaware of their religious conscience. Jeremiah likened the false prophets of Israel to the people of Sodom, who effectively taught that sin was service to God, (<em><a href='B:300 23:14'>Jer 23:14</a></em>). This is another hint that the people of Sodom had some degree of responsibility, as have latter day Israel whom they typify.</h4><p>Lot is presented here as representative of the latter-day believers. But he was hardly strong in faith. He chose to live in Sodom, first pitching his tent near it and then getting a house within the city and even becoming a judge. His wife was consumed in the materialism of the city as were most of his children. He argued with the Angel about leaving Sodom and was only saved by grace; and even after that, he slept with both his daughters whilst drunk. And yet he was counted as faithful. All the virgins in the parable slumber and sleep at the time their Lord comes; when clearly the last generation is exhorted not to slumber but to keep awake. We can conclude that the last days will be a time of spiritual weakness for the church.</p>


text:
<p><em>But in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all</em>- Lot in his last days in Sodom was a type of the believers living in the world at the time of the end. Lot in those last hours was walking around the streets of that city trying to save his family, walking amidst angry, blind people who hated him, drunk on their own lusts. Walking those streets must have been an uncanny experience. But that is God's picture of the world of our day, and our own uncanny, almost charmed life amongst the sleepwalkers. The whole human experience is analogous to sleepwalking; we go through the motions of reality, but actually (as a race) we are spiritually asleep. The world around us are sleepwalking, in God's eyes. And we too should share His perspective.</p><p>The Lord initially has in view that Jerusalem is as Sodom, an equation the Old Testament prophets make several times. The need to leave Sodom referred to the need to break with the temple cult, and the Olivet prophecy urges the faithful to flee out of Jerusalem to the mountains to avoid her judgment. This is the language of "Babylon" in Revelation, which in its primary application refers to the Jerusalem temple cult. All who remained in it would perish; hence the appeal of the letter to the Hebrews to leave it and resist the temptation to return to it.</p>


text:
<p><em>After the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of Man is revealed</em>- This commonly used phrase "Son&nbsp;of man" (<em><a href='B:470 16:28'>Mat 16:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:27'>Mat 24:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:64'>Mat 26:64</a></em>) clearly quotes from <em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em>: “One like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven”. This prophecy clearly speaks of the giving of the Kingdom to the Lord Jesus and His people at the end of the dominion of the fourth beast and its related horns. The prophecy could have been fulfilled in the first century- but it was rescheduled. This is another example of the conditionality in Daniel’s prophecies which we discussed in an earlier digression. <em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em> speaks of how the Son of Man comes with the clouds of Heaven&nbsp;<em>before the Ancient of Days</em>&nbsp;and is given the Kingdom. What is in view is not so much the coming of Christ to earth but His coming to receive the Kingdom from the Father. <em><a href='B:340 7:26-27'>Dan 7:26-27</a></em>: “The judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it to the end. The kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole Heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him”. “The Son of Man” is here interpreted as “the people of the saints of the Most High”. The Son of Man, therefore, refers not just to the Lord personally but to all those in Him. Having chosen to go out to meet Him once they hear the trumpet call, they are snatched away to meet Him in the air and the Lord comes with them in judgment. This is the picture presented in <em><a href='B:590 4:16-17'>1Th 4:16-17</a></em> and elsewhere. This is why His “coming” is parallel with a period of time, "the days of the son of man".</p>&nbsp;<p>The Son of man will be “revealed”; and yet the other references to the Son of man being revealed refer to the way He is even now revealed to His true followers by the Father (<em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> etc:). At the second coming, the real nature of God’s Son, the essence of His character, will be revealed to all. At the very time that the Wicked One will be revealed, so will the Son of God (<em><a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a></em>). In the way God judges man, His character is again glorified and revealed; for in the way He judges, His essential characteristics are revealed. It is therefore possible to see anticipations of the day of future judgment in how God has judged in the past- thus incidents like Adam and Cain's rejection, the Babylonian and Roman invasions and the subsequent condemnation of God's people, the flood::. all these are prototypes of the future judgment. Take, for example, the prophecy of Obadiah against Edom. It is full of language elsewhere used about the judgment seat.</p>


text:
<p><em>In that day, he that shall be on the housetop with his goods in the house- </em>The idea is that flight could be taken by jumping from housetop to housetop, without going back into the house. Escaping that way would best be done in any case without carrying anything. This is clearly language relevant specifically to first century Palestine, and is a parade example of how the prophecy was ideally intended for fulfilment then. The latter day fulfilment of these words will therefore only be in essence, rather than in detail. That is a principle we must bear in mind when considering many other Bible prophecies; the essence but not necessarily the detail will be fulfilled in the rescheduled and delayed version of their fulfilment. The implication of the language here is that the sign to flee will be momentary; the signs are not, therefore, to be perceived over decades or even years, leading slowly towards the Lord’s coming. Rather these signs, especially of the abomination, will appear suddenly, to the extent that the believer must flee immediately, quite literally without a moment to lose.</p><p>But this reflection leads us to wonder whether the fleeing away in a split second, be it from the field or housetop, is more likely a reference to the need to respond immediately to the call to leave secular life and go to meet the Lord. The example of a person in the field needing to leave immediately naturally connects with the words of :36 about the snatching away of the believers at the Lord’s return: “Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left”. This would dovetail well with the implication elsewhere that the immediacy of our response to the knowledge that ‘He’s back!’ will effectively be our judgment. Those who themselves want to go to Him will be snatched away and meet Him, whilst those who delay will be rejected, as the foolish virgins who went first to buy oil.</p><p><em>Let him not go down to take them away, and let him that is in the field likewise not return back</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>. The allusion is clearly to Lot fleeing Sodom, also “to the mountains”. This is a type of the response of the believers to the call to judgment at the Lord’s return. If we don’t separate from the world, we will share their judgment. The immediacy of response is so stressed, and will be ultimately indicative of where our heart is. Any desire to gather any material possessions will reveal that our heart is not wholly and solely with the Lord. All who love the Lord in spirit and in truth will respond to the sign or call to leave with immediacy. </p><p>Initially, it does not appear that there will be much compulsion to come to the judgment. After a meeting of the Lord in the air (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>), both sheep and goats eventually appear before the judgment seat. When the Angels first come to call us to judgment at the second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>), there will be an element of choice as to whether we immediately accept the call to go and meet Christ. “In that day” we will have the choice to go and take our goods from the house, or to go immediately with the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>). Under the law, the trumpet sounded and Israel had to gather themselves together (<em><a href='B:40 10:4'>Num 10:4</a></em>); yet Paul says in Thessalonians that the Lord comes with a trumpet to gather His people together. If this is indeed based upon the Old Testament pattern, then there is an element of choice as to whether we gather ourselves unto Him- at least initially. Noah and Lot were invited, not forced, to leave the world. Those who respond to Christ's return "immediately" will be accepted, implying that the unworthy delay. This means that the response is optional in the first instance (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>). There are other indications of this:&nbsp; The most obvious is in the parable of the virgins, where the wise go out to meet their Lord immediately, whilst the foolish delay in order to spiritually prepare themselves. Our attitude in that split second is so vital. The rejected will mourn and wail, in anticipation of their future condemnation, when they see the sign of the Son of man indicating His imminent coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:30-31'>Mat 24:30-31</a></em>). And this is why there is the implication that effectively, the division between sheep and goats happens in the gathering process (<em><a href='B:470 25:33'>Mat 25:33</a></em>); our response to the gathering is our judgment. The parables invite us to see the Lord gathering the wheat to one place and the tares to another, as if the gathering is the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>); the wheat is gathered to the garner, and the chaff to the place of burning (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>). The Angel who reaps for judgment 'thrusts in' his sickle, and 'casts out' the wicked in rejection (<em><a href='B:730 14:19'>Rev 14:19</a></em>). But 'thrust in' and 'cast out' in that verse both translate the same Greek word <em>ballo</em>- the implication being that the gathering-to-judgment process is in fact the separation process. Likewise the net is "cast" into the sea in order to gather people for judgment, and then the rejected are "cast" away (<em><a href='B:470 13:47-48'>Mat 13:47-48</a></em>).</p><p>The news that Joseph was alive and glorified was received rather like that of Christ's resurrection: initial disbelief, but then the family of Jacob who believed it rose up and left all they had to go to be with Joseph; Israel in AD70 and the last days are likewise bidden leave their stuff and go to be with Christ (<em><a href='B:10 45:20'>Gen 45:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 17:31'>Luk 17:31</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Remember Lot's wife!</em>- Lot seems to have gone to Sodom for material ends- our Lord holds up his wife as an example of those who love the materialism of this world more than the reality of his Kingdom. But the Angels speak of spiritually prepared people as being the only real possessions Lot had: "Whatever you have in the city, bring them out".</p><p>"But his wife looked back from behind him" (<em><a href='B:10 19:26'>Gen 19:26</a></em>) suggests the picture of the wife following behind Lot, filled with remorse at the loss of all she had held dear. Our Lord comments concerning not desiring our "stuff which is in the house" in the day of his coming: "Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever (like her) shall seek (Greek: 'plot') to save his life shall lose it". We can infer from this that she plotted and schemed how to save her possessions- i:e. her 'life', seeing that for her, her life did consist of the abundance of the things which she possessed (<em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>). These feelings grew so strong that she paused to take a loving, wistful look at the city. Remember that the fire only fell after Lot was in Zoar; therefore the city was looking as it normally did. Their exodus was at night- "the sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar" (<em><a href='B:10 19:23'>Gen 19:23</a></em>), so she would have seen the flickering lights of the city in the distance. Compare this with how the virgins of Matthew 25 go out to meet their Lord at night. </p><p>"Remember Lot's wife" suggests that we should meditate upon her position as it has especial warning for the last days. Her leaving of Sodom appears to have been due to the personal influence of Lot her husband, yet ultimately she failed to have that personal desire to obey God. It would not be pushing the type too far to suggest that the wives of latter day believers may feel that they can enter the Kingdom in the spiritual shadow of their husbands. One cannot help wondering whether she left Ur not through personal response to the promises but because the others were leaving. Doubtless her uncle Abraham would have led her and the whole family in regular prayer and meditation during the journey towards Canaan. But somehow the reality of the God of Israel was never allowed to touch her inner being, and the years of the soft life in Sodom would have sealed her spiritual state. It is hard to avoid making the point that many of us may be in a similar position. <em><a href='B:10 19:14'>Gen 19:14</a></em> RVmg. brings out the likely immediate background to her decision. Lot’s sons in law “were to marry” his daughters. The Lord too perceived that they were marrying and giving in marriage the very day the flood came, and He pointed out the similarities with the Sodom situation (<em><a href='B:490 17:27-29'>Luk 17:27-29</a></em>). Could it not be that the very day of the double wedding, they had to leave? With all the build up to the wedding, Lot and his wife would so wanted to have stayed just another day to see the wedding of their two daughters. It is to the girls credit that they both left. But Lot’s wife had invested so much in it emotionally that she just had to look back.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever shall seek to gain his life shall lose it, but whoever shall lose it shall preserve it</em>- The Lord Jesus speaks of how a person can lose their place in the Kingdom as a person losing or forfeiting their own self; He was thereby teaching that a place in the Kingdom was possessing one’s own real self (<em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> RV). To lose life is paralleled with the Lord to unashamedly witnessing to Him in an unbelieving world; and He calls us each one to lose our lives in this way (<em><a href='B:480 8:35'>Mar 8:35</a></em>). </p><p>The Lord had earlier taught in <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em> that in the condemnation of the last day, it is God who will destroy [s:w. “lose”] life [“soul”, s:w:]. But here the Lord says that a man will lose / destroy his own life if his life consists in what he owns (<em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>) and seeks to save it. The point is that ultimately the condemned will have condemned themselves; the process of losing / destroying life is initiated and performed by people in this life, and the final condemnation is simply giving them what they themselves wished for. And the Lord goes further to say that whoever ‘finds his life’ will lose or destroy it (<em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>). To find life for ourselves, to think that by obtaining [‘finding’] the world, the ideal life for ourselves, is to actually lose or destroy life. The Lord had earlier taught that He had not come to destroy [s:w. ‘lose’] men’s lives, but to save (<em><a href='B:490 9:56'>Luk 9:56</a></em>). It is men who destroy / lose their own lives, they condemn themselves, rather than the Lord seeking to condemn them. The Father likewise has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. Rather does He simply confirm their own self-destruction. John’s version of this saying about losing life is found in the context of the Lord speaking to Himself about the need to die on the cross: “He that loves his life shall lose it” (<em><a href='B:500 12:25'>Joh 12:25</a></em>). To avoid the cross is to love life- this fleeting life. Attitudes like ‘Spoil yourself!’, ‘You deserve it!’ and ‘Have a fun time- you only live life once’ are all examples of loving life rather than losing it in self-condemnation for the hope of the eternal life. And so <em><a href='B:490 17:33'>Luk 17:33</a></em> repeats the words, in the context of commenting upon Lot’s wife- her wistful look back to Sodom was because that was her life, the life she had loved.</p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you: In that night there shall be two men in one bed. One shall be taken, and the other shall be left</em>- Not only is the city of Sodom representative of the world of the last days, but Lot's calling out of Sodom by the Angels is typical of our being 'taken' by Angels to meet the Lord.</p><p>In that day, "One will be taken,&nbsp;whilst the other will be left [behind]" [<em><a href='B:490 17:34'>Luk 17:34</a></em>]. The Greek for "taken" is the same as in <em><a href='B:500 14:3'>Joh 14:3</a></em> - the Lord comes again to <em>take</em> us to be with Him. Seeing this passage also speaks of the second coming, it seems to fit more logically that the faithful are taken away; and the rejected 'left behind". The Greek word for "left" really has the idea 'sent away'. Whilst it's not the same Greek word, it is the same <em>idea</em> as in several pictures of the judgment- the rejected are 'sent away'; the idea of being 'left sitting' doesn't seem to be there. So in the very moment of the Lord's return, the essential division is made; the faithful are taken, whilst the rejected are "left", but their being "left [behind]" is actually their condemnation, their being sent away from the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>There shall be two women grinding together at the mill; one shall be taken and the other shall be left</em>- The present tense is used here: “One is taken, the other is left”. Perhaps this was to heighten our sense that the essence of judgment is now; the call of the Gospel is a call to journey to judgment day. So much of the Lord’s teaching sensitively gives examples including men, and then including women. He was so very far ahead of His time in being so gender inclusive:&nbsp;They were grinding using millstones, which are always used in the Bible as symbolic of condemnation. These people were working out their own condemnation. Perhaps the idea is that one [the responsible] would be taken away to destruction, the other [not responsible to Divine judgment] would be “left”. </p>


text:
<h4><em>There shall be two men in the field; one shall be taken and the other shall be left</em>- I suggested on :34 that the taking away is to salvation and those left behind are destroyed with the world, after the pattern of Lot being saved and his family destroyed. But a case can be made the other way around. The 'taking away' is in judgment / condemnation / destruction, just as the unbelieving world were 'taken away' (<em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>). The ambiguity in interpretation is intentional. For we are to reflect that we shall be taken or left, and to where shall we be taken, and for what shall we be left. "Left" in the Greek has a wide range of possible meanings here- the word is translated 'forgiven', 'sent away', and perhaps there is here the hint that they will be preserved to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom. In this sense we must remember the Lord's definition that "the field is the word" (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>). And in the Olivet prophecy He has foreseen that the faithful who are called away will be "in the field" (<em><a href='B:470 24:18'>Mat 24:18</a></em>). The parable of the prodigal son likewise features the two sons, both in a field (<em><a href='B:490 15:15'>Luk 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:25'>Luk 15:25</a></em> s:w:). The prodigal leaves the field and goes to the Father. The older son refuses to ultimately leave the field and go in to the Father. Legalism and judgmentalism is therefore quite enough to warrant being 'taken away' to condemnation:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:590 4:15'>1Th 4:15</a></em>.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And they answered and said to him: Where, Lord? And he said to them: Where the body is, there will also the eagles gather together</em>- God sometimes uses language in a way which we may find embarrassing or inappropriate, reading from the distance of our age and culture, where there is an awkwardness at talking about the raw side of human nature. Thus when creating a mini-parable to explain the gathering of the responsible to him at the second coming, Jesus likens himself to a rotting carcass which will instinctively attract the eagles, representing the responsible. One of the well known shames of crucifixion was that the body was pecked by birds, even before death occurred. The idea of an uncovered body attracting birds (i:e. the believers) would have been readily understood as a crucifixion allusion. But within our use of language, it seems inappropriate to liken the Lord Jesus Christ to a decaying carcass. It seems similarly inappropriate to liken God’s response to our prayers to an unjust judge who grudgingly answers requests (<em><a href='B:490 18:1-7'>Luk 18:1-7</a></em>), or to repeatedly compare Jesus to a thief (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:39'>Luk 12:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:33'>Luk 12:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:2-4'>1Th 5:2-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:3'>Rev 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). It seems out of place to liken believers struggling to enter the Kingdom to violent people trying to storm a city by force (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>). The absentee landlords of Galilee were despised by all; and yet the Lord uses one of them as a figure for Himself (<em><a href='B:490 20:9'>Luk 20:9</a></em>). Most stunning of all is <em><a href='B:230 78:36'>Psa 78:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:65-66'>Psa 78:65-66</a></em>: “They (Israel) did flatter Him (God) with their mouth… then the Lord awaked… like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine. And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts”. This just isn’t what we expect; to read about God being flattered by foolish men, and for Him to be likened to a drunken soldier who goes on the rampage kicking others in their private parts (this is alluding back to <em><a href='B:90 5:9'>1Sa 5:9</a></em>). And the Lord likens His final appeal to Israel to casting dung around them (<em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em>).</p><p>This whole verse has various possible interpretations which each seem to me to have things to commend them and yet also their own problems. This verse is an expansion upon the Lord's teaching that His coming will be visible, will be as the lightning of judgment upon those who have not "gone forth" to Him, and no credence should be given to any claims He has come invisibly. The Lord may be likening His coming to the coming down from the sky of eagles upon the carcass- of Israel. This could have had an AD70 fulfilment in the 'eagles' of the Roman legions, just as Yahweh's Old Testament 'comings' in judgment upon Israel were at the hands of the Babylonian and Assyrian armies. But the final coming of Divine judgment will be in the literal, personal coming of God's Son to earth in judgment. The same Greek word translated "where" is found in <em><a href='B:480 13:14'>Mar 13:14</a></em> - the abomination of desolation will stand "<em>where</em>&nbsp;it ought not". It could be that this location on the temple mount is what the Lord has in view. This is where He will come down in judgment. Upon the very location He was then standing upon with the disciples, the pride and glory of an apostate Judaism. It was already no more than a carcass in God's eyes. The temple was "where [s:w:] the Jews always resort" (<em><a href='B:500 18:20'>Joh 18:20</a></em>). The carcass or dead body may not necessarily refer to Israel. In <em><a href='B:730 11:8-9'>Rev 11:8-9</a></em> we find the same Greek word used about the dead bodies of the faithful remnant who share their Lord's death in Jerusalem and lay exposed for three days- perhaps literal days. The metaphor of the eagles coming speaks of&nbsp;Divine judgment from Heaven, ultimately in the personal coming of Christ to earth. In this case, the eagles would come because of the dead bodies / carcass of those who had died the death of Christ in Jerusalem in the final tribulation. The Greek word for "carcass",&nbsp;<em>stoma</em>, literally means 'a fallen one', and is from the verb&nbsp;<em>pipto</em>, to fall. And this word is used about the fall of Jerusalem- also in Revelation 11. The city "fell" (<em><a href='B:730 11:13'>Rev 11:13</a></em>), just as Jerusalem was to "fall by the edge of the sword" (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>).</p><p>It’s possible that the Lord intended us to understand the carcass as Jerusalem, and the vultures as the latter day invaders of Israel (<em><a href='B:300 4:13'>Jer 4:13</a></em>):&nbsp; Or it has been suggested by Harry Whittaker that “If you (my disciples) show yourselves to be spiritually a carcass (as in <em><a href='B:730 3:1'>Rev 3:1</a></em>), you will certainly find yourselves the prey of these "vultures," the false teachers”:&nbsp; "Where, Lord?” may not necessarily mean ‘<em>to&nbsp;</em>where’. That the Roman invasion of AD67-70 was a detailed fulfilment of some parts of the Mosaic prophecies of curses for disobedience is well known and chronicled; here the quotation would be from <em><a href='B:50 28:26'>Deu 28:26</a></em> "your carcasses shall be meat unto the fowls of the air".</p><p>So this may refer to the coming of Christ down from Heaven in judgment upon either the carcass of Israel, or for the sake of the carcasses of the slain believers. The Greek for "eagle",&nbsp;<em>aetos</em>, literally means 'one of the air [<em>aer</em>]', and&nbsp;<em>aer</em>&nbsp;is used of how the Lord Jesus will come in the "air" [<em>aer</em>] with the faithful in judgment (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>). This would be the pouring out of the seventh vial into "the air" [<em>aer</em>], when finally "It is done" (<em><a href='B:730 16:17'>Rev 16:17</a></em>):&nbsp;Yet here in <em><a href='B:490 17:37'>Luk 17:37</a></em> the Lord speaks of the gathering of the eagles in terms of explaining how His people will be gathered to Him and judgment. The same word for 'gather' is used repeatedly for the gathering of the faithful in the last days (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). Most notably, we find it used in <em><a href='B:590 4:14'>1Th 4:14</a></em>, comforting the believers that God will at the last day 'gather' the dead believers at the last day (AV "will God&nbsp;<em>bring</em>&nbsp;with Him"). This will be the "gathering together unto Him" (<em><a href='B:600 2:1'>2Th 2:1</a></em> s:w:). This is all impressive evidence that the language of 'gathering' is used about the gathering of the believers to Christ at His coming, and according to <em><a href='B:590 4:16-17'>1Th 4:16-17</a></em> this will involve a literal being snatched away [from persecution, according to the Olivet prophecy]. Just as the believers will be led / gathered to human judgment seats (<em><a href='B:480 13:11'>Mar 13:11</a></em>,&nbsp;<em>ago</em>), gathered / lead / brought [<em>ago</em>] before human kings (<em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>), so they will be gathered to the judgment seat of Christ the King [<em>sun-ago</em>]:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord responds to the question about how we will get to judgment by saying that eagles fly to where the body is. It’s possible to interpret eagles as Angels- e:g. <em><a href='B:730 8:13'>Rev 8:13</a></em> speaks of an Angel flying through the sky in the last day, crying ‘woe’- the Greek&nbsp;<em>ouai</em>&nbsp;would’ve been understood as an imitation of the noise an eagle makes. And there are other links between Revelation 8 and Matthew 24. So perhaps the Lord’s answer was that we are not to worry about getting there, as our Angels will take us to judgment. <em><a href='B:450 14:5'>Zec 14:5</a></em> speaks of the coming of the Lord Jesus “and all the holy ones with him”. But it is applied to the believers in <em><a href='B:590 3:13'>1Th 3:13</a></em> and to the Angels in <em><a href='B:600 1:7'>2Th 1:7</a></em>. In this sense, the believers come with their Angels to judgment; but because the process happens in a moment of time, it appears that in fact Jesus returns with the faithful. This is why elsewhere the Lord Jesus is described as returning both with Angels (<em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:31'>Mat 25:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em>) and with the saints (<em><a href='B:730 19:14'>Rev 19:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 17:14'>Luk 17:14</a></em>).</p><p>And yet the Lord may simply be saying that questions like 'Where?' and 'When?' are irrelevant. We shall be taken to judgment just as eagles find their way to the carcass, but we are to ensure that we are not that dead carcass.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke a parable to them, that they should always pray and not lose heart, saying</em>- This comes straight after the teaching in chapter 17 about readiness for the Lord's coming; and continued, intense prayer is part of that preparedness. There are so many allusions by Paul to this verse and the ensuing parable. This shows just how like us Paul was; he had his favourite parables, one or two that really stuck in his mind, just as we do. And he alluded to them! They were in his heart, to inspire and motivate him, just as the Lord intended. Paul picks up the idea of not fainting in <em><a href='B:600 3:13'>2Th 3:13</a></em>: "Brethren, be not weary (s:w. "not to faint") in well doing”. What well-doing did Paul have in mind? Attending the Sunday meetings? Being patient with some difficult sister in the ecclesia? The connection with <em><a href='B:490 18:1'>Luk 18:1</a></em> tells us what he had in mind: keep on praying intensely. It's no co-incidence that Paul started that section of 2 Thessalonians 3 (in v:1) with the exhortation: "Brethren, pray for us". And he concludes it with the same rubric: "Brethren, be not weary" (faint not), in your prayers. He knew from the parable that repeated prayer was powerful. And so he asks them to keep at it for him, because he needed it. Perhaps Paul had the same thing in mind when he wrote to the Ephesians (<em><a href='B:490 3:13'>Luk 3:13</a></em>): "In (Christ) we have boldness and access with confidence (to God, in prayer, cp. <em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>)::. <em>wherefore</em> I desire that you faint not (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 18:1'>Luk 18:1</a></em>) at my tribulations"; is he not implying 'You know how powerful prayer is, so don't faint in it, you know what struggles I'm having, <em>please</em> keep on praying for me, like that persistent widow in the parable'. This fits in with a number of other passages in which Paul unashamedly begs his brethren to pray for him. In this we see his humility, his high regard for other brethren who were almost certainly weaker than him, and also the physical desperation of his daily life:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>There was in a city a judge, who did not fear God and had no regard for man</em>- The judge, representing God, lived in the same city as the widow, representing us (:3). The Kingdom of God is likened to a city which we are to enter. We are in a sense within it now, having entered through the narrow gate. The unjustness of the judge is setting up the final point of this parable; the end stress of the parable is that if this is how an unjust judge acts, then how much more sensitive is God to our cries for justice. But we are to note that Israel were commended to appoint judges who feared God (<em><a href='B:20 18:21'>Exo 18:21</a></em>). The existence in Israel of judges who did not fear God was therefore a criticism of Israel as a whole. The judge did not "regard" man; the word means to respect to the point of reverence (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:9'>Heb 12:9</a></em>). The implication is that God so respects us, that He, unlike this judge, is eager to hear our prayers. And we are to respect others likewise; the implication here is that if we fear / respect God, we will respect men who are made in His image. And disrespect of human persons is thereby disrespect of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there was a widow in that city; and she came often to him, saying: Give me justice against my adversary</em>- Note the Psalmists' <em>joy</em> that judgment is coming (<em><a href='B:230 67:4'>Psa 67:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 96:12-13'>Psa 96:12-13</a></em>). The same spirit can be seen in the parable of the woman who keeps begging the unjust judge to open her case. She may have had her little piece of land taken away from her, whatever it was, she is confident she has a watertight case and this is why she so pesters the judge to judge her (<em><a href='B:490 18:1-5'>Luk 18:1-5</a></em>). Now this is a powerful challenge to those believers who seem to <em>fear</em> the judgment process. David shows the same spirit in asking God to 'avenge my cause' (<em><a href='B:230 35:23'>Psa 35:23</a></em>). There is the same confidence that by grace, he is in the right and longs for justice to be done. So much of Romans is dedicated to the images of the court room; we are justified, and we should&nbsp;be earnestly seeking the vindication of Spirit against flesh.</p><p>The parable speaks especially of faith in prayer in the last days before the Lord's coming (:7,8). The implication is that the woman, the church, is under persecution from a great satan / adversary; and her earnest prayers will elicit God's dramatic judgment and intervention in this earth. This is all very much the language of the book of Revelation. </p><p>Much of the pain felt by the spiritually abused focuses upon the issue of injustice. They were treated like <em>this</em>, but others are treated like <em>that</em>; <em>you</em> can't break bread in a church, but <em>he</em> can; <em>she</em> isn't allowed to attend the gathering but <em>he </em>is, and so forth. The Lord told a parable about a woman who repeatedly asked for 'justice', with the implication that she would only eventually find it at the Lord's return. But He went straight on to tell another parable, about the repentant man who beat upon his breast saying "God have mercy upon me, the sinner"; this man "went down to his house <em>justified</em>". The theme of 'justification' is thus a thread which continues from the woman demanding 'justification' (Gk:) against her abuser (<em><a href='B:490 18:3'>Luk 18:3</a></em>). The Lord's point wasn't merely that justice will only be ultimately done at His return; but further, that we are all serious sinners, who have been 'justified' by God's grace; and this colossal-scale experience of receiving undeserved justice / justification should mean that we're not so concerned about receiving justice in human matters in this life. There cannot be perfection this side of God's Kingdom being established upon earth. To seek for perfection in relationships is perhaps reflective of a lack of faith or understanding relating to the Kingdom of perfection which is yet to come. One of the greatest things for me about that Kingdom is the unity and perfection of relationships which there will then be. It is, however, all so hard because the New Testament presents how the church should be- an ideal of loving, sensitive, caring relationships in the spirit of Christ. And this is very attractive to us. It's very hard, therefore, to face the reality that this great intention, this lofty possibility, has actually been left unachieved by the church. It's like reading the descriptions of God's house in Ezekiel 40-48. This wonderful temple could've come about in Ezekiel's time. The possibilities are given in such great detail- but their fulfilment was quite simply dependent upon whether Judah wished to make it come real by living up to it (<em><a href='B:330 43:10-12'>Eze 43:10-12</a></em>). And they chose not to. It's the same with the ideal "house of God" presented to us in the New Testament. Those who tend towards perfectionism find this very hard to cope with. It is indeed a tragedy, that so much Divine potential is as it were wasted, not realized, by our dysfunction. But none of this should take away from the personal reality of salvation and relationship with God which we each have. This is not to say that exposing abuse and dealing with it shouldn't happen. It should. But let's not feel that if justice isn't done, we are somehow without justice. We are the ultimately justified, and our standing before God's judgment seat is far more significant that our standing before that of mere humans.</p><p>First century Palestinian peasant courts have been described in some detail. They involved a mass of men shouting at the judge, who usually decided cases according to who gave the largest bribe. Women never went to court. It was a man's world there. This woman had no male in her extended family to speak for her. She had no money to pay a bribe. But still she went to court and sought to persuade the judge. In this element of unreality we see the bravery of prayer, the height of the challenge; that we who have nothing and no human chance of being heard, will indeed be heard. It would've struck the initial peasant hearers of the story as strange that above all the male shouting, somehow this heroic woman was heard- and was heard repeatedly. Again, we see an encouragement to prayer. And to liken powerful praying to a woman was in itself unusual in that male dominated age. </p>


text:
<p><em>And for a while he would not, but afterward he said to himself: Though I neither fear God, nor regard man</em>- The idea is that eventually there is response even from one who has no sensitivity to people nor fear of God; and how much more quickly and deeply will come the response from the just judge of all, who does "regard man" with great pity (<em><a href='B:230 144:3'>Psa 144:3</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Yet because this widow troubles me, I will give her justice, lest she wear me out by her continual coming</em>- The connection is perhaps with the man of the parable in <em><a href='B:490 11:8'>Luk 11:8</a></em>, who was so bold and confident in his request that he shamelessly 'troubled' the rich man to give him his request; and this too was explaining our confidence in prayer to the Father:&nbsp; </p><p>The widow by her continual coming in prayer 'wearied' the judge into responding; Strong defines this Greek word as meaning 'to beat and black and blue' (RVmg. gives "bruise"). It's a strange way of putting it, but this is another reminder of the intense struggle of prayer. Jacob's wrestling with the Angel was really a clinging on to him, pleading with tears for the blessing of forgiveness; and in this he was our example (<em><a href='B:350 12:4-6'>Hos 12:4-6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em> RV speaks of the believer 'prevailing' with God in prayer. Our prayers are to give the Father no "rest" (<em><a href='B:290 62:7'>Isa 62:7</a></em>), no cessation from violent warfare (Strong). See on <em><a href='B:580 2:1'>Col 2:1</a></em>. Again, the idea is that if the unjust judge is so sensitive to this woman's words, to the point he feels beaten up by them- how much more sensitive is the Father to our prayers!</p><p>The parable of the widow who keeps nagging the free-wheeling judge is rather humanly unlikely. Would such a tough guy really pay attention to the repeated requests of the woman? But although he considers himself independent of both God and men, he ends up being controlled by the widow. This reflects the immense power which there is in human prayer, and God’s willingness to respond if we are importunate enough. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said: Hear what the unrighteous judge says</em>- Perhaps the fact the ungodly judge is worn out by the woman's requests is the element of unreality in the story; for usually, if she paid no bribe, she would not even get a hearing, let alone be repeatedly listened to. And it flags up the essential point of the parable, which is that God will be even more sensitive to us. The emphasis is on the word "unrighteous". The <em>righteous</em> judge is going to be even more sensitive and quicker to respond than the unrighteous judge. The justice of God as judge is emphasized throughout the Old Testament, and the Lord describes Himself likewise as a just judge who responds to what He hears [rather than to bribes or pressure from others in human society, <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>]. </p>


text:
<p><em>And shall not God give justice to His chosen, who cry to Him day and night?- </em>The unjust judge was worn down by the woman's repeated appeals. The implication is that God is far more sensitive and will therefore respond more quickly. Even though His response may appear slow, compared to the magnitude of our request, His response is quick. </p><h4>- see on <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>.</h4><p>The many connections between Revelation and the Gospels need to be followed up; the incidents in Christ's earthly experience seem to be woven by him into the fabric of the visions he gives John. The theme of persecution is especially common. The widow crying to God because of persecution represents the prayers of the "elect" or "chosen" remnant of the last days (<em><a href='B:490 18:7'>Luk 18:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:20'>Mar 13:20</a></em>). They will be asking for vengeance against the beast which is persecuting them, and thus this parable is the basis for the souls under the altar crying out for vengeance (<em><a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a></em>). Christ's return is therefore the day of vengeance (<em><a href='B:490 21:22'>Luk 21:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:8'>Isa 34:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:2'>Isa 61:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:4'>Isa 63:4</a></em>) of his persecuted latter day ecclesia. Despite the power of prayer in bringing about the Lord's return in vengeance, <em><a href='B:490 18:9-14'>Luk 18:9-14</a></em> continues in this same context to warn that despite this: </p><p>- Perhaps the Lord won't find such faith in prayer when he returns </p><p>- Many will pray but be so sure of their own righteousness that their prayers are hindered </p><p>- The disciples will tend to despise the little ones in the ecclesia. </p><p>All these are latter day problems: abuse of "the little ones", self-righteousness and lack of real faith in prayer. </p><p><em>Will He be slow to help them?</em>- God <em>will</em> shorten the period of time of trouble before His return (<em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>); and we read that He <em>will</em> also lengthen the period of grace (<em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em>)… <em>if</em> His people ask Him. What He ‘will’ do perhaps should be read as what He <em>can</em> do. And this is why so much prophecy is conditional. Significantly, no other religion that I know contains this feature- of a God so passionate and so real that He will change His stated will and intention for the sake of His people’s prayers. </p><p>The AV "though he bear long with them" is accurate. <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em> uses the same word in teaching that "The Lord::. is longsuffering to us-ward" (AV) of the last days. This longsuffering of Jesus spoken of by Peter alludes to this parable of the persistent widow, whose continued requests should match our prayers for the second coming (the vengeance of our adversaries which she requested will only come then). "Though he bear long" (s:w. 'longsuffering') with us, "God shall avenge His own elect, which cry day and night unto Him" (<em><a href='B:490 18:7'>Luk 18:7</a></em> AV). The "us" whom Peter refers to as experiencing the Lord's longsuffering ('bearing long') are therefore to be equated with "the elect" in their fervent prayers for the second coming. The days being shortened for the elect's sake therefore refers to the hastening of the second coming on account of the elect's prayers (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>). In view of the later references to Matthew 24, it is not unreasonable to think that Peter is consciously alluding to <em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em> concerning the shortening of the days for the sake of the elect's prayers, through his allusion to the parable of the persistent widow of <em><a href='B:490 18:7'>Luk 18:7</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, that He will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, shall he find faith on the earth?</em>- “Nevertheless", despite the fact God answers prayer, being far more sensitive to our cries than the unjust judge- it is still a question as to whether there will be faith in prayer in the last days, at the Son of Man's coming. Whilst the article is indeed used, <em>"the </em>faith" doesn't have to mean 'the set of doctrines which comprise the one faith'. It may refer to that, but the article may be used here simply for emphasis. Will He find faith, <em>the </em>kind of faith which there ought to be given His sensitivity to us? The implication is that the experience of answered prayer <em>ought</em> to develop faith, but such will be the spiritual perils of the last days and the lack of serious prayer, that there may well be no faith in the final generation. Lot has just been cited in chapter 17 as an example of the latter day believers- and he was weak in faith, although saved. Likewise even the five wise virgins of the parable are sleeping when they ought to have stayed awake for their Lord's return.</p><p>The theme of prayer continues. Despite the power of prayer in bringing about the Lord's return in vengeance, <em><a href='B:490 18:9-14'>Luk 18:9-14</a></em> continues in this same context to warn that despite this:</p><p>- Perhaps the Lord won't find such faith in prayer when he returns</p><p>- Many will pray but be so sure of their own righteousness that their prayers are hindered</p><p>- The disciples will tend to despise the little ones in the ecclesia.</p><p><em>May we not give way to these latter day temptations!</em></p><p>There is the real possibility that when Christ returns, none will hold the faith. Only eight people were truly&nbsp;watching when the flood came; and Peter cites this as an example for us at the time of Christ's return. No wonder there is such emphasis upon the need to watch. If we are the generation which will see Christ's appearing, we will be the only people who never physically die. And we will be those who welcome the Lord Jesus to this earth, who stand ready to welcome Him. This is an honour higher than we probably appreciate. No wonder there is this pressing need in these last days to watch our doctrine, our way of life, <em>to hold on</em> to the great salvation which we have been given in prospect:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And he spoke also this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt</em>- The theme continues from the previous parable. There, the woman [representing us] prays for justice. "Justice" and "righteousness" are connected ideas in Hebrew and Greek thought. The woman wanted justice / righteousness; but she did not have it of herself. It had to be granted by a judge, and we are in relationship with the just judge, who alone gives justice / righteousness. Those who think they are righteous of themselves do not therefore fear God and they therefore despise men, just as the unjust judge did. The Pharisee who "treated others with contempt" therefore equates with the unjust judge of whom we have just read; and the woman desperately begging for justice is the tax collector begging for forgiveness, for rightness with God, who goes down to his house justified, with justice / righteousness, just as the widow went away with justice.</p><p>Paul alludes here when he says that the sentence of death we have within our bodies requires a bodily resurrection and transformation of the body far beyond our power to achieve; and therefore we cannot trust in ourselves, i:e. our own righteousness (<em><a href='B:540 1:9'>2Co 1:9</a></em>). Rather must we cast ourselves upon God's grace.</p><p>The Lord was "despised", the same word here translated 'to treat with contempt' (<em><a href='B:490 23:11'>Luk 23:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>). Those despised by religionists are fellowshipping their Lord's sufferings; and the religionists by doing so are taking the side of His abusers.</p>


text:
<p><em>Two men went into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector</em>- Many of the parables feature two people; the self-righteous, and the serious sinner. One saved, the other lost. The parable of the older and younger sons in chapter 15 is a clear example. We have it again here. If we don't identify with the serious sinner- then we have to identify with the self-righteous. </p>


text:
<p><em>The Pharisee stood and prayed thus- </em>AV "Prayed thus with himself". The OT idiom of prayer ‘returning into one’s own bosom’ is surely the quarry from which the Lord dug His image of a man praying <em>with himself</em>. It isn’t real prayer; it’s one part of the brain talking to a black box in another part of the brain, that we call ‘God’. </p><p><em>God, I thank you that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector</em>- Luke uses the same term in recording how "the rest of men" would seek and find the Lord (<em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>). Those despised as secular, non-religious and the hopeless sinners are the very ones whom the Lord came to save; rather than the self-righteous religionists. And these are the ones we should be reaching out to, rather than attempting to convert religionists from one flavour to another. The same word for "rest" has just been used in :9 for how the Pharisee despised "others". It means to put down, to set at nothing; and this is how the tax collector, and those in his category, are made to feel by the self-righteous. It's a big reason why secular folk who are searching for God won't attend church.</p><p>"Or even as" could as well be translated to the effect that "this tax collector" was the epitome of an extortioner, unjust and adulterer. And his deep penitence could suggest there might have been some truth in that accusation. But he, the "unjust", was the one who went away "justified" (:14). Luke was personal friends with Paul, and it could be argued that his Gospel record was preparation for Paul's later theological writings. The idea of the unjust being justified by faith through grace is exactly the theme of Paul in Romans and elsewhere.</p>


text:
<p><em>I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I get</em>- Fasting was only required by the Law on the day of Atonement; and tithing was only of cattle and agricultural produce. Obedience to law, and even exceeding legal requirements, was not the basis for justification; for it is the hopeless sinner who goes away justified (:14); as noted on :11, Luke seems to be preparing the way for Paul's later expositions on justification of sinners by faith and not legal obedience.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the tax collector, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven, but struck his breast, saying: God, be merciful to me, the sinner</em>- <em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em> “Have mercy on me, O God…” is quoted by the publican in <em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>. He felt that David’s prayer and situation was to be his. And he is held up as the example for each of us. In Romans 4, Paul quotes David's sin with Bathsheba as our pattern. We along with all the righteous ought to “shout for joy” that David really was forgiven (<em><a href='B:230 32:11'>Psa 32:11</a></em>)- for there is such hope for <em>us</em> now. David is our example, and yet therefore the intensity of David’s repentance must be ours. He hung his head as one in whose mouth there were no more arguments, hoping only in the Lord’s grace (<em><a href='B:230 38:14'>Psa 38:14</a></em> RVmg:). Paul alludes here and sees this man as himself (<em><a href='B:610 1:15-16'>1Ti 1:15-16</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>.</p><p>Usually men prayed with hands crossed over their chest. But men even at funerals don't usually beat upon their breast: "The remarkable feature of this particular gesture is the fact that it is characteristic of women, not men". The man was quite exceptionally upset and in grief- because of his sins. Beating his breast suggested a blow to his heart, as if confessing himself worthy of death. And personal recognition of private sin wasn't a big feature of first century life. The Lord's initial audience would've been amazed at the contrition and grief which this man had because of his secret sins; and this is the lesson for us. The times of prayer in the temple coincided with the offering of the daily sacrifices. The man asks for God to 'have mercy on me' (<em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>). But he uses a different word to that in <em><a href='B:490 18:38'>Luk 18:38</a></em>, where the same translation commonly occurs. <em>Hilastheti moi</em>, he says; and the noun occurs only in <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:5'>Heb 9:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:2'>1Jn 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em> to describe the atonement sacrifice. It seems the man was so extraordinarily moved by his own sin and the sacrifice offered. No wonder the same phrase occurs in <em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em> about people likewise beating their breasts in repentance when they saw the actual sacrifice of Christ on the cross. </p><p>The humble man “smote his breast, saying, God, be <em>merciful</em> to me a sinner". “Be merciful" translates the word elsewhere translated “make propitiation", in describing the atoning death of Jesus on the cross (<em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>). The man’s sinfulness drove him to plead for the cross: ‘Please God, make a propitiation for me’ was his plea. He realized his need for the cross. And we should look back at the cross and feel and know the same need… According to the Lord's own teaching, there are in some ways only two types of believer: either we are the self-righteous Pharisee, or the publican who beats his breast in self-loathing, hating his corrupt heart, begging for “mercy” [Gk. propitiation], confessing that he is <em>the</em> sinner (<em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em> Gk:). Paul, in one of his many allusions to the Gospels, reached the same height of contrition when he said, in total honesty, that he was “[the] chief of sinners" (<em><a href='B:610 1:15-16'>1Ti 1:15-16</a></em>):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:660 4:9'>Jas 4:9</a></em> tells some believers in the Jerusalem ecclesia that their joy ought to be turned to heaviness, implying the downcast look of the publican who could not so much as lift up his eyes to God. This man is held up by the Lord and James as some kind of hero and example to us.</p><p>The man who ‘humbled himself’ smote upon his breast in knowledge of his own sin and his Lord’s grace. The Greek phrase occurs elsewhere only once, again in Luke’s thought, in describing how those humbled by the vision of the cross beat upon their breasts (<em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>)- surely in recognition of their sin and contrition before the grace of God outpoured. In the cross, we see self-humbling that we might be exalted. And we respond by likewise humbling ourselves, that others may be exalted. </p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, this man went home rendered righteous rather than the other. For everyone that exalts himself shall be humbled, but he that humbles himself shall be exalted</em>- This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>. Paul told Corinth that he had abased himself so that <em>they</em> might be exalted, so that they could share the exaltation he would receive on account of his humility. In all this, of course, he reflected to his brethren the very essence of the attitude of the Lord Jesus for toward us. It was through refusing funding for his work from the Corinthians that he <em>abased</em> himself that they might be <em>exalted</em>- all language of the crucifixion (cp. <em><a href='B:570 2:8-9'>Phi 2:8-9</a></em>). Thus his refusing of legitimate help to make his way easier was an enactment in himself of the cross. We live in a world which has made the fulfilment of personal aims of paramount importance. It has affected the fabric of every society, and become embedded in every mind. To <em>live to serve</em>, to put oneself down that others may rise… this is strange indeed. John the Baptist had this spirit, for he rejoiced that he decreased whilst the Lord’s cause increased. Paul likewise abased himself that others might be exalted, after the pattern of the cross. God’s gentleness, His humility / bowing down (Heb:) has made us great, lifted us up (<em><a href='B:230 18:35'>Psa 18:35</a></em>). And we respond to it by humbling <em>our</em>selves.</p><p>So we are taught here that he who humbles himself in prayer will be exalted. Paul perhaps had this in mind when he spoke of how the Lord Jesus on the cross humbled Himself that He might be exalted (Philippians 2). Real prayer is a humiliating experience, a true humbling of self after the pattern of the Lord’s crucifixion. We really need to ask ourselves whether this is anywhere near true of our prayer life.</p><p>To come before "the throne of grace" is to come in essence before the judgment and before the cross of our Lord. Inevitably these things convict us of our desperation. The publican who beat upon his breast "went down to his house justified". Yet we were justified by the shedding of the blood of Christ (<em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>). That man's faith was consciously focused upon the Lord's sacrifice. We believe on Him who justifies us, through the blood of the cross (<em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>), and this faith is manifested through focusing upon the cross, and expressing it in prayer to be justified. The publican went home after prayer "justified rather than the other". It has been suggested that this reflects "a Semitic idiom which describes… an anticipation of his acquittal in the final judgment". </p><p>The language of justification ["rendered righteous"] as noted on :11 and :12 is preparing the way for Paul's inspired expansion of these ideas in Romans.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were bringing to him even their babies, that he should touch them- </em>His blessing was and is mediated without physical contact. The need for physical contact in order to receive blessing was embedded in the religious mentality of the time, and is seen to this day in so many rituals and traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The sick woman thought to herself that if she could only&nbsp;<em>touch&nbsp;</em>Jesus, she would be made whole; but He responded that He made her whole because of&nbsp;<em>her faith</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 9:21-22'>Mat 9:21-22</a></em>). He was gently correcting her mistaken understanding of the power of touch. And yet the Lord made a concession to this misunderstanding by indeed touching the children as requested.</p><p>The touching was understood as a form of blessing. The implication is that the Lord agrees to the request, blessing little ones for the sake of the efforts of third parties who bring them to Him (as in <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em> and so often in the work of saving and curing men). As the children ‘received’ this blessing, so the Lord urges the disciples to ‘receive’ the things of the Kingdom- for <em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> records the Lord’s further comment that “whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it”. Those children receiving His grace and blessing, all the more gracious because they received it thanks to others bringing them to it, represent each disciple who receives the grace and blessing of the Kingdom.</p><p><em>But when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them</em>- Just as they had turned away the little one in Matthew 18, as they sought to send away the hungry crowds, forbad John’s disciples and tried to turn away the Syro-Phoenician woman. And they did this despite the Lord’s sober warning that turning away little ones is making them stumble, and will lead to eternal rejection from God’s Kingdom. The disciples in their preaching, of which the Gospels are transcripts, were stressing how they had so failed to grasp this vital teaching:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus called them to him, saying: Permit the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them. For to such belongs the kingdom of God</em>- The Lord rebuked the disciples for 'forbidding' John's disciples and the little ones to come to Him (<em><a href='B:480 9:38'>Mar 9:38</a></em>); and yet He uses the same word to describe how the lawyers hindered [s:w. 'forbad'] people to enter the Kingdom. There's a very clear parallel here between the disciples and their Jewish teachers who had so influenced their thinking. But they finally got there- for Peter insisted that Gentiles should not be forbidden [s:w. 'hinder'] baptism (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>); and he uses the same word again when he says that now, he will not "withstand [s:w. 'hinder'] God in hindering people to come to Him (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). The awfulness of the disciples' attitude is brought out by the use of the word in <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>, where Paul says that the way the Jews 'forbad' or hindered the preaching of the Gospel was cause for the wrath of God to come upon them "to the uppermost". And the disciples initially followed their Jewish elders in this kind of behaviour. In passing, there is a sober warning here to those who would likewise 'forbid' baptism to those who sincerely seek it, and who will not allow ‘little ones’ to the Lord’s table.</p>


text:
<p><em>Truly I say to you, Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it</em>- ‘Be babes’ Peter later exhorted, ‘and grow as they do’ (<em><a href='B:670 2:2'>1Pe 2:2</a></em>). The same word occurs here in <em><a href='B:490 18:15'>Luk 18:15</a></em> in description of the “infants” whom Peter rebuked. The Lord’s response had been to tell Peter to be like them. And, having been humbled into learning something of a child’s teachableness, a babe’s desire for the sincere milk, Peter now asks others to learn the lesson:&nbsp;</p><h4>The idea of “receiving” is often used about people accepting the Gospel. The implication is that one can receive the Gospel of the Kingdom of God- and yet not enter it, because we didn’t receive it as a child. We didn’t accept that we are the ‘little ones’, accepting we know so little, and just marvelling at the special grace being shown us which we accept in awed wonder. The language of ‘entering the Kingdom’ is used both of our final entry into the Kingdom when Christ returns (<em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>), and of our current entering the Kingdom. The rich man can enter the Kingdom right now if he sheds the load of his wealth (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>). The Scribes stopped and hindered those who were entering the Kingdom from entering, locking the door through which the Kingdom could now be entered, all because they chose not to enter themselves (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em>). So it’s a case of ‘Now but not yet’. We do&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>enter into God’s rest, and yet we are promised that we&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;enter that rest at Christ’s return (<em><a href='B:650 4:1-11'>Heb 4:1-11</a></em>). The Lord had warned that our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes, or we will likewise not enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>); but that righteousness is in accepting the blessing of righteousness as a little child; for without&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;we shall not enter the kingdom. Those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>)- and that will is to be as little children and accept gifts without seeking to justify ourselves or earn them.</h4>&nbsp;<p>We will enter the Kingdom as shy children. It doesn't just mean that we must <em>now</em> be as little children, but more that we will enter the Kingdom as little children. For Jesus had just said that "of such is the Kingdom". Children unspoilt by the hardness of this world and this flesh… this is how we will be as we walk away from the judgment seat into the Kingdom. And we should live the Kingdom life now. See on <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>.</p><p>The Lord perceived spiritual prompts in the ordinary things of everyday life. He saw in those children the qualities of those who would be in His Kingdom. Those kids weren't 'spiritual' in themselves. They were just Palestinian kids with well meaning, superstitious mums who believed in the power of the touch of the holy man. Yet, the Lord explained, that was no reason to disregard them. They should be seen as reminders of spiritual qualities which should be in us all. And this was how He perceived everything in His daily round of life. He raised everything to an altogether higher level.</p>


text:
<p><em>And a certain ruler asked him, saying: Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?</em>- Mark adds that he came running to Him and kneeled before Him. The idea was: 'Give me a list of dos and don'ts, I'm game'. But the answer was ultimately: "Follow me" (:22)- 'don't worry about specifics, but have a spirit of life committed to following Me, bearing My cross'. For that is reward enough. Likewise Peter was interested in what the reward would be for having given things up for the Lord; and the final answer is really 'I'm going to die on the cross- please share that death with me' (<em><a href='B:490 18:28-33'>Luk 18:28-33</a></em> and parallels). </p><p>The man was clearly influenced by the Jewish idea that one supreme good deed could assure the doer of salvation. This was particularly popular amongst the zealots, who considered that suicidal attacks on the Romans could assure them of salvation; the same mentality is to be found in Islamic suicide bombers today. But in His typical manner, the Lord doesn’t address the misunderstanding but rather works with it. He ends up telling the man that if he sells all he has and gives to the poor, then he will have “treasure in Heaven” (:22). This, therefore, isn’t a global command to every Christian. It was designed especially for this young man who thought that just one great act of obedience would secure salvation. The Lord went along with this by giving him such an example; but added: “And come and follow Me”, thus gently correcting the idea that one great act is enough for salvation:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em> is Paul’s allusion here, where he laments that like the young man, the good that he would do [same Greek words "shall I do"] he finds himself unable to do because of the sin that dwells within him. But instead of walking away from the Lord as this man did, Paul threw himself upon the Lord’s grace. This zealous young man was also understood by Peter as representative of us all; for he clearly alludes to him in <em><a href='B:670 3:10-11'>1Pe 3:10-11</a></em>: “He who would love life and see good days [cp. the young man wanting to “have eternal life”]… let him… do good” (same Greek words):&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em> notes that he also asked what he must do to “inherit” eternal life, as if he considered eternity a right that he must receive if he does only one great deed. The disciples heard the Lord assuring His people that those who follow Him will “<em>have</em>&nbsp;eternal life”, enter the Kingdom, enter into life, etc. But having heard all that, Peter asked: “We have left all… what shall we&nbsp;<em>have</em>?” (<em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em>). The irony of it all is tragic. They’d just been promised they would “have” eternal life. But that wasn’t enough. Their focus was very much on this life; what shall we have&nbsp;<em>here and now</em>? They couldn’t see very much beyond the present, past the curvature of their earth:&nbsp; Ruth’s unnamed relative could have been her redeemer; but when he realized he would have to marry her and have children, and split up his fields into more strips so as to give those children an inheritance along with that of his existing children- he pulled out. He wouldn’t ‘mar his inheritance’. He saw ahead to his death, to the next generation. His horizon was 20 years at most. But Boaz who didn’t think like this established his spiritual inheritance eternally, and is therefore mentioned in the Lord’s genealogy. Whilst the short sighted man passed off the page of history anonymously; his name wasn’t preserved.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? None is good, save one- God!</em>- The Greek may not mean that the Lord was implying ‘Only God is good- I am not good’. Translators have added a number of words to try to flesh out the meaning of the words. The sense could just as well be ‘None is as good as the one God’- and therefore, we should keep&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;commandments. In other words, the Lord is not so much saying that He Himself is not ‘good’ but rather refocusing the man’s direction away from Himself towards the Father. For the man had come running to Him asking what he should do in order to inherit or rightfully have eternal life. And the Lord is refocusing the man upon the Father and the Father’s commandments. The Lord may therefore have a rhetorical sense in His question ‘<em>why</em>&nbsp;do you call Me good?’. His sense would have been: ‘Why are you so keen to call me “good”, setting me on a level with God? Instead, focus on obeying God’s commandments and tackle your hardest challenge- to give away your wealth, and then follow Me in the itinerant life towards the cross’. The man’s overly high and unrealistic view of Jesus, as if He were God Himself, was really an excuse for his own refusal to face the challenge of living the Christian life. Every false doctrine has a psychological basis, and the idea that Jesus is God and the Trinity are no different. To accept Jesus as less than God, as totally human, is a far deeper challenge to our living than accepting Jesus as being God Himself. If Jesus was human, sharing our own flesh, in which there dwells no good thing (<em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>), and yet was able to be perfect- this lays down a huge challenge to each of us. It’s far less challenging to accept Jesus as God and therefore good and perfect by nature. This is why I suggest the Lord is probing&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;the man called Him “good”- and redirected him towards the need for keeping the commandments and living the committed life in practice. So we have here a passage of deep significance for discussions about the Trinity. The Lord cites the unity of God as meaning that He alone is ultimately ‘good’, and challenges the man who wanted to treat Him as God as to whether this was not just an excuse for not doing the hard work of following Him in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em>You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Honour your father and mother</em>- Harry Whittaker makes an interesting but not totally convincing case that the rich young man here was Barnabas and these commands were very relevant to him as a Levite- see&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels&nbsp;</em>chapter 148. Paul's references to the Gospels suggests that he had carefully meditated upon the passages to which he consciously alludes. The fact and way in which he&nbsp;<em>alludes</em>&nbsp;rather than quotes verbatim reflects the fact he had thought through and absorbed the teaching of the passages rather than learning them parrot fashion. Here the Lord Jesus combines two quotations from the Law: <em><a href='B:20 20:12-16'>Exo 20:12-16</a></em> followed by <em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>. Paul, in a different context, to prove a different point, combines those same two passages, although separating them by a brief comment (<em><a href='B:520 13:9'>Rom 13:9</a></em>). This surely indicates that he had meditated upon how his Lord was using the Law, and mastered it so that he could use it himself.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: All these things have I observed from my youth</em>- The record in <em><a href='B:470 19:20'>Mat 19:20</a></em> stresses the incongruity and inappropriacy of the young man’s self-righteousness: “The&nbsp;<em>youth</em>&nbsp;answered, all these have I kept from my&nbsp;<em>youth</em>&nbsp;up”. He was young- and he says that since a young man he had kept all the commands. Now the Lord doesn’t lecture him about self-righteousness, nor does He point out that the young man is way over rating his own spirituality and obedience. Instead, the Master focuses on the positive- as if to say ‘You are zealous for perfection? Great! So, sell what you have and give to the poor. Go on, rise up to the challenge!’.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Jesus heard it, he said to him: One thing you lack yet- </em>Matthew records that this was in response to his question: "What do I still lack?". And <em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em> provides the Lord’s answer: “One thing you&nbsp;<em>lack</em>&nbsp;[s:w:]”, but the “one thing” was to distribute his wealth and to follow Christ. The two things seem therefore related; it was the wealth which was stopping the following of Christ. The man had come to the Lord asking what great deed he must do to obtain eternal life, and so he was aware of his obedience to the commandments. He obviously felt that obedience to Mosaic law was not going to be the basis of eternal life, and he sensed that there was some great deed he must yet achieve. Therefore “What do I still lack?” shouldn’t be read as an arrogant statement that he lacked nothing because he had been legally obedient. Rather is it a genuine question, seeking a concrete, clear and achievable answer:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord was quoting from the LXX of <em><a href='B:230 23:1'>Psa 23:1</a></em>. Because the Lord [Jesus] is our shepherd, "not one thing is lacking to me". The selling and sharing of his wealth is paralleled by the Lord with following Him. The one thing that was lacking was to shed his wealth&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;follow Christ. To follow Christ, to have Him as our shepherd, is therefore no merely intellectual affair, nor is it a question of legalistic obedience to a set of principles we inherited from our youth. It requires the most painful sacrifices.</p><p><em>Sell all you have and distribute to the poor- </em>Luke again uses the word in describing how the early believers did indeed sell their possessions and 'distribute' to the poor within the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 4:35'>Act 4:35</a></em>).</p><p><em>And you shall have treasure in heaven- </em>Alluded to in <em><a href='B:660 1:12'>Jas 1:12</a></em>. We note that the Lord treated each person differently. He approved Zacchaeus' distribution of only half of his possessions- whilst demanding that this rich young man give away literally all. And He never seems to have demanded that those of His followers who owned houses should sell them. The same principle is seen in His preceding teaching about divorce and remarriage- His ideal standard is not ‘given’ to everyone, just as it is not a requirement of everyone that they sell and they have and give to the poor. The Lord taught that we receive the Lord's goods [s:w. "what you have"] on conversion to Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>). We resign all, but receive all. By giving away our earthly wealth, we directly receive wealth in Heaven. <em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:33'>Luk 12:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:44'>Luk 12:44</a></em> make a sustained play on this Greek word: "A man's life doesn't consist in the abundance of the&nbsp;<em>things which he possesses</em>&nbsp;[s:w:]::. sell&nbsp;<em>what you have</em>&nbsp;[s:w:] and give alms::. [the Lord] will make [such a man] ruler over all&nbsp;<em>that he has</em>&nbsp;[s:w:]". Whilst the specific command to the young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor was not in one sense universal, i:e. not a command to every believer, yet the spirit of it (according to Luke 12) is indeed to be followed by us all. We must at least "forsake ['to bid farewell to'] all that [we] have [s:w:]" (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). The early believers did not 'say' that anything they possessed [s:w:] was their own (<em><a href='B:510 4:32'>Act 4:32</a></em>)- Luke surely intends us to connect this with his earlier record of how the Lord had taught that our attitude, at very least, must be that we do not really 'own' those things which we apparently 'have':&nbsp;</p><p><em>And come follow me</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:42'>Luk 10:42</a></em>. In the first century, family and the family inheritance was everything. The way the Lord asked His followers to reject family and follow Him was far more radical than many of us can ever appreciate. Likewise His command to sell everything and follow Him implied so much- for the Middle Eastern family estate was the epitomy of all that a person had and stood for. And to be asked to give the proceeds of that inheritance to poor strangers::. was just too much. It could seem, once one gets to know Middle Eastern values, that to abandon both family and the village home in favour of Jesus was just impossible- those things were more valuable to a Middle Eastern peasant than life itself. But still He asked- and people responded. </p><p>Consider the parallels between the Lord’s demand of the young man, and Peter’s comment (<em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em> cp. 28; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> cp. 28):&nbsp; </p><table><tr><td></p><h4>“Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor </td><td>“We have left all</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>…and come, take up the cross</td><td>[no comment by Peter- he censored this bit out in his hearing of the Lord's words]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and follow me”</td><td>…and have followed you”</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Peter seems to have subconsciously bypassed the thing about taking up the cross. But he was sure that he was really following the Lord. He blinded himself to the inevitable link between following Christ and self-crucifixion; for the path of the man Jesus lead to Golgotha. We have this same tendency, in that we can break bread week after week, read the records of the crucifixion at least eight times / year, and yet not let ourselves grasp the most basic message: that we as followers of this man must likewise follow in our self-sacrifice to that same end. </h4>


text:
<p><em>But when he heard these things, he became exceedingly sorrowful. For he was very rich</em>- Again Luke's record of the early church alludes here, speaking of how possessions were sold and the money distributed to the poorer believers (<em><a href='B:510 2:45'>Act 2:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:1'>Act 5:1</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 10:22'>Mar 10:22</a></em> describes him as "sad", literally the Greek means that he became overcast, as the sky clouding over. His joy, therefore, was because he had wrongly assumed that he could do some simple dramatic act well within his comfort zone, and thus attain an assurance of salvation. But his face clouded over when he realized that he was being called outside of his comfort zone. This is an exact picture of the disillusion which clouds so many once they perceive that the call of Christ is not to a mere social club or to surface level religion:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus looking at him, said: How hard it shall be for those that have riches to enter into the kingdom of God!</em>- <em><a href='B:480 10:24'>Mar 10:24</a></em> speaks of the man who trusts in riches; the parallel <em><a href='B:490 18:24'>Luk 18:24</a></em> speaks of him who <em>has</em> riches. To have riches is, almost axiomatically, to trust in them. This is the nature of wealth 'possession'. For the man who has / trusts in riches, he must bow down like the camel wriggling through the small gate on its knees, having shed <em>all</em> its mountain of goods. This parable was given in the context of the Lord's straight statement: "He that humbles himself will be exalted" (<em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em> cp. 25). As the camel rose up from its knees the other side of the gate, so within the Kingdom's gates, those who have shed their trust in possessions will likewise be exalted. </p><p>The sense is not simply that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, but that he shall enter with difficulty. The Lord goes on to say that such shall enter the Kingdom only by God's grace and possibility of saving those who do not rise up to the higher levels that He bids us to (:27). In what, then, is the hardness or difficulty- if God is willing to accept our living on lower levels? The difficulty is in not walking away from Christ as the young man did, because of our pride; what is hard is to be like a child, the model throughout this entire discourse, and simply accept God's grace in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God</em>- The man walked away, whereas if he had cast himself upon the Lord's grace, or better still, sold what he had and given to the poor, then he could have right then begun to enter into the Kingdom. We begin entering the Kingdom right now; we are, according to another teaching, walking on the road to the judgment, and must get right with our brother who walks on the way there with us. The parable of the camel (i:e. the rich would-be believer) being unloaded of its wealth before it enters the city (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>) represents a rich man entering the Kingdom (the city = the Kingdom, as in <em><a href='B:730 22:14'>Rev 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:14'>Heb 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em>; a city can also represent believers). If he sheds his riches now, it follows he is then able in some sense to enter the Kingdom now. In these few words is our highest challenge in this age:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>In the beauty and depth of His simplicity, the Lord comprehended all this in some of the most powerful sentences of all time:&nbsp;<em>It is very hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom:&nbsp;</em>He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;shed his riches, like the camel&nbsp;<em>had&nbsp;</em>to unload to pass through the needle gate. This is such a powerful lesson. And it's so simple. It doesn't need any great expositional gymnastics to understand it. Like me, you can probably remember a few things very vividly from your very early childhood. I remember my dear dad showing me this as a very young child, with a toy camel and a gate drawn on a piece of paper. And I saw the point, at four, five, maybe six. It is&nbsp;<em>so clear</em>. But what of our bank balances now, now we're old and brave? It's easier for a camel, the Lord said. Why? Surely because someone else unloads the camel, he (or she) has no say in it. But in the story, surely we must be the camel who unloads himself, who shakes it all off his humps, as an act of the will. And as we've seen, the spirit of all this applies to every one of us, including those without bank accounts.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they that heard it said: Then who can be saved?</em>- They were really so shocked (Mt:) that wealth made it hard to enter the Kingdom, implying they were strongly persuaded that wealth was a gift from God and a sign of His approval of a man. This of course was quite foreign to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount and other teaching of the Lord, and so we see how far they had been from understanding His most basic teachings. </p><p>"Can be::." translates the same word the Lord uses in the next verse to say that with God, even the saving of the wealthy who don't quit their wealth is "possible"- on the basis, therefore, of His willingness to accept a lower standard of achievement to that He ideally requires. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he said: The things which are impossible with men are possible with God</em>- The status of&nbsp;<em>para&nbsp;</em>God is often applied to the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:46'>Joh 6:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:27'>Joh 16:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>). The suggestion could be that because of the status of the Lord Jesus with the Father, such gracious salvation is possible which would be impossible if men simply had to have the steel will to obey the Father’s ideal principles. </p><p>The idea of possibility with God is lifted from the Septuagint of the word to Sarah about the birth of Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 18:14'>Gen 18:14</a></em>). Those Old Testament heroes were not merely stained glass figures- our own belief in salvation regardless of wealth is as dramatic as the belief of an old woman that she could have a child. The context here, however, is talking of how those who choose a lower level- in this case,&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;selling their wealth and giving to the poor- can still be saved by God’s gracious possibility. </p><p>There are at least two instances in the Gospels where the Lord Jesus is quarrying his language from the book of Job, and shows a certain identification of himself with Job. Here the Lord explains the irrelevance of riches to the spiritual good of entering the Kingdom, saying that "with God all things are possible"- without money. This is almost quoting <em><a href='B:220 42:2'>Job 42:2</a></em>, where Job comes to the conclusion that all human strength is meaningless: "I know that You can do everything". It may be that Jesus is even implying that through the tribulation of his life he had come to the same conclusion as Job:&nbsp;See too <em><a href='B:470 5:27-30'>Mat 5:27-30</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter said: We have left our own</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>. The family based structure of the first century is hard to fully empathize with from our distance. Family was all. Peter comments that the disciples had “left our own homes” (<em><a href='B:490 18:28'>Luk 18:28</a></em> RVmg:), and the parallel <em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em> says “left <em>all</em>”. Your home was your all. To have to leave it for the sake of Christ was the most fundamental thing you could do. Hence the real meaning in the first century of the Lord’s response that such converts would receive families in this life, i:e. in their relationships in the ecclesia. And yet the radical call of Christ is no less demanding and intrusive as men and women meet it today, the only difference being that the starkness of the choices is less pronounced today- but just as essentially real.</p><p><em>And followed you</em>- Just as Peter’s claim to have “left all” was perhaps questionable, likewise Peter seems to have under-estimated what ‘following Christ’ really meant- for the idea of carrying the cross is strongly connected with following Christ (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>). And Peter failed to carry that cross to the end, for he denied the Lord when the going got tough.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Truly I say to you- </em>This is in response to Peter's claim that they had "left all and followed You" (<em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em>). The Lord doesn't comment upon Peter's claim. This may well have been because He knew that Peter had not in fact "left all" to the degree that Peter thought he had. They hadn’t then grasped the idea of what really following involved; they hadn’t in one way or another laid down their lives with Christ. The Lord was so generous spirited towards His disciples. He knew that Peter would not follow Him as planned, to the cross- indeed, none of them would (<em><a href='B:500 13:36-37'>Joh 13:36-37</a></em>), but He speaks to them as if they would be successful ultimately in following Him.</p><p><em>There is no one that has left house, or wife, or brothers, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>. This list of things to be forsaken, with Matthew adding houses and lands, recalls the language of the Levites forsaking these things in order to serve God (<em><a href='B:20 32:26-29'>Exo 32:26-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:8-10'>Deu 33:8-10</a></em>). The secular disciples again are encouraged to see themselves as the Levites of the new Israel the Lord was creating. And note that the Lord speaks of how His followers will each have left mother, brother etc. to serve Him, referring to how Moses blessed Levi for forsaking these very things so as to God's service (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). And there is no Christian who has heart and soul committed themselves to the Gospel's work, either in the world or amongst their brethren, who has not lived to see the truth of this definition of priesthood.</p><p><em>"</em>For My Name’s sake<em>" </em>is parallel with<em>&nbsp;</em>“The kingdom of God’s sake” (<em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>). The things of the Name and the things of the Kingdom were therefore not two different things, rather were they different ways of referring to the same realities.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who shall not receive many times more in this time- </em>&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a></em> for the allusion to Job. The Lord’s prophecy that the believer receives fathers, mothers, houses, lands etc. only has its fulfilment insofar as the ecclesia is willing to share these things and relationships with its members. But the condition of the fulfilment was&nbsp;not explicitly stated. We forsake all human relationships to follow the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:27-29'>Mat 19:27-29</a></em>). And He promises to compensate for this even in this life. But it depends to what extent we are willing to accept and perceive it. Through meaningful fellowship with our brethren we will find those relationships which we have given up compensated for, even if we aren’t physically close to our brethren. In reference to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt we read: “God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains” (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>). To be set in a new family is paralleled with being brought out from slavery. Part of the process of our redemption is that we are set in a new ecclesial family. This must be a reference to how Israel were brought out on Passover night, where the families and lonely ones had to join together into households big enough to kill a lamb for. The implication of Psalms 68 could be that it was in these family groups that they travelled through the wilderness. The N:C:V. reads: “God is in his holy Temple. He is a father to orphans, and he defends the widows. God gives the lonely a home. He leads prisoners out with joy::.". The very house / family of God becomes the house / family of the lonely. Hence the ecclesia&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the house of God (<em><a href='B:530 3:16'>1Co 3:16</a></em>). We find true family in the new family of God. By baptism we are “added together” with those others who are likewise saved in Christ (<em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em> RVmg:). We will live together eternally with the other members of this new body and community which we enter. The links between us within that new family are even stronger than those with our natural family; and hence any division amongst the family of God is the greatest tragedy. What this means in practice is that we must fellowship each other. Even if we are isolated from other believers, one can always write letters, make phone calls, invite others to visit them, attempt to meet others… </p><p><em>And in the age to come, eternal life</em>- These are the very words of the rich young man earlier in the chapter. The answer to that man’s question was that we have to lose now, if we are to win eternally; we must forsake material things if we are to inherit the life eternal. As he was only a young man, it’s likely that his wealth had been inherited. He was being told that the greatest inheritance was of life eternal, but this didn’t come easily nor by good luck or circumstance, but in response to a lifetime of following Jesus. The things which were to be forsaken include [putting the records in Mark and Luke together with Matthew]: family, brothers, sisters, father, mother, lands, houses etc. These were all the things which the young man had received by inheritance, and to forsake association with his family, on behalf of whom he had received his wealth, would’ve been crazy and social suicide. It was as crazy as trashing a winning lottery ticket and walking away the same you were before you bought it. But this is the radical calling of those who must forsake materialism in order to inherit eternity. Therefore all seeking for material advantage in this life is surely inappropriate if in fact we are to forsake it even if it comes to us without our seeking it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he took aside the twelve- </em>The implication is that there were others travelling with them, and the Lord wished to explain the reality of the cross to the disciples alone.</p><p><em>And said to them: We will go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written through the prophets about the Son of Man shall be accomplished</em>- Mark adds: “And Jesus went before them, and they were amazed; and as they followed they were sore afraid”:&nbsp;They went “up”, uphill to Jerusalem. These small details all support the position that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses and were not created many years later by people who were not present. They were going the opposite direction of man in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who went&nbsp;<em>down</em>&nbsp;from Jerusalem to Jericho. We may be able to infer that the Lord intended us to read that man as one who was not going in the way of the cross, who was going away from Jerusalem rather than towards it- and who was still saved by the grace of the Samaritan / Jesus:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For he shall be delivered up to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked and shamefully treated, and spat upon</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>. As noted on :15, this refers to the judgments upon Israel in <em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em>. The Greek for "delivered up" means literally ‘to hand over’; the idea of betrayal was maybe implicit, but not as explicit as in the English word ‘betrayed’. The word is very common on the lips of the Lord, as if He saw the moment of ‘handing over’ as the quintessence of all His sufferings- the hand over from God’s providential protection to the powers of darkness. He has just spoken of how the Pharisee treated the tax collector shamefully, and the unjust judge had no shame in shaming those who needed justice. The Lord is asking them to see that He is the one identified with those weak, marginalized, sinful people; and will suffer at the hands of those in secular power just as they had done.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they shall scourge and kill him, and on the third day he shall rise again</em>- The scourging alludes to the punishments upon Israel in <em><a href='B:60 22:13'>Jos 22:13</a></em>. Indeed so many of the judgments on Israel were experienced by Jesus on the Cross:</p><p><em><a href='B:350 2:3'>Hos 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:6'>Hos 2:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 27:27-29'>Mat 27:27-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:60 22:13'>Jos 22:13</a></em> = <em><a href='B:490 18:33'>Luk 18:33</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:230 89:30-32'>Psa 89:30-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 28:18'>Isa 28:18</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 27:30'>Mat 27:30</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:330 22:1-5'>Eze 22:1-5</a></em> = Jesus mocked by Gentile Roman soldiers, <em><a href='B:470 27:27-31'>Mat 27:27-31</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:67'>Mat 26:67</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:30'>Mat 27:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:300 18:16'>Jer 18:16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 27:39'>Mat 27:39</a></em></p><p>These similarities are too close to have been engineered humanly; if it is accepted that Jesus was crucified, it does not seem unreasonable to accept that the sufferings of Jesus described in the New Testament really did happen. It therefore follows that Jesus of Nazareth did bear the sin and judgments of Israel, and therefore He is their saviour-Messiah. Judaism struggles with this observation.</p><p>The Lord's detailed knowledge of His sufferings could have been beamed into Him, or He could have worked some of it out from Old Testament types and prophecies. But it seems to me that because He gave His life of Himself, it was not taken from Him by the machinations of others, He therefore arranged the entire scenario so that these things would happen.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they understood none of these things, and this saying was hid from them, and they did not understand the things that were said</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>. Luke earlier notes that the saying about the cross was “hidden” from them (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>), in confirmation of their own refusal to understand it because it demanded that they too suffer with their Lord. And yet in prayer to the Father, He rejoices that these things are not hidden from them (<em><a href='B:490 10:21'>Luk 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>). This gives insight into the Lord’s present mediation for us in prayer- speaking of us as far better than we are. The message of Christ crucified was “hid” from them (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>)- and Paul surely alludes to this when he says that this message is hid by the veil of Judaism from those who are lost (<em><a href='B:540 4:3'>2Co 4:3</a></em>). Matthew adds that there arose a controversy as to who should be the leaders in the new community; and when the Lord earlier explained His passion, Luke also adds that straight afterwards, “there arose a dispute among them, which of them was the greatest” (<em><a href='B:490 9:46'>Luk 9:46</a></em>). Time and again we see this in the Gospels- when the Lord speaks of His upcoming death, the disciples change the subject. This explains our own problem with mind wandering at the breaking of bread or in the study or even reading of the crucifixion accounts. This difficulty on focusing upon Him there is likely because His death requires our death and suffering, and subconsciously we realize that- and would rather not.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as he drew near to Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging</em>- Matthew's account of the healing of the two blind men as they <em>left</em> Jericho must be compared with the healing of Bartimaeus as He left Jericho (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>), and now the healing of a blind man as He <em>approached </em>Jericho (<em><a href='B:490 18:35'>Luk 18:35</a></em>). These accounts are not in contradiction. One of the two blind men was Bartimaeus, and he is the one Mark focuses on. The healing of the first blind man is indeed described in the same terms as the healing of the other blind men, but the similarity of the language is in order to demonstrate how the Lord worked in the same way in different lives at slightly different times. And there are other examples of incidents repeating in Biblical history but being described in similar language. We are left with an abiding impression that what happens in our lives has been in essence repeated in other lives. And surely the healing of the first blind man inspired the others to take the same leap of faith, just as we are to be inspired by the way others have responded to the Lord's hand in their lives.</p><h4>If indeed there are major bloomers in the Gospels and in the Bible generally [as the critics suggest regarding these incidents of healing the blind men], then naturally the question arises as to how reliable the Biblical text really is. Liberal Christians tend to argue that some is, other parts aren't. But no basis is given for deciding which parts are reliable and which are not. Nor does there seem any reason why God would inspire some parts of the Bible but not others. But the wonder is that the Bible, and the Gospels particularly, can be analysed at depth and found not to contradict but rather to dovetail seamlessly in a way in which no human piece of writing ever could. This is particularly seen in the four Gospels, and it is this seamlessness and lack of contradiction which led sceptics like Frank Morrison in&nbsp;<em>Who Moved the Stone?</em>&nbsp;to become committed believers in the bodily resurrection of Christ. In musical terms, the whole united record reads as a symphony. There is no need to remove one note from it, or a few notes here and there. The overall wonder is lost by doing so, to the point that it is a desecration of the Divine product. If there are passages which we cannot reconcile, the way of humility is surely to accept that we are still waiting for more insight and understanding- rather than arrogantly insisting that Divine inspiration somehow faltered at that point:&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em>And hearing a crowd going by, he inquired what this meant</em>- The idea is not 'Whatever is going on?' but rather is he enquiring of the significance of all this. There is a similar incident in <em><a href='B:470 21:10-11'>Mat 21:10-11</a></em>, where part of the crowd ask: "Who is this?", and the other part answer back: "This is Jesus the prophet". They were trying to echo <em><a href='B:230 24:8'>Psa 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 24:10'>Psa 24:10</a></em>: "Who is this king of glory?" is answered by "The Lord strong and mighty". This was understood as how the crowds were to call to each other in the Messianic procession. Perhaps this man was attempting to have a part in what he believed to be a Messianic event; in this case, he would have accepted that the Lord was Messiah. He was inspired by previous healings of blind men in <em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em>, who would have surely spread the message that they considered their healer to be Jesus the Messiah.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passes by</em>- As noted on :36, this could be understood as their participation in some Messianic procession, whereby one shouted "Who is this?" and the answer was then given. This would explain why the man addresses Him as "Son of David", a title associated with Messiah's enthronement.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he cried, saying: Jesus, you son of David, have mercy on me!</em>- These were exactly the words of the two blind men of <em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em>, who were likewise cured by the Lord on the outskirts a town, just as here the cure happened as He approached Jericho. They are also similar words to the healing of the blind men recorded after the Lord leaves Jericho. The similarity and connection is obvious. From God's side, we see how He works according to pattern in the lives of people. And humanly, the blind man had somehow passed on to other blind men the truth that there was mercy / grace in the Son of David, which could be manifested in the restoration of sight. In this lies the significance of the fact that according to Matthew and Mark, other blind men said exactly these words and made exactly this request as the Lord<em>&nbsp;</em><em>departed</em> from&nbsp;Jericho. Far from being [as supposed by the critics] a jumbling up of material by uninspired writers, we see rather the development of a theme- that blind men at various places and times approached the Lord with the same words, and made the same connection between His mercy and Him being the Son of David. They may simply have thought that as the Son of David, He had the characteristics of David- which included remarkable mercy and grace to his enemies. We also see how once a community is broken into with the Gospel, it spreads within that community, expressed in the words and concepts which that community understands, and in the style which originated with the first ones in the community who accepted the Gospel. I have seen this happen in communities of the deaf, Gypsies, HIV patients, ethnic minorities under persecution, language groups etc. And so it happened amongst the blind beggar community in Palestine. Such communities have amazing links to each other and paths of communication:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The connection between "the son of David" and "mercy" is surely rooted in the description of the promises to David as "the mercies [<em>chesed</em>] of David" (<em><a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:34'>Act 13:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 1:8'>2Ch 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 89:49'>Psa 89:49</a></em> "The mercies which You promised unto David"; <em><a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a></em> "In mercy shall the throne be established::. in the tent of David"). These promises were utter grace; "mercy" translates&nbsp;<em>chesed,</em> which is about the closest the OT comes to the NT concept of grace. David rejoiced in this&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>/ mercy shown to him (<em><a href='B:100 22:51'>2Sa 22:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 101:1'>Psa 101:1</a></em>). Solomon pleaded for grace on the basis of the fact that God had shown such covenant mercies to David (<em><a href='B:140 6:42'>2Ch 6:42</a></em> "Remember the mercies of David"). The mercies of David surely also refer to God's mercy, the mercy of grace, shown to David in forgiving him the sin with Bathsheba and Uriah- he begged for forgiveness on the basis of God's "tender mercies" (<em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em>). It could be argued that David's forgiveness was on account of his pleading for the mercies shown to him in the Davidic covenant to be continued to him. For in that covenant God had promised that <em>chesed </em>would not depart from David (<em><a href='B:100 7:15'>2Sa 7:15</a></em>), and David therefore begs for forgiveness on the basis that grace /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em> would indeed not be withdrawn from him (<em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em>). From all this, David pleaded in crisis towards the end of his life to fall into God's hands because "His mercies are great" (<em><a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a></em>). In response to the<em> chesed</em>&nbsp;["mercy", or grace] shown David, he too was characterized by humanly senseless&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;to his enemies in the family of Saul (s:w. <em><a href='B:90 20:15'>1Sa 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 2:5'>2Sa 2:5</a></em> "you have shewed this kindness /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;unto Saul"; <em><a href='B:100 3:8'>2Sa 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 9:1'>2Sa 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a></em>) and to Hanun his Ammonite enemy (<em><a href='B:100 10:2'>2Sa 10:2</a></em> "I will shew kindness /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;unto the Hanun"). What is so impressive is that the network of blind men, from Galilee to Jericho, had figured this out, or at least part of it. They saw the connection between grace and David, and were inspired to throw themselves upon the grace of David's Messianic Son. There was in those times [as there is in much of the world today] a deep belief that blindness was the direct result of sin (<em><a href='B:500 9:2'>Joh 9:2</a></em>). These blind men almost certainly felt that their blindness was a result of their sin, and so they felt a moral need for forgiveness, so that the blindness would be lifted. According to <em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>, one of the blind men was called Bartimaeus, literally 'Son of the unclean'- doubtless this was what he had been dubbed by others, for no Hebrew mother would have named her son that. And they believed that Jesus could indeed cleanse them, morally forgive them, and thereby restore their sight. This would explain why they screamed [Gk:] "Have mercy on us!". This was a moral request; they didn't simply call out for healing.</p>


text:
<p><em>And those who led the way rebuked him- </em>This is yet another example of where the Lord is presented as eager to accept, when men [including disciples] are more eager to reject. The same word has just been used for how the disciples rebuked the little ones from coming to the Lord- and were in turn rebuked. The impression is that in the disciples' exclusivity, they weren't being [as they supposed] more spiritual than the world around them, but rather were they being simply as that world. Soon afterwards, the Pharisees told the Lord to "rebuke" His disciples, and He replied that it was impossible for them to "hold their peace" (<em><a href='B:490 19:39-40'>Luk 19:39-40</a></em>). These are all words and phrases taken from this incident. Now it is the disciples who refuse to be quiet, and it is the Pharisees who want them to be quiet. Again the point is made that the desire to silence and exclude others is from the world, and not of Christ. The Lord's acceptance of people is consistently painted by the Gospels as being far more inclusive and extensive than that of men. The human tendency to reject and erect barriers is simply not there in Christ.</p><p><em>Saying that he should be quiet; but he cried out all the more: You son of David, have mercy on me!</em>- This could be seen as the result of the Lord's piquing their sense of urgency for Christ by not responding immediately. This is also a factor in some of His delayed responses to our own&nbsp;needs.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him</em>- The Lord could have walked up to the man as He did to others when curing them. But on this occasion He wished to teach that His calling of men to Him for healing often uses a human mechanism. The "call" comes through people bringing others to the Lord. The Lord "calls" just as the people "called" the man. The Lord's calling and our calling of men are thereby paralleled. The experience of being called by the Lord is not to be seen as an onerous call to responsibility before Him; rather is it the source of "courage". His calling is because He wants to do something good for us, rather than saddle us with the weight of responsibility to judgment.</p>


text:
<p><em>What do you want me to do for you? And he said: Lord, that I may receive my sight</em>- The Lord had a way of focusing men upon their need. Thus He would have passed by the desperate disciples as they struggled in the storm, He would have gone further on the road to Emmaus, and He later asked the blind men the obvious question: “What will you that I shall do unto you?” (<em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>). He only partially cured another blind man, to focus that man’s mind on the faith that was needed for the second and final stage of the cure (<em><a href='B:480 8:23-25'>Mar 8:23-25</a></em>). He elicited from the father of the epileptic child the miserable childhood story of the boy- not that the Lord needed to know it, but to concentrate the man on his need for the Lord’s intervention (<em><a href='B:480 9:21'>Mar 9:21</a></em>). He wanted them to focus on their need: in this case, for sight. He let Peter start to sink, and only then, when Peter’s whole heart and soul were focused on the Lord, did He stretch forth His hand. The Lord deliberately delayed going to see Lazarus until he was dead and buried; to elicit within His followers the acuteness of their need. And was He&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>sleeping in the boat with the storm all around Him? Was He not waiting there for them to finally quit their human efforts and come running to Him with faith in no other (<em><a href='B:480 4:38-39'>Mar 4:38-39</a></em>)? Only when men were thus focused on their desperate need for the Lord would He answer them. The Lord further focused men’s need when he asked the lame man: “Do you want to be made whole?” (<em><a href='B:500 5:6'>Joh 5:6</a></em>). Of course the man wanted healing. But the Lord first of all focused his desire for it.</p><p>The one thing&nbsp;he wanted was to see. The healed blind man is a type of us. True understanding (seeing) should be the one thing we want. "Wisdom is the&nbsp;<em>principal&nbsp;</em>thing; therefore get wisdom" <em><a href='B:240 4:7'>Pro 4:7</a></em>). This was obviously a rhetorical question, and it succeeded in the intention of making the men verbalize their dominant desire. Likewise the Lord works with us to make us focus and understand what is our dominant desire- and then seeks to reposition that focus. In this section He has done that by placing all human desires and requests in the shadow of His death for us. For how could we want anything 'extra' after He has done that for us, with all it enabled.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to him: Receive your sight; your faith has made you whole</em>- The Greek term for "receive your sight" is literally 'look up', and is the word used for how the Lord had a habit of praying to God with open, uplifted eyes. There is surely the hint that the gift of sight was to encourage the man in his relationship with God, and likewise "whole" suggests that the man as a person was now "whole". The miracle was a gift of spiritual things as well as literal sight; which is why the man now follows the Lord (:43). The 'gift of heavenly health' is by grace; the Lord is eager to act directly upon willing hearts to give us the spiritual energy to follow Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God; and when all the people saw it, they gave praise to God</em>- As the Lord left Jericho, two other blind men were healed and they too followed the Lord in the way (<em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>). So surely they had heard of His healing power from the testimony of this blind man who followed Him throughout Jericho and then out the other side. We notice that he witnessed to blind men; we most powerfully take the gospel to those in our situation, and not to those in far off lands of other cultures. This is to be done; but witness is essentially personal and is to those of our own background and experience. And even before meeting those blind men, this man's praise of God influenced "all the people" to do likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he entered Jericho and was passing through</em>- As noted at the end of chapter 18, the blind man healed on the Lord's approach to Jericho followed Him through Jericho, and led to the conversion of two other blind men as the Lord left Jericho. So we can imagine this healed blind man following the Lord as He passed through Jericho. </p>


text:
<p><em>And a man named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector, and rich</em>- Meyer suggests there was a profitable balsam trade in Jericho, which would have enriched the tax collectors. Lightfoot quotes evidence that such people were not allowed to be legal witnesses: "These are persons not capable of giving any public testimony, shepherds, exactors, and publicans". The same was true for women. And yet it was exactly these kinds of people and categories whom the Lord chose to be His witnesses. To this day, He delights in using those who have little human credibility nor ability as witnesses. In this sense our sense of inadequacy to witness is our adequacy; it is in fact the prime qualification. This incident is a natural follow on from the Lord's parable about the repentant tax collector and the Pharisee. Only Luke records that, and this historical account is also unique to Luke, so he appears under inspiration to be exemplifying how the parable worked out in practice. 'Zacchaeus' in Hebrew means 'pure'; he who was far from pure was justified by faith and grace, as was the tax collector of the parable.</p><p>"And rich" connects with the recently recorded teaching of the Lord that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom; but with God it is possible, and the conversion of Zacchaeus is again a worked example of this. It is only by deep conviction of sin and fellowship with the Lord personally that the rich can be led to part with their wealth. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he ran ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was to pass that way</em>- The Lord likewise foreknew Nathanael when he was far off under a tree (<em><a href='B:500 1:48'>Joh 1:48</a></em>). The similarity simply shows that the Lord works in similar ways in parallel lives. And this is the basis of our fellowship in Him- shared experience of the same style of the Lord's operation with us. Running ahead of a person and association with tree leaves can be seen as heralding the triumphant entry of Messiah. This will be recorded later in this chapter, but perhaps the idea is that the Lord saw His triumphal entries at this stage as being into the homes of sinners rather than into the Jerusalem temple.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him: Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house</em>- The Lord had taught His preachers to enquire who in a town was "worthy" and stay at their home (<em><a href='B:470 10:11'>Mat 10:11</a></em>). He is forcing the conclusion that He can declare the unworthy to be worthy, just as the unjust tax collector of the earlier parable was declared just. This is all Luke's way of paving the way for his friend Paul's later expression of all this in terms of justification by grace and faith.</p><p>By calling Zacchaeus by name, when apparently they had never before met, the Lord was showing that He knew His sheep and was calling him by name (<em><a href='B:500 10:3'>Joh 10:3</a></em>). He urges him to respond quickly, and this fits in with a major theme in Luke of quick response to the Lord, culminating in the apparently 'quick' baptisms recorded in Acts. Speed of response is not only appropriate to any call from the Lord, but unless we respond quickly, the flesh tends to kick in and reason us out of the response we need to make. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he made haste and came down- </em>The speed of his response is significant. Subconsciously, the message of Jesus which he had heard must have been working within him. When he then encountered the Lord, it all came together. The word was made flesh. There was something in Him which was and is incredibly compelling. </p><p><em>And received him joyfully</em>- Luke is presenting Zacchaeus as the parade example of how whoever receives the Son receives the Father, and Luke in <em><a href='B:490 9:48'>Luk 9:48</a></em> recorded Him saying that and immediately commenting that "the least", the littlest, is the greatest. The "little" height of Zacchaeus may also allude to the Lord's recent ultimatum that the Kingdom must be "received" (s:w:) as a little one (<em><a href='B:490 18:17'>Luk 18:17</a></em>). The joy of Zacchaeus is that joy which is so often mentioned in Luke-Acts as accompanying true conversion. We note that the Lord alludes to His parable of seeking and finding the lost sheep in the context of what His 'finding' Zacchaeus (:10). When the sheep was found, the shepherd rejoices (<em><a href='B:490 15:5'>Luk 15:5</a></em>). This is the same word translated "joyfully". There is a mutuality between the Lord and His people; His joy is their joy. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying: He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner</em>- Presumably Zacchaeus had been disobedient to the teaching of John the Baptist to “Exact no more than is appointed". Here was a totally secular person, uninfluenced by John's preparatory work, simply coming to the Lord because he sensed the truth in Him. "Lodge" suggests He spent the night there (s:w. LXX <em><a href='B:10 24:23'>Gen 24:23</a></em>). Again we notice the guilt by association mentality of the people. Who you stayed with and ate with was seen as a religious act; and the Lord was doing this without any statement of repentance from Zacchaeus. It was by offering this kind of open, outgoing fellowship that the Lord sought and found Zacchaeus; and the repentance was elicited from that radical acceptance. This was in marked contrast to the attitude that such signs of fellowship should only be granted once a person had cleared certain bars and demonstrated their spiritual level. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord: Behold Lord, half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have wrongfully exacted something from anyone, I restore fourfold</em>- The rich young ruler has recently been told, recorded by Luke, to sell <em>all</em> he had and give to the poor. Zacchaeus offered half of his wealth to the poor. And this was acceptable. Or it could be that he means that half of his goods would be spent restoring what he had stolen, and the other half would go to the poor. The fourfold restitution seems far above that of the Jewish law (<em><a href='B:40 5:7'>Num 5:7</a></em>), but apparently Roman law required fourfold restitution of stolen goods.</p><p>The way he stands and addresses the Lord could perhaps be Luke framing this as a public confession of faith and repentance, of the kind seen before baptism in the early church. Zacchaeus is being set up as a role model.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to him: Today salvation has come to this house, as he also is a son of Abraham</em></p><h4>- See on <em><a href='B:510 16:34'>Act 16:34</a></em>. The stress on "house" was presumably to meet the criticism that He had entered the house (:7). But the "house" probably refers to the household. The family would see a huge drop in their wealth- and it was that which converted them to salvation. It was the very inverse of the claims of the prosperity gospel. It is as if Zacchaeus is being set up as the opposite of the rich young man of <em><a href='B:490 18:23'>Luk 18:23</a></em>. When the synagogue excommunicated a man, he was stated to no longer be a "son of Abraham". The Lord is demonstrating His authority to utterly override all such statements that excommunication from a religious group means that a person is not in the wider community of God's true people. He sets Himself up as the ultimate deciding authority in a new Israel comprised of serious sinners and secular, non-religious types. Zacchaeus presumably continued in his daily work and therefore remained outside the synagogue system- but a "son of Abraham". </h4><p>The Lord predicates salvation upon being a son of Abraham. But this man was Jewish already; the conclusion is that natural descent would not bring salvation, but rather a faith in Messiah as Abraham had, continuing the family characteristic. Perhaps Zacchaeus is called a son of Abraham in that he too repented of his self-centred materialism, walking away from much wealth to become a nomad. </p>


text:
<p><em>For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:54-55'>Luk 9:54-55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:2'>Luk 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>. As noted on :7, the Lord extended fellowship to sinners in order to bring them to repentance; rather than giving it to them as a reward for attaining some level of understanding or spirituality. And this should be reflected in our open approach to people. The allusion is clearly to the parable of the shepherd seeking the lost sheep; the joy of the shepherd in that parable is described with the same word as the joy of Zacchaeus (:6; <em><a href='B:490 15:5'>Luk 15:5</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And as they heard these things, he added and spoke a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear</em>- The question was: 'Will the Kingdom come really soon, like, in our lifetimes?'. Answer: the parable of the minas. Trade <em>your </em>personal talent- because there is such a thing as people being rejected at the last day because they didn't do this. See on <em><a href='B:490 21:7'>Luk 21:7</a></em>. The disciples clearly thought that arrival at Jerusalem meant the appearing of the Kingdom of God in its political form. They had totally missed His teaching that Jerusalem meant death on a cross for Him; and that the gospel of the Kingdom is now about life lived under God's Kingship and dominion, rather than political freedom from the Romans. They had missed the obvious and basic point of His teachings because they would not budge from their preconceived theological and natural convictions. And this happens with so many today, and in some ways with us all. </p>


text:
<p><em>He therefore said: A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom and then return</em>- The Lord has recently spoken of how <em>we</em> are to 'receive the kingdom' as a child if we are to enter it (<em><a href='B:490 18:17'>Luk 18:17</a></em>). The nobleman here refers to the Lord Jesus. He doesn't ask us to do anything which in essence He has not done. He received the Kingdom as God's "holy child" (<em><a href='B:510 4:27'>Act 4:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>), and He asks us to do likewise. This makes 'receiving the Kingdom' mean accepting that really, we shall be there. It is ours, even now. "Yours [God's] is the Kingdom", but it is given to the Lord Jesus "for himself", just as it is to us too. For us it is an ongoing experience- "we receiving a Kingdom::. let us have grace" (<em><a href='B:650 12:28'>Heb 12:28</a></em>). </p><p>The parable has some similarities with events recorded by Josephus. Herod Archelaus travelled to Rome in order to be given his kingdom; the Jews sent an embassy to Augustus, the Caesar, while Archelaus was travelling to Rome, to complain that they did not want Archelaus as their ruler; when Archelaus returned, he arranged for 3000 of his enemies to be brought to him at the temple, where he had them slaughtered. The palace of Archelaus was near Jericho, and as the Lord has just left Jericho, this would explain the allusion to him in this parable- perhaps the Lord was building on a passing discussion about Archelaus, ever eager to turn secular chit chat into spiritual teaching- just as we should be.</p>&nbsp;<p>Absentee landlords were unpopular; and the accusation was that they reaped what they had not sown, demanding harvest which they had not laboured for. And the one mina man makes just this complaint. The Lord presents Himself in this parable as a man deemed to be unreasonable and unpopular- when in fact this was not the case.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he called ten servants of his- </em>A picture of how the Lord considers us to be His very own.</p><p><em>Gave them ten minas and said to them- </em>A mina or "talent" was worth 6000 denarii, or pennies. And a penny a day was the going wage for a worker in time of harvest, according to another parable. This is therefore in total about 20 years’ salary. The element of unreality in this parable is that this was a huge amount of money to entrust in cash to only ten servants. And they are asked to "trade with this", to take the initiative, apparently without much prior instruction by their master. All is in their court. He has no mechanism in place to check up on them nor practically advise them on a day to day basis. They as slaves would not have been accustomed to taking much initiative. The only pattern they had was the example set by their master in <em>his </em>trading whilst he was with them. All this speaks of the huge and risky delegation that was and is made to God's people. In a personal sense, according to the promise of the Comforter in John 14-16, the Lord is no absent from us. He is not distant, He is with us by His Spirit, so that He is just as really present with us as He was during His ministry on earth. But for the purposes of the parable, emphasizing the huge extent of freewill and initiative required from us, He is 'absent'. He doesn't tell them to simply keep his property intact and maintained. He asks them to proactively trade and increase His wealth. This idea vastly broadens our horizons. Such work is to be our career, the ideal, Divinely intended outlet for all our creativity, resources and abilities. </p><p><em>Trade with this until I return</em>- How far His affairs prosper is dependent upon the zeal and initiative of us His stewards (<em><a href='B:490 19:12-13'>Luk 19:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:1-2'>1Co 4:1-2</a></em>). In this parable, the servants as a group are given the wealth, but they trade with it as individuals. This is a helpful way to view all that has been given to the community of believers. Division and argument between them, arguing over who has what, is a sure way to impede the overall intention of the nobleman who has so trusted us on both a collective and individual level. All the riches are hidden "in Christ" and are displayed in the entire unity of the body of Christ across both Jew and Gentile (<em><a href='B:580 1:27'>Col 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:2'>Col 2:2</a></em>). What has been given to the church collectively is the Holy Spirit, in order to build up the church and powerfully witness in the world. The one talent man is in denial of this, without the Spirit, and simply holding onto the mina without using it.</p><p>As a whole, the church of all ages will fully have manifested His character, His total riches. This is why it may be that the true church has been concentrated on different aspects of spirituality at different times. It also explains why the final date of the coming of Christ is in some way dependent upon our spiritual development. And it also explains why the whole body of Christ is told collectively "trade until I return", using the Greek <em>pragmateuomai</em>, i:e. be pragmatic, be realistic, and develop these characteristics, so you may as a body reach the full reflection of Christ. See on <em><a href='B:560 4:15'>Eph 4:15</a></em>.</p><p>The believer is called to his Lord to receive his minas, and yet is also again called to Him in judgment at His return (<em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:15'>Luk 19:15</a></em>). The repetition of the idea of being called to our Lord surely suggests that our calling to Him in the first place is in fact a calling to judgment. We are being gathered to judgment <em>now </em>(<em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>) although we will be gathered then to meet the Lord (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>). The point is, we must act now as men and women will do when they are on their way to judgment, and the meeting with their ultimate destiny. Then we will not be bickering amongst ourselves or worrying about our worldly advantage; then, only one thing will matter. And so now, only one thing matters. The Christian life is likened to a man on his way to his judge along with his adversary (<em><a href='B:490 12:58'>Luk 12:58</a></em>); and evidently, he ought to settle his differences with his brother before he arrives, for this judge will be extremely hard upon those who cannot be reconciled to their brethren.</p><p>We notice that in this parable, the Lord hints nothing about His death. He simply says He is going away and shall return. This was a concession to their weakness; He had explained His upcoming death many times, and they had ignored it. He accepted their blindness to His death, and worked with it by not featuring His death as part of the parable. We too need to work with an acceptance of others' blindness on some points. </p><p>The same word for "trade" is translated "work" in the parable of the sons working in the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 21:28'>Mat 21:28</a></em>). Whilst salvation is on the basis of grace and not works (<em><a href='B:520 4:4-5'>Rom 4:4-5</a></em>), there is all the same a fundamental call to "work" in response to that grace. If we do not, then we have to remember that "faith without works is dead, being alone" (<em><a href='B:660 2:17'>Jas 2:17</a></em>). And this is a severe temptation. To believe, to assent to Christian and Biblical ideas, but not to respond further, thinking that the mere possession of the ideas is enough. This was the one talent man; his faith remained "alone". The "work" was to be done within the vineyard. The ecclesia of Christ, the body of Christ, is merely a structure enabling our response in practice. The "work" was to harvest the fruit of the vine- to work with others bringing them in to the final harvest of salvation. In another metaphor, we ourselves are to bring forth fruit on the vine; but the metaphor of harvesting used in <em><a href='B:490 21:28'>Luk 21:28</a></em> and in other parables of the vineyard surely speaks of harvesting others for the Kingdom. The same word will be used by the Lord in saying that the Son of Man has left his house and given to each man in the household his "work" (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). We each have a specific work or trading to do, tailored personally to what the Lord has given us. Sadly, the structure of church life has often become so developed and defined that the average church member assumes that the work is being done by the specialists. "Get professional help" is the comment made on so many cases of personal need encountered; "Read the book::. come to the seminars::. to the meetings" can all be a passing up of our personal responsibility to work. The judgment seat is largely about presenting to the Lord our work in this life. And yet John uses the same word in recording the Lord's comment that the deeds ['trading', s:w:] of the faithful are even now "made manifest that they are wrought in God" if we come to the light of the cross which is the basis of all self-examination and self-understanding (<em><a href='B:500 3:21'>Joh 3:21</a></em>).</p><p>We can indeed prove / examine our own work [s:w:] even in this life (<em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em>). People are never better than when they perceive clearly their calling and the work they are intended to do- and give their lives to doing it. Barnabas and Saul were 'called' just as the servants here were 'called' (:13) to do the 'work' [s:w. 'trading'] of spreading the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>), and experienced the Spirit confirming them in the "work" [s:w:] they were 'fulfilling' (<em><a href='B:510 14:26'>Act 14:26</a></em>). The idea of 'fulfilling' a work given suggests that they were fulfilling God's intention for them. And again we note that the work was related to bringing others to Christ. Just as the servants 'went' to 'trade', so Paul talks of 'going' to "the work" [s:w. 'trade'], again in the context of missionary work (<em><a href='B:510 15:38'>Act 15:38</a></em>). God will render to every man according to his "works" (s:w. <em><a href='B:520 2:6'>Rom 2:6</a></em>). Our trading is the basis upon which we will be judged. The gift has been given by pure grace, as it was to the servants; but we have to respond to that grace, lest we have believed and accepted in vain. It is the works&nbsp;<em>of the law</em>&nbsp;[of Moses] which will not justify (<em><a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a></em>); rather our works are to be those in response to the Lord's great gifts to us. <em><a href='B:530 3:13-15'>1Co 3:13-15</a></em> uses this same word for 'working / trading' and again applies it to our work in building others up- and the day of judgment will declare the quality of that work. The Corinthians were therefore Paul's "work in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>), even though he baptized virtually none of them, his efforts for them were his attempt to trade / work with the talents given him. God clearly has intended works / trading for each of us, "Good works [s:w:] which God has before ordained that we should walk in them" (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). And the NT usage of the idea of works / trading is nearly always in the context of preaching or caring for others. Paul may well have himself in mind when he promises the Philippians that "He who began a good work in you [Paul's initial preaching at Philippi] will work at finishing it right up to the day of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:570 1:6'>Phi 1:6</a></em> cp. 22). The key is to be open to God's leading. Thus Paul urged Timothy to purge himself from bad company so that he might be prepared or ready "unto every good work" (<em><a href='B:620 2:21'>2Ti 2:21</a></em>), and to devote himself to the Scriptures that he might be "equipped unto all good works" (<em><a href='B:620 3:17'>2Ti 3:17</a></em>). These works are surely those "Good works [s:w:] which God has before ordained that we should walk in them" (<em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>). And we should be "ready to every good work::. thoughtful to be ready for good works" (<em><a href='B:630 3:1'>Tit 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:8'>Tit 3:8</a></em>), thoughtfully open to God's leading in response to our prayer to be shown what exactly is the work / trading intended for us. A functional church will be a place where the members are all devoted to this principle personally, and thus will "consider one another to provoke unto love and good works" (<em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em>). And God will confirm our openness and willingness; He will "frame you in every good work to do His will" (<em><a href='B:650 13:21'>Heb 13:21</a></em> Gk:):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying: We do not want this man to reign over us</em>- "They hated Joseph" because of his dream that one day he would reign over them (<em><a href='B:10 37:4'>Gen 37:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 37:8'>Gen 37:8</a></em>). The Lord Jesus likewise had problems with His brothers (<em><a href='B:500 7:3'>Joh 7:3</a></em>); the Jews hated Him and would not have him reign over them even though they were potentially the citizens of His Kingdom. His Kingdom is that of the Father, and Israel at that time were His Kingdom. But because they refused His Son as King, they ceased to be the Kingdom of God (<em><a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a></em>). The delegation gives no reason for their refusal; for there was and is no credible reason to refuse the Lord's kingship over men.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, when he had returned, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading</em>- If we are to take the judgment figures literally, the question arises: Does the Lord know beforehand who will be accepted, and the degree of their reward? If we take the judgment figures to have a literal meaning, then it sounds as if He doesn't know. <em><a href='B:490 19:15'>Luk 19:15</a></em> suggests that perhaps He doesn't know; the Lord calls the servants "that he might know how much every man had gained by trading". He is ordained <em>to be</em> judge of all (<em><a href='B:510 10:42'>Act 10:42</a></em>). However, as Lord of Heaven and earth, with all power given to him, this seems unlikely- although it must be remembered that in the same way as God is omnipotent and yet limits His omnipotence, so He may limit His omniscience. The shepherd sees the difference between sheep and goats as totally obvious. It needs no great examination. Surely the idea is that the judge, the omniscient Lord of all, will act at the judgment <em>as if</em> he needs to gather evidence from us and thereby reach his verdict. The parables give this impression because they surely describe how the judgment will feel to us.</p><p>The believer is called to his Lord to receive his pounds, and is called to Him in judgment at His return (<em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:15'>Luk 19:15</a></em>). The repetition of the idea of being called to our Lord surely suggests that our calling to Him in the first place is in fact a calling to judgment. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the first came before him- </em>He comes to us and the faithful come to Him. This will have a literal element to it. When we know for sure that the Lord has come, we will have the choice as to whether to go to Him immediately or delay. Those who go immediately will be confirmed in that by being snatched away to meet the Lord in the air (<em><a href='B:590 4:16-17'>1Th 4:16-17</a></em>). One of the great themes of Matthew's gospel is that various men and women 'came to Jesus' at different times and in a variety of situations. The Lord uses the same term to describe how at the last day, people will once again 'come unto' Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:20-24'>Mat 25:20-24</a></em>). The same Jesus whom they 'came before' in His ministry is the one to whom they and we shall again come at the last day- to receive a like gracious acceptance. He will judge and reason the same way He did during His mortality. </p><p><em>Saying: Lord, your minas have made ten minas more</em>- The purpose of the judgment is for our benefit, to develop our appreciation and self-knowledge. This is perhaps reflected by the ten pound man saying that the Lord' minas had gained, had worked to create (Gk:) the ten he could now offer. The man who achieved five pounds uses a different word in describing how the mina given him had made five minas, while the men in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em> use yet another word to say the same thing. This is surely a realistic picture, each of the faithful comes to the same conclusion, that what spirituality they have developed and the work of the Spirit which they did is an outcome of the basic Gospel given to each of us at our conversion; yet&nbsp;they have used them in different ways and they express this same basic idea in different words:&nbsp; </p><p>All those who will be in the Kingdom will feel that really we should not be there, we don't deserve it, we will be hesitant to enter it and therefore Christ will have to almost make us go into the Kingdom. It's the same in the parables of Matthew 25, at the judgment Jesus will praise the righteous for doing so many good things, and then they will disagree with him, they will say 'No, we didn't do that, really we didn't', and He will say 'Yes, in my eyes, you did'. Their good works had not been consciously done. This is surely what the Lord was driving at in saying that our left hand must not know what the right hand does. We aren't to be self-consciously brooding on our own generosity. It would seem that with a spirit of amazement and surprise the man says 'Your minas gained [more] minas!':&nbsp;It's the self-righteous, those who think they have done so much and therefore they must be in the Kingdom, who will be rejected.</p><h4>“Made” translates&nbsp;<em>poieo</em>, a very common word; but it is used by the Lord, again in talking about His servants, in saying that the faithful servant will be found ‘doing’ care to his brethren (<em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em>). And the word is twice used about ‘doing’ good unto the least of Christ’s brethren, and this being the basis for our judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em>). Again we see that our work / trading involves fruitfully sharing the spiritual riches we have received with others. It’s worth noting that this teaching is alluded to in the record of the woman anointing the Lord’s feet; and all the records of it use the same Greek words to describe it. She “did it” (<em>poieo</em>, <em><a href='B:470 26:12-13'>Mat 26:12-13</a></em>), she “worked” (s:w. “traded”) a good work [‘trading’] on the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 26:10'>Mat 26:10</a></em>). It’s as if her humanly senseless pouring out of her wealth for the Lord was in fact smart trading in the spiritual sense. The story line implies that we can add to the total wealth of the Lord Jesus. Yet the extension of His glory, the progress of His work, depends upon us, and we are left to our own initiative in this. This is the meaning of the element of ‘absence’ of the Lord, and the immediacy of His leaving the servants with such huge amounts of silver without instructing them specifically how to use them:&nbsp;&nbsp;</h4><p>This idea of using one’s own initiative was more startling then than it is now. Today, students are 'trained' to think for themselves, be creative, develop their own opinions, push forward their own independent research, using question / problem-based learning as a paradigm for their education. 'Education' in the first century wasn't like that at all. The idea was that "every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher" (<em><a href='B:490 6:40'>Luk 6:40</a></em>). The idea was that a person born into a certain social situation was trained to take their place in society, given that 'station and place' into which they had been born. Initiative in that sense was not encouraged; it was all about training up a person to correctly fulfil societies' expectation of them. The idea of being personally taught by the invisible Master / teacher Jesus, becoming like Him rather than like the person whom society expected, being given talents by Him which we are to trade and multiply at our initiative (<em><a href='B:470 25:15-28'>Mat 25:15-28</a></em>)::. this was all totally counter-cultural stuff. What was so vital in the Mediterranean world was that a person achieved conformity to accepted values. Cicero advised that in any good presentation of a legal case or encomium, emotions and passions shouldn't be referred to. Individualism was seen as a threat to tradition and the collective society. The huge New Testament emphasis on becoming disciples, learners, of an invisible Lord, Master and teacher located in Heaven, serving Him alone, worried about<em> His</em>&nbsp;standards, perceptions and judgment of us- that was and is so totally opposite to the expectations of society. People were educated to be embedded in society, rather than to come out of their world and live in the new world in which Christ was the light, and all things were made new in a new creation, a new set of values.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Well done, you good servant. Because you were found faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities</em>- <em><a href='B:530 4:2'>1Co 4:2</a></em> speaks of us as stewards being "found faithful" in this life by our actions; there is a definite sense in which the Lord's judgment and assessment of our stewardship is ongoing in this life. The judgment process, from His perspective, is now. And "we make the answer now". </p><p>“In a very little” (<em>elachistos</em>) is the very same word found later in Matthew 25, when we read that the final judgment will be based around how we have treated “the very least” of the Lord’s brethren (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em>). The minas we have been given relate to them- how we have used them, what we have done for them, how we have served them with the riches given us by the Lord. There is obviously a connection between the manner in which we rule over the “few things”, and how we shall be given “many things” to rule over in the Kingdom age. Clearly what we are doing now is in essence what we shall eternally be doing, but on a greater level. If our lives are centred merely around ourselves and doing what we want, developing ourselves, rather than developing the Lord’s work and doing&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;work, then we will be out of step with the life eternal. We are to start living that now. And then we shall live it eternally. Our care for the little one or two individuals now is related to how we shall care for whole cities in the Kingdom.</p><p>The parable describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities. This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <em><a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a></em> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and "five cities" in <em><a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a></em>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e:g. <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em>) and preparation of reward (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em> Heb; <em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a></em> Heb:). We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is <em>only</em> eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life.</p><p>The reward was way out of proportion, both to what had been given, and to what they had achieved with it: ten cities! The Master's words almost seem to be a gentle rebuke: "Because you were found faithful in <em>a very little</em>, have authority over ten cities"; "you have been faithful over a <em>few things</em>, I will make you ruler over many things" (<em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>). The "Truth" we have now (and it is that) is "a very little::. a few things". We mustn't see it as an end in itself. Yet because of our humanity, our limited vision, the way we are locked up in our petty paradigms and parameters, we tend to think that the Kingdom will be rather similar to our present experience of "the Truth”. Yet the Lord emphasizes, at least twice, that what we have now is pathetically limited compared to the infinitely greater spiritual vision of the Kingdom. We (personally) will then be made ruler over <em>all </em>that Christ has (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>; the "many things" of <em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>); and in him are hid <em>all </em>the riches of spiritual wisdom (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the second came, saying: Your minas, Lord, have made five minas</em>- The faithful in the parable of the talents / pounds realize that "your minas have made" what spirituality they can now offer Christ at the judgment. They understand that their growth was thanks to that basic deposit of doctrine delivered to them. Each of us have been given different aspects of Christ's character to develop from the same basic doctrines, and therefore we will each have an individual discussion with our Lord. We shouldn't think of the judgment as being a process which is more or less identical for each of us. This misconception arises from failing to recognize that our meeting with Christ is only <em>likened</em> to a human judgment court. The similarities aren't exact:&nbsp; </p><p>We are to “gain” or 'make' more for the Lord on the basis of what He first gave us. The Greek word translated “made” is elsewhere usually used about gaining men and women for Christ- a wife ‘gains’ her unbelieving husband (<em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>); Paul sought to ‘gain’ people for the Lord (<em><a href='B:530 9:19-22'>1Co 9:19-22</a></em>); we ‘gain’ a lost brother by pastoral effort with him (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>). Be that going for a coffee with him, sending an email, trying to imagine his feelings and approaching him appropriately. </p><p>Significantly, the other usages of this word translated ‘gain’ are about the folly of gaining material wealth, even gaining the whole world. We can’t be successfully about the Lord’s business, of gaining folks for Him, if we are selling our soul to gain material things. That’s the point. We were “delivered” talents by God. It’s the same word used about how the Lord Jesus exhaled His last breath on the cross; how “that form of doctrine” was ‘delivered’ to us before baptism (<em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:3'>1Co 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:3'>Jud 1:3</a></em>). We can’t say we have no talents. Christ died for you, for me; He bowed His head towards each of us personally and gave us His last breath, the riches of His Spirit within us who stand before His cross.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: And you are to be over five cities</em></p><p>- See on :17. We think of how in the Kingdom, "five cities shall speak the language of Canaan and swear to Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:290 19:18'>Isa 19:18</a></em>). Such groups will be under the authority of someone who in this life traded their talents well. Again we note the total lack of proportion of the rewards; a faithful slave who took some initiative and was faithful during the master's absence becomes a ruler over cities. And this is the lack of proportion we shall experience. What this means is that every moment of human life today has huge and eternal significance, and will have moment far beyond anything we can now imagine. The gross lack of proportion doesn't mean that there is no relationship between the trading of this life and the nature of our eternity. There is; and that is the point. Our entire lives therefore should be bent toward spiritual things and the Lord's work. No longer can this be mere religion, a Sunday hobby, a social network. We are right now forging the nature of our eternity. The trading of the minas refers to our usage of the Spirit for the benefit of others, to God's glory. It is related to what we shall be eternally doing; for our authority over the nations is in order to help them to glorify the Lord.</p><p>We have already been made ruler "over" and in the Lord’s household in order to feed the members (<em><a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a></em> s:w:). Our whole church experience, our relations with others and efforts for them, is to prepare us for being made ruler over all the Lord’s goods, over whole cities of persons in the Kingdom. We cannot of course accurately imagine what new dimensions await us, but all we can say is that we are in training for them, and that training involves the care of others within the household now; for this is in essence what we shall eternally do on a far grander scale. To separate ourselves from that household, or cast others out of it, is to deny both ourselves and others the environment required for us to prepared for eternity:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>There is an element of unreality in the parable of the minas: wise use of a few coins results in power over several cities. We are left to imagine the men marvelling in disbelief at the reward given to them. They expected at most just a few minas to be given to them. And in their response we see a picture of the almost disbelief of the faithful at their rewards. In that moment we will grasp the deep significance of all we did in this life. And we need to perceive that now. For at times it can appear that we live the lives which our secular neighbours live, smelling, eating, acting, experiencing more or less as they do; just that we have religious beliefs which they don't share. But this is an illusion. Our lives, decisions, attitudes, actions and spirit are freighted with an eternal significance which is not so in their lives.</p><p>he Lord gave a related teaching in <em><a href='B:490 16:10-12'>Luk 16:10-12</a></em>: “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?”. What is given to us now is to test our faithfulness. If we don’t perceive what we have been given, and so many believers tell me they are unsure about this,&nbsp;<em>then you need to ask the Lord to show you</em>. Urgently. And give your life to developing those things. The Luke 16 passage appears to say that in this life, we are stewards of the Lord’s wealth, just as in this parable of the minas; but if we manage that well, then we will be rewarded with wealth which is actually and personally our own. For eternity. That ‘wealth’ will be of the same nature as that given to us by the Lord initially. Here we have a rare insight into the nature of our eternity. There is nothing that is the Lord’s which will not be shared with us and in some sense give to us to exercise our initiative over.</p><p>The "Truth" we have now (and it is that) is "a very little::. a few things". We mustn't see it as an end in itself. Yet because of our humanity, our limited vision, the way we are locked up in our petty paradigms, we tend to think that the Kingdom will be rather similar to our present experience of "the Truth". Yet the Lord emphasizes, at least twice, that what we have now is pathetically limited compared to the infinitely greater spiritual vision of the Kingdom. We (personally) will then be made ruler over&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>that Christ has (<em><a href='B:470 24:47'>Mat 24:47</a></em>; the "cities" of His Kingdom); and in him are hid&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>the riches of spiritual wisdom (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And another came, saying: Lord, behold, here is your mina- </em>So many of the parables build up to a final climax which is the essence of the point the Lord was trying to get across; and this ‘end stress’ is also seen in the talents parable. The warning is not to be like the man who didn’t have the vision to do anything with his mina, but returned it unused to the Lord. This perhaps is our greatest temptation in our postmodern age of passivity, of staring at computer screens and clicking a mouse. “Behold, here is your mina” suggests an air of confidence in this man; he really didn’t get it, that he was asked to trade what he’d been given. The fact he had retained it pristine appears to have been his reason for thinking that he ought to be accepted, or at least, didn’t ought to be condemned. The story line penetrates deep into the mentality of many small time Protestant sects, according to which the ultimate test of loyalty to the Lord is whether we have retained our understanding of whatever curious or specific interpretations were entrusted to us via the charismatic founder of the sect. This man thought that that was all there was to it. He didn’t spend it on himself, he wasn’t like the prodigal son. But too late he was to learn that sins of omission are the ground for condemnation. To do nothing with God’s Truth is described by the Lord as ‘wickedness’. The grammar emphasizes personal possession:&nbsp;<em>You&nbsp;</em>have what&nbsp;<em>belongs to You</em>. As if to say ‘I didn’t steal it! It’s yours, and it remains yours’. But the whole point was that the Lord had given the talents to the servants and gone away- they had to trade in their own name, as if they were theirs. We’re not simply receptacles of intellectual truths which are to be preserved for the sake of it until the end of our days. That would be of itself pointless, a kind of mind game played between God and man for no ultimate purpose. We are given God’s Truth, the riches of Christ, in order to use it for others; the whole talk of ‘preserving the Truth in its purity’ is dangerously close to inculcating the mentality of the one talent man- the mentality that led to his condemnation.</p><p><em>I kept it laid away in a piece of cloth</em>- The judgment of the righteous comes before that of the rejected. The faithful respond first to the news that ‘He’s back’, and their willingness to go and be with Him is effectively their judgment. Those who delay are the unworthy and are therefore judged slightly later.</p><p>One of the Lord's pen pictures of the rejected included that of the man who thought that because he had preserved the mina (the basic doctrines of the Gospel) intact, therefore he was entitled to a place in the Kingdom. We are left to imagine him half-proudly, half sheepishly, holding it out to the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>). But he should have traded with his pounds (<em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em> RV)- done something with it all. The crowds hung upon Jesus' every word and teaching; it was so fascinating for them, so wonderful (<em><a href='B:490 19:48'>Luk 19:48</a></em> RV); and yet they still crucified Him. Those words, those wonderful ideas, didn't pierce deep within.</p><p>In the culture of the orient, it was not usual for a person to keep money in a cloth. Their culture was to trade and barter with what they had. That a man should just bury such a talent was therefore unreal for the original hearers. The point of this unreality is surely that spiritual laziness is <em>so</em> bad. It was better to have traded and lost through genuine mistakes, through naivety, through the betrayal and deception of others, than to simply <em>do nothing</em>. I fear, really fear, that our Christian culture has bred for many of us a ‘do nothing’ culture- which is exactly what this element of unreality is warning against. We can delegate responsibility to church committees, to others, to our leaders; or we can do nothing out of fear, fear of making a mistake, fear of taking a risk, fear of what other brethren may think of us… all the time denying this principle of Divine delegation. And it might be added that the ‘do nothing’ man of the parable emphasized that the talent or money was not <em>his</em>; he returned to his Lord what was his [“your [singular] mina”]. In order to trade it, or even to put it in the bank and get interest, he had to take personal ownership of it. And this he failed to do. And it is just this that we are being asked to do by our Lord- that His truth, all that He has given us, is in a sense <em>ours</em> now, to be used on our initiative, for His glory and service. Indeed, the reward of the faithful will be to be given <em>more</em> of their Lord’s riches in the Kingdom, with which likewise to use their initiative in order to bring Him glory. We are left to think how the story might have gone on- the faithful were given <em>more</em> talents and they go away and do, in the Kingdom age, what they did in this life- using what they were given for <em>His glory and service, on their own initiative.</em></p><p>We are <em>expected</em> by the Lord to realize that our relationship with Him means total commitment to His cause. In this sense Jesus is a demanding Lord. Thus when He gave the talents to His servants, He doesn't tell them to trade with them; it seems that the one talent man is making this point when he says 'You gave me your money to look after, and I looked after it, I didn't steal it; you're unreasonable to think I should have done anything else with it, you're expecting what you didn't give'. And the Lord is; He expects that if we realize we have the honour of knowing His Truth, we should get on and do something with it, not just keep it until He comes back. He doesn't have to ask us to do this; He takes it as being obvious. The anger of the rejected man comes over as genuine; he really can't understand his Master. He's done what he was asked, and now he's condemned because he didn't do something extra. He was a Lord that man never knew- until all too late. You can imagine how you'd feel if someone gives you some money to look after, and then expects you to have doubled it, although he didn't ask you to do anything with it.</p>


text:
<h4><em>For I feared you- </em>Fear of the judgment of others is a source of false guilt. It is this which militates against the true and free life of which the Lord speaks so enthusiastically. We fear showing ourselves for who we really are, because we fear others’ judgments. This fear makes us uncreative, not bearing the unique spiritual fruits which the Lord so eagerly seeks from us and in us. The Lord said this plainly, when He characterized the man who did nothing with his talents as lamely but truthfully saying: “I feared you". Think about this: What or whom was he afraid of? His fear was not so much of his Lord’s judgment, but rather perhaps of the judgments of others, that he might do something wrong, wrongly invest, look stupid, mess it all up::. And thus John writes that it is fear that leads to torment of soul now and final condemnation. The Lord’s words in the parable are almost exactly those of Adam. The rejected one mina man says ‘I was afraid, and so I hid&nbsp;<em>my mina</em>’. Adam said: ‘I was afraid, and I hid&nbsp;<em>myself</em>’. The talent God gave that man was therefore himself, his real self. To not use our talent, to not blossom from the experience of God’s love and grace, is to not use ourselves, is to not be ourselves, the&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;self as God intended.</h4><p><em>Because you are a hard man- </em>The problem was the man’s wrong attitude and laziness to do anything. The prodigal son was given much of his Father’s wealth, and he wasted it rather than trading it. But he recognized the Father’s grace and was prepared to work just as a servant. And this attitude was his salvation. So this man’s rejection wasn’t simply because he had failed to do any trading.</p><p>Another take on this is that there is a sense in which the Lord is indeed a “hard man”, a demanding Lord, His expectations were (and are) high. And yet His parables reveal an immense sympathy and empathy with our weakness. In a normal human situation, it would be difficult to build a relationship with someone who had such apparently contradictory trends in His character. Perhaps we have the same problem in our struggle to know the Lord. He never denied that He came over in some ways as "a hard man" with high expectations; all He said was that seeing this was the case, we ought to act accordingly (<em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>). And yet He is also a man of grace and understanding far beyond anything reached by anyone else. He is truly the Jesus who understands human weakness. And note that He is described even now as “the man Christ Jesus”, able to feel the pulse of our humanity. This, in passing, opens a window into what Divine nature will be like: we will be able to completely feel the human experience, to the extent of still bearing the title ‘men’ even in immortality.</p><p><em>You demand what you did not deposit, and reap that which you did not sow</em>- He clearly didn't know nor love his master; or else he would not have had this inappropriate fear. He is accusing him of being a typical absentee landlord. But his master was not away enjoying himself. He had gone to receive a kingdom and to return and share it with his workers. The man who didn't develop as he should have done accuses the Lord of reaping what He didn't sow. But the Lord does sow the seed of the basic Gospel, as the parable of the sower makes clear. The point is that the unworthy fail to let that seed bring forth fruit, they fail to see that the Lord expects fruit from those&nbsp;doctrines they have been given. But they fail to see the link between the basic Gospel and practical spirituality; they feel he's reaping where He didn't sow. They are in denial of "the power thereof", whilst theoretically possessing it. The Lord will require his own, i:e. that which he has sown, the basic Truths of the Gospel, the gift of the riches of His grace, His Spirit, with usury (<em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>). The parable of the tiny seed moving the great mountain was surely making the same point; the basic Gospel, if properly believed, will result in the most far reaching things (<em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 13:31'>Luk 13:31</a></em>). </p><p>The moment of conversion is the beginning of the gathering to judgment (<em><a href='B:490 11:23'>Luk 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>). The one talent man didn't appreciate this; he objected to the Lord reaping and gathering him (<em><a href='B:470 25:24'>Mat 25:24</a></em>). But whatever human objections, the responsible from all nations&nbsp;<em>will be gathered&nbsp;</em>to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). The servants are called to receive their talents, and then called again to account (Luke 19; Luke 13, 15); there is something in common between the calling to know the Gospel, and the calling to judgment. If reaping refers to judgment [which it clearly does in the Lord’s teaching], then the man could hardly claim to have known the Lord on the basis of how He reaps. Because the man hadn’t experienced the Lord’s reaping. The man says he ‘knows’ [<em>ginosko</em>] the Lord is like this; the Lord answers that if indeed the man has ‘known’ [<em>eido</em>- which more means to see / experience] that He is like this, then he should have acted accordingly. The suggestion may be that even if a person’s understanding of the Lord Jesus is slightly wrong, the important thing is to live within and according to that understanding, even if it involves breaking some Divine principles [lending for interest]. If the desire to respond to the Lord’s gift was there, the desire to progress His work, then although such response was not ideal and not as good as that achieved by the other two servants, then the Lord would accept it. The language of sowing, reaping and gathering is all described using the same Greek words in the Lord’s comment that the birds don’t do these three things, and yet God still feeds them (<em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>). Perhaps the man was making a garbled, incoherent attempt to say that he had understood those words of the Lord to mean that He was somehow going to be an unreasonable judge with unreal expectations, therefore he had done nothing, although he had not spent the talent [unlike the prodigal son- who desperately wanted to be with the Father]. We may be intended to understand his reasoning as being ‘You created birds who don’t sow, reap nor gather into barns, they just expect food. And God thinks that’s good. So, He is like what He creates’. And perhaps the man also had in view <em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em>: “I sent you to reap that whereon you bestowed no labour. Other men laboured…”. The harvest of people was reaped by those who hadn’t fully worked for it, and the man desperately tries to turn that around to justify his own lack of action. Such desperate twisting of Bible verses can be seen at every hand today, as people wriggle by all means to justify their inaction and selfishness.</p><p><em>And gathering where you did not scatter seed</em>- The Lord is clearly the sower of seed, the seed of the word of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:3'>Mat 13:3</a></em>). But the man is complaining that the Lord ‘reaps’ or calls to judgment those who had not received that seed. That is not the case- for knowledge of the Gospel is what makes responsible to judgment. The Lord could have corrected him by reminding him of the sower parable. But He doesn’t. He reasons with the man according to the belief system which he claims to have, assuming for a moment that it is in fact true. His whole style ought to be programmatic for us in our frequent encounters with those who misuse Scripture and the Lord’s words. The Lord does&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>expect a harvest from ground He has not sown; and in any case, the man had heard the word, received the talent. He was ground which had been sown, and the Lord could therefore expect a harvest from him. Like many people today, he started to raise philosophical questions about the fate of those who have not heard, and justified his own inaction [as one who definitely&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;heard and been called] on the basis of his doubts as to the Lord’s justice in dealing with those who had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;been called. Truly these ancient teachings speak to the heart of postmodern man today.</p><p>"Gathering" was highly relevant to the man, for the language of ‘gathering’ is often used about the gathering of God’s servants to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). The man was implying that his ‘gathering’ to judgment was unreasonable because the Lord had not sown in his land, had not strawed where he has. He felt he was being gathered to give an account when the Lord had given him nothing to account for. And yet the obvious fact was, the elephant in the room, that the Lord had given him minas, 20 years’ wages, $1 million. And yet the man reasoned as if he had not been given anything to account for. He totally refused to perceive the immense value of what he had been given. And this is so true for us- we for whom Christ died, the blood of God’s Son shed, we who have been called to eternity, who by status are “saved” and showered with all spiritual blessings… can complain that we have not been given anything. Because in our minds we have buried it away, and reason as if we never received it. Here again, the Lord’s ancient words pierce to the core of modern Christian self-perception.</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>diaskorpizo</em>&nbsp;can mean ‘to scatter’ and can therefore be used about sowing; but it also has the specific meaning ‘to winnow’. In this case, the picture would be of a man who has not winnowed and yet expects to come and gather up wheat. Again, the man may be attempting to twist the Lord’s words about ‘gathering wheat into His barn’ (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>, repeating John’s words of <em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em>). His idea would be ‘You expect the wheat to be waiting for You without even winnowing it’. But of course the point was that winnowing represented judgment, and this was exactly what the Lord had come to do. But in His grace, the Lord doesn’t make that obvious point, but runs with the man’s words and reasoning and shows him that however wrong his imaginations were about the Lord, he should have acted according to them if he truly loved his Lord. But he hadn’t done so; because he was selfish and lazy.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said to him: Out of your own mouth will I judge you, you wicked servant- </em>The Lord’s only other reference to a wicked servant is in the parable of the wicked servant who runs up a huge debt, is forgiven, and then refuses to forgive a far smaller debt, putting the debtor in prison (<em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em>). The two men are clearly intended to be compared. The one of <em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em> was dishonest with his Lord’s money [for how else did he amass such a huge debt to his Lord? Was it not that he was found out for dishonesty?]; he was materialistic in the extreme; and he was incredibly ungrateful and unforgiving. He committed many sins. The “wicked servant” here does nothing wrong, is not overtly materialistic; but his sin of omission, meant that in reality he had done just the same as the man who committed so much wrong.</p><p>The Lord’s parable was clearly alluding to a contemporary Jewish rabbinic parable later recorded in the Zohar Chadash, folio 47: “A certain king gave a deposit to three of his servants: the first kept it; the second lost it; the third spoiled one part of it, and gave the rest to another to keep. After some time, the king came and demanded the deposit. Him who had preserved it, the king praised, and made him governor of his house. Him who had lost it, he delivered to utter destruction, so that both his name and his possessions were blotted out. To the third, who had spoiled a part and given the rest to another to keep, the king said, Keep him, and let him not go out of my house, till we see what the other shall do to whom he has entrusted a part: if he shall make a proper use of it, this man shall be restored to liberty; if not, he also shall be punished”. The point of contrast is that the Lord is far more demanding. The Jewish story praised the man who simply preserved the deposit. The Lord Jesus condemned the same man for doing nothing positive with it. The third man in the Jewish parable was given the possibility of repentance. But the third man in the Lord’s parable was condemned with no possibility of changing the verdict- for this life is our sole time of responsibility. The Lord is purposefully alluding to this parable, and deconstructing it. Passivity, ‘holding on to the faith’ in a passive sense, much glorified by both Judaism and Protestant Christianity, is what may be glorified in human religion; but it’s exactly this attitude which will be the ground of condemnation.</p><p><em>You thought that I am a hard man, demanding back what I did not deposit, and reaping that which I did not sow?</em>- The Lord’s response could actually be translated as meaning: ‘You [really?] saw Me reap where I did not sow…?’. The process of reaping definitely refers to the last judgment, and so the man had no basis upon which to make this claim, because he had never actually ‘seen’ the Lord act like that. But I prefer to understand the Lord as taking the man’s ideas and working with them, without specifically correcting them- and saying that even if the man’s understanding of Him was correct, then He expected him to act appropriately to that understanding. Instead of doing nothing.</p><p>The metaphor of a man travelling into a far country is a sign of His recognition that on one level, that is indeed how it will appear to us. And clearly the idea is based upon the experience of absent landlords, who left their estates in the hands of their servants and went away to enjoy the good life in some better part of the Roman empire. Such landlords were despised as non-patriotic and disinterested in the welfare of their people. And yet the Lord consciously employs this image concerning Himself. He is not ultimately like that, but through this choice of imagery He gives a nod of recognition towards the fact that indeed this is how it will appear to some. Joseph likewise appeared tough and disinterested to his brothers, when beneath that mask his heart was bursting for them; His whole plan of action was simply to lead them to repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest- </em>The Lord may have in view the money exchangers whom He so despised and whose tables He overthrew in <em><a href='B:470 21:12'>Mat 21:12</a></em>. It’s as if the Lord is saying that He was willing to make major concessions to the man- if he had done at least something, even if that ‘something’ was far less than ideal. A Rabbinic teaching claims that bankers should never be trusted and therefore “Money can only be kept safe by placing it in the earth” (<em>b. B. Mes’ia</em>&nbsp;42A, quoted in R:T. France,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel of Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) p. 954). The Lord is consciously deconstructing Rabbinic views. If we had more access to such contemporary texts, we would likely understand many of the more enigmatic and difficult passages of Scripture- probably they are alluding to and deconstructing contemporary writings. </p><p>The Lord will&nbsp;<em>receive&nbsp;or </em>collect back His own. Strong defines this as "to carry off, away from harm" (the same word is used in <em><a href='B:650 11:19'>Heb 11:19</a></em> about&nbsp;Abraham&nbsp;<em>receiving</em>&nbsp;Isaac from the dead). There is the suggestion that the Truth which the Lord has given us is valuable to Him, and He fears our losing it; those who lose the faith lose the personal possession of the Lord Jesus. But at the judgment, when we hand it back to the Lord, He (not to say, we) will have that deep knowledge that now we can't fail Him any more, we no longer have the possibility of causing harm and loss to the treasured wealth which has been entrusted to us:&nbsp;We need to remember, however, that there was no banking system as we have today. Lending money to exchangers was a highly risky business and often resulted in the loss of money; money was safer stored in the earth, as the man did. So the Lord’s point was that he should have taken a risk; indeed, all such trading requires risk taking which may leave us looking foolish. But the Lord may be implying that if he had taken that risk for the right reasons, all ultimately would have worked out well.</p><p>"My own [money]" reminds us of the fact that He is Lord&nbsp;<em>of all</em>. This means He is owner of absolutely everything to do with us (<em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em>). At the judgment, this fact will be brought home. The Lord will ask for “my money::. my own"; we will be asked what we have done with our Lord's money (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>). All we have is God's; it is not our own. Therefore if we hold back in our giving and trading, we are&nbsp;<em>robbing God</em>. Israel thought it was absurd to put it like this: But yes, God insisted through Malachi (<em><a href='B:490 3:8-12'>Luk 3:8-12</a></em>), you are&nbsp;<em>robbing me</em>&nbsp;if you don't give back, or even if you don't give your heart to Him in faith:&nbsp;<em>And will a man rob God?&nbsp;</em>Will a man:::? We must give God what has His image stamped on it: and we, our bodies, are made in His image (<em><a href='B:470 22:21'>Mat 22:21</a></em>); therefore we have a duty to give ourselves to Him. We are not our own: how much less is 'our' money or time our own! Like David, we need to realize now,&nbsp;<em>in this life</em>, before the judgment, that all our giving is only a giving back to God of what we have been given by Him: "Of your own have we given you" (<em><a href='B:130 19:14'>1Ch 19:14</a></em>). The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate owners of what we 'have'.</p><p>Explaining how the man could have entered the Kingdom is surely the basis for the gnashing of teeth. To have it explained like that… is harder than any hell fire of classical imagination. He ought to have given the talent to the exchangers. Either he should’ve given it to the Gentiles, or he should have at least done something, in lending it to his Jewish brethren- even against the Law. Very possession of the minas meant we have to, we must, share it with others in some way- we are all preachers:&nbsp; </p><p>The man being told how he could have entered the Kingdom is after the pattern of rejected Adam and Eve having the way to the tree of life clearly shown to them after their rejection (<em><a href='B:10 3:23-24'>Gen 3:23-24</a></em>). Again, notice how the judgment is for the education of those judged and those who witness it. He will shew them how they should have given their talent, the basic Gospel, to others, and therefore gained some interest. This has to be connected with the well known prohibition on lending money to fellow Israelites for usury; usury could only be received from Gentiles (<em><a href='B:50 23:20'>Deu 23:20</a></em>). Surely the Lord is implying that&nbsp;<em>at the least</em>&nbsp;this person could have shared the Gospel with others, especially (in a Jewish context) the Gentile world. This would have at least&nbsp;brought some usury for the Lord. This would suggest that issues such as apathy in preaching, especially the unwillingness of the Jewish believers to share their hope with the Gentiles, will be raised by the Lord during the judgment process. Of course, the Lord hadn't told the servant (in the story) to lend the money to Gentiles; he was expected to use his initiative. The overall picture of the story is that at least the man should have done&nbsp;<em>something!</em></p><h4>Alternatively, it could be that we are intended to understand that the Lord would even have accepted him if he lent money on usury, something which the Law condemned; if he'd have done&nbsp;<em>something</em>, even if it involved breaking some aspects of God's will::. Instead, his attitude was that he had been given the talent of the Gospel, and he saw his duty as to just keep hold on it. He was angry that the Lord should even suggest he ought to have done anything else! We really must watch for this attitude in ourselves. He justifies himself by saying that he has "kept" the money (<em><a href='B:490 19:20'>Luk 19:20</a></em>), using the word elsewhere used about the need to&nbsp;<em>keep</em>&nbsp;or hold on to the doctrines of the One Faith (<em><a href='B:610 1:19'>1Ti 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 3:9'>1Ti 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:13'>2Ti 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a></em>). He had done this, he had held on, he hadn't left the faith. And he thought this was enough to bring him to the Kingdom. Sadly, many understandings of spirituality has almost glorified this very attitude. Any who show initiative have been seen as mavericks, as likely to go wrong. The emphasis has been on holding on to basic doctrinal teaching, marking your Bible with it, attending weekly meetings about it (even if you snooze through them), regularly attending:::&nbsp; And, son, you won't go far wrong. The Lord, in designing this parable as he did, had exactly this sort of complacency in mind:&nbsp;In view of the man’s beliefs about the Lord, he still should’ve acted accordingly.</h4><p>Both sheep and goats register their surprise at their Lord's comments on various specific actions of theirs which he discusses with them- "When did we see you:::?" (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). The thought that at least some of our deeds will be discussed with us at the judgment should surely make some impact on our present behaviour. <em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em> implies not only that there will be a discussion with our judge, but that Jesus will point out to the rejected what they should have done to be accepted. </p>&nbsp;<p>The parables of the Kingdom speak of the eternal consequences of the judgment. The Lord will require His own at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 19:23'>Luk 19:23</a></em>). This doesn't mean, as the one talent man thought, that He will require us to give back to Him the basic doctrines of the Gospel which we were given at conversion. The Greek means to exact regularly, in an ongoing sense (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 3:13'>Luk 3:13</a></em>); Strong defines it as meaning "to perform repeatedly::. not a single act". When the Lord examines our lives at the judgment, He will expect to keep on receiving the result of what we have achieved for Him in this life. This is the ultimate encouragement for us in our preaching and encouraging of others, as well as ourselves; what we achieve now will yield eternal, continual fruit to the Lord. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to those that stood by: Take away from him the mina and give it to him that has the ten minas</em>- "Them that stood by" must surely be a conscious reference by the Lord to Zechariah's prophecy of the Angels as "these that stand by" Christ (<em><a href='B:450 3:4'>Zec 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 3:7'>Zec 3:7</a></em>); note that he too speaks in a judgment/reward context. If our Lord is referring to the Angels, then we have a fascinating picture of them taking away the opportunities given to the unworthy and granting them to the accepted. Their query of the amount of reward being given fits in with what we know about their limited knowledge, and the fact that our reward will be far greater than their present status (Hebrews 1, 2). Hence their reverent questioning of the extent of reward being given (:25) suggests that "them that stood by" somehow questioned the Lord's judgment; their sense of equality was not that of their Lord. They felt that the gloriously strong brother with his wonderful reward didn't need it to be made even more wonderful. "Them that stood by" could refer to the Angels, or to the way in which the judgment will in some sense take place in the presence of all the believers. The fact is, even with God's nature, it will be difficult to appreciate the principles of judgment which the Lord uses; and so how much more difficult is it today! </p><p>The man 'having' ten talents as his own is in sharp contrast with the way the one talent man speaks of how the talent is not his but the Lord’s: “Here You have what is Yours”. The Lord is making the point that the faithful will now personally own the talents they were first given, plus they will be allowed to keep for their personal, eternal possession what talents they made during the trading of this life. The progress achieved in this life will be kept eternally. The Lord’s teaching here must be given its due weight.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to him: Lord, he has ten minas!</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>. The "they" could be the disciples; or the Angels at judgment; or the faithful at judgment day who still do not fully understand all things. If it was the disciples who interrupted the parable, clearly not understanding it, we must compare this against how the Lord said that His parables were only not understood by the unbelieving Jewish world. So we see His grace towards them, and their slowness to understand. If the "they" refers to saved believers at the last day, then we reflect that some will be in the Kingdom who have big questions about the justice of God (<em><a href='B:470 20:12-13'>Mat 20:12-13</a></em> "friend"); the elder son is apparently accepted in the Father's fellowship, although his attitude to his weak brother is so wrong (<em><a href='B:490 15:31'>Luk 15:31</a></em>); the wise virgins, apparently selfishly, won't give any oil to the others; some will sit in the Kingdom in "shame" because they thought they were greater than other brethren (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em> - cp. the elder brother?); some remonstrate that a highly rewarded brother already has ten pounds, and surely doesn't need any more exaltation (<em><a href='B:490 19:25'>Luk 19:25</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>I say to you, that to everyone that has, shall be given- </em>This repeats the Lord’s earlier teaching in <em><a href='B:470 13:10-12'>Mat 13:10-12</a></em> about the giving of understanding to those who have some: “And the disciples came and said to him: Why do you speak to them in parables? And he answered and said to them: To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given:&nbsp; For whoever has, to him shall be given and he shall have abundance, but whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even what he has”. Clearly there is an upward spiral in spiritual life, and this will come to ultimate term in the outcomes of judgment day.</p><p><em>But from him that has not, even that which he has shall be taken away from him</em>- This is a paradox. Does the rejected man have minas, or not? He did, of course, have a mina; but as far as the Lord is concerned, we only have what we have developed. If we don't develop, we have nothing; the fact we received the talent at baptism won't save us. It’s only what a man has developed from that in the service of others which counts as truly “his”. This likewise is the sense of “To him that has shall be given”; all we have is what we have developed.</p><p><em>"</em>Taken away" is perhaps a special reference to the Kingdom of God being “taken away” [s:w:] from Israel and given to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:470 21:43'>Mat 21:43</a></em>). The same Greek word is used about the taking away of the rejected individuals at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>). But here, it is the unused mina that is “taken away”. The man was therefore to be identified with the mina- it was to be him. And yet he is most careful to speak of the mina as not his, but the Lord’s: “Here you have what is yours”. The Lord intended that we identify with the mina, rather than see it merely as his.</p><p>At judgment day, the rejected who have nothing will find that even what they have is taken from them. This surely means that the spirituality they appeared to have, what they thought they had, actually they never had, and even the appearance of it will be taken away from them. We can appear to have spirituality, when in fact we have nothing, nothing at all. The man who built his house on the sand had the sensation of spiritual progress; he was building, he was getting somewhere, apparently. Likewise Israel were an empty [fruitless] vine, but they brought forth fruit- to themselves. In reality they had no fruit; but they went through the fruit-bearing process (<em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:300 5:13'>Jer 5:13</a></em>, God mocks the false prophets as being "full of wind", or 'ruach'- with which His true prophets were filled. This play on words reveals that spirituality is either the real thing, or a being filled with wind in such a way that apes the true spirituality. </p>


text:
<p><em>But bring here my enemies, and slay them before me, those who did not want me to reign over them</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>. We do well to try to imagine the tone of voice in which the Lord spoke these words. For in :41,42 He weeps over Jerusalem at the thought of her coming judgment. They did not wish to be under His Kingship; and so they will not be in His Kingdom. They made the choice.</p><p>It is fairly certain that time will be compressed at the judgment seat; there will therefore be no problem in such an individual discussion between each of the responsible and Christ. Several Bible passages suggest a going through of <em>works; </em>and yet we know that the basis of acceptability with God is not works but rather faith. The judgment of our works seems not to be related to as it were weighing up our salvation chances. For salvation is a gift, unrelated to works. That's what grace is about. But our use of our talents will be related to who and how we will eternally be. </p><p>A case could be made that the word "but" suggests that the one talent man is saved and doesn't share in the condemnation of the wicked which will happen at the final judgment. The 'going through' of works is therefore for our benefit, to teach us- not as a basis upon which the Lord decides worthiness. Salvation itself is not on the basis of our works (<em><a href='B:520 11:6'>Rom 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>); indeed, the <em>free gift </em>of salvation by pure grace is contrasted with the <em>wages</em> paid by sin (<em><a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem</em>- It was as if the Lord was determined Himself to trade His wealth, regardless of whether others did. And for Him, this required death in Jerusalem. We note His feature of walking ahead of them; we are left with the image of them following, setting us a pattern.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, when he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount that is called Olivet- </em>'The house of figs'. There is likely a connection to the incident when the Lord curses the fig tree (:19). Perhaps we are to assume that He hoped for figs in Bethphage too, and was likewise disappointed. Bethphage has even been given the meaning 'House of unripe figs', which would confirm this impression (See Marcus Jastrow,&nbsp;<em>Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature</em>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Horeb, 1903, reprint) p. 1132).</p><p><em>He sent two of the disciples</em>- The question arises as to why He didn't simply take the two animals Himself. The practical answer would be that if He had gone further into Jerusalem to get them, then he would as it were have entered Jerusalem but not in the way He intended to, which was to consciously fulfil the prophecy about the humble King entering Jerusalem on a donkey. But that explanation throws the question one stage further back. Why was it specifically a donkey from that village and person which was required? Could He not have found one in Bethphage? The effort required to send two disciples ahead of Him to get the animals and then bring them back to Bethphage seems considerable, when donkeys were common enough. The answer is not clear, but it could be that there was an anonymous person who specifically wanted to give those animals to the Lord in order to fulfil that prophecy. The Lord knew this and had obviously discussed it with the owner previously, because the owner would recognize Him as "the Lord" (:31), and would provide them once he perceived the Lord wanted them. In this little incident we see therefore the extent the Lord will go to, now as well as then, in order to take up the initiative of those who love Him. If we take that initiative in service, the Lord will surely use it, and make every effort to do so.</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying: Go into the village in front of you, where on entering you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat. Untie it and bring it here</em>- </p><p>The Greek words translated "tied" and "untie" occur together several times, usually rendered 'bind' and 'loose'. Earlier, the idea of binding and loosing has been used about the way that the decisions and actions of believers can have eternal consequence upon others, and our bind and loosing is to some extent reflected in and confirmed by Heaven (<em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:18'>Mat 18:18</a></em>). This conception of binding and loosing was surely intended by the Lord. Verse 4 makes clear that all this was done in order to fulfil the prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> that Messiah would come to Zion riding on a donkey and her foal. But that prophecy had to be consciously fulfilled. Whether or not the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled was therefore left to the initiative of the Lord and His followers. And it's the same in our last days- if, e:g:, we choose to fulfil the prophecy that the Gospel must go into all the world before the end comes, then in that sense the actual time of Christ's coming is left in our hands. There are other Messianic associations with a donkey- Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed on a donkey (<em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:5'>Gen 22:5</a></em>); Solomon rode to his coronation on David's donkey (<em><a href='B:110 1:33-44'>1Ki 1:33-44</a></em>).</p><p>The question arises as to why both a donkey and foal were required. He surely didn't straddle both at the same time. He rode on the donkey whilst the colt followed. Perhaps this has reference to the way that the Lord's final entry into His Kingdom would be on the backs of both Jews and Gentiles; the immature foal with no rider would therefore look forward to the Gentiles. Another possibility is that "A donkey,&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;on a colt, the foal of a&nbsp;donkey" is a Semitic parallelism effectively meaning 'A donkey, actually, a foal of a donkey'. If that's the case, then the Lord rode the foal of a donkey, not yet broken in. It would've been hard to ride, probably trying to throw Him; His journey into the city would've been almost comical, because He would nearly have been thrown and would've hardly made a sedate, solemn procession. The parallel records stress that no man had ever sat upon it (<em><a href='B:480 11:2'>Mar 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:30'>Luk 19:30</a></em>). This would've spoken clearly of the difficulty of the Lord's entry to His Kingdom whilst riding on Israel. However, <em><a href='B:470 21:2'>Mat 21:2</a></em> speaks in the plural, of loosing the animals and bringing&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to the Lord. It may simply be that a donkey nursing her foal, distracted by this, was the most unmilitary, non-glorious form upon which the Lord could've entered Jerusalem. Perhaps it was a parody of how triumphal entries require a King to be on a charger pulling a chariot. The Lord had a donkey instead of a charger, and instead of a chariot being pulled by the charger, the foal was in tow behind the donkey:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 11:4'>Mar 11:4</a></em> says that the donkey was tied at a gate, at "a place where two ways met<em>":&nbsp;</em>This translates the word&nbsp;<em>amphedon&nbsp;</em>which in the LXX (e:g. <em><a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a></em>) is used for a palace. Herod had a palace on the Mount of Olives and maybe this is what is being referenced. It could be that the donkey and foal were provided by Herod's servants, because Joanna was a disciple of Jesus who provided for Jesus from her "substance"- and she was the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (<em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>). In this case, the Lord was further parodying a King's triumphant entry by riding upon Herod's donkey.</p>


text:
<p><em>And if anyone asks you: Why do you untie him? You are to say: The Lord has need of him</em>- God in a sense is in need of man, just as Jesus was, or allowed Himself to be:&nbsp;See on :30.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they that were sent went away and found as he had said to them</em>- This is to note their obedience to an otherwise very strange command. They surely secretly hoped that He would achieve a dramatic Messianic salvation. And He was teaching them that that salvation was not now, and He was deconstructing the whole idea of a triumphal entry, as noted on :30. It is to their credit that they humbled themselves beneath this idea.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as they were untying the colt, the owners of it said to them: Why do you untie the colt?</em>- This was all clearly part of a prearranged plan, as noted on :30. But there was a purpose in it. The Lord wanted them to ask the question as to why ever He was making a triumphal entry on a colt and not a charger. Perhaps the stress was on the word "colt", when perhaps a finer horse stood there. He wanted them to realize that He was deconstructing a triumphal entry. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they said: The Lord has need of him</em>- The usage of the term "the Lord" suggests that the owners were also believers. I suggested on :30 that they were believing members of Herod's household. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they brought it to Jesus, and they threw their garments upon the colt and sat Jesus on it</em>- Using their garments as saddles. The fact both animals were saddled (Matthew) was to make the point that one rider was missing. For according to the other Gospels, the Lord sat upon the colt. The mother donkey was saddled, but without a rider. This added to the strangeness of the spectacle. The missing rider was perhaps a reference to how Israel had not as a whole responded in bringing Messiah to Zion. Maybe it referred to the Gentiles who had yet to be converted. Or perhaps to the fact that Israel had rejected John the Baptist and he had been killed- and therefore there was no Elijah prophet bringing Messiah into Zion. Elijah was the great horseman of the Divine chariot (<em><a href='B:120 2:12'>2Ki 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 13:14'>2Ki 13:14</a></em>; he is called the “horsemen” plural, but this is an intensive plural for ‘the one great horseman’). Elijah was the chariot horseman, the one who was to ride on the horse which pulled the chariot in which there was Messiah [this was a Rabbinic understanding of the Elijah prophet]. But he was strangely absent in this acted parable. The saddle was there for him, provided by the few disciples who had responded to John / Elijah; but he wasn’t there. This absence of the Elijah prophet was surely indicative of the fact that John had not been the Elijah prophet for most of Israel- they hadn’t responded properly to his message. Therefore the true triumphant entry of Messiah was yet future. This is why the phrase “bringing salvation” is excluded from the quotation of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. It was not so much a ‘triumphant entry’, but a&nbsp;<em>parody</em>&nbsp;of a triumphant entry.</p><p>When they put their clothes on the colt and started mistakenly proclaiming Jesus as the triumphal Messiah entering Jerusalem to begin His political Kingdom, the Lord doesn’t rebuke their misunderstanding. Instead, He defends them to the critical Pharisees (<em><a href='B:490 19:35-37'>Luk 19:35-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:40'>Luk 19:40</a></em>):&nbsp;He imputed righteousness to them, as He does to us today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he went, they spread their garments on the road</em>- Matthew says that "the crowd" did this. The crowds who accepted Him in the wrong way very soon rejected Him; so in a sense, they cut themselves off. And they did this because they misunderstood Him, expecting Him to give immediate deliverance.</p><p><em><a href='B:500 12:13'>Joh 12:13</a></em> says they waved palm branches. But palms and the shout of "Hosanna" (Mt:) are associated with the feast of Tabernacles. And this was Passover, not Tabernacles. All the way through this brilliant visual stunt by the Lord, there was the message that He was not as they had imagined, He had come to die as the Passover Lamb, not to immediately give them the Tabernacles celebration which they wanted to see there and then.</p><h4>The behaviour in this verse was exactly that associated with the triumphant entry of a victorious king. The much laboured account of the Lord’s obtaining a donkey and her foal and thus riding into the city was really a studied parody of that whole conception of Messianic victory. For Him, the victory would be to hang lifeless upon a cross. True greatness was in humility. And instead of beaming with pride, <em><a href='B:490 19:41'>Luk 19:41</a></em> adds the detail that He wept over the city, knowing how they had rejected Him. According to Harry Whittaker,&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels, "</em>The rabbis had a saying: "If Israel be worthy, Messiah comes with the clouds of heaven (<em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em>); if unworthy, riding upon an ass" (<em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>)". So the entire triumphant entry was indeed a parody which sooner or later the Jews came to grasp. Hence their anger- for the whole incident declared them unworthy.</h4><p>Whilst what the Lord arranged was indeed a parody of a triumphant entry, designed to highlight the importance of humility and sacrifice, He was surely conscious that He was acting out, however dimly, the prophesied future and ultimate triumphal entry of Messiah into Jerusalem and the temple, coming from the Mount of Olives (<em><a href='B:450 14:4'>Zec 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:11'>Isa 62:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he was now drawing near, at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen, saying</em>- <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em> specifically states that they misunderstood at this point. They were so ecstatic because they really believed that He was going to establish the Kingdom there and then. His previous parable about going away to receive the Kingdom had fallen upon deaf ears. The gospel records are transcripts of how the disciples preached the Gospel; and continually they emphasize their own weakness and slowness to understand, thereby reaching out to their hearers, urging them as it were to do better than they had done.</p>


text:
<p><em>Blessed is the King that comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!</em>- As noted on :37, they thought that finally the Kingdom was being established. They failed to perceive that the Lord was mocking and deconstructing the whole idea of a triumphal entry, instead glorying in humility and the need to die on a cross in order to establish His Kingdom. </p><p>The Lord didn’t turn round and correct them for their misapplication of Scripture. Neither did He reject them or call fire down from Heaven upon them because of their misunderstanding. He said nothing, and let the crowd live on in their misunderstanding and see His death – in order to teach them something about what was needed in order to enable the Kingdom. And the same ‘long term’ approach of the Lord is found in His dealing with the demons issue. The elder son in the parable falsely claims to God that he has never broken one of His commands; but although this is evidently untrue, the father (representing God) does not correct him in so many words (<em><a href='B:490 15:29-31'>Luk 15:29-31</a></em>). </p><p>God has inspired His word in order to interpret certain facts to us. This is further proof that we are not intended to insist on a strictly literal meaning to everything we read (for example, that the sun literally rises). Thus Matthew records that the people cried ‘Hosanna’ at Christ’s entry into Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:470 21:9'>Mat 21:9</a></em>). Seeing that first century Israel spoke Aramaic, this is doubtless what did actually come out of their lips. But Luke says that the same group of people shouted “Glory” (<em><a href='B:490 19:38'>Luk 19:38</a></em>). Luke’s Gospel seems to be designed for the Greek speaking world, and so he uses the Greek equivalent of ‘Hosanna’, even though they did not actually say that word. The way the New Testament quotes the Old with slight changes without pointing this out is another example of how God’s word mixes interpretation with direct transmission of facts (e:g. <em><a href='B:230 32:1-2'>Psa 32:1-2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 4:6-7'>Rom 4:6-7</a></em>). This fact is not irrelevant to the issue of demons. We have seen that the accounts of demons being cast out are framed in such a way as to show the supremacy of God’s power over the vain traditions of the first century world.</p>


text:
<p><em>And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him: Teacher, rebuke your disciples</em>- Even though the disciples were so deeply mistaken and inappropriate, as explained above, the Lord always takes their side when they are under criticism. The same defensive, justifying Lord is ours too, and looks at our weaknesses and refusals to understand in the same way.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he answered and said: I tell you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out</em></p><p>- See on :39. Often Scripture alludes to or quotes other Scripture which may seem out of context, if we insist on seeing everything from our viewpoint of time. Thus <em><a href='B:490 19:40'>Luk 19:40</a></em> quotes <em><a href='B:420 2:11'>Hab 2:11</a></em> concerning the stones of apostate Israel crying out, and apparently applies it to the misguided acclamation of faithful men. Matthew particularly seems to quote Scripture which is relevant to the Lord's second coming as applying to His first coming. Indeed, the way the NT quotes the OT apparently out of context is a sizeable problem. There are times when we may quote or allude to the words of a Bible passage quite out of context, just because the words seem appropriate. And it seems the NT sometimes does just the same. Search and try as we may, the context seems just inappropriate. This may be explicable by understanding God to have the ability to take words from one time-context and insert them into another, in a way which to us is not contextual. <em>We </em>have no authority to do this; but He can. <em>He </em>can speak as if "the resurrection is past already"; but for us to do so is to deny the Faith. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it</em>- His previous parable about slaying those who refused Him was therefore said with deep sadness in His voice. <em><a href='B:670 2:12'>1Pe 2:12</a></em> defines the "day of visitation" as that of the Lord's return to earth to establish His Kingdom. But a similar idea is to be found in <em><a href='B:490 19:41-44'>Luk 19:41-44</a></em>, where the Lord 'sees' or visits / views the city on 'this day'. See on <em><a href='B:490 21:20-24'>Luk 21:20-24</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying: If you had known in this day, even you, the things which belong to your peace! But now they are hid from your eyes- </em>On :44 I will observe that the Lord has the potentials in view. The whole planned program of His death and the AD70 judgments could have been averted. The time of Zion's peace could have come there and then if they accepted Him on His true terms.</p><p>The pain that arises from knowing what might have been is so poignantly brought out by the grief of Martha and Mary over their brother's death- they knew that if Jesus had have been there, Lazarus wouldn't have died (<em><a href='B:500 11:21'>Joh 11:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:32'>Joh 11:32</a></em>). Jesus as God's Son had something of this ability to see what might have been- hence He could state with absolute confidence that if Gentile Tyre and Sidon had witnessed His miracles, they would've repented in sackcloth and ashes (<em><a href='B:490 10:13'>Luk 10:13</a></em>). He lamented with pain over the fact that things would have been so much better for Jerusalem if she had only known / apprehended the things which would bring her ultimate peace (<em><a href='B:490 19:42'>Luk 19:42</a></em>). The Lord Jesus was deeply pained at what might have been, if the things of God's Kingdom had not remained wilfully hidden from Israel's perception. His pain was because of realizing what might have been. In this He was directly reflecting the mind of His Father, who had previously lamented over Jerusalem: "O that you had hearkened to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river" (<em><a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies shall set up a barricade around you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side</em>- These were the days that would come, when instead if they had accepted the Lord, there would have been days of peace, the Messianic Kingdom, when Israel would not be fenced in by Gentiles but would instead remove the barriers and go forth to the Gentiles with peace "on every side". </p>


text:
<p><em>And shall dash you to the ground, and your children within you; and they shall not leave in you one stone upon another- </em>The judgment of the leprous house was to be thrown down, stone by stone (<em><a href='B:30 14:41'>Lev 14:41</a></em>). At the time of the final assault on Jerusalem in AD69, Titus commanded that the temple was to be spared. But the Lord's words came true, just as all prophetic words will, despite every human effort to deny their power. Josephus claims that the gold of the temple melted and therefore each stone was prized apart to remove the gold.</p><p>There was a strong belief in Judaism that the temple would last eternally. Hence the disciples’ question about “the end of the age” was because for them, any talk about the end of the temple meant the end of the world. This prophecy of the destruction of the temple implied an ending of the Mosaic law:&nbsp; </p><p><em>All this will happen because you did not perceive the time of your visitation</em>- Because Jerusalem knew not "the time of your visitation", she didn't perceive the things of "her peace" "in this day" (:42), <em>therefore</em> days of destruction would come upon her in AD70. The implication surely is that had Jerusalem accepted Jesus as Messiah, the events of AD70 need never have happened, and His first coming could have been the day of "visitation" to establish God's Kingdom. Of course God's program functioned differently because this never happened; but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was truly possible.</p><p>All major events in God's purpose have occurred within the approximate period when true students of the word expected them to - the Flood, the desolation of Jerusalem and its rebuilding, the Lord's first coming, the events of A:D. 70 etc. are all good examples:&nbsp;&nbsp; How much more then with the time of the second coming and the consummation of God's purpose?&nbsp;"The Lord God will do nothing, but he reveals his secret unto his::. prophets" (<em><a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a></em>), and the purpose of their writing was so that we might understand. The Lord rebuked the Jews because they couldn't discern the signs that Messiah's first advent was with them (<em><a href='B:470 16:3'>Mat 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:44'>Luk 19:44</a></em>); and his first advent was a type of his second. The coming of judgment through the Babylonians was another type of the last days; and Israel were criticized for not perceiving the approach of that day, whereas "the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed time; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming" (<em><a href='B:300 8:7'>Jer 8:7</a></em>). This means that as the natural creation have an inherent knowledge of the seasons, so God's people should have a sense of the time of the Lord's coming. The Lord said the same when he spoke of how our internal awareness of the approach of Summer should correspond to our certain knowledge of the Kingdom's approach.</p><p>The grace of Jesus and His Father, so great, <em>so</em> free, was a challenge for even the Lord to express in any verbal medium. The way He spoke was grace itself. He wept over the men of Jerusalem, sorrowing that their destruction must come because "you knew not the time of your visitation". He could have quite well said: "because you have rejected me::.". But His grace was greater than to say that. The utter inappropriacy of our salvation is brought out time and again in His teaching. The oil lamp with the bruised reed and smoking flax which annoyingly filled the house with smoke was nurtured and tolerated in hope by this Lord of ours. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he entered into the temple- </em>This again was a conscious parody of Judaism’s Messianic hopes. Their idea was that Messiah would enter Jerusalem in triumph against their Gentile enemies, and enter the temple. This was based upon their reading of <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>: “The Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple”. But the context of Malachi 3 required a positive response by Israel to the herald of Messiah, i:e. John the Baptist. And this had not been forthcoming. And the next verse goes on to suggest that this coming of Messiah will not be of much blessing to Israel- “But who may abide the day of His coming [i:e:, “to His temple”]? And who shall stand when He appears?” (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>).</p><p>Mark’s record appears to state that the Lord first entered the temple, looked around and walked out (<em><a href='B:480 11:11'>Mar 11:11</a></em>) and the next day returned to cleanse the temple of traders. It could be that He cleansed the temple twice. Or it could be that this silent looking around and walking away, returning to Bethany, ‘the house of the poor’, was another intentional creation of an anti-climax. The Jews expected Him to do something dramatic- and He simply looked around in sadness and left for ‘the house of the poor’- to return and cast out the traders and thus make the performance of sacrifice impossible there.</p><p><em>And began to throw out those that were selling there</em>- A verb elsewhere used by the Lord about condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). Instead of bringing salvation to Israel's temple, He entered it and condemned the orthodox, casting them out of God's house and forbidding them to enter it to carry things through it (Mk:, Lk:). Instead of them, the Lord in their place welcomed children and the handicapped into God's house. Sacred space was a major concept in Judaism; the Lord's expulsion of the Orthodox from it and replacing them with those considered unworthy of entry was a highly significant thing to do.</p><p>The Lord had not long earlier described Sodom as the place where the wrong kind of buying and selling went on, and He had likened His generation to Sodom (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>). This, again, was hardly what the crowds expected to hear- a likening of their most sacred place to Sodom, and a prophecy of its destruction at the hands of the Gentiles. The Lord was thereby proclaiming the court of the Gentiles, where such trading was allowed to be conducted, as being as holy as the rest of the temple building. Note that in Matthew the Lord also expelled those who were&nbsp;<em>buying</em>&nbsp;the animals for sacrifice- ordinary Jews wanting to offer sacrifice. Sacrifices were therefore unavailable, because the Lord stopped the sale of them. This surely hinted at an ending of the Mosaic law in view of the Lord's upcoming sacrifice. This was all so much what the Jewish masses did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;want to hear. There needed to be no more sale of animals for sacrifice; for the Lord was paying the price, and was the final sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying to them- </em>The Lord several times quoted an Old Testament passage which if quoted further would have made a telling point. Thus here He quoted <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>: “My house shall be called a house of prayer”, leaving His hearers to continue: “:::for&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;people”. He recited <em><a href='B:230 8:2'>Psa 8:2</a></em>: “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise”, leaving them to complete: “:::that you might still [through their witness] the enemy and the avenger”. For the Bible minded, these things ought to have taught them. There is reason to think, in the subsequent response of a Jewish minority after Pentecost, that at least some did make these connections. They made use of the spiritual potential they had been given.</p><p><em>It is written</em>- The Lord quotes from <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>, but the surrounding context of the quotation is relevant to the Jewish leadership who were present and deeply critical of the Lord's actions. <em><a href='B:290 56:10-11'>Isa 56:10-11</a></em> condemns Israel's elders as "blind watchmen::. dumb dogs::. greedy dogs which can never have enough, shepherds that cannot understand, every one looking for gain". "Dogs" was understood as a reference to the Gentiles- and the Lord is saying that they are effectively Gentiles. Significantly, <em><a href='B:290 56:6'>Isa 56:6</a></em> has spoken of "the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord::. taking hold of His covenant". This is often how God works- for those who are sensitive to His word, the quotations given speak far more deeply. The potential for greater understanding is thereby given to those familiar with His word. This is one reason why I encourage perseverance in reading the Bible even if at the point of reading we feel we are not understanding much and simply building up a familiarity with the text. That familiarity can be a basis for later revelation to us.</p><p><em>My house</em>- Just as the "feasts&nbsp;<em>of the Lord</em>" are described as "feasts&nbsp;<em>of the Jews</em>",&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;house becomes "<em>your</em>&nbsp;house" (<em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>). They had hijacked God's religion for their own ends, just as so many do today.</p><p><em>Shall be a house of prayer</em>- Luke uses the present tense, implying "<em>is</em>&nbsp;called". The Lord surely said both, His point being that prophecies of the future Kingdom are to be lived out by us in essence today:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But you have made it a den of thieves</em>- The Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a></em> that there will no longer be a trafficker in the Lord's house was fulfilled by the Lord's casting out the traders from the temple. Many of the Kingdom prophecies of healing were it seems consciously fulfilled in the Lord’s healings: <em><a href='B:290 35:6'>Isa 35:6</a></em> LXX the stammerer healed = <em><a href='B:480 7:32-35'>Mar 7:32-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 2:3-12'>Mar 2:3-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:1-6'>Mar 3:1-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:8'>Isa 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 11:1'>Mar 11:1</a></em> Bartimaeus following on the Jerusalem road. This doesn’t mean that these passages will not have a glorious future fulfilment. But in the person of Jesus and in the record of His life we see the “Kingdom come nigh”, as He Himself said it did. We can so focus on the future fulfilment that we can forget that He was the Kingdom in the midst of men; the essence of our eternal future, of the coming political Kingdom of God, was and is to seen in Him. Satan fell from Heaven during His ministry ((<em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em>), as it will at the second coming (Revelation 12).</p><p>This invites us to see the thieves who robbed the man in the Samaritan parable as the Jewish leadership, whose priests and Levites refused to help people after the damage they themselves had caused (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>). The thieves "stripped him of His clothing" just as they later did to the Lord Jesus. The Lord uses the same figure of thieves for the Jewish leadership in <em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:8'>Joh 10:8</a></em>. The Lord quotes here from <em><a href='B:300 7:11'>Jer 7:11</a></em>, which speaks of the temple being profaned by adultery and Baal worship, resulting in the Babylonian invasion. He is saying that Israel's hypocritical piety in His day was none less than Baal worship, and therefore the Gentiles would come and destroy that place.</p>


