# comment

text:
<p>13:48&nbsp;<em>When it was full</em>- Again we see the teaching that the drawing of the net to shore, the beginning of judgment, the return of Christ- is only once we have achieved certain objectives in preaching. Every&nbsp;<em>genos</em>, every nation or kindred, must have its representatives in the net. It must be “full” in the sense that there is a specific number of persons who must be saved. Paul specifically states this and uses the same word translated “full” in <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>: “Until the fullness [full number] of the Gentiles be come in”. “Until the times (s:w. “opportunity”] of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>) probably has the same reference- for the same word is used for “fulfilled” as for “full”. The opportunity of the Gentiles to be saved will come to fullness. And then shall the end come:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Men drew it to shore</em>- It cannot be incident that the only other usage of the word for “shore” in the synoptics is earlier in this chapter, in 13:1. The crowds stood on the shore, whilst the Lord taught them. In one sense, judgment is yet to come; in another, as we hear His word, we are judged. They on the shore were as it were at judgment day. See on :47&nbsp;<em>gathered</em>:&nbsp;<br/><em>Sat down</em>- Perhaps alluding to how a judgment session ‘sits’. But it cannot be accidental that the same word is used of how the Lord was “sitting” as He taught the people (the word is used twice- <em><a href='B:470 13:1-2'>Mat 13:1-2</a></em>). As the people were on the shore, it was as if they were before Him in judgment; He sat there as if He were sitting in judgment before them. See on :47&nbsp;<em>gathered</em>.</p><p><em>And sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad-</em>&nbsp;An allusion to Jewish ideas that the Gentiles were those ‘cast away’ and that they were the ‘good ones’. But the whole idea of the faithful coming out of the sea, with all its associations with the Gentile world, suggests that the Lord foresaw how many of the good fish would in fact be Gentiles and not Jews. The image of ‘casting away’ surely shows the Lord’s attitude to the rejected. There is no pleasure in their destruction, but rather simply getting rid of them and focusing upon the “good” category. In a Jewish context, hearers would assume that the fish who were cast away were the ritually unclean fish of <em><a href='B:30 11:10-12'>Lev 11:10-12</a></em> which could not be eaten. The Jewish leaders who made others stumble are thus declared unclean, and fit only to at best be cast back into the sea, the Gentile world.</p>


text:
<p>13:49&nbsp;<em>So shall it be in the end of the world. The angels shall come forth and separate the wicked from among the righteous-</em>&nbsp;This work is actually done by the Angels, but the Lord uses the same word for "sever" in <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em> for how He personally will separate the sheep from the goats. We can fairly assume that His personal judgment of us will to some extent be delegated to the Angels. If indeed we each have guardian Angels in this life, then their involvement in our judgment would be appropriate. The word is only elsewhere used in the Gospels for how the orthodox Jews would sever the true Christians from their fellowship (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>), and the word is likewise used in the sense of religious fellowship in <em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em>, where Peter "separated himself" from table fellowship with Gentile Christians when the Jewish brethren were present. And this was how the word was used within the Judaism of the time- what we might call 'to disfellowship' in a religious sense. The sum picture of these usages is surely that we are&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to operate any fellowship policy which pretends to sever the clean from the unclean- because this is not for us to do, and whenever it was practiced (by the Jews and by Peter)- they got it wrong. The faithful were the ones wrongly separated from.</p>


text:
<p>13:50&nbsp;<em>And shall cast them into the fiery furnace. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:51&nbsp;<em>Have you understood all these things?-</em>&nbsp;The word is used repeatedly in the context concerning how the Jewish world do not understand, because they do not want to understand, whilst the Lord considers that the disciples have ears to hear and have indeed understood (<em><a href='B:470 13:13-15'>Mat 13:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>). But the Lord wanted to be sure; He wanted to get the disciples to consider the question:&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;thought they understood, but He wanted&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to know that they understand; He wanted them to share His view of them. Just as in Romans 6, Paul wants his readers to "consider" themselves as "in Christ" just as God sees them.</p><p><em>They said to him: Yes-&nbsp;</em>AV "Yes, Lord<em>":&nbsp;</em>A little phrase we find a significant seven times on the lips of those who encountered Jesus and to whom He asked questions regarding their belief in and commitment to Him (<em><a href='B:470 9:28'>Mat 9:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:27'>Mat 15:27</a></em> Gk:; <em><a href='B:480 7:28'>Mar 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:27'>Joh 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:15-16'>Joh 21:15-16</a></em>). I wonder whether it was the early equivalent of the later questioning of a baptismal candidate as to whether they believe, to which they effectively answer "Yes, Lord". In this case, the question to the candidate is ultimately asked by the Lord Himself, albeit through the medium of the baptizer: 'Do you understand and believe in Me?':&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:52- see on 9:9:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And he said to them: Therefore every scribe-</em>&nbsp;All of the other occurrences of the word in the Gospels refer to the Jewish scribes who spiritually lorded it over the masses of secular Jewish people. The Lord is inviting the disciples, who were largely secular men and women, to believe that if they did indeed 'understand' the things which the scribes did not- then&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were the new scribes, the new religious leaders and interpreters of the Law, in the new Israel which the Lord was creating based around Him rather than Moses. The force of "<em>every</em>&nbsp;scribe" would be to assure the disciples that every single one of them was included in this new vision of leadership.</p><p><em>Who has been made a disciple of the kingdom of heaven-</em>&nbsp;The Greek&nbsp;<em>matheteuo</em>&nbsp;specifically means 'to disciple', and thereby the Lord is making clear the connection He sees between being a scribe (a teacher) and being a disciple (learner). Perhaps 'Matthew' saw the play on his own name. We cannot simply learn of Him; the nature of the understanding we receive is such that we must share it with others by teaching. The Lord uses the same word in telling the disciples to go out and make disciples (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). We are to seek to make men learners, not give them a set of theological truth which they are to grip on to in an unthinking manner. We are to lead them to the feet of Jesus and to a position wherein they accept&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;as their teacher. Distributing New Testaments and persuading people to accept the message seems to me a classic way in which we can do this in our generation. And we wonder whether Matthew,&nbsp;<em>Matthaios</em>, specifically records this saying of the Lord which none of the other Gospel writers do exactly because he perceived the connection between his own name and the concept of discipleship. For the words are related. Remember that his Jewish name was Levi (<em><a href='B:480 2:14'>Mar 2:14</a></em>), but Matthew seems to call himself 'Matthew', as if after his conversion, his very name and public image before men was now to be that of 'disciple'. Discipleship was a major concept for him:&nbsp;</p><p>Instruction in the things of the Kingdom in the context of Matthew 13 surely means to be instructed through correctly understanding the parables of the Kingdom which the chapter is full of. Because the disciples understood them, they were thereby instructed in the things of the Kingdom. We note that the things of the Kingdom which were explained by the parables were not simply details of the future Kingdom of God to be established on earth. They taught about the Lord Jesus and His ways amongst men- right now. It's quite possible that "the things of the Kingdom" and "the [things of the] name of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>) are not two separate groups of theological teachings but rather are the two phrases put in parallel as referring to the same things. For the Lord Jesus was and is the essence of His Kingdom and the living exemplification of God's dominion / king-dom over men.</p><p><em>Is like a man who is a householder-</em>&nbsp;The "householder", the head of the household, is a term used repeatedly by the Lord with reference to Himself personally; He considered the disciples to be the members of the new household over which He was head. Only a few verses earlier He has likened Himself to such a "householder", using the same word (<em><a href='B:470 13:27'>Mat 13:27</a></em>; also in <em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:21'>Luk 14:21</a></em>). Without any doubt, the Lord used this term about Himself. So He is saying that if they understood the essence of the parables of the Kingdom, they were not only as scribes, teachers, but like unto the head of the house Himself- the Lord Jesus personally. This is the specific teaching of <em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>: "It is enough for the disciple that he be[come] as his master". The Lord's teaching of others was not an end in itself; to know the mind of Christ and thus become as the teacher is a real possibility. The height of the calling and possibility is breath-taking. Correct 'understanding' of the Lord's teaching could not be given a higher importance and end result; although as I have tried to explain, 'understanding' is not the same as grasping academic theory. By its nature, it involves action. "A man, a householder" perhaps emphasizes the humanity of the Lord Jesus in order to demonstrate that rising up to His status is not at all out of the question for us who are human:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Who brings out-&nbsp;</em>This was what the Lord was doing there and then in His teaching, bringing forth things of the new covenant and the old. And He is saying that if they are instructed in the things of the Kingdom, then they can do the same. The idea of bringing forth things out of a treasure must surely be connected with the Lord's usage of the very same words earlier that same day (<em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>) in His teaching that "a good man out of the good&nbsp;<em>treasure</em>&nbsp;of his heart&nbsp;<em>brings forth</em>&nbsp;good things" (<em><a href='B:470 12:35'>Mat 12:35</a></em>). The heart is also called the "treasure" in <em><a href='B:470 6:21'>Mat 6:21</a></em>. In the context of <em><a href='B:470 12:35'>Mat 12:35</a></em>, the Lord is referring to Himself as the "good man", who was doing good things- despite being accused of doing 'evil things' by the Jewish leaders. The ultimate 'treasure' of the Lord at this time was His heart, His mind. And thus the invitation to be "like" the Lord becomes even more intimate and meaningful. We are being invited here to have the mind of Christ. He has already explained that the learner [disciple] is to be the scribe [the teacher]. If we have the mind of Christ, then just as He brought forth things new and old from the treasure of that mind / heart, then we shall do likewise. Yet we note that the householder, the Lord Jesus, brings forth these things out of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;treasure. And He has just spoken of how He finds His treasure- us- in the field of the world (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em> s:w:). The idea is that if the disciples understood, then He would bring forth out of&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;"things new and old" with which to impress the watching world. Again- the learners [disciples] were to be used by Him as scribes [teachers]. In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em> s:w:), but He reveals these things to the world through His followers.</p><p><em>From his treasure-&nbsp;</em>Every one who is taught the Gospel will naturally&nbsp;<em>bring forth out of his treasure</em>&nbsp;(his innermost heart- <em><a href='B:490 6:45'>Luk 6:45</a></em>) things new and old- his new knowledge, plus his old things of the old covenant (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a></em>). The Lord said that a scribe (one who knows well the Old Testament scriptures) who also knows the Gospel of the Kingdom is like a man who brings out of “his treasure” things new and old (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>). But Jesus had just defined the “treasure” as the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>). If we make that ‘treasure’&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;personal treasure, the most valuable thing in our whole being, then out of the basic Gospel that is in our hearts we will bring forth things “new and old”. Our treasure is where our heart is (<em><a href='B:470 6:21'>Mat 6:21</a></em>). Yet the treasure is the basic Gospel, i:e:, that Gospel lodged in our deepest hearts. The old things of basic certainties; and the new things relating to our increasing appreciation of what they really mean, these will come out of us in our lives and feeling and being.</p><p><em>Things new and old-</em>&nbsp;The Lord's previous use of these terms in <em><a href='B:470 9:17'>Mat 9:17</a></em> was in the context of the things of the old and new covenants. Matthew's Gospel was clearly aimed at Jews, and his point in recording this was surely to assure them that not everything from the "old" way had been rejected.</p>


text:
<p>13:53<em>&nbsp;And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed from there-&nbsp;</em>This seems to serve as the end point of the longest day recorded in the Lord's ministry apart from the crucifixion (see on 13:1). The idea is that when He had finished the teaching, He departed. We meet the same idea and Greek word for "finished" in <em><a href='B:470 11:1'>Mat 11:1</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:1'>Mat 26:1</a></em> - "When He had finished [s:w:] commanding His twelve disciples, He departed". We get the impression that He was teaching according to a program; when He had finished delivering what He intended, it was time to go. And He went. This impression is given several times in His ministry. The question is whether God directly revealed this to Him, or whether He Himself on His initiative designed a program of teaching and ensured that He kept to it. My sense is the latter, which explains the way that earlier in this chapter He appears to take the decision to change from one teaching program to another.</p>


text:
<p>13:54&nbsp;<em>And coming into his hometown he taught them in</em>- The fact Jesus had a&nbsp;<em>patria</em>&nbsp;is an eloquent essay in His humanity. His physical origins were earthly; He didn’t literally come down from Heaven, having been a pre-existent being there.</p><p><em>Their synagogue-</em>&nbsp;The Mosaic feasts are described in the OT as “feasts of the Lord”, but in John as “the feast of the Jews”. We have the same idea here in the reference to the synagogues as&nbsp;<em>theirs</em>. The Jews had hijacked&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;religion and turned it into their own, just as “the table&nbsp;<em>of the Lord</em>” has been turned effectively into ‘our table’ by so many who profess to be mere guests at that table. Matthew repeatedly speaks of<em>&nbsp;their</em>&nbsp;synagogue (<em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:35'>Mat 9:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:17'>Mat 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:9'>Mat 12:9</a></em>), and also of the ‘synagogues of the hypocrites’ (<em><a href='B:470 6:2'>Mat 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:5'>Mat 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:6'>Mat 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:34'>Mat 23:34</a></em>)- not the synagogues of God:&nbsp;</p><p><em>So much so that they were astonished</em>- The Gospels emphasize how people were astonished at the Lord's&nbsp;<em>doctrine / teaching</em>&nbsp;(the same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 7:28'>Mat 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:25'>Mat 19:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:33'>Mat 22:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:48'>Luk 2:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:32'>Luk 4:32</a></em>). There was something arrestingly different in the Lord's message, quite apart from the astonishing miracles He performed. We note how on hearing Paul's teaching, men were "astonished [s:w:] at the doctrine of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:510 13:12'>Act 13:12</a></em>). Our preaching and teaching is the Lord Jesus as it were personally teaching others; for we are Him to this world. And the response to our teaching is therefore comparable to the response made to the Lord's. The phrase "wisdom and mighty works" in Greek seems to directly connect the wisdom [the teaching] and the miracles [the works]. <em><a href='B:480 6:2'>Mar 6:2</a></em> is more explicit in the connection: "What wisdom is this::. that such might works are worked?". The miracles were therefore directly connected to His teaching. Any 'doing good' we may do in society is to be likewise underpinned by our teaching of the Gospel, and is to be a consciously connected exemplification of it. As in the Lord's ministry, there is to be a clearly visible connection between the teaching of the Gospel, and the good works:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And said: From where has this man received this wisdom and these mighty works?-</em>&nbsp;The idea may have been: ‘From God, or from Satan?’. But see on :56&nbsp;<em>whence</em>. They couldn’t ‘get it’ that a man could come to such things through private study of God’s word and personal relationship with God.</p><h4>One of the most surpassing wonders of the Lord’s character was that He could live for 30 years in a small town in Galilee, never ever committing sin, and never ever omitting an act of righteousness::. and yet when He stood up and basically proclaimed Himself to be Messiah, the people were scandalized. They were shocked that this carpenter’s son should think He was anything much more than them. Yet whenever we try to be a bit more righteous than our fellows, it’s always noticed and held against us. Yet the Lord Jesus was both perfect, and also in favour with men. He came over as the ordinary guy, and yet He was perfect, and the light of this world. In this there is a matchless example for us. This wondrous feature of the Lord’s achievement in His own character is reflected by the way His own brothers, who knew Him better than any, perceived Him to be just an ordinary person. When He started implying that He was the Son of God, they thought He’d gone crazy. I wish to labour the point- that to my mind, one of the most artless and surpassing things about the Lord was that He lived a sinless life for 30 years, and yet when He began His ministry those He lived with were shocked that He could ever be the Messiah. He was “in favour” with men (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), not despised and resented as many righteous men have been. He was the carpenter, a good guy- but not Son of God. Somehow He showed utter perfection in a manner which didn’t distance ordinary people from Him. There was no ‘other-worldliness’ to Him which we so often project to those we live with. We seem to find it hard to live a good life without appearing somehow distasteful to those around us. In fact the villagers were scandalized [<em>skandalizein</em>] that Jesus should even be a religious figure; they had never noticed His wisdom, and wondered where He had suddenly gotten it from (<em><a href='B:480 6:2-3'>Mar 6:2-3</a></em>). This suppression of His specialness, His uniqueness, must have been most disarming and confusing to Mary. Her son appeared as an ordinary man; there was no halo around His head, no special signs. Just an ordinary guy. And this may well have eroded her earlier clear understanding that here in her arms was the Son of God. Until age 30, the Lord was “hidden” as an arrow in a quiver (<em><a href='B:290 49:2'>Isa 49:2</a></em>). So profound was this that Mary may have come to doubt whether after all He was really as special as she had thought, 30 years ago. 30 years is a long time. We also need to bear in mind that opposition to Jesus both from the other siblings and from His home town was significant. A fair case can be made that He actually moved away to Capernaum, perhaps before the start of His ministry. <em><a href='B:480 2:1'>Mar 2:1</a></em> RVmg. describes Him as being “at home” there; <em><a href='B:470 4:13'>Mat 4:13</a></em> NIV says He lived there; <em><a href='B:470 9:1'>Mat 9:1</a></em> calls it his “own city” (cp. <em><a href='B:480 2:1'>Mar 2:1</a></em>). Don’t forget that the Nazareth people tried to kill Jesus early on in His ministry- this was how strong the opposition was. And Mary had to show herself for or against::. and it seems she at least on the surface didn’t exactly show herself for Him. &nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p>13:55&nbsp;<em>Is this not the carpenter’s son-&nbsp;</em>“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James? And they were offended at him" (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>). Mark records that they said “the carpenter” (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>). In full, therefore, they likely said that Jesus was “carpenter, son of a carpenter”. Such was His humanity that He appeared to have just followed the profession of His supposed ‘father’ on earth. In essence, the same is happening to Trinitarians. They just can't hack that Jesus, Son of God, perfect human being::. was truly human, with a human brother, mother and relatives. And so they have stumbled off into various wrong theories and theologies about Jesus to try to rationalize and spiritually legitimise their lack of faith in Him as a human person:&nbsp;</p><p>Jesus was poor. He was from Nazareth, a village of between 200 to 2,000 people, about 7 km. away from Sepphoris, a city of 40,000. And He would have gone through the process of socialization which anyone does who lives in a village under the shadow of the big town. He is described as a&nbsp;<em>tekton&nbsp;</em>or manual worker ("carpenter" in many translations). "A&nbsp;<em>tekton</em>&nbsp;was at the lower end of the peasant class, more marginalized than a peasant who owned a small piece of land. We should not think of a&nbsp;<em>tekton</em>&nbsp;as being a step up from a subsistence farmer; rather, a&nbsp;<em>tekton</em>&nbsp;belonged to a family that had lost its land”. The problem was that the Jewish authorities insisted that the tithes were still paid, and these could amount to around 20% of agricultural income. But the Romans added their own heavy taxation system on top of this. Farmers had to pay a 1% land tax, plus a 12% crop tax on produce, as well as various other custom, toll and tribute taxes. For those who wished to be obedient to the Government as well as the Jewish law, there was a total taxation of around 35%. Those who could no longer pay their taxes to Rome lost their land, and a&nbsp;<em>tekton&nbsp;</em>was one in this class. It has been noted: “Some peasants who were forced from their lands turned to carpentry as a profession”. A case has even been made that the term "Abba" ['daddy'] was specifically "from lower class Palestinian piety". If this is so, then we see yet another window into the poverty of the Lord Jesus, extending even to the kind of language He used to address His Father in prayer. So Jesus was Himself marginalized, the poorest of the poor [perhaps because of paying all the required taxes and not being dishonest], in one of the poorest corners of the Roman empire. The poor needn't think of Jesus as so Heavenly that He doesn't know their crises; the crises that come from not having food or money, the problems of drought, the worry about the weather, the rains not coming, the problem of broken equipment and worn out clothes and shoes, the distress that a little brother is sick, there's medicine in the nearby town, but no money for it:::He&nbsp;<em>knows</em>. He really does. He can and does relate to all this. And it's why He is so especially watchful, according to His own teaching, of how we respond to those in such need. It means a lot to Him; because as a poor man, He must have known what it was to receive charity, to be given a few eggs by a neighbour, some milk from a kind woman down the street. When He taught "Blessed are the poor::. the hungry", He immediately had a realness and credibility. For all the poor want to be better off. But He was so self-evidently content with who He was. The poor also want a bit more security for the future than just knowing that they have enough food for today. Yet Jesus could teach people to pray only for the food they needed for each day. And they were to forgive their debtors. This was radical stuff for people who lived a generally hand to mouth existence as day labourers and subsistence farmers. Only if Jesus was real and credible would people have flocked to hear Him and taken His teaching seriously. The fact He preached to the poor was a sign that He was indeed Messiah (<em><a href='B:490 7:22'>Luk 7:22</a></em>); the context of that passage suggests it was something totally unusual, that a religious leader should bother with the poor. Serious religion was some kind of hobby for those rich enough to be able to spare the time for it. But Jesus turned all this upside down; He, the poor man, preached to the poor, and showed them that God and salvation was truly for them more than anyone else:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Is not his mother called Mary-&nbsp;</em>It has been suggested that the title “son of Mary” given to Him in <em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em> implied that they considered Him illegitimate- for men were usually called by their father’s name. ““Jesus, son of Mary” has a pejorative sense… [there is a] Jewish principle: A man is illegitimate when he is called by his mother’s name”. The perception of the surrounding world may have influenced Joseph, and must have surely given rise to at least temptations of doubt within Mary as the years went by. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>. It has also&nbsp;been observed that it was unusual for the villagers to describe Jesus as “the son of Mary” (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>)- even if Joseph were dead, He would have been known as Jesus-ben-Joseph. It could well be that this was a reflection of their perception of how closely linked Jesus was to His mother. According to Talmudic writings like&nbsp;<em>Yebamot</em>&nbsp;78b, <em><a href='B:50 23:3'>Deu 23:3</a></em> was interpreted as meaning that a fatherless man wasn’t allowed to enter the temple or marry a true Israelite. The reference to Jesus as&nbsp;“son of Mary” (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>) rather than “son of Joseph” is, apparently, very unusual. It reflects the Lord’s lack of social identity in first century Israel; He had no father’s house to belong to. In passing, the jibe in <em><a href='B:470 27:64'>Mat 27:64</a></em> “the last deception shall be worse than the first” is likely a reference to Mary and Jesus claiming that He was the result of a virgin birth- this, as far as the Jews were concerned, was the “first deception”.</p><p><em>And his brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?<br/></em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>a-delphos</em>&nbsp;literally means 'connected to the [same] womb'. Whilst it is true to say that the term is used for close relatives as well as blood brothers, the idea is still present of very physical natural connection. If Mary had no other children (as the Catholics claim) or the Lord Jesus personally pre-existed (as most Protestants claim) or only passed through Mary's body as a pre-existent Angel (the Watchtower's version of pre-existence), then surely another Greek word would have been used apart from&nbsp;<em>adelphos</em>. This whole passage speaks eloquently and deeply of the Lord's humanity and cannot be easily explained away by Trinitarians or believers in a personal pre-existence of Christ.</p><p>This makes it apparent that Mary the mother of James and Joses is clearly enough Mary the mother of Jesus- for He had brothers of those names. She had followed Him to Cana, and she faithfully followed Him to the cross. But <em><a href='B:730 14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em> alludes to all this by saying that all the redeemed follow the Lamb wherever He goes. Thus Mary and the ministering women, following even to the cross, become typical of us all. Not only following the Lord in popularity, but also in the real and radical demands of His cross. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:56&nbsp;<em>And his sisters, are they not all with us?</em>- The intention of using this particular phrase was probably to hint that the Lord's sisters were 'with' the local population in their cynicism about Jesus:&nbsp;<em>Pros</em>&nbsp;definitely can carry the idea of 'on our side', 'pro':&nbsp;</p><p><em>From where then did this man get all these things?</em>- As in :54 "Whence::.". We note their sense that "wisdom" had to be imparted from outside a person. Their perception was that there were bodies of wisdom that could be passed on to disciples / learners. But they had never noted Jesus for studying in any particular rabbinic school, nor following any sage. He was a secular, working man- not a religious freak. Therefore they found it hard to grasp from where He had got His understanding. The idea that a man could study God's word, have a personal relationship with God and learn direct from God was very strange to them. They considered that truth and wisdom had to be passed on from man to man, not discovered personally. And that attitude is alive and well today. 'What Bible School did you finish?' becomes more important than an individual's relationship with the Lord and direct learning from Him.</p>


text:
<p>13:57&nbsp;<em>And they were offended by him-&nbsp;</em>He was a stumbling block to Israel generally, and particularly to His own neighbours. When He taught terrible judgment for those who make others stumble, He must have spoken with acute awareness that He too would make others stumble:&nbsp;<em>En autos,</em>&nbsp;"in / by Him", grammatically means that He was the instrumentality of their stumbling:&nbsp; The point is that He did not do this intentionally, and the fault for the stumbling was with the stumbler. In some things we all make some stumble, James comments (<em><a href='B:660 3:2'>Jas 3:2</a></em>). When He declared Himself as Messiah, the people who had grown up with Him were scandalized (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em> Gk:). He was&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;human that even though He never sinned, the people who intimately knew Him for 30 years thought that He was truly one of them. In our making the word flesh, we tend to irritate people by our apparent righteousness, or turn them away from us by our hypocrisy. But the Lord truly made the word flesh, to the extent that the very dregs of society could relate to Him as one of them. There is a wonder in this that requires sustained meditation. In essence, the same is happening to Trinitarians. They just can't hack that Jesus, Son of God, perfect human being::. was truly human, with a human brother, mother and relatives. And so they have stumbled off into various wrong theories and theologies about Jesus to try to rationalize and spiritually legitimise their lack of faith in Him as a human person. When He declared Himself as Messiah, the people who had grown up with Him were scandalized (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em> Gk:). He was&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;human that even though He never sinned, the people who intimately knew Him for 30 years thought that He was truly one of them. In our making the word flesh, we tend to irritate people by our apparent righteousness, or turn them away from us by our hypocrisy. But the Lord truly made the word flesh, to the extent that the very dregs of society could relate to Him as one of them. There is a wonder in this that requires sustained meditation. If He indeed was God, a Divine comet which hit this world for 33 years and sped off again, then the depth of His humanity was nothing less than a cruel deception:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour-</em>&nbsp;We need to ask&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;this is so true. In the first century Palestinian world, a person wasn’t defined so much by ‘who they were’ as by ‘whom they belonged to and where they originated from’. Hence their problem with seeing that the Lord had access to wisdom and power which they did not have as a group. He didn’t get that from them- and this confused them and their lack of understanding it turned to anger with Him. He had become different to them, therefore He was not of them- so they reasoned. And yet He&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;of them- the record stresses that they were His natural&nbsp;<em>patris</em>(“country”) and&nbsp;<em>oikos</em>&nbsp;(“family”). This is the same problem as Trinitarians have- they can’t see that the Lord could have what He had, and yet be one of us, of our human nature. And perhaps that partly explains their frequently observed anger with non-Trinitarian Christians. This proverb is quoted again in <em><a href='B:500 4:44'>Joh 4:44</a></em> but in a different sense. The Lord is recorded as leaving Judea and going to Galilee exactly because a prophet has no honour in “His own country”. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, not in Galilee. It could be that He went to Galilee from Judea because the “country” He had in mind here in quoting this proverb was Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth. And yet in <em><a href='B:470 13:57'>Mat 13:57</a></em> He uses this proverb about Nazareth. Perhaps this explains His deep amazement at His rejection now in Nazareth- see on :58.</p><p><em>Except in his hometown and in his own house [hold]-</em>&nbsp;We have yet another evidence of the Lord’s humanity, in that He talked of His own family of origin, which included His blood brothers and sisters of the previous verses. But He has just spoken of Himself as the ‘householder’, the head of the family / house (see on 13:27,52). Clearly enough, He is contrasting His spiritual family with His natural family. That group of mixed up, doubting and misunderstanding men and women who followed Him- had replaced His family of origin as His real family:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:58&nbsp;<em>And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief-&nbsp;</em>He could not do a mighty work in Nazareth because of their unbelief- as if He would have done a mighty miracle greater than the few healings He did perform there, but that possibility was discounted by their lack of faith (<em><a href='B:480 6:5-6'>Mar 6:5-6</a></em>). Although the Lord at times healed people who had no faith (e:g. the blind man who didn’t even know who the Son of God was), yet it seems that the Lord in this context wanted to see faith before healing people. Thus we see His sensitivity in operating in a different way with different people. Sometimes He does things for people&nbsp;<em>in order that</em>&nbsp;they might come to faith; in other contexts, He will only do things for people if they first have faith. It would seem therefore that He expected faith from His family and neighbours, seeing that they knew Him. <em><a href='B:480 6:6'>Mar 6:6</a></em> adds the comment that the Lord was “amazed” at their unbelief- the only time we hear of Him being ‘amazed’. Yet given His penetrating psychological insight into people, surely He could have guessed at the response in Nazareth? His amazement would therefore seem to be a reflection of His supreme&nbsp;<em>hopefulness</em>&nbsp;for people- a characteristic which makes the Lord so altogether lovely and such a powerful example to us.</p>


text:
<p>14:1&nbsp;<em>At that time Herod the tetrarch-</em>&nbsp;Literally, ‘one of a fourth’; a reference to how after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, the kingdom was divided amongst four others.</p><p><em>Heard the report concerning Jesus</em>- A play on words:&nbsp;<em>akouo::. akoe</em>. The Lord has recently used the same word play in saying that unbelievers "By hearing shall hear [same two Greek words] and shall not understand" (<em><a href='B:470 13:14'>Mat 13:14</a></em>). The connection may be to demonstrate that pagan Herod was no better than the unbelieving Jewish religious leaders. Even in the Old Testament, unbelieving Israel are often described in terms of the Gentile world. We can also note that the Gospels were designed for memorization, and such word plays are common in order to assist committing them to memory. The Gospels likewise should be the lifeblood of all serious Christian living and thinking in this age of electronic memory.</p>


text:
<p>14:2&nbsp;<em>And said to his servants: This is John the Baptist!</em>- The people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (<em><a href='B:480 6:14'>Mar 6:14</a></em>). Perhaps this was because they looked somehow similar, as cousins?</p><p><em>He has risen from the dead-</em>&nbsp;The idea of bodily resurrection was around in the first century, but very often in the sense of a dead person not really dying but returning&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>&nbsp;in another form. This was widely believed about Nero- and there are allusions to the legend of Nero&nbsp;<em>redivivus&nbsp;</em>in Revelation (they are deconstructed there as being untrue- the ultimate resurrection was of the Lord Jesus, not Nero). Herod's words show that a 'resurrected' person was expected to do great miracles as proof of their resurrection. The Lord's resurrection was likewise accompanied by "mighty works"- but not by Him personally, but by the community of believers. This accommodation to contemporary views of resurrection was therefore a way of demonstrating that the believers doing the miracles after the Lord's resurrection were being presented to society as Jesus&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>; as if they truly were the body of Jesus revived. Which of course they were, and we are. Paul uses the same Greek word translated "show forth themselves" to describe how the Lord Jesus worked through both Peter and himself through the doing of miracles (<em><a href='B:550 2:8'>Gal 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And therefore do these powers work in him</em>- The Greek could more likely mean ‘the powers’, a reference to the popular beliefs in various ‘powers’ rather than one God. <em><a href='B:500 10:41'>Joh 10:41</a></em> is plain that “John did no miracle”, and yet such was the evident spirituality of John that the theory quickly arose that the miracles of Jesus were really being done by John&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>.</p>


text:
<h4>14:3&nbsp;<em>For Herod had arrested John and bound him-</em>&nbsp;'Laid hands on'. The Greek means just that, but it is possibly mistranslated in <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>: "Whosoever sins you retain ['lay hands on'], they are retained". The idea is that we can in some cases obtain forgiveness for others' sins; but we must beware lest we lay hands on their sin and commit it ourselves. This is exactly the teaching of Jude- to reclaim others who are in sin, whilst being careful not to become contaminated by their sins rubbing off on us. Herod and his servants (:2) had laid hold on John, bound him, and cast him into prison. These are all terms used elsewhere about how the Lord Jesus will do exactly the same in condemning people at the last day. His servants (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>) shall lay hold of them (<em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>), bind them (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>) and cast them into prison (condemnation- <em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>). And these terms are also used about what happened to the Lord Jesus in His death: laid hold on by servants at a king's command (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>) bound (<em><a href='B:500 18:12'>Joh 18:12</a></em>), to prison (<em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>). Herod is therefore being set up here as an anti-Christ, a fake Christ. And the Lord's death is again described in similar terms to that of John, whose ministry He continued. The way disciples came seeking the body is another point of connection. As events unfolded with the Lord's arrest and binding, He would've surely perceived the connection with John. And would've likewise seen how He was as it were going through the process of condemnation, being treated as a sinner, although He was not one. This means that He has even more so the right to condemn men, because in essence He knows the condemnation process. And it gives Him the ability to identify with those who in this life are currently under condemnation for their sins, and seek to lead them out of that position.</h4><p><em>And put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife</em>- Josephus claims that she was in fact married to another relative, not Philip, before she married Herod (<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;18:136). We can simply decide to trust the Biblical record over Josephus. Or it could be that Josephus refers to a previous relationship she had. See on 14:10 for another conflict with Josephus.</p>


text:
<p>14:4&nbsp;<em>For John had said to him: It is not lawful for you to have her-</em>&nbsp;The laws of <em><a href='B:30 18:16'>Lev 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:21'>Lev 20:21</a></em> were applicable to Jews; which opens the wider question as to whether we ought to be drawing the attention of the world to their disobedience to Biblical principles, even though they do not claim any faith in the Bible. Criticizing others’ ways of living leads to anger if the point isn’t accepted; and we have a classic case of it here. The Herods were from Idumea, but although they weren’t ethnic Jews, they claimed to be religious Jews. So it could be that John’s attitude was that if someone considered themselves as being under God’s law, then they should be obedient to it and were therefore culpable before Him for disobedience to it. In this case, we do not actually have here any reason to think that a Christian’s duty is to lobby the unbelieving world leaders to be obedient to God’s law.</p>


text:
<p>14:5&nbsp;<em>And though he wanted to put him to death-</em>&nbsp;The same Greek words used about Herod wanting to kill Jesus in <em><a href='B:490 13:31'>Luk 13:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>He feared the people-</em>&nbsp;Another similarity with the plans of the Jewish leadership to kill Jesus, and being frustrated by “the crowd” because they counted him as a prophet (the very same words are used in <em><a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a></em>); see on <em><a href='B:470 14:3'>Mat 14:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>laid hold on</em>. These similarities between the deaths of John and Jesus draw a parallel between the despised Gentile Herod (regarding John and the Jewish leadership (regarding Jesus). Yet again, highly religious, legalistic people who have rejected the spirit of Jesus are equated with the very worst of the Gentiles.</p><p><em>Because they held him to be a prophet</em>- As made explicit in chapters 12 and 13, the crowds did not accept the essential message of John- but they fiercely defended him as a prophet, speaking God’s word. Acceptance of an inspired word is one thing, but to grasp the essence of the Lord Jesus is quite another.</p><p>A manipulative woman arranging the death of a prophet through a weak willed ruler recalls Jezebel in 1 Kings 21; and she was a protagonist of Elijah, upon whom John the Baptist was clearly modelled.</p>


text:
<p>14:7<em>&nbsp;Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatever she should ask-&nbsp;</em>This continues a theme we find in the book of Daniel- powerful rulers making a rash oath and feeling forced to carry it out because of shame and the pressure of courtiers. The contrast with God, the ultimate ruler, is not that He is not so rash and not manipulated by His subjects. Rather the contrast is surely that Yahweh&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;change, He has no fear of shame or being shamed; such is His grace that when He sees a repentant Nineveh, He&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;change His original intention. The fear of shame and pressure from the eyes of others is what leads so many leaders into behaviour and positions which are against their better judgment. There is no shame in change. Indeed, change is part of real spirituality.</p><h4><em><a href='B:480 6:23'>Mar 6:23</a></em> adds “Up to half my kingdom”. This is alluding to the king’s promise to Esther in <em><a href='B:190 5:2-3'>Est 5:2-3</a></em> but it seems an allusion with no context or specific meaning, for Herodias was not at all Esther.</h4>


text:
<p>14:8&nbsp;<em>And she, being encouraged by her mother, said: Give me here</em>- The emphasis on “here” is strange. She wanted the head brought in before everyone. This rather strongly contradicts Josephus’ claim that John was beheaded in the Machaerus fortress, a long way from Herod’s court.</p><p><em>The head of John the Baptist on a platter-</em>&nbsp;The feast would have been full of plates with various dishes. The idea was that the head would be offered for eating. The implication is that the head would've been brought immediately, which suggests that John was imprisoned nearby. This again rules out Josephus' claim that John was beheaded in the Machaerus fortress, far from Herod's palace in Tiberias. The offering of a head on a platter is full of allusion to pagan ritual. Herod, as one who claimed to be an observant Jew, was now forced to choose- between being a serious Jew, following Divine principle, or a pagan. He was forced to decide- and chose wrongly. He had earlier wanted to kill John, and now his evil thought was being brought to action, in a powerful outworking of the Lord's principle that the thought is indeed counted as the action:&nbsp; We ask, naturally, why it all had to be as it was. John would've carefully reflected upon the life of Elijah, and John would've seen the parallel between Jezebel and the manipulative women behind his own death- and taken comfort from that in his last moments: that he was in fact the Elijah prophet.</p>


text:
<p>14:9&nbsp;<em>And the king was grieved-</em>&nbsp;And yet we learnt in :5 that Herod had wanted to kill John because John had criticized Herod’s lifestyle. We may feel flushes of anger against a person, but if it were to come to actually carrying out what we imagine- we would likely regret it.</p><p><em>But for the sake of his oaths and of his dinner guests, he commanded it to be given</em>- A&nbsp;<em>horkos</em>&nbsp;was not merely a verbal promise; although he was not ethnically Jewish, Herod claimed to be a practicing Jew, and an 'oath' would've been something like 'May I be eternally condemned at the last day if I do not:::'. Peter used the same oaths in denying the Lord. And so we see the torture of this unhappy man- asking himself to be condemned if he didn't do something which surely warrants eternal condemnation. The only way out was to&nbsp;<em>change</em>, to re-pent, to re-think; to recognize that he was not going to get out of this without a deep repentance.</p>


text:
<p>14:10&nbsp;<em>He sent word and had John beheaded in the prison</em>- The implication is that the court party was held close to the prison. This would have been most unlikely if Josephus is correct in claiming that John was imprisoned and beheaded in the fortress of Machaerus. Herod’s court was in Tiberias. See on 14:3. The implication of the language is that Herod took full responsibility for this- as if he personally beheaded John. And he realized this later in his conscience: “John whom I beheaded… John have I beheaded” (<em><a href='B:480 6:16'>Mar 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:9'>Luk 9:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>14:11&nbsp;<em>And his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother-</em>&nbsp;The Greek for “brought” is used only four times in Matthew, twice in this verse, and three times in this chapter. The Lord uses the word of how He wished the loaves and fishes to be “brought” to Him for His Messianic banquet (<em><a href='B:470 14:18'>Mat 14:18</a></em>). It may be that Herod’s banquet is being set up in contrast to that of the Lord Jesus described later in the chapter.</p>


text:
<p>14:12&nbsp;<em>And his disciples came and took away the corpse and buried him</em>- The phrase is only used elsewhere about Joseph taking up the body of the Lord Jesus after His death (<em><a href='B:500 19:31'>Joh 19:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em>). And doing the same with it- burying it. He was likely one of the followers of John the Baptist, and his fine action here was surely motivated by the memory of those brave brethren who ‘took up the body’ of John. The example of devotion shown by believers can inspire later believers in different contexts. The power of example is far greater than we can ever imagine.</p><p><em>And they went and told Jesus-</em>&nbsp;The same Greek words are found in <em><a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a></em>. Here, after the ‘taking up of the body’ of the Lord Jesus and ‘burying’ it, just as had been done to John’s corpse, Mary “went and told” the disciples. The disciples “went and told Jesus” of John’s death; now, Mary goes to tell the disciples of the Lord’s resurrection. The similarity of language and yet the inversion of the ideas is all surely intentional. The intention is to show that the tragedy of John’s death was vindicated and gloriously reversed in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:13&nbsp;<em>Now when Jesus heard this</em>- Therefore the feeding of the five thousand came some time before the parables of chapter 13, and is not in chronological sequence; it is part of the flashback to John’s death. Perhaps the intention is to present the Lord’s banquet as the antithesis of Herod’s banquet which led to John’s execution. We see here yet another insight into the Lord’s humanity. Knowledge of John’s death wasn’t beamed into the Lord’s mind; He didn’t have the total omniscience of God. For He was not God Himself, but the human Son of God. He had to be informed of some things before He knew them. And He reacts in a very human way- He wants to go away on His own with His closest friends to reflect upon the death of a relative and co-worker. But again, in a typically human way, His plan to have time out relatively alone was thwarted- despite His intention to get away alone, or at least just with His close friends, the crowds heard He had been spotted heading out to an uninhabited area, and followed Him there by foot.</p><p><em>He withdrew from there in a boat to a deserted place to be alone-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:490 9:10'>Luk 9:10</a></em> says that it was near to Bethsaida. This indicates the literal accuracy of the Gospels, because Bethsaida was just outside the boundary of Herod’s jurisdiction, and it would be understandable that after his execution of John, the disciples and Jesus might want to be outside of his territory.</p><p><em>But when the crowds heard, they followed him on foot from the cities-</em>&nbsp;This is added to demonstrate their commitment to hearing Him teach. Why were they so keen to make such effort to get to Him? <em><a href='B:470 13:54-58'>Mat 13:54-58</a></em> records how the Lord taught in the synagogue but didn’t get a good response, nor did He do many miracles there because of their unbelief. But now He leaves, and the people flock after Him. This may be understandable just in terms of basic psychology- when a wonderful offer is not taken up but appears to be receding, people then desperately grab onto it. Perhaps that’s why the Lord seems well disposed to these people- healing and feeding them (see on :22). But we also get the impression that the Lord was not constantly available for teaching and healing. I have previously remarked that the intensity of some of the days which the Gospels record was surely not repeated every day of His ministry. It seems He spent most of His time training the twelve and only occasionally made public appearances to teach and heal.</p><p>The Lord in John 6 comments upon their efforts. The people laboured in that they walked around the lake in the boiling midday sun in order to be with Christ and perhaps benefit from the physical food He might provide:&nbsp; He tells them not to labour for the food which would perish, but for that which would endure for ever. The labouring of those people, trekking around that lake in the heat of the day, should be the effort we put in to eating the manna of God's word- according to how the Lord. There was a theme of urgency in Israel's gathering of the manna; it had to be gathered before the sun was up, or it would be lost. Would that we could have that same sense of urgency as we read, realizing that the rising of the sun at the second coming of will put an end to our opportunity to feed and grow. If Israel didn't gather the manna, or if they left it to another day, it bred worms and stank. The active anger of God was to be expressed against those who didn't take the wonder of the manna seriously. So our gathering of the manna / word must be taken seriously; it's not a question of skim reading familiar words, or doing mental gymnastics with it in an intellectual world of our own. &nbsp;The people had walked all round the lake to see Jesus and get some food from Him. In typical style, He responded: “Labour not for the meat which perisheth but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (<em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em>). They ask what they can&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;that they might work / labour [same Greek word] the works of God; and they are told that the real work / labour which God requires is to believe (<em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>). To truly believe, to the extent of being sure that we will surely have the eternal life promised, is the equivalent of walking round the lake. We like those crowds want to concretely&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something. The young man likewise had asked what good thing he must&nbsp;<em>do&nbsp;</em>in order to get eternal life (<em><a href='B:470 19:16'>Mat 19:16</a></em>). But the real work is to&nbsp;<em>believe</em>. To really make that enormous mental effort to accept that what God has promised in Christ will surely come true for us. The proof that this is so is because Jesus really said these words, and “him hath God the Father sealed”, i:e. shown His confirmation and acceptance of. So again we come down to the implications of real basics. Do we believe Jesus existed and said those words? Yes. Do we believe the Biblical record is true and inspired? Yes. Well, this Jesus who made these promises and statements about eternal life was “sealed” / validated by God. Do we believe this? Yes. So, what He said is utterly true.</p>


text:
<p>14:14&nbsp;<em>When he went ashore he saw a great crowd-</em>&nbsp;We could picture Him hiding away in some cave or bush, noticing the crowds combing the area, having spotted the abandoned boat. And then battling with a desire to retreat further into the bush away from them, or to send them away- but instead having compassion on them and going out to meet them with teaching and healing. But that is unlikely the right reading, because <em><a href='B:480 6:33'>Mar 6:33</a></em> notes that some of the people who ran around the lake got to the destination before they did. The ‘coming forth’ would therefore have been coming forth from the boat to land. That moment is perhaps noted because the obvious inclination would have been to sail further and find a better resting place, far from this irritating crowd.</p><p><em>And he had compassion on them and healed their sick</em>- Mark adds the reason- “because they were as sheep having no shepherd” (<em><a href='B:480 6:34'>Mar 6:34</a></em>). His pity was therefore for their spiritual state rather than their material need. This being ‘moved with compassion’ is a major characteristic of the Lord which the Gospel writers noticed (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:32'>Mat 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:34'>Mat 20:34</a></em> in Matthew alone- see too <em><a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). The Greek speaks of a literal movement within the ribcage, as if the Lord’s actual body was moved by the compassion He felt. The Lord Jesus is the same yesterday, today and at the day of judgment- and forever. This same basic pity is part of Him, as it is of His Father- and it must be with us too. Several times when we read of the Lord showing such pity, it is in the context of others&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;doing so. In this instance, the disciples don’t want to feed the hungry people; and likewise in <em><a href='B:470 15:32'>Mat 15:32</a></em>. In <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em> the compassion of the Lord to His indebted servant was not reciprocated by that servant; the Samaritan of the parable had compassion when the priest and Levite did not (<em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>); the Father had compassion on the prodigal son when the older brother did not (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). Such compassion is therefore an act of the will, rather than a streak some are born with. We can shut up our “bowels of compassion” against human need (<em><a href='B:690 3:17'>1Jn 3:17</a></em>), we have to “put on… bowels of mercies” (<em><a href='B:580 3:12'>Col 3:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>14:15&nbsp;<em>And when evening had come, the disciples came to him, saying-</em>&nbsp;The implication is that they weren’t standing by Him, but rather watching cynically from a distance. Which explains their harsh attitude to the crowds. After all, they too had been followers of John the Baptist, they too wanted to get away on their own to mourn the news of His death. They probably felt the Lord should’ve sent away the multitudes from the start. It’s not hard to sense that the record paints the disciples negatively at this time. But who wrote this record? The Gospels are transcripts of how the disciples preached the Gospel. Despite the process of inspiration, the disciples in their recounting of the Gospel repeatedly mentioned their own weakness, and thereby would’ve come over as all the more credible to their audience. And in this we see a fine pattern for our own witness.</p><p><em>This place is deserted and the day is now over-&nbsp;</em>AV "The time is now past". “Past” translates&nbsp;<em>parerchomai</em>; the Lord uses a similar word in replying that “they need not&nbsp;<em>depart</em>”-&nbsp;<em>aperchomai</em>. This word choice not only aided memorization of the Gospel record. The disciples considered that time had more than gone, that it was inevitable that the Lord must now send the crowd away, and should’ve done earlier. But He is saying that actually He is not limited by time, the time didn’t have to be “past”; because He was not limited by food either, and could feed them.</p><p><em>Send the crowds away-&nbsp;</em>Twice they wanted to turn away those who wished to come to Jesus, and whom He wished to accept (<em><a href='B:470 14:15'>Mat 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:23'>Mat 15:23</a></em>). As with the two miracles of bread, the second incident was giving them the opportunity to learn the lesson from the first incident- and yet they failed. Likewise they “forbad” John’s disciples just as they wrongly “forbad” the little children to come to Him (<em><a href='B:490 9:50'>Luk 9:50</a></em>).</p><p><em>That they may go into the villages and buy for themselves food</em>- Seeing most of the people were poor, and were likely subsistence farmers, it is most unlikely they had money to buy food. And 5000 men plus women and children would’ve meant a crowd of 10,000 at least- the few shops in those tiny hamlets would’ve been totally unable to provide for them. Here again we see the insensitivity of the disciples being related in the narrative which they themselves told after the resurrection. The apparently redundant “buy&nbsp;<em>themselves</em>” may suggest the disciples’ bitterness and resentment at the apparent expectation of the crowd that the Lord was to provide food for them. The only other time we meet the phrase is when the wise virgins tell the foolish to go and ‘buy for themselves’, and refuse to give their oil to them. Perhaps the Lord built that phrase into the parable because the disciples had earlier used it- and by His provision, He had effectively rebuked them for doing so:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4>14:16&nbsp;<em>But Jesus said to them: They need not go away-&nbsp;</em>See on :15&nbsp;<em>the time is now past</em>. They ask the Lord to send the multitude away (<em><a href='B:480 6:36'>Mar 6:36</a></em>), whereas Jesus later taught by word and example, that whoever came to Him He would not turn away (<em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>). Mark and Matthew present themselves, the disciples, as seriously out of step with their Lord at this time. And surely the communities which they were establishing were likewise tempted to ‘send away’ or deny fellowship to those whom the Lord would have them fellowship.</h4><p><em>You give them something to eat-</em>&nbsp;According to <em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>, the Lord also asked: “From whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?”. Even if money was no issue, the village shops simply had nowhere near the amount of food required. So in “You give them…”, the stress was not only on the word “you”. Perhaps it was more so on the word and concept of “give”, standing as it does in contrast to the disciples’ unrealistic and harsh expectation that these poor people go to a village and&nbsp;<em>buy</em>&nbsp;food. Surely the Lord had in mind <em><a href='B:290 55:1-2'>Isa 55:1-2</a></em>: “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food”. He intended the disciples to see the connection and to figure that He would even provide them with free food, because they were seeking His word. We are confirmed in this idea by the way that He appealed to the crowd in the same discourse: “Labour not for the food which perishes” (<em><a href='B:500 6:27'>Joh 6:27</a></em>), which is surely an allusion to <em><a href='B:290 55:2'>Isa 55:2</a></em>. Perhaps the disciples got the point- perhaps not. Often the Lord sets us up with situations in which we are intended to have our minds sent back to a Biblical verse or precedent as encouragement and guidance for us in our decisions. Whether or not we grasp it is a matter partly of our familiarity with the text of Scripture, but more significantly, our openness to this kind of spiritual prompting, and the idea of God’s word being part of a living, two-way dialogue between Him and ourselves.</p><p>The Lord told the disciples to feed the crowd, when they had nothing to give them (<em><a href='B:480 6:37'>Mar 6:37</a></em>). He was actually quoting from <em><a href='B:120 4:42'>2Ki 4:42</a></em>, where the man of God told his servant to do the same. He gave what bread he had to the people, and miraculously it fed them. The disciples don't seem to have seen the point; otherwise, they would have realized that if they went ahead in faith, another such miracle would likely be wrought. But it seems that God almost over-ruled them to make the response of the faithless servant of <em><a href='B:120 4:43'>2Ki 4:43</a></em>: "Shall we::. give them to eat?" (<em><a href='B:480 6:37'>Mar 6:37</a></em>). They were almost 'made' to do this to make them later see the similarity with the 2 Kings 4 incident. If they had been more spiritually aware at the time, the Lord's quotation would have been a fillip for their faith.</p><p>When the Lord calmly bid them feed the huge crowd with just a few loaves&nbsp;(“How many loaves have ye? Go and see” (<em><a href='B:480 6:38'>Mar 6:38</a></em>)), we are left to imagine those men, almost paralysed and certainly gobsmacked by the extent of the demand, awkwardly going away to count their few loaves. He could be seen as a demanding Lord. The Lord Jesus said many "hard sayings" which dissuaded people from seriously following Him. He kept speaking about a condemned criminal's last walk to his cross, and telling people they had to do this. He told them, amidst wondrous stories of flowers and birds, to rip out their eyes, cut off their limbs- and if they didn't, He didn't think they were serious and would put a stone round their neck and hurl them into the sea (<em><a href='B:480 9:42-48'>Mar 9:42-48</a></em>). He healed a leper, and then spoke sternly to Him (<em><a href='B:480 1:43'>Mar 1:43</a></em> AV mg:).</p><p>It makes a good exercise to re-read the Gospels looking out for cases of where the Lord urged the disciples to not look at Him as somehow separate from themselves, an automatic Saviour from sin and problems. Thus when it was apparent that the huge, hungry crowd needed feeding, the Lord asked the disciples where “<em>we</em>” could get food from to feed them (<em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>). In all the accounts of the miraculous feedings, we see the disciples assuming that Jesus would solve the situation- and they appear even irritated and offended when He implies that this is&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;joint problem, and&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;must tackle this seemingly impossible task with<em>&nbsp;their</em>&nbsp;faith. The mentality of the disciples at that time is that of so many Trinitarians- who assume that ‘Jesus is the answer’ in such a form that they are exempt from seeing His humanity as a challenge for them to live likewise.</p><p>The disciples, in John’s record, complain: “From whence shall&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;find bread in the wilderness?”. The record of the disciples' murmuring in John 6 reflects how influenced they were by the Jews around them. "The Jews then murmured at him", and the Lord rebukes them: "Murmur not among yourselves". But then we read of how "Jesus knew in himself that his disciples were murmuring" (<em><a href='B:500 6:40'>Joh 6:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:43'>Joh 6:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:61'>Joh 6:61</a></em>). And again, remember that these gospel records were written by the repentant disciples, and they were using the example of their own weakness in order to appeal to others. The disciples appeared to share Judaism's idea that Moses never sinned. When the Lord challenges them to find food for the crowd in the desert, they quote Moses' hasty words: "Whence shall I have flesh to give unto all this people?"; and note Moses almost mocks God by saying that all the fish of the sea wouldn't be enough to feed the people (<em><a href='B:40 11:13'>Num 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:22'>Num 11:22</a></em>). Faced with the same need for bread and fish, the disciples justified their lack of faith by quoting Moses, apparently unwilling to accept that Moses' words at that time were not of faith. The way everything worked out, they doubtless learnt that Moses, like them, was of imperfect faith and spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>14:17&nbsp;<em>And they say to him: We have here only five loaves and two fishes</em>- <em><a href='B:500 6:9'>Joh 6:9</a></em> says that they said: “There is a lad here, which has five barley loaves and two small fishes”. The boy out of the crowd gave the bread to the disciples- for now, the bread is no longer ‘his’, but belongs to ‘the disciples’. Then they gave it to Jesus. He then gives it back to the disciples, and they give it back to the crowd, including to the boy. We see in this cycling around of the bread an eloquent picture of the Lord’s humanity. What little the crowd of humanity had was taken by the Lord and transformed by Him into what could save them; and in this sense, the bread was ‘sent down’ from Heaven, in John’s terms, even though it was a recycling of the peoples’ own bread.</p><p>The very human perspective of the disciples is almost predictably brought out by their response to the Lord’s question to them about where to get bread to feed the hungry crowd. “Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient” was Philip’s response (<em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em>). Andrew’s comment that they had five loaves and two fishes surely carried the undertone that ‘…and that’s not even enough for us, let alone them- we’re starving too, you know!’. The disciples wanted the crowd sent away, to those who sold food, so that they might buy for themselves (<em><a href='B:470 14:15'>Mat 14:15</a></em>). As the Lord’s extended commentary upon their reactions throughout John 6 indicates, these responses were human and selfish. And yet- and here is a fine insight into His grace and positive thinking about His men- He puts their very words and attitudes into the mouth of the wise virgins at the very moment of their acceptance at the day of judgment: “The wise answered [the foolish virgins] saying, Not so, lest there be not enough [s:w. “not sufficient”, <em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em>] for us and you; but got ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves” (<em><a href='B:470 25:9'>Mat 25:9</a></em>). Clearly the Lord framed that parable in the very words, terms and attitudes of His selfish disciples. He counted even their weakness as positive, and thus showed His desire to accept them in the last day in spite of it. Another reading of the connection would be that the Lord foresaw how even in the final moment of acceptance into His Kingdom, right on the very eve of judgment day, His people would still be as hopelessly limited in outlook and spiritually self-centred as the disciples were that day with the multitude. Whatever way we want to read this undoubted connection of ideas, we have a window into a grace so amazing it almost literally takes our breath away.</p>


text:
<p>14:18&nbsp;<em>And he said: Bring them here to me-</em>&nbsp;The word "here" would appear to be redundant in terms of the meaning if the Lord simply meant 'OK, give them to Me'. He wanted to focus the disciples upon the need for His personal presence and involvement with whatever we are willing to give Him. The loaves and fishes had to be brought&nbsp;<em>here</em>, to Him, and the miracle would proceed only once they were in His hands.</p>


text:
<p>14:19&nbsp;<em>And he commanded the crowds to sit down on the grass; and he took the five loaves and the two fishes and</em>- The zoom of Matthew's camera is now very close up. We are invited to play 'Bible television' with the language and re-live it all again.</p><p><em>Looking up to Heaven-</em>&nbsp;This detail not only suggests the close fellowship enjoyed between the Father and Son, to the extent that the Lord could pray with open eyes looking up to Heaven, knowing there was no barrier between Him and God. But we also as it were have the camera zoomed in upon the Lord, yet another indication that we have in the Gospels an eye witness account. Likewise the Lord's way of looking up was noticed in <em><a href='B:490 19:5'>Luk 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:1'>Luk 21:1</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples and the disciples to the crowds-</em>&nbsp;Clearly the record is structured to show how the Lord worked through them. In giving the bread of life to the world, the Lord usually works through some kind of human mechanism rather than as it were parachuting His word and salvation directly to a person. There was no word from the Lord that He had performed the miracle of multiplication- the disciples had to go forth in faith and start distributing the bread and fish. Presumably He broke the five loaves into 12 parts, and the two fish likewise. The disciples, each holding a small piece of bread and fish in their hands, in turn went to the crowds and broke it further- and never ran out. It was indeed a sign of their faith that they participated, risking looking foolish as they first began. This is indeed an accurate picture of our fears as we go out into this world with the Lord's salvation.</p><p>Time and again, it becomes apparent that the Lord especially designed incidents in His men’s experience which they would learn from, and later be able to put to use when similar experiences occurred after He had ascended. This was essential to the training of the twelve disciples. Thus He made&nbsp;<em>them&nbsp;</em>distribute the food to the multitude (<em><a href='B:500 6:11'>Joh 6:11</a></em>); yet after His ascension, we meet the same Greek word in <em><a href='B:510 4:35'>Act 4:35</a></em>, describing how they were to distribute welfare to the multitude of the Lord’s followers:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:20&nbsp;<em>And they all ate</em>- See the special section about the openness of Jesus.</p><p><em>And were filled-&nbsp;</em>Perhaps alluding to <em><a href='B:50 8:10'>Deu 8:10</a></em>, “you shall eat and be full”.</p><p><em>And they collected what was left over-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:560 1:8'>Eph 1:8</a></em> talks of how God has lavished or&nbsp;abounded&nbsp;His grace upon us. The same word is used about the Lord not only made miraculous loaves and fishes, but there was so much that&nbsp;abounded (“what was left”) that it filled twelve baskets. Why did the Lord do that, and why make the disciples pick up all those crumbs? Surely to give them an object lesson in how God delights in abounding to us. He didn’t just give the people food; He abounded to them. The record of each of the feeding miracles, in each of the Gospels, uses this word translated “remained” in commenting about the fragments that were left over- although the real meaning is ‘to abound’. Each of the Gospel writers was therefore deeply impressed by the fact that the Lord not only provided food- but such an abundance. All this sets the background for Paul’s use of the very same word to describe how God’s grace has “abounded” to us in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 3:7'>Rom 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:15'>Rom 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:8'>Eph 1:8</a></em>).</p><p><em>Of the broken pieces-&nbsp;</em>Why this feature in both the feeding miracles? In <em><a href='B:470 16:9-10'>Mat 16:9-10</a></em>, the Lord asks the disciples to recall how many baskets they took up after each miracle- in order to help them to show faith in another time of need. The details of the Lord’s past actions with us need to be remembered- because they are designed to fortify us in future tests of faith. We sense that all along, the Lord was working with the disciples (just as He does with us) according to a specific program, tailor made for them, designed to lead them from one spiritual level to another whilst re-enforcing the points learnt.</p><p><em>Twelve baskets</em>- A different word to that used in the feeding of the 4000 in <em><a href='B:470 15:37'>Mat 15:37</a></em>. This here in 14:20 is the smaller basket, used for carrying ritually clean food when in Gentile areas.</p>


text:
<p>14:21&nbsp;<em>And they that ate, besides women and children, were about five thousand men-</em>&nbsp;It is tempting to try to work out some significance in the figures here and in the feeding of the 4000 recorded in Matthew 15. Five loaves and two fishes fed 5000 with 12 baskets taken up; seven loaves and a few fishes fed 4000 with seven baskets taken up. With the food distributed each time by 12 disciples. One observation would be that the total number of loaves used was 12, which was the number of loaves required for the showbread (<em><a href='B:30 24:5'>Lev 24:5</a></em>). The loaves in totality represent the Lord Jesus, the bread of God’s presence in Israel, offered to all and sundry- not just to the priests. The Lord had made the same point in reminding Israel that David and his men had eaten the showbread- the things considered exclusively for the religious elite were now open to all, women and kids and Gentiles included. The very same Greek phrase “about five thousand men” occurs in <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>, to describe the total number of converts made by the disciples in the very early days of the church. Surely there must be some connection here. As the disciples moved amongst the crowds, each of them repeatedly breaking the bread of Christ to the multitudes, they were being trained towards the day when they would move amongst other multitudes preaching Christ and baptizing people into Him. It would seem that there were two major incidents when the disciples preached and performed mass baptisms; the 3000 in <em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>, and then either 2000 or 5000 (depending how one reads the Greek) in <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>. These days of mass baptisms were probably never repeated in the history of the early church; and so the two feeding miracles were to prepare them for those two later incidents. In our yearning to attach meaning to event, we too can be encouraged that what we currently cannot understand is likely preparation for some potential future calling for us at some point in the future.</p><p><em>Beside women and children-</em>&nbsp;AV. The Greek for “beside” can carry the sense of being separate from physically, as if the men were seated in a slightly different place to the women and children- which is just how a Middle Eastern feeding scheme would be run to this day.</p>


text:
<p>14:22&nbsp;<em>Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side of the sea, while he dismissed the crowds</em>- <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em> says that the crowds wanted to “take him by force to make Him a king”. Yet these were the same folk, it seems, who had showed little real faith in Him previously- see on :13<em>on foot</em>. They were so fickle. They evidently saw the connection between the feeding miracle and Him being Messiah, but their understanding of Messiah was that He was to be a King offering immediate salvation. Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:9 claimed that “:::as the former redeemer caused manna to descend::. so will the latter redeemer cause manna to descend”. We get the impression that the Lord felt under a sense of great urgency- He “constrained” the disciples to get into the boat and leave, whilst He sent the crowd away. Perhaps He felt that the crowd intended to make Him King and the disciples the leaders of their new&nbsp;<em>junta</em>, but by sending the disciples away, He was greatly reducing the chances of them doing this. However the other reason was simply that the disciples themselves were looking for an immediate kingdom and glory, and He knew the temptation would be too great for them. He likewise works with us so often to deliver us from temptation He knows is too great for us.</p><p>The Lord told them to sail to the other side of the lake, but said that they would be ‘going before / ahead of Him’. The Greek could suggest that His words could have been understood as meaning that they would sail to that place, He would send the crowds away, and then go behind them- i:e:, walking on the water. Of course, they could have understood ‘going before Him’ as meaning that He would join them there at a later stage. But as they sailed away, they must have debated whatever He meant. Because if He meant that He would join them there at a later stage, however was He going to walk there around the lake, whilst so desperately wanting the crowds to go away from Him? Remember He had no personal boat, and they were in a deserted location. Whichever exit He took, whichever way He walked around the lake, He would have the very people with Him whom He was so earnestly trying to avoid. Again, as in asking&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to&nbsp;<em>give</em>&nbsp;and not&nbsp;<em>buy</em>&nbsp;food for the crowd, the Lord was stretching them. He wanted them to reflect upon His words, and if they had done, then logically they were intended to come to the conclusion that He was implying that He would walk over the water to them. And if they were Old Testament minded, they would have known the passages which spoke of Yahweh walking upon the water and the waves of the sea (<em><a href='B:230 29:3'>Psa 29:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 29:10'>Psa 29:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 77:19'>Psa 77:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:410 1:3'>Nah 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 3:15'>Hab 3:15</a></em>). When, therefore, the waves arose and they seemed likely to drown, they were intended to figure that He would come to them, manifesting Yahweh, walking upon the waves of the sea- to save them. Whether any of them did actually get that far in perception and faith seems doubtful. But I believe we can discern how the Lord was seeking to lead them and educate their faith. The tragedy is that so many of His detailed plans for us are likewise wasted because of our lack of spiritual perception, and allowing the immediacy of issues to obscure the clear light of His leadership through life.</p><p>However, <em><a href='B:500 6:15-17'>Joh 6:15-17</a></em> implies they got tired of waiting for the Lord Jesus to return from prayer, and so they pushed off home to Capernaum, leaving Him alone. Yet by grace He came after them on the lake, to their salvation.</p>


text:
<p>14:23&nbsp;<em>And after he had dismissed the crowds</em>- The phrase is repeated as in :22, probably in recognition of the miracle performed in managing to send these crowds away empty handed, with no visible Messianic Kingdom. At least, the power of personality in the Lord was very great to be able to get Himself out of this situation.</p><h4><em>He went up the mountain by himself to pray-</em>&nbsp;The term&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>&nbsp;["by himself"] is used about 16 times in the Gospels, covering around 12 different occasions. The need to be alone with the Lord or with the Father is therefore a significant theme. The Lord had departed to the deserted place because of this need to be&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>&nbsp;(:13), but His plans were thwarted by the unexpected tenacity of the crowd in following Him there. In this we see another picture of His humanity. But ultimately, God granted Him the need He felt to be&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, to be alone with God. Perhaps one reason He so insistently sent both the crowd and the disciples away was because He knew He simply had to be alone with God. And there can be times like this for us too. No matter how stupid we might appear in secular life, there can be a time when you just have to go and sit in the toilet for 5 minutes in your lunch break and pray. The Lord uses the term in speaking of how we are each given something very personal which we are to use in His service-&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, 'alone by ourselves', or as in AV "according to his several ability" (<em><a href='B:470 25:15'>Mat 25:15</a></em>). Each sheep is called by the Lord&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, AV "by name" (<em><a href='B:500 10:3'>Joh 10:3</a></em>). And therefore the judgment of each believer will be&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>, AV "according to his own labour" (<em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>). There is a very wide range of translations of this phrase. But the idea is that we were each individually called by the Lord and given different callings, and our judgment will be according to this. This is not to say that there is anything other than one basic faith, Gospel, Hope, Lord etc. But in many denominations and fellowships the idea is pushed that each believer must adopt an identical, detailed statement of understanding and calling. Yet in practice, the frames of our calling and the Lord's hopes for our responses vary significantly between individuals.</h4><p>The fact the Lord Jesus prayed to His Father is one of the profoundest and logically strongest evidences that He was not God in any Trinitarian sense. The basic facts of the Gospel records were simply not given their full weight by the unBiblical politicians who first created the Trinity doctrine. The liberal theologian Hal Taussig observes that other theologians haven’t written much about Jesus at prayer- for this very reason, that of itself it contradicts Trinitarian dogma: “Because Jesus at prayer confuses theological categories of “divine” and “human” (is there any need for a divine Jesus to pray?), theologians have rarely been interested in Jesus at prayer” (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Before God: The Prayer Life of the Historical Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Santa Rosa, CA: The Polebridge Press, 1999) p. 7). Taussig’s question “is there any need for a divine Jesus to pray?” is ultimately impossible for Trinitarian apologists to answer.</p><p><em>When evening came, he was there alone-</em>&nbsp;This is a pointed repetition of the information that the Lord was there&nbsp;<em>kata idios</em>- alone apart, by Himself. His aloneness with God is being brought to our attention. Prayer in one sense has to be a lonely experience. This is all surely why the Lord Himself is frequently pictured by the Gospel writers as making an effort to be alone in prayer to the Father (<em><a href='B:480 1:35'>Mar 1:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:13'>Mar 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:2'>Mar 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:23'>Mat 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:12'>Luk 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:39'>Luk 22:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:41'>Luk 22:41</a></em>). This is all some emphasIs. Be it rising in the early hours to go out and find a lonely place to pray, or withdrawing a stone’s throw from the disciples in Gethsemane to pray… He sought to be alone. <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em> emphasizes this repeated feature of the Lord’s life: “He departed again into a mountain himself alone”. The fact He often [“again”] retreated alone like this is emphasized by three words which are effectively saying the same thing- departed, himself, alone. Much as we should participate in communal prayers or in the prayers of our partner or our children, there simply has to be the time for serious personal prayer in our lives. And I have to drive the point home:&nbsp;<em>Are you doing this?</em>&nbsp;Putting it in other terms- are you alone&nbsp;<em>enough:&nbsp;</em>Incident after incident shows the Lord doing something alone, and then the disciples somehow being presented as doing the same. Take the way He departed “himself alone” when the crowd wanted to make Him king; and then soon afterwards we read that the crowd perceived that the disciples had likewise departed ‘themselves alone’ [same Greek phrase and construction, <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:22'>Joh 6:22</a></em>]. The point is that the world is presented as perceiving the disciples in the same terms and way as they did Jesus, even when, in this case, Jesus was not physically with them. And we too are to be “in Him” in our work of witness for Him.</p>


text:
<p>14:24&nbsp;<em>But the boat was now in the middle of the sea, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against them-</em>&nbsp;People at that time had a strong association between the sea and the forces of evil and condemnation; beginning with the condemnation of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, the Bible itself speaks of condemnation as being swamped at sea by the waves. The Egyptians perished "in the midst of the sea" (<em><a href='B:20 14:23'>Exo 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 29:3'>Eze 29:3</a></em>); Jonah drowned "in the midst of the sea" (<em><a href='B:390 2:3'>Jon 2:3</a></em>) as does the fool of Proverbs (<em><a href='B:240 23:34'>Pro 23:34</a></em>), as did Tyre and the Gentile nations (<em><a href='B:330 26:12'>Eze 26:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 27:26-27'>Eze 27:26-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 27:32'>Eze 27:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:8'>Eze 28:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 46:2'>Psa 46:2</a></em>) and Babylon (<em><a href='B:300 51:63'>Jer 51:63</a></em>). The disciples doubtless felt condemned. For there were these 12 Old Testament references to condemnation ringing in their Jewish ears. Their cry for salvation was therefore not merely for physical deliverance, but a cry for deliverance out of condemnation. They were "tossed with waves"- the very term used for the torment of the rejected (<em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a></em>). The disciples had earlier seen people who were tormented [s:w. "tossed"] being delivered by the Lord- to pave the way for them personally crying out for that same deliverance (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 8:6'>Mat 8:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>14:25&nbsp;<em>And in the fourth watch of the night-</em>&nbsp;Between three and six a:m. This indicates how long they had been struggling. It is the same ‘watch’ of the night in which God used the sea to destroy the Egyptians and thus save His people (<em><a href='B:20 14:20'>Exo 14:20</a></em>).</p><p><em>He came to them-</em>&nbsp;The Greek strictly means that He departed, He left to walk over the sea to them, in the fourth watch of the night. <em><a href='B:480 6:48'>Mar 6:48</a></em> adds the detail that "He would have passed by them". This is often His style to this day- it's not that He plays hard to get, but He wants to elicit in us a sense of our desperation for Him. Likewise He often asked sick people what He could do for them, when it was obvious what they wanted. For the same reason on the road to Emmaus, He made as if He would have gone further- to elicit in those disciples an urgent desire for fellowship with Him. The same word translated "passed by them" had just been used by the disciples in saying that "the time is now&nbsp;<em>past</em>" and so the Lord should send the crowd away to feed themselves. The disciples likely realized that they were being corrected for their desire to turn away the crowds of people from the Lord; admittedly their motivation was poor, as the Lord seems to explain to them in John 6, but it was seriously wrong to turn them away.<br/><em><a href='B:480 6:48'>Mar 6:48</a></em> says that “He saw them toiling in rowing” and then, later, He went to them. He didn’t literally see them rowing; but in His sensitive mind, He imagined just how it would be for them, and so He went to them.</p><p><em>Walking upon the sea</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>peripateo</em>&nbsp;means to walk&nbsp;<em>around&nbsp;</em>(from whence ‘peripatetic’], and is used about our walk of life, career, habits etc. The impression is of the Lord walking around at ease upon the waves which were so frightening to the disciples. Walking on the sea, Jesus “would have passed by them” (<em><a href='B:480 6:48'>Mar 6:48</a></em>). I don’t suppose He&nbsp;<em>would</em>&nbsp;have done, because He was ‘coming unto them’, but this was how they perceived it – and thus the record stands written, from a human perspective.</p>


text:
<p>14:26&nbsp;<em>And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were disturbed, saying-</em>&nbsp;The word is specifically used in literature of troubled water (and in <em><a href='B:500 5:4'>Joh 5:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:7'>Joh 5:7</a></em>). The state of the water was as the state of their minds. Hence the power of the image of the Lord Jesus walking at ease upon that troubled water.</p><p><em>It is a ghost!-&nbsp;</em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>phantasma</em>&nbsp;could refer to a ghost, in which cases we see how under pressure, disciples return quickly to their previous belief systems. But the word could equally refer to an Angel. Their fear, and that fear being met with assurance&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to fear, would then be typical of human reaction whenever Angels appear to them. The Lord's assurance that "It is&nbsp;<em>I</em>" would then be yet another evidence that the Lord Jesus was not an Angel (as the Watchtower wrongly claim):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And they cried out for fear-</em>&nbsp;These Greek words are only used together elsewhere in <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>, where Paul says that we do not cry out in fear, but rather cry "Abba, Father". This would again present the disciples at this point as condemned and far from the right relationship with the Father and Son which they should've had. The point of the incident is that they were saved out of that, by grace.</p>


text:
<p>14:27&nbsp;<em>But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying: Be of good cheer</em>!- They had at least twice heard the Lord comfort others with those words before healing them (<em><a href='B:470 9:2'>Mat 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>). According to their recollection of His words, so their comfort would have been. And that principle applies to us today:&nbsp;</p><p><em>It is I-&nbsp;</em>The&nbsp;<em>ego eimi</em>&nbsp;construction could be understood as an allusion to the Yahweh Name. They were to understand Him as the fulfilment of the Old Testament language of Yahweh walking upon the raging sea. “It is I” could be a quotation of the Divine Name from <em><a href='B:290 41:4'>Isa 41:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:10'>Isa 43:10</a></em>. It is used in that context of not fearing the power of Assyria / Babylon. The Lord wanted the disciples to perceive that the huge waves were to be met with the same faith that the faithful remnant had in the face of the opposition of superpowers against Israel. However, it needs to be asked how else the Lord could have said “It’s Me!”. There are alternatives, but this is the phrase used. And yet on the other hand, the use of&nbsp;<em>ego eimi</em>&nbsp;is not necessarily an allusion to the Divine Name, because it is found on the lips of men in <em><a href='B:100 2:19'>2Sa 2:19</a></em> LXX; <em><a href='B:470 26:22'>Mat 26:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:25'>Mat 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:27'>Joh 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:8'>Joh 9:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:510 22:3'>Act 22:3</a></em> (see too <em><a href='B:490 1:18-19'>Luk 1:18-19</a></em>). The question is: Did the Lord really expect the disciples to perceive such Scriptural allusions in the midst of panic and crisis? And if so, what was the point? For surely they were not in the midst of a quiet Bible class evening. The point likely was and is that in the heat of crisis, the spiritually minded will unconsciously perceive spiritual nudges from the Father and Son- and thus be strengthened to endure and decide rightly in the heat of crisIs:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Be not afraid</em>- A phrase so often on the Lord's lips to the disciples. They so often feared (<em><a href='B:490 8:25'>Luk 8:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:34'>Luk 9:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:40'>Mar 4:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:50'>Mar 6:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:32'>Mar 10:32</a></em>); despite the Lord repeatedly telling them not to be afraid (<em><a href='B:490 12:4'>Luk 12:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>). Despite His high demands on the one hand, on the other, He was and is ever assuring His people of His total and saving love for them. Peter uses the same phrase when he in his turn urges us to not be afraid nor 'troubled'- the very word used about the troubled disciples on the water that night (<em><a href='B:670 3:14'>1Pe 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:26'>Mat 14:26</a></em>). The Lord likewise leads each of us through situations in order that we might then strengthen others in those situations. Paul's teaching in <em><a href='B:540 1:4-8'>2Co 1:4-8</a></em> would seem to go as far as saying that in fact&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;we experience is in order that we might later give strength to others in similar situations. And this enables us, in broad terms at least, to attach meaning to event in a way which the unbeliever simply cannot:&nbsp;</p><p>The Qumran&nbsp;<em>Thanksgiving Hymns</em>&nbsp;are full of reference to the true Israel being saved from drowning in the sea of Gentile nations (1 QH 3:6,12-18; 6:22-25; 7:4,5). The&nbsp;<em>Testament of Naphtali</em>&nbsp;6:1-10 speaks of “the ship of Jacob” almost sinking in a storm, but Jacob himself walks on the water to save her. Clearly the Lord has these popular images in mind, and is recasting them- Jesus is the founder of the new Israel as Jacob was of the old, his 12 disciples are as the 12 sons of Jacob. And the faithful Israel in the boat are in fact not very faithful, they are secular, non-religious very human Jews who have come to believe in Jesus as Messiah.</p><p>How exactly was Peter motivated to walk on water? We want to know, because it’s the motivation that we so urgently need. We read that the Lord “passed by”. This is the very language used in the Old Testament concerning theophanies, i:e. those times when God ‘passed by’ before His people, accompanied by earthquake, rain, wind, fire etc. These ideas all recur here in the account of Jesus ‘passing by’ before the fearful disciples. In <em><a href='B:470 14:27'>Mat 14:27</a></em> the Lord tells them: “It is I”. This was a reference to the “I am” of the Yahweh Name. Peter&nbsp;knew that it was Yahweh who walks upon the waves of the sea (<em><a href='B:220 9:8'>Job 9:8</a></em>), and so he asks that if Jesus is really “I am”, God manifest in flesh, then He will bid Peter also walk on the water. It was Yahweh whose way was&nbsp;<em>upon&nbsp;</em>the sea (<em><a href='B:230 77:19'>Psa 77:19</a></em> Heb:; <em><a href='B:230 29:3'>Psa 29:3</a></em>). Indeed, the whole incident on the lake is almost prophesied in Psalms 107. The people are hungry in desolate places (:4,5), they are filled by Yahweh with good things, as the Lord Jesus fed the multitude (:9); some go down to the sea in ships (:23); a storm arises, sent from God (:25); they are troubled and cry out (:27,28); and then Yahweh delivers them, bringing them to their desired haven (:28-30). Peter, I think, perceived all this. He saw that this Man from Nazareth was indeed manifesting Yahweh, and he is asking that he too will be a part of God’s manifestation; he perceived that what was true of Jesus really could be true for us. If Jesus, manifesting Yahweh, walked upon the sea, then so could Peter. When Peter asks Jesus to “bid me come unto thee”, the Greek word translated “come” is also translated “to accompany”. He wanted to walk with Jesus on the water. He wanted to do what Jesus was doing. This of itself explains how the fact Jesus did what God did [e:g. walk on waves] doesn’t mean He is “very God of very gods”- for Peter realized that he too could have a part in that manifestation. If Jesus was a man of our nature and yet God manifest, then, Peter reasoned, I too can manifest the Father. And the same is true for us, today. The reality of God’s manifestation in the human Jesus should inspire us too to leave our comfort zones and enter the adventure of living Godly- living like God- in this present world. Peter “came down” out of the ship to go walking on water (<em><a href='B:470 14:29'>Mat 14:29</a></em>). He is described as “coming down” [s:w:] in <em><a href='B:510 10:21'>Act 10:21</a></em>, where he came down from the roof top and said: “Behold I am he whom ye seek; what is the cause wherefore ye are come?”. “I am he” uses the same two Greek words as in <em><a href='B:470 14:27'>Mat 14:27</a></em>, when the Lord says “It is I”. Three Greek words occurring together like this is surely not incidental. Peter recalls when he ‘came down’ out of the ship- and now, he really is Christ-manifest. He speaks as Jesus did; and further, “I am he whom ye seek” and “wherefore [are ye] come” are the very phrases of Jesus in Gethsemane. The record is showing us that consciously or subconsciously, Peter is Christ-manifest now. The words and person of Jesus have all had such impact upon him that now for him, “to live is Christ”. To ‘come down’ and manifest Him is what life is all about; Peter’s coming down out of the ship is a cameo of a life lived like this, time and again manifesting Him, overcoming the fear, the cowardice of our brethren, the distractions of the life and world which surrounds us…to walk out unto Him. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:28&nbsp;<em>And Peter answered, and said: Lord, if it is you-</em>&nbsp;I suggested on <em><a href='B:470 14:22'>Mat 14:22</a></em> that the Lord had hinted that He would come to them walking on the water. <em><a href='B:500 6:17'>Joh 6:17</a></em> comments that the disciples were in the boat in the sea "and Jesus was not come to them"- suggesting He had promised to do so and they should have been looking for Him, walking on the water to them. Perhaps Peter had grasped this, and therefore reasoned that what the Lord could do, all in Him could likewise potentially be empowered to do. Another angle on Peter's question is that He realized that only the Lord would ask such a thing of His followers. No ghost, satan, Angel or other imagined entity would actually invite a disciple of Jesus to do such a thing. To challenge us to the very limit of human faith is indeed the Lord's unique and distinguishing characteristic. Yet another slant on Peter's words is provided by the consideration that the three Greek words translated "If it is you" are always used elsewhere in the Gospels about whether Jesus is indeed the Christ ("tell us&nbsp;<em>if it is you</em>&nbsp;the Christ", <em><a href='B:470 26:63'>Mat 26:63</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:37'>Luk 23:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:39'>Luk 23:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:25'>Joh 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:24'>Joh 10:24</a></em>). The miraculous providing of manna had been sure evidence that Jesus was indeed Messiah, the Christ. But they still doubted. But on the other hand, Peter was willing to be persuaded&nbsp;again, and it is to his huge credit that he obeyed the Lord's invitation to get out of the boat and walk on the water.</p><p>Mark’s account of this incident omits all reference to Peter walking on the water (<em><a href='B:480 6:45-51'>Mar 6:45-51</a></em>). Yet there is good reason to think that Mark is really Peter’s gospel; in characteristic humility, he emphasizes his failures and downplays his achievements in his Gospel record. Hence this omission of any reference to Peter’s bravery may indicate that this incident places Peter in a positive light; it was a tremendous achievement, and he humbly declines to mention it.</p><p><em>Command me</em>- Peter's unswerving respect for his Lord's word is seen as he looked out of that sinking ship on Galilee, battling with his own humanity as he weighed up in his own mind whether to be spiritually ambitious enough to get down into that raging water. He only felt able to take such a leap of faith if he had Christ's word behind him. So he yelled out above the noise of the wind: "If it be thou,&nbsp;<em>bid me&nbsp;come</em>&nbsp;unto thee" (<em><a href='B:470 14:28'>Mat 14:28</a></em>). In other words: 'With your word behind me, I'll have a go; without it, I won't'. How much spiritual ambition is there within us? Or do we huddle in the sides of the ship, or desperately expend our own strength to bring about our salvation, without even seeking the word of Christ?&nbsp;Peter's request to be bidden walk on the water was (typically) both full of faith and yet also tinged by an element of unspirituality. His words as recorded here&nbsp;("If it is you, bid me come unto you on the water") appear strikingly similar to the LXX of <em><a href='B:120 5:13'>2Ki 5:13</a></em>, where a spiritually limited Naaman is rebuked for expecting to be asked to do something "demanding"- also connected with going into water!</p><h4><em>To come to you-&nbsp;</em>The same words are used in describing how Peter obediently 'came unto' Jesus on the water (:29). This phrase is used multiple times in the Gospels for people coming to Jesus. The crowd had 'come unto Jesus' (<em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>) and the disciples had clearly not been happy about that, and wished to send them away. The crisis on the lake was not so much the Lord's punishment of the disciples for that attitude, but rather His attempt to teach them a better attitude (see on <em><a href='B:470 14:30'>Mat 14:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>sink</em>). Now Peter realizes the need to come to Jesus and the grace of His 'coming to' them on the lake. This is why he asks to 'come unto' Jesus, rather&nbsp;than simply to walk on water. Never again would He despise those who wished to come to Jesus; Peter was asking permission to do what the crowd had done, and which he had despised them for doing- namely, coming to Jesus. The Lord's discourse afterwards emphasized the need to 'come to Him' and how all who were of God would come to Him and never be turned away (<em><a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:44-45'>Joh 6:44-45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:65'>Joh 6:65</a></em>). Peter's desire to come to Him made Peter typical of all disciples. The same challenge, to leave the boat and walk on water, echoes down to us all. Peter as so many others had in a sense already 'come unto' Jesus but now he perceived that he was to come to Him again, going through a level of re-conversion.</h4><p><em>By walking on the water</em>- The Lord walked "on the sea" (:25) but Peter asks to walk "on the water". Different words are used. I would be open to suggestion as to the significance, if any, of this difference.</p><p>In the account of Peter walking on water, we have a cameo of what it means to walk out of our comfort zone. Peter asked the man on the water to invite him to walk on the water; for Peter knew that only Jesus would be that demanding. He’s a demanding Lord for us too. Peter didn’t have to get out of the boat. But He realized that following the Lord Jesus involves this stepping out of our comfort zone. For us, it may be making a radical donation of our money, our time, a donation that really hurts, that is significant, not a giving that is well within our comfort zone. Or it may be a radical forgiveness, a radical refusal to answer slander, to not fight back, to day after day after day live amidst provocation. This may be our walking out on the water. Picture Peter as he stood by the side of the boat, wind blowing his hair back and forth, rain driving into his forehead, his brethren muttering “You’re absolutely&nbsp;<em>crazy,</em>&nbsp;there’s no need for this…we’re only going to have to save you ourselves”. He must have felt so alone. There was no human encouragement. Probably his thoughts went back to the wife and kids he had left behind on the other side of the lake, in that humble home in that quaint fishing village. But his focus was upon one Man, the same Lord and Master whom we look out to from the sides of our ships. The sheer bravery of Peter's walking on water stands out. Was he afraid to walk on water? Of course he was. But he focused all his faith into the word of Jesus: “Come!”. He overcame his fear to the point that he climbed over the sides of the boat. Picture him there, with one leg over the side and on the water, and the other still in the boat. He couldn’t stay like that. He had to go only forward. The only thing that kept him back was fear. And it is basically&nbsp;<em>fear&nbsp;</em>which holds us within our comfort zones. Fear, fear, fear…that’s all it Is. To know ‘truth’ in its experiential sense should free us from fear; for fear is related to the unknown. God appeals to Israel: “Of whom has thou been afraid or feared, that thou hast lied?” (<em><a href='B:290 57:11'>Isa 57:11</a></em>). Fear leads to our abdicating from the responsibility of making choices; and this is why humanity has such a dearth of truly creative imagination, and why genuinely new ideas are so rare. But the true life in Christ is a life of repeatedly overcoming that fear, the fear which paralyzes, which holds you back. Let the widow woman of <em><a href='B:110 17:13'>1Ki 17:13</a></em> be our heroine; she had totally nothing, just some flour; and she was hunting around in a parched land for two sticks with which to make a fire to bake it and eat her last meal, then to lie down in the dust of death. She must have been literally on her last legs. But then god through Elijah asked her to give Him even what terribly little she had. And Elijah encourages the frightened, wide-eyed woman: “Fear not!”. And she went forward in faith and gave him her very last hope of life. Living at such an animal level would have made her very self-centred; but she stepped out of it in response to the Lord’s challenge:&nbsp; Fear is, to my mind, the greatest single barrier to faith and true spirituality. It is fear alone which stops us from keeping commitments, from not entering into covenant relationship as deeply as we are bidden. This is why people shy away from covenant relationships, be they with the Father through baptism, or to another person through marriage or having children. Fear holds us back. We fear even ourselves, our own spiritual capacity, our standing before the Father. Our inner anxieties, our unconscious inner conflicts as we stand with Peter on the edge of the boat, contemplating what walking on water concretely meant, often lead us to criticize others or to speak and act with a hypocritical bravado. Yet true faith asks us to risk. As a psychotherapist friend of mine once jotted to me: “We are asked to risk all we believe ourselves to be, we may find we're not what we thought ourselves to be, our constructs of the self will be pushed to the limit and we're afraid of what we may find of ourselves, that we may not be what we imagine ourselves to be in the construct upon which we have built our theories of the self. Obeying rules, staying within the construct, is much easier, much safer:&nbsp; We may have never tested ourselves in the real world. To launch off into the unknown, into a future that contains or may contain unknown risk, where our worst fears are realised, the greatest fear may be that we are failures::. most of us, it would seem,&nbsp;don't have enough faith in there even being a God to risk even getting out of the boat let alone walking on the water”:&nbsp; Don’t underestimate the power of fear when it comes to walking on water. Nor let us fail to appreciate that the fearful are listed alongside the unrepentant whores and idolaters who shall remain outside the city of God (<em><a href='B:730 21:8'>Rev 21:8</a></em>). Our thirst for love, our fear of death and spiritual failure before a perfect God, the fear of displeasing or misunderstanding the infinite God…these fears should all be taken away for the man or woman who is truly clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Yet they have a way of persisting in our weakness of faith. And so there develops a conflict between our true conscience and the false suggestions of our faithless fears. All this can lead to neurotic behaviour and a repression of conscience. The only way out of this is to boldly step forward as Peter did, albeit bricking ourselves as we do so:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:29&nbsp;<em>And he said, Come</em>- The Lord's appeal to all men to 'come to Him' invites us to see ourselves as Peter, the prototype for all who would 'come unto Jesus'. Peter was asking to do as the Lord was doing- walking on water. Our coming to the Lord is therefore not merely an intellectual assent to a set of theology, however good that theology may be. The Lord defines coming to Him in practice as coming to the sick and imprisoned and thereby coming unto Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>).</p><p><em>And Peter got out of the boat</em>- The idea of "go out" is 'to descend'. The boat was not that much above the water, but the point is being made that Peter 'came down' from it. The same word is used about how the disciples 'came down' to the sea as they boarded the boat (<em><a href='B:500 6:16'>Joh 6:16</a></em>). And Peter is to descend yet lower when he sinks into the water. The impression is that the whole incident was intended to bring Peter down- and from thence to be raised up by the Lord's grace. The Lord's following discourse about Himself as the bread of life has many verbal connections with the incident on the lake which preceded it, as well as the feeding of the 5000 which had preceded that. Thus He emphasizes in the discourse the need to 'come' to Him, just as Peter had done. He also uses this same word for 'come down' to speak of how He too 'came down' as the bread of God (<em><a href='B:500 6:33'>Joh 6:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:41-42'>Joh 6:41-42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:50-51'>Joh 6:50-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:58'>Joh 6:58</a></em>). It cannot be coincidental that this word has been used of the disciples 'coming down' into the boat (<em><a href='B:500 6:16'>Joh 6:16</a></em>) and of Peter 'coming down' from the boat into the water (<em><a href='B:470 14:29'>Mat 14:29</a></em>). Surely the message is that in Peter's 'coming down', and indeed in the necessary 'coming down' in humiliation of all disciples- the Lord is with us and has passed through the same. The idea of 'coming down' suggests both humility, and also, in the context, manifesting God, being sent from God. But this very process means it is done in humility. The Lord developed the same theme with Peter when he later sees the sheet of unclean animals 'coming down' to him, and then he is commanded to 'come down' to the Gentiles waiting for him below (<em><a href='B:510 10:11'>Act 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:20-21'>Act 10:20-21</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And walked upon the water to go to Jesus-&nbsp;</em>The very words in <em><a href='B:480 6:48'>Mar 6:48</a></em> used about the Lord Jesus walking on the water to go to the disciples. Peter wanted to replicate exactly what his Lord was doing; and he knew that if it really was his Lord, then this was possible. As He is the light of the world, so are we. If we in Him, we too are Abraham's singular seed; all that is true of Him becomes true of us. And if He can walk on water, then given the appropriate motive, time and context, we too can do so.</p><p>At Peter’s initial conversion, he had also been in his ship on the sea of Galilee, and had seen Jesus walking [s:w:] near the sea shore (<em><a href='B:470 4:18'>Mat 4:18</a></em>). He left his boat, and responded to the call to follow Jesus. Now it’s the same basic scene, but this time Jesus is walking not “by” the sea but “on” the sea. The similarity is perhaps to teach Peter that the Lord’s real call may be repeated throughout our lives; the initial response may be relatively painless, but through the storms of life, the Lord teaches us as He did Peter how radical is the response required. To follow Him meant not merely walking away from the cares of this life, the boat, the nets, the fishing…but if Jesus walks on water, then those who follow Him must do likewise. And Peter, to his immense credit, perceived this; he saw his Lord walking on water as an imperative that demanded he do likewise. For him, Jesus wasn’t just a Saviour on whose back he could ride to salvation in God’s Kingdom. Yes, He is of course our saviour wherein we sink and drown in our weaknesses. But He is more than that; He is an inspiring example. His offer to walk on water wasn’t motivated, therefore, by any form of inquisitiveness or daredeviling; the offer to walk on the water was rooted in his grasp that if this is where the Lord walks, then axiomatically, we must do likewise. When the Lord walked “by” the sea, Peter had come out of the boat and followed Him; now the Lord walks “on” the sea, Peter perceives that he must follow Him even there. For “he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, as he walked” (<em><a href='B:690 2:6'>1Jn 2:6</a></em> - the same word is used as in the record of Peter’s walking on water with Jesus, making it possible that John is upholding Peter’s example for us all). For many, our conversions were relatively painless; indeed, for those raised in the faith, it may have been easier to get baptized than to walk away from it. But the essentially radical invitation to follow Jesus is repeated in later life; and the validity of our earlier choice to follow is put to the test by our later response to the same invitation. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:30&nbsp;<em>But when he saw</em>- His focus wandered from Jesus, for one can only 'see' the wind by seeing what it blows. Perhaps his focus moved from the face of Jesus to His clothes, or maybe he even looked back to the sails of the ship being blown, or down to the waves beneath him. Our focus on the Lord's face likewise so easily wanders.</p><p><em>The wind was strong-</em>&nbsp;The Greek can strictly mean 'stronger, mightier', with the sense of comparison to something else- as in "one&nbsp;<em>mightier</em>&nbsp;than I" (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>), "a&nbsp;<em>stronger</em>&nbsp;than he comes" (<em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em>). The wind seemed stronger to Peter- than what? Presumably- stronger than the power of Jesus. Maybe Paul had this in mind when he used the word in <em><a href='B:530 1:25'>1Co 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:22'>1Co 10:22</a></em>: "The weakness of God is&nbsp;<em>stronger&nbsp;</em>than men::. [men] are not&nbsp;<em>stronger</em>&nbsp;than Him". Even though the Lord was Himself standing at ease upon those waves. Peter later uses a related word to speak of the strength or might which God gives in order to fulfil our ministry (<em><a href='B:670 4:11'>1Pe 4:11</a></em>). He had learnt the lesson- that nothing equals God's power, nothing is really stronger than Him. And yet any lack of faith in Him is effectively saying that there are winds or crises stronger than Him:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He was afraid-</em>&nbsp;The record presents this as direct disobedience to the Lord's command "Be&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;afraid" (14:27). The Gospel records are transcripts of the preaching of the apostles, and they seem to love to emphasize their own weakness, especially that of Peter, their early leader, the rock upon whom the church was initially built. Such recognition of weakness should likewise stud our own presentations of the Gospel.</p><p><em>And beginning to sink</em>- The same word is only used elsewhere in <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em> where we read that those who turn away the little ones, as Peter and the other disciples had wished to do by wanting to send the crowd away, will be condemned by being cast into the sea where they will drown (s:w. "sink"). It wasn't that the Lord was punishing Peter for his attitude, but rather helping him realize that this was what condemnation would feel like for turning little ones away. We noted on 14:28&nbsp;<em>come unto you</em>&nbsp;that the Lord's subsequent discourse when they reached land pointed out that their turning away of the crowd was the very opposite of His refusal to turn away any who come to Him. We must pause and reflect whether in any way we are turning the little ones away; or whether we are lending support to any church policy which results in that. Peter's experience of what condemnation would feel like surely empowered him never to do this in any way. Especially through supporting exclusions of the little ones from the Lord's table we run the risk of making the same mistake- with eternal consequences. We really must think through the implications of our positions, whatever it costs us in this brief life.</p><p>When Peter was sinking, he was living out the picture we have of condemnation at the last day. When we read that he began to “sink” into the sea of Galilee, this is exactly the image we find in <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>, where the Lord says, in response to the question ‘Who will be the greatest?’, that he who offends one of the little ones will be drowned [s:w. “sink”] in the midst of the sea, His audience would have immediately associated this with the midst of the sea of Galilee, just where the storm had occurred. Peter seems to have realized that this warning was pertinent to him, for it is he who then interrupts the Lord to ask how often he should forgive his brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em>). Peter sinking into Galilee, giving up swimming but desperately throwing up his hand to the Lord [you don’t swim with a hand outstretched], is the position of each person who truly comes to Christ. This is the extent of our desperation; baptism, conversion to Him, is most definitely not a painless living out of parental expectations. Note how they were “tossed” or ‘tormented’ (Gk:) by the raging waves (<em><a href='B:470 14:24'>Mat 14:24</a></em>)- the very same word is used about how the rejected will be “tormented” in condemnation (<em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a></em>). Peter’s salvation by the hand of the Lord was representative of us all. As he drowned there in the lake, he was effectively living out the condemnation of the last day. But he appealed urgently to the Lord: “Save me!”. Later, Peter was to use the same words in his preaching, when he appealed to his nation to “save [themselves]” by calling on the name of the Lord, just as he had done on the lake (<em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em>). He saw that those people were in just the position which he had been in on the lake:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He cried out, saying</em>- The use of the two words highlights the significance of his words.</p><p><em>Lord, save me!</em>- Even in a moment of crisis, Peter’s mind was in God’s word; for here he is quoting from the urgent cry of the drowning man which is recorded in <em><a href='B:230 69:1-2'>Psa 69:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:14-15'>Psa 69:14-15</a></em>. This is where our subconscious absorption of God’s word is so valuable. In the split second of crisis, the word comes to mind. The words are significant because they are the words used by Peter in urging others to call upon the same Lord to be saved. He was such a compelling preacher- persuading 3000 people to be baptized instantly- exactly because he had called out these very words himself. It is only by knowing our own desperation that we will be compelling preachers. No amount of artistry, presentation or wordsmithing can produce anywhere near the same effect. He encouraged the crowds to likewise call upon the name of the Lord and be saved (<em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em>). He saw himself then and there, in all his weakness and yet sincere desperation, as the epitome of us all. But the parallels don’t stop there. Peter had asked the Lord bid him ‘Come unto me’ (<em><a href='B:470 14:28'>Mat 14:28</a></em>). Yet this is the very language of the Lord to all: ‘Come unto me:::’. Yet Peter went further; in the same way as the Lord stretched forth His hand and saved Peter, so He stretches forth His hand, Peter observed, to save all who would come to Him (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>). But Peter is framed as Jesus, in that he too stretched out his hand to save others as Jesus had done to him (<em><a href='B:470 14:35'>Mat 14:35</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 5:15-16'>Act 5:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>), bidding them come through the water of baptism as Jesus had done to him. As Jesus was worshipped after saving Peter, so men tried to worship Peter (<em><a href='B:470 14:33'>Mat 14:33</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em>). So Peter went through what we all do- having been saved by Jesus, having come to Him and having been rescued by the outstretched arm, he responds to this by doing the same for others. When the Lord “caught” hold of Peter as he sunk in the waves (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>), a Greek word is used which occurs only once elsewhere: “He did not take hold [s:w. to catch] of Angels, but of the seed of Abraham” (<em><a href='B:650 2:16'>Heb 2:16</a></em>). The Hebrew writer was surely alluding to the Lord’s ‘catching’ of desperate Peter and pulling him to salvation- and saw in Peter a symbol of all those who will be saved by Christ.</p><p>Note that Peter cried out “<em>Lord</em>, save me!” when most men in that situation would have simply cried out “Save me!”. But his grasp of the Lordship of the One he followed inspired faith. If He was truly Lord, He was capable of all things. “Lord, save me!” was a call uttered in a moment of weakness. His “sinking” (<em><a href='B:470 14:30'>Mat 14:30</a></em>) is described with the same word used about condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>), and yet Peter in his preaching persuades condemned men to do just the same: to&nbsp;<em>call</em>&nbsp;on the&nbsp;<em>Lord</em>&nbsp;in order to be&nbsp;<em>saved</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:14'>Act 11:14</a></em>). He invited all men to enter into the weakness and desperation which he had known on the water of Galilee, and receive a like unmerited salvation. And when he tells his sheep that the righteous are “scarcely saved” (<em><a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a></em>) he surely writes with memories of that same gracious deliverance. And in discussing ecclesial problems he points out that all of us have had a similar salvation, and should act with an appropriate inclusiveness of our brethren (<em><a href='B:510 15:11'>Act 15:11</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4>14:31&nbsp;<em>And immediately Jesus stretched out his hand</em>- Peter again reflects his experience of personal salvation in his witness to others- for he likewise stretched out his hand to the lame man, and again with "immediate" effect, as here on the lake that night (<em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em> s:w:). Peter felt that all the work he did by his own hand was effectively the Lord "stretching forth His hand to heal" (<em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>). He realized that&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;hand was now the hand of Jesus, the same hand which had stretched forth [s:w. <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>] to save&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;on the lake that night. Our experience of salvation simply has to be re-enacted by us towards others. There is great emphasis in the Gospels upon the hands of Jesus- so often stretched out to heal, save and bless; the hands out of which no sheep can be taken, the hands into which all power has been given by the Father, the hands which were nailed through by men in their ignorance and rejection of God's salvation. And those hands are our hands. Think through this again- the Lord “stretched forth his hand” to save Peter (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>); and this is the very phrase used by Peter in <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>, speaking of how the Lord’s hand is “stretched forth to heal”. Peter saw himself on the lake as typical of all whom the Lord saves. Yet, it was&nbsp;<em>Peter</em>, not the Lord Himself, who stretched forth his hand to do the Lord’s healing work&nbsp;on the lame man (<em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>). Again, Peter is thinking back to the incident on the lake and perceiving that he is now Christ manifest as he had intended to be then. Thus it was the principle of God manifestation which inspired Peter to reach out of his comfort zone so dramatically; and properly appreciated, it can motivate us likewise. &nbsp;</h4><p><em>And took hold of him and said to him</em>- The writer to the Hebrews twice uses the same Greek word. First, in describing how the Lord Jesus 'caught hold' of all the seed of Abraham in His saving work (<em><a href='B:650 2:16'>Heb 2:16</a></em>), and again in speaking of how God "took" [s:w. "caught"] Israel "by the hand" and redeemed them from Egypt (<em><a href='B:650 8:9'>Heb 8:9</a></em>). Peter is thus presented as everyman in Christ. He was saved out of condemnation, drowning in the waters for turning away the little ones. There is surely in each of us, looking back upon our lives, the sense that we were in His grip, and still are; He took hold of us, to save us. And there is a mutuality in this- for we too desperately catch hold of the hope of the Kingdom (s:w. <em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:19'>1Ti 6:19</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>O you of little faith</em>- A word used five times by the Lord, four of them recorded in Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:8'>Mat 16:8</a></em>). It's as if Matthew loved to emphasize in his preaching how weak their faith had been:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Why</em>- The&nbsp;<em>eis tis</em>&nbsp;construction means far more than "why?". The simple sense of "why?" could have been expressed in one word. This little phrase is elsewhere translated "to what purpose?" (<em><a href='B:470 26:8'>Mat 26:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:3'>Act 19:3</a></em>). The idea would then be: 'You know you need saving. To what purpose is doubt? Will doubt save you? No. So, seeing that lack of faith will not save you, and you need saving, then totally believe in My ability to save you':&nbsp;</p><p><em>Did you doubt?</em>- A form of the Greek for 'twice' or 'double'. James surely has the incident in mind when he warns not to be a double minded man, wavering in faith "like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed" (<em><a href='B:660 1:6'>Jas 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:8'>Jas 1:8</a></em>). He is holding up Peter- leader of the early church to whom he was writing- as the example of how&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to be. This is no evidence of any tension between James and Peter; rather is it typical of what Peter himself does, in drawing attention to past weakness and development from that weakness as the sign of real spiritual strength and the basis for legitimate respect. James is clearly telling his readers not to be like Peter. It is easy for our reaction against Catholic extremism to lead us to under-estimate the high status of Peter in the early church. Here was James, also a respected elder, telling the flock to take a snapshot of their great leader Peter in his moment of weakness on the lake- and not be like him! Leaders of worldly organizations have a way of telling the flock that all their fellow leaders are as spotless as they are. But this wasn’t the case in the early church. It was Peter’s very humanity which was and is his inspiration. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:32&nbsp;<em>And when they boarded the boat</em>- Jesus and Peter. The "they" is contrasted with the "they" who were still in the ship (:33). The word picture is of Jesus and Peter united very closely:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The wind ceased-</em>&nbsp;Gk. 'grew weary', as if there was a brief period over which the raging decreased.</p><p>John speaks in his Gospel of those who received Christ (<em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:16'>Joh 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:32'>Joh 3:32</a></em> etc:)- and it is in allusion to this that he speaks of how the disciples ‘received Christ’ into their ship whilst about to drown on Galilee (<em><a href='B:500 6:21'>Joh 6:21</a></em>). Their desperation as they faced death was understood by John as a symbol of the desperation of all those who truly receive Christ. But without perceiving our desperation, can we properly ‘receive’ Him?</p>


text:
<p>14:33&nbsp;<em>And they that were in the boat-&nbsp;</em>They are not simply called 'the disciples', perhaps because as Matthew retold the Gospel, he felt that at that time they were not worthy of the name. The desire to send away the crowd hungry was such a major failure. And it makes sense that in the process of retelling the Gospel to audiences (of which the Gospel records are transcripts), Matthew would emphasize this- that the Lord turned nobody away, and neither would the apostles who were now retelling the story- because they had learnt how wrong that would be.</p><p><em>Worshipped Him, saying</em>- Let's not miss the significance of the fact they 'came' to Him. The same word has been used of Peter 'coming' to the Lord on the water (:28,29), of the crowd 'coming' to Jesus immediately prior to their departure in the boat (<em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>), and the Lord will go on straight away to teach the need to 'come' to Him (<em><a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:44-45'>Joh 6:44-45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:65'>Joh 6:65</a></em>). Peter's example inspired them all. They too realized that the crowd had not been wrong to 'come to Jesus', and that they had been wrong to want to send them away (<em><a href='B:470 14:15'>Mat 14:15</a></em>); for they had been saved exactly because Jesus does not send away any who come to Him (<em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>). Those who were in the ship came and worshipped Him after He came into the ship- suggesting that they kept themselves at some distance from Him and Peter, marvelling at Him, realizing their unworthiness, and therefore cowering around the sides of the boat.</p><p><em>Of a truth you are the Son of God</em>- The implication is that they had doubted it previously. The miracle of feeding 5000 people surely had elicited faith in them that He was God's Son. But when He appeared silent to their needs when about to die on the lake, they started to lose that faith- just as we can, when the Lord doesn't act as we think He should or when He appears completely silent. The title they use is "Son of God" when they could just as easily have called Him 'Messiah' or some other equivalent term. Because He acted as God, whose voice is greater than stormy winds (<em><a href='B:230 148:8'>Psa 148:8</a></em>) and who walks upon the waves of the sea- they therefore concluded and intuitively felt that He must be God's Son. And yet when Trinitarians perceive that Jesus did things which the Father is spoken of as exclusively doing, they conclude that 'Jesus is God'. But that was never the conclusion of the disciples- their conclusion and immediate, intuitive feeling was that therefore this Son of man must be also Son of God. And that is indeed the Biblical position. The only other person who cried out "Truly [this was] the Son of God" was the Centurion at the cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em> - the same three Greek words are used). Our experience of the cross likewise leads us to the same position as the disciples upon the lake. And it seems likely that this exclamation that 'I truly believe Jesus is God's Son' was one of the declarations made by baptismal candidates in the early church (as it was in <em><a href='B:510 8:37'>Act 8:37</a></em>). In this case, Matthew and the apostles would have been holding up their own conversion experiences as a pattern for other believers, just as Paul saw his conversion as a pattern for all who would later believe (<em><a href='B:610 1:16'>1Ti 1:16</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>"You are the Son of God" was the emotional confession of a moment, because <em><a href='B:480 6:52'>Mar 6:52</a></em> says that their hearts were hard and they didn’t “understand”. In this we see the fickleness of what can appear to be faith; we can with sincerity say one thing, when actually our hearts very soon go to a position of unbelief or at least, far lower faith than in the heat of the glorious moments when faith is rewarded. The Gospel writers use their records to bring out their own fickleness. After having been awed to this confession by the Lord’s stilling of the storm, they are soon almost mocking Him for asking who had touched Him, when hundreds of the jostling crowd had touched Him (<em><a href='B:490 8:25'>Luk 8:25</a></em> cp. 45).</p><p>After recording the feeding of the 5000, Luke records that the Lord asked the disciples again about who He was, and Peter replied that He was the “Christ of God”. The Lord was seeking to develop and consolidate their confession of faith. Thus in <em><a href='B:490 9:18'>Luk 9:18</a></em>, the Lord Jesus asks His men: “Whom say the people that I am?”. Why did He ask this? Surely, with His sensitivity and insight into people and society, He knew full well the various theories that first Century Palestine entertained about Him. It seems to me that He asked this question for the disciples’ sake; He wanted them to reflect upon the wide range of wrong theories which there were concerning His identification. And this led on to His next question: “But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God”. Surely the Lord Jesus knew what they thought of Him, without needing to ask them. Philip and Nathanael had earlier revealed that they considered Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah and “the Son of God” (<em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:49'>Joh 1:49</a></em>). So, why did the Lord ask this question? Again, it was surely to focus His disciples upon the reality of the fact that despite all the various wrong theories, they actually knew the truth about Him. But the Lord then goes on to His essential point: “Tell no man that thing; saying, The Son of man must suffer many things…and be slain, and be raised…If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me… For what is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?” (<em><a href='B:490 9:21-25'>Luk 9:21-25</a></em>). The Lord told the disciples to “Tell no man” by saying that “The Son of man must suffer…”. I submit that “Tell no man…” is almost hyperbole; surely He means ‘For now, focus more on the fact of my forthcoming death and your response to it, than telling others. If you gain the whole world for me in your preaching but lose your own salvation, what are you advantaged?’. After His resurrection they were to tell others; as the great commission made plain. And there is a powerful message to us all here, especially to those who concern themselves with large amounts of preaching. We should not be so caught up in listing the errors of others that we fail to appreciate the huge personal import of the truth that we do surely know. Indeed, the Lord sought to focus His men upon the Truth they knew by asking them firstly to consider all the wrong theories about Him. He then went on to bring home to them the radical, transforming impact of that Truth if it is properly believed and acted upon. Luke seems to draw attention to this theme again in <em><a href='B:490 10:20'>Luk 10:20</a></em>, where the disciples return from a successful preaching mission to be told to focus their elation instead upon the reality of their own personal salvation: “Rejoice not [i:e. not so much] that the spirits are subject unto you: but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven”. We are not to turn a blind eye to others' misunderstandings; the tragedy of the errors of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc. should not pass us by. But neither are we to remain obsessed with them. We are to be led by such reflection to rejoice in the basic truth of Jesus which we have been blessed with.</p>


text:
<p>14:34&nbsp;<em>And when they had crossed over, they came-</em>&nbsp;Perhaps the emphasis is upon&nbsp;<em>they</em>. The Lord and His disciples were now united again.</p><p><em>To land at Gennesaret</em>- This is on the northwest shore of Galilee. <em><a href='B:480 6:45'>Mar 6:45</a></em> says that they departed on their journey aiming for Bethsaida, on the northeast shore. The Lord had upbraided Bethsaida in <em><a href='B:470 11:21'>Mat 11:21</a></em>. Perhaps the disciples had insisted on pressing ahead with giving those people another chance, whereas that was not the Lord’s will. Such providential overruling of our preaching is a common occurrence. One wonders whether the changed journey plan involved not returning to the Jews but going to a more Gentile area. This would have been in line with the Lord’s own change of course in His ministry, turning away from the Jewish masses towards the tiny minority who accepted Him and towards the Gentiles (see on 13:10).</p>


text:
<p>14:35&nbsp;<em>And when the men of that place recognised him-&nbsp;</em>This would suggest that they didn't know His face. Their faith was therefore based around the word about Christ which they had heard. Matthew may well have this in mind as an example to the audiences he is preaching too, who were likewise hearing about Christ and being asked to show practical faith in Him, even though they had not seen Him. We in our generation are of course in the same situation.</p><p><em>They sent word to all in that region and brought to him all who were sick</em>- These "men" were not disciples. But they 'sent out'- Gk:&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>. Although they were not the apostles, they acted as apostles, purely on the basis of what they had heard about Jesus, as they had not personally seen Him before. And they sent out the message to "all", inviting people to come to Jesus and 'leading' them to Him (AV "brought them to Jesus"). This is all very much the language and concepts of the great commission. That commission was to be obeyed by those who had not personally met the Lord, whose faith was based upon the word of others; and they were to do the work of apostles, going to "all" and urging people to come to Jesus. These "men" of Gennesaret are being set up as a model of obedience to the great commission, and are therefore a particular role model for our generation. Mark seems to put the emphasis at this point on the Lord going out into all the region. <em><a href='B:480 6:56'>Mar 6:56</a></em> speaks of His preaching campaign as focusing on the towns, villages and "country" - in modern terms, the villages, hamlets and isolated rural dwellings. He made the effort to get out to the individuals, the poorest and loneliest of&nbsp;society. So the Lord went out to people in those hamlets (Mk:), and yet people from those hamlets came to Him (Mt:). This is how the Lord operates to this day. God is in search of man, and yet man is in search of God- hence the cosmic joy in the ‘touch’ of meeting.</p><p>"Sick", Gk:&nbsp;<em>kakos</em>&nbsp;can mean a very wide range of illness, including spiritually.</p>


text:
<p>14:36&nbsp;<em>And they pleaded with him that they might only touch</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>parakleo</em>&nbsp;means literally 'to call near' and in this case we can understand it literally. They felt that they had to touch Him in order to be healed (unlike the cases of faith in His spoken word which the Lord so commends). Therefore, needing that physical presence, it makes sense to understand&nbsp;<em>parakleo</em>&nbsp;here as meaning to literally call near. They called Him near so that they might touch the hem of His garment.</p><p><em>The fringe of his garment. And as many as touched it were made well-</em>&nbsp;The Law of Moses commanded the Jews to make "borders" of blue upon their clothes (<em><a href='B:40 15:38'>Num 15:38</a></em>), presumably to remind them of Heaven in daily life. But the same Hebrew word is found in <em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>, speaking of how the Messianic "sun of righteousness" was to arise with "healing in His hems". Their seeking for healing in the hem of the Lord's clothes was therefore a sign that they accepted Him as Messiah. But the 'arising' of Malachi 4 is the time of the Kingdom established on earth, with Judah freed from her oppressors. The time for <em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em> was not then. They thought it was. And yet the Lord still goes along with their misunderstanding, by granting them healing from His hems. This may have been simply from compassion of the moment towards human need; or it could be that the Lord was happy to reward faith when He saw it, even if it was based upon somewhat wrong interpretation of the Father's word:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:1&nbsp;<em>Then there came to Jesus Pharisees and scribes</em>- Matthew records many people ‘coming to Jesus’. A related word is found in <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>: “All that the Father gives me shall come to Me; and he who&nbsp;<em>comes</em>&nbsp;to Me, I will in no way reject”. Many ‘came to Jesus’ but only some really came. Again we see a warning against surface level Christianity- coming to Him externally, but not in essence.</p><p><em>From Jerusalem, saying</em>- They came all the way to Galilee to try to trap the Lord in His words. And yet it was some of the Jerusalem priests (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>) and Pharisees (<em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>) who later accepted Christ. We would likely have ignored these troublemakers and given up on them as hard cases, to be endured but not converted. But the Lord’s hope and vision for humanity was so wide- and in the end, even after His death, it paid off. This is a great challenge to us in our witness to all men, including the bitter, self-righteous religious leader types:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:2&nbsp;<em>Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?-&nbsp;</em>The word&nbsp;<em>presbeteros</em>&nbsp;would’ve been understood by all to refer to members of the Sanhedrin. And yet the later New Testament uses the word about elders within the Christian church, who got to that status regardless of social position but purely on the basis of spiritual qualification; thus a spiritually qualified slave or young believer in their 20s could be a&nbsp;<em>presbeteros</em>&nbsp;in the new Israel which was being consciously created by the Lord in parody of the old Israel:&nbsp;</p><p>Often Paul sees similarities between the Pharisees' behaviour as recorded in the Gospels, and that of people he brushed against in his life (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 15:2'>Mat 15:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:550 1:14'>Gal 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:8'>Col 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:9'>Mat 15:9</a></em> = <em><a href='B:580 2:22'>Col 2:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:14'>Tit 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:6'>Mat 16:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 5:6-7'>1Co 5:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:9'>Gal 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:31-32'>Mat 23:31-32</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 2:15'>1Th 2:15</a></em>). We too are to translate the Gospels into our own life situations.</p><p><em>For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread</em>- Rabbi Joses claimed that “to eat with unwashen hands is as great a sin as adultery." And Rabbi Akiba in captivity used his water ration to wash his hands rather than to drink, resulting in him almost dying of dehydration:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:3<em>&nbsp;And he answered and said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?-&nbsp;</em>Although the Lord was very hard in some ways upon the twelve, accusing them of “no faith” etc:, whenever He spoke about them to others or to His Father, He was so positive and defensive about them. This is a valuable window onto His current mediation for us. The disciples were ordinary Jews who weren’t such righteous men; they didn’t wash before a meal, and the Pharisees criticized them. The Lord explained why this wasn’t so important; but the disciples still didn’t understand (:15,16). And yet He justifies them to the Pharisees as if they&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;understand, and as if their non-observance of ritual washing was because of their great spiritual perception. Surely the Lord imputed a righteousness to them which was not their own. He had asked the disciples to be obedient to every jot and tittle of the teaching of the Scribes, because they “sit in Moses’ seat”. And yet when they are criticized for not doing what He’d asked them to do, for not washing hands before a meal, the Lord Jesus vigorously defends them by criticizing their critics as hypocrites (<em><a href='B:480 7:2-8'>Mar 7:2-8</a></em>). Indeed, the Lord’s passion and anger with the critics comes out very clearly in the subsequent record of the incident; and it is the essence of that passion which He has for us in mediating for us.</p><h4>The force of “also” transgress is that the Lord didn’t deny that His men were transgressing the tradition of the elders- even though He had elsewhere taught them to obey those who “sit in Moses’ seat” (<em><a href='B:470 23:2'>Mat 23:2</a></em>). But still He justifies His disciples to the world, reflecting His love and imputation of righteousness towards them. And this Lord is our Lord.</h4><p>The tension is between human&nbsp;<em>tradition</em>, and Divine&nbsp;<em>commandment</em>. There is a tendency to assume that tradition passed down over a period of time is in fact from God. Even the most protestant of Protestant churches have this tendency. And it is in all of us. The Lord goes on to demonstrate that God’s&nbsp;<em>command</em>&nbsp;is transgressed not only by bold faced disobedience, but equally by seeking to get around its real force and by&nbsp;<em>omitting</em>&nbsp;to do what that command implies. Accepting the real implication of God’s inspired word means that we will fearlessly break with tradition when necessary, and will examine whether our response to His word is direct obedience or rather a mirage, ‘getting around’ the direct requirement. All this is the practical outcome of believing the Bible to be inspired:&nbsp;</p><p>The tradition in view is not specifically their teaching about washing. The subsequent context shows the Lord has in view other traditions. His argument is therefore ‘If&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;of your traditions are wrong and unBiblical, then why demand we keep other traditions which are within that same body of tradition’. And so He relentlessly requires that tradition within any religious group is fearlessly analysed- if some are unBiblical, then the others need not be respected. Just as “tradition” and “commandment” are placed in apposition to each other, likewise “your” is in opposition to “of God”. Elevating tradition to the status of Divine commandment is yet another way in which religious people ‘play God’.</p>


text:
<p>15:4&nbsp;<em>For God said</em>- AV "Commanded". His word speaks directly to us, whereas the Greek word for “tradition” means something passed down. To make the point, the Lord speaks of the commandments of Moses as&nbsp;<em>God&nbsp;</em>commanding. The Jews spoke of&nbsp;<em>Moses&nbsp;</em>commanding (<em><a href='B:500 8:5'>Joh 8:5</a></em>), and although the Lord also does (<em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em>), His point is that it was effectively&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;commanding:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Saying</em>- AV. This apparently redundant word severs to emphasize that God’s word is a living word, speaking directly to us, and not mediated to us through passed down traditions of men.</p><p><em>Honour your father and your mother, and he that speaks evil of father or mother</em>- The Lord Jesus saw as parallel the commands to honour parents and also not to curse them. These two separate commands (from <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 21:17'>Exo 21:17</a></em>) He spoke of as only one: "<em>the&nbsp;</em>commandment" (<em><a href='B:480 7:9'>Mar 7:9</a></em>). He therefore saw that not to honour parents was effectively to curse them (<em><a href='B:480 7:10'>Mar 7:10</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Omitting&nbsp;</em>to honour parents, even if it involved appearing to give one's labour to God's temple, was therefore the same as&nbsp;<em>committing&nbsp;</em>the sin of cursing them. He therefore speaks in :6 of how they did&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>honour their parents by the legal loophole they had devised- but this is the same as cursing them. The Lord looked very deeply at the implication of human behaviour and positions; and He does the same with ours too. The fact He has such penetrating depth of analysis highlights His patient grace with us- for He realizes the nature of human sin far more perceptively than we do, who see only a few implications of each sin.</p><p><em>Must surely die-&nbsp;</em>In Mark’s account, the Lord taught that to wangle one's way out of caring for their parents by delegating it to the synagogue was effectively cursing them, and those guilty must "die the death" (<em><a href='B:480 7:10-11'>Mar 7:10-11</a></em>). To him who knows to do good but does it not, this omission is counted as sin (<em><a href='B:660 4:17'>Jas 4:17</a></em> - written in the context of brethren omitting to help each other).</p>


text:
<p>15:5&nbsp;<em>But you say</em>- The saying of God (note the word “saying” in :4) was overridden by the saying of men. This quotation was from the passed down traditions of the Jews. But the Lord says that&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>say this. The ‘saying’ of the Rabbis became the ‘saying’ of those who obeyed them. Thus obedience to a command (in this case, of men) is counted as ‘saying’ it- for we pass on teaching by our example of doing it. The depth of the Lord’s analysis of their behaviour is amazing.</p><p><em>Whoever shall say to his father or his mother</em>- To give a word, or written contract:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That with which you might have been profited by me is given to God</em>- If a gift was made to the temple treasury of what was reckoned to be the obligation of the man to his parents, or if the man agreed to list the temple treasury as a beneficiary in his will, giving to them the amount he would have spent caring for his elderly parents- then he was considered free from having to honour and care for them. The reasoning was that something promised to God in the future was His and could not therefore be spent on parents. But this was&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;honouring the parents (:6). We can’t buy our way out of spiritual responsibility by making donations or making legacies which cost us nothing today. We can think that we are devoting ourselves to the Lord's cause over and above that which is required of us- when actually, we do nothing of the sort. We can give to the Lord's cause, when actually we have only got round the essential intention of God's commandments to be generous-spirited and show a true love (<em><a href='B:470 15:5-6'>Mat 15:5-6</a></em>). The Jews fasted on days which the Law did not require of them; but in God's ultimate analysis, they did this for themselves, to bolster their own spiritual ego, rather than as a fast which He recognized (<em><a href='B:450 7:5'>Zec 7:5</a></em>). The more active we are in the community of believers, the more we feel we go the extra miles- the more sober is this warning.</p><p>The very language of “profit” is inappropriate. If we have a duty to help someone, then that help is hardly their “profit”. The very term reduces love and the care that comes from love to a mere transaction.</p>


text:
<p>15:6&nbsp;<em>He shall not honour his father-&nbsp;</em>To not honour ones’ parents is, in the Lord’s book, to actively curse them, even though it is doubtful those He was criticizing ever actually did so (<em><a href='B:470 15:1-6'>Mat 15:1-6</a></em>). This is the power of sin of omission:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Thus you have made void the word of God because of your tradition</em>- It could mean, literally, of no authority. Again the Lord is making the point that practical obedience to God’s word is a function of what authority we give it. To disobey God’s commands by seeking to ‘get around’ them is effectively saying that God’s word is of no authority. And this is the context of this whole discussion- God’s word is the sole authority, and not human tradition and the concessions to disobedience made by men. His word is sent forth and&nbsp;<em>will accomplish&nbsp;</em>its purpose, Isaiah says; and yet we can make “the word of God of none effect” by our traditions or our lack of preaching it. The word / Gospel will inevitably have a result, and yet it is also limited by the attitudes of men.</p><p>Or we can understand “effect” as just that- effect. The command to honour and practically care for elderly parents had an “effect”. God’s laws are not simple tests of obedience for the sake of it. The process of obedience has “effect”; disobedience therefore robs us of the positive effect which obedience will bring. Caring for elderly parents, putting “honour” into practice rather than leaving it as mere words, is designed to teach us something. Here in Matthew we read of the “commandment” (<em>entole</em>) of God, but in <em><a href='B:480 7:13'>Mar 7:13</a></em> of the “word” (<em>logos</em>) of God. What did the Lord say? Perhaps: ‘You make the commandment, that is, the intention (<em>logos</em>) of God, of no effect”. God’s word of command is a&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, an intention. See on :9&nbsp;<em>in vain</em>:&nbsp;</p><p>It’s also quite legitimate to understand&nbsp;<em>akuroo</em>&nbsp;as meaning to disannul (s:w. <em><a href='B:550 3:17'>Gal 3:17</a></em>). In this case, the Lord is saying that the Jews were doing the unthinkable for them- disannulling God’s law. The law was disannulled by the death of the Lord Jesus, and Judaism and the early communities of Jewish converts clearly struggled with that idea. But Matthew records the Lord’s words at this point to demonstrate that effectively, the Law had been disannulled already by Jewish disobedience to it and following human traditions which left the Law without power and function.</p><p>Again, “tradition” is put here for ‘the keeping of tradition’. Tradition means ‘that which is passed on’, and it is only that if it is actually practised:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:7&nbsp;<em>You hypocrites</em>- The Lord could use this term about people only because He could see what was on the inside (the heart, :8). We who cannot do this are perhaps not able to define others in this way.</p><p><em>Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying</em>- The reference to “this people…” was not to be understood as only Isaiah’s hearers, but all who read this living word (:8). And so this is in the end how to study the Bible- to let it speak to&nbsp;<em>you in your generation</em>.</p>


text:
<p>15:8&nbsp;<em>This people honours me with their lips but their heart is far from me</em>- The prophecy quoted from Isaiah 29 is a criticism of the common people of Judah at Hezekiah’s time; there was Godly leadership, but Isaiah laments that the ordinary people were far from Yahweh. But the Lord quotes this as relevant to the Jewish religious leadership, who prided themselves on their separation from the mass ‘people of the land’ whom they considered as apostate. Yet again we see His radical turning upside down of the Jewish worldview and creation of a new order, where secular people like His disciples were to be the new Sanhedrin leadership (see on 15:2&nbsp;<em>elders</em>). Note that He was at this stage specifically addressing the Jewish elders, because only in :10 does He call the crowd to Him to listen.</p><p>They honoured with their lips, but their heart was far from God; they externally kept His commandments, but they frustrated their intention by not letting them influence their essential selves (<em><a href='B:480 7:6-9'>Mar 7:6-9</a></em>). They fiercely guarded the pronunciation of His Covenant Name; but in reality, they forgot that Name (<em><a href='B:300 23:27'>Jer 23:27</a></em>). The Lord perceived that “your tradition… the commandments of men… your doctrines” resulted in the hearts of Israel being “far from [God]”. Doctrine was intended to affect the heart; and false doctrine resulted in the heart being far from God. True doctrine, on the other hand, was and is intended to bring the heart close to God. Doctrine / teaching is therefore to affect the heart; it is not just the intellectual basis for unity in a community of believers. And the Lord goes on in this very context to talk of how “every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up” (<em><a href='B:470 15:13'>Mat 15:13</a></em>). The Greek for “planted” is interpreted by James Strong as meaning “Figuratively, to instil doctrine”. The planting of the believer is through the instillation of Godly doctrine, rather than the doctrines of men. Note how the Lord speaks of doctrine as a command in <em><a href='B:470 15:6'>Mat 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:9'>Mat 15:9</a></em>: "Thus have you made the&nbsp;<em>commandment</em>&nbsp;of God of none effect by your tradition::. in vain they do worship Me, teaching for&nbsp;<em>doctrines</em>&nbsp;the commandments of men". And He taught earlier that the doctrine of one God was in fact a command to action. Doctrine,&nbsp;<em>didache</em>, is teaching, not just theory; it is commandment towards action. For doctrine and practice are linked. In this we are helped to assess whether any idea or interpretation is indeed a 'first principle doctrine' or not. What does it inspire in practice? Or is it merely the academic interpretation of the human brain cells?</p>


text:
<p>15:9- see on 15:2.</p><p><em>But in vain do they worship me</em>- Worship and sacrifice to God can be done “in vain” if our attitude to His word is wrong. The reason for the vanity of their worship and devotions was because their doctrine was wrong. This clearly shows that religious devotion alone doesn’t mean anything in terms of acceptability with God. And it also shows that the intention of doctrine, of teaching from God’s word, is so that our lives are&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;lived “in vain”; there is “effect” in the outworking of God’s true word in human lives. “In vain” here is surely to be semantically paralleled with “no effect” in :6.</p><p><em>Teaching doctrines</em>- The original of <em><a href='B:290 29:13-14'>Isa 29:13-14</a></em> doesn’t say this. It is addressed to&nbsp;<em>the people</em>, stating that their fear of God is taught by the doctrines of men. The Lord amends the text slightly to make it relevant to the&nbsp;<em>teachers</em>&nbsp;whom He was addressing. Such amending of Old Testament quotation was common in Jewish&nbsp;<em>midrash</em>. The point is, that God’s ancient word is to be reapplied to us today in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;contexts, rather than be left as mere historical statement to people long ago.</p><p><em>Which are the precepts of men</em>- The emphasis was surely upon the word “men”. The Lord has been comparing the commandments of&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;with Jewish tradition. Tradition had become the word of God to these people.</p>


text:
<p>15:10&nbsp;<em>And he called to himself the crowd</em>- His previous teaching in this chapter was therefore given to the “scribes and Pharisees” of :1 in a private audience. See on :8&nbsp;<em>this people</em>.</p><p><em>And said to them: Hear and understand-&nbsp;</em>The Lord was speaking specifically to the crowd, without the presence of the disciples, who only later came to Him (:12). The Greek words for “hear and understand” were repeatedly used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 13:13-15'>Mat 13:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>. There He had explained to the disciples that the crowds did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>could not</em>&nbsp;“hear and understand”, and therefore He was confusing them by parables; only the disciples heard and understood. But here, hoping against hope, the Lord makes a desperate appeal to the crowds to hear and understand. Such is His hopefulness that He was unashamed to depart from a declared position about people, and hope that they might somehow respond. We are left to imagine the tone of desperate pleading in His voice as He appealed for them to “hear and understand” in the light of how He had used those words about the crowds in Matthew 13. In the same spirit, Paul turned to the Gentiles- and yet continued by all means trying to persuade the Jews.</p>


text:
<p>15:11&nbsp;<em>It is not what enters into the mouth which defiles the man</em>- The same words are found in the Lord’s final message to us in <em><a href='B:730 21:27'>Rev 21:27</a></em> - nothing will&nbsp;<em>go into</em>&nbsp;the Kingdom of God which&nbsp;<em>defiles</em>. Surely He had in mind the words He had spoken here 30 years previously. Nothing can go into and defile- but a&nbsp;<em>person</em>&nbsp;can. The Lord is showing that defilement is a personal matter, not a question of avoiding eating or touching ‘unclean’ things. The whole discussion here about defilement is in the context of the Pharisees criticizing the disciples for eating “with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands” (<em><a href='B:480 7:2'>Mar 7:2</a></em> s:w:). Paul had meditated upon the Lord’s teaching here deeply, because he clearly alludes to it in saying that he is “persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean [s:w. ‘defiled’] in itself” (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>). Again we see the nature of the living word- these black words on white paper, those shimmering images on our screens, become the Lord Jesus reasoning with us and persuading us over issues:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man</em>- Here we see the huge importance placed by the Lord upon our words. He goes on to explain that it is what comes out of the&nbsp;<em>heart</em>&nbsp;which defiles (:18,19), but words are an expression of the heart. Therefore by them we shall be judged (<em><a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a></em>). What comes out of the heart is what comes out of the mouth (:18)- ultimately, at least, after we have finished all the hypocritical games of trying to say one thing whilst thinking otherwise. And Mark adds that what comes out of&nbsp;<em>the man</em>, what comes out “from&nbsp;<em>within</em>”, is what defiles him (<em><a href='B:480 7:15'>Mar 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 7:23'>Mar 7:23</a></em>). A man is his heart and so he is his words, just as “the word was [and is] God”. We note that the same word is used about gracious words ‘proceeding out of [the Lord’s] mouth’ (<em><a href='B:490 4:22'>Luk 4:22</a></em>). They were a reflection of the grace deep within Him, which&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;Him. And likewise ungracious words are not to ‘proceed’ [s:w:] from&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;mouths, but only words that “may minister grace to the hearers” (<em><a href='B:560 4:29'>Eph 4:29</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:12- see on 17:10.</p><p><em>Then came the disciples, and said to him: Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?<br/></em>- The Lord’s teaching that nothing external can defile was undermining the very basis of their worldview. No wonder they were angry. Although it was the death of Christ which ended the Mosaic Law and cleansed things so that nothing should be called “defiled” (s:w:- <em><a href='B:510 10:15'>Act 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:28'>Act 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:9'>Act 11:9</a></em>), the Lord ahead of that time pronounced this to be the case. And in essence this was the case anyway- because in spiritual terms, the ‘unclean’ things could not defile a person. They were only declared unclean under the Law of Moses to teach people about the more important internal defilements they should avoid.</p><p>The Lord elsewhere taught of the immense danger and responsibility of making another stumble / be offended (18:6,8,9). But sometimes stumbling is inevitable- “in many things we offend all” (<em><a href='B:660 3:2'>Jas 3:2</a></em>). Responsibility for stumbling is therefore not only with the party who causes it. Some did stumble at the Lord’s teaching (<em><a href='B:470 11:6'>Mat 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:57'>Mat 13:57</a></em>); He was a rock of stumbling. But perhaps the disciples hoped the Pharisees would be converted, and considered that the Lord’s teaching here was so radical that it was going to make them stumble from that path. According to this understanding, the Lord didn’t make the Pharisees ultimately stumble. The disciples&nbsp;<em>feared</em>&nbsp;He would, thinking (wrongly) that a less demanding message might make the way easier for the Pharisees. And the Lord conceded to their concerns, whilst not agreeing with them- for in <em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em> He picks them up on this incident and tells that they should act in such a way that does not “offend” others.</p>


text:
<p>15:13&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said: Every plant which my heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up</em>- It was commonly understood that all Israel were the planting of the Lord, having been planted as vines in His vineyard (<em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 44:2'>Psa 44:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:8'>Psa 80:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:15'>Psa 80:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:2'>Isa 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:21'>Jer 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:17'>Jer 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 45:4'>Jer 45:4</a></em>). Yet He implies here that the scribes and Pharisees were&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>planted by God. The Old Testament references to Israel having been planted by God are many- to say that Israel’s religious leaders were&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>planted by God was to clearly say that He did not consider them to be the true Israel. But the restored Kingdom of God was to feature planting of new vines (<em><a href='B:290 41:19'>Isa 41:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:16'>Isa 51:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 24:6'>Jer 24:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:28'>Jer 31:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 32:41'>Jer 32:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:36'>Eze 36:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:15'>Amo 9:15</a></em>) just as He had planted a garden in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em>), and so again the Lord is hinting that the old Israel was coming to an end, and a new Israel being planted which was in embryo the Kingdom of God, paradise restored. Paul picks up this figure in speaking of how his preaching of the Gospel was ‘planting’, specifically, a vineyard (<em><a href='B:530 3:6-8'>1Co 3:6-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em>). This connects with the Old Testament and New Testament descriptions of Old Testament Israel as the vineyard God planted (<em><a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:6'>Luk 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:9'>Luk 20:9</a></em>). Paul saw that a new Israel was being formed one by one. Teaching God’s word is described by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 3:6-8'>1Co 3:6-8</a></em> as ‘planting’, and it would seem this was a Jewish metaphor used for the instilling of God’s word into students. In this case, the Lord would be continuing the theme developed so far in Matthew 15 - that attention to God’s word is what makes someone part of the true Israel. Because of their rejection of the word of God in favour of the word of men, the Pharisees and scribes were therefore not planted by the Father. This was their choice:&nbsp;</p><h4>Clearly the Scribes and Pharisees were plants, in the same field as the ones planted by the Father, who would be rooted up. They had been planted by someone other than the Father. This of course is exactly the picture presented by the parable of the wheat and weeds. But the Lord taught in that parable that the ‘rooting up’ must be left to the Angels at the last day. The subsequent command to the disciples to “let them alone” could be understood in the context of the wheat and weeds&nbsp;parable- the idea might be ‘Don’t&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;think you can sort them out. Leave them alone. Let God do it’. The Lord saw the problem that the disciples might root up wheat as well as weeds (He uses the same word- <em><a href='B:470 13:29'>Mat 13:29</a></em>). And His concern was justified- for as noted on :1, there were within this general category of Scribes and Pharisees a number who would later repent and come to Christ. Those who are to be plucked up at the last day are in essence already plucked up by God, from His perspective (<em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em> s:w:). The repentance of some of those Scribes and Pharisees (see on :1) who appeared in the ‘to be plucked up’ category is a great example and warning to us. If the disciples had rooted them up then, those individuals would not later have come to Christ. So one reason why we are not to ‘root up’ is because we have no idea how that person may change in later life; we do not see the specific potentials in people.</h4>


text:
<p>15:14&nbsp;<em>Let them alone</em>- The Lord bothered with the scribes and Pharisees, and some were converted thanks to His efforts (see on :1). But He knew it was best for the disciples to keep away from these people. Yet He may have meant ‘Don’t&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;try to root them up’- see on :13.</p><p><em>They are blind guides</em>- But some in this category repented (see on :1). That was how they were at that time. But even blind leaders can repent, Saul of Tarsus being the great example. They were heading for the “ditch” of condemnation, but some pulled back.</p><p><em>And if the blind are guided by the blind, both shall fall into a pit-&nbsp;</em>The blind can lead the blind into the ditch, i:e. to be 'rooted up' in condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 15:13-14'>Mat 15:13-14</a></em> cp. 13:29). And yet&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>in this day of marvellous opportunity, we can lift both ourselves and others out of that pit of condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 12:11'>Mat 12:11</a></em>). Some of those who are now 'rooted up', i:e. condemned as they would be in the future judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:28'>Mat 13:28</a></em>), who are “wandering” as the rejected will in the last day, can still be saved from this by us pulling them out of the fire of condemnation (<em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:22'>Jud 1:22</a></em>). Men can escape from the "damnation of hell" in which they are in (<em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>). Herein lies the urgency of our task in both personal repentance and pastoral work. But we note too the responsibility of leaders- they can lead others to condemnation. We do well to analyse our leaders. When the Lord elsewhere spoke of the blind leading the blind, He went on to tell the story of the partially sighted man who tries to remove what he perceives as a splinter of wood from his brother’s eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:39-42'>Luk 6:39-42</a></em>). The implication is that we are all blind, and need leadership- but by the Lord, not by each other. And He is saying the same thing here in Matthew 15. By telling the disciples not to be led by the Pharisees in order to avoid falling into condemnation, He is effectively implying that the disciples were blind- for if the blind lead the blind, then they will fall into the ditch of condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p>The pit is that of condemnation. And yet the Lord likens Himself to a man who lifts His sheep out of the ditch / pit (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 12:11'>Mat 12:11</a></em>). We can be condemned in this life, as Peter was, and yet be saved out of it. Just as some of those blind Scribes and Pharisees were saved (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>15:15&nbsp;<em>And Peter answered and said to him: Explain to us the parable</em>- The Lord replies by expanding upon what He has said in :11 about a man being defiled by what comes out of him, rather than by what he eats or touches. And yet the Lord’s teaching in :11 was hardly parabolic. Perhaps it was too much for the disciples to believe that the Lord had declared void the entire conception of becoming unclean by what you eat; and they assumed He must be talking in parables. Peter in Acts 10 was still convinced that defiled food should not ever be eaten. But it could also be that the “parable” Peter wanted explained was what the Lord had just spoken about the blind leading the blind and falling into a ditch; <em><a href='B:490 6:39'>Luk 6:39</a></em> specifically calls this saying a “parable”. In this case, the Lord didn’t oblige, at least not specifically. He went on to expand on His previous teaching that we are defiled by our own thoughts and words, rather than by what we eat. Perhaps the Lord meant that once that point was truly grasped, then it would be apparent that the Pharisees with their concept of ritual defilement by food were blind leaders- and should not be given the status of leaders.</p>


text:
<p>15:16&nbsp;<em>And he said: Are you still without understanding?</em></p><p>- The emphasis may be on the “still”- He says the same in the next verse, “Do you&nbsp;<em>still not</em>&nbsp;understand?”. The Lord asked the disciples; as if to say that He was surprised the disciples still hadn’t come to the understanding which He hoped the Pharisees soon would. The crowds that followed the Lord didn’t understand His parables; in fact, He spoke in parables so that they wouldn’t understand, as He intended His teaching only to be grasped by the disciples (<em><a href='B:480 7:17-18'>Mar 7:17-18</a></em>). Therefore, in that very context, it is significant to read of the Lord’s frustration and disappointment when the disciples likewise didn’t understand the parables. And the record goes on to show that in fact it was a regular occurrence, that they like the crowds didn’t understand the parables, and the Lord had to explain to them later. So the disciples, contrary to the Lord’s high hopes of them, were no better than the crowds. They too ‘didn’t get it’; and Mark’s [i:e. Peter’s] record of the Gospel therefore brings out the point that they too, the ones now preaching to the crowds, only got the understanding they did of the Lord by an undeserved grace. This is the kind of humility we need in our teaching of others, especially when it involves correcting their lack of understanding on a point.</p>


text:
<p>15:17&nbsp;<em>Do you not understand, that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly and is expelled?-</em>&nbsp;The world would not perceive / understand (<em><a href='B:480 4:12'>Mar 4:12</a></em>); but they did, or so the Lord told them. And hence His distress that they did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;perceive (<em><a href='B:480 7:18'>Mar 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:17'>Mar 8:17</a></em>); and yet He said that blessed were their ears and minds, because they understood what had been hidden from so many. Surely He imputed more perception to them than they really had. The Lord was frustrated that by this point in His ministry, they still didn’t understand that food couldn’t really defile a person. And even by the time of Acts 10, Peter was still not persuaded of this. The Lord’s hopefulness in them was such that He had great expectations of the speed of their spiritual growth, which resulted in disappointment for Him. This is all very much the enthusiasm of the lover for the beloved.</p>


text:
<p>15:18<em>&nbsp;But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart, and it is they that defile the man-&nbsp;</em>Mark adds: “This He said, thus making all foods clean” (<em><a href='B:480 7:19'>Mar 7:19</a></em>). Paul really did meditate on every word of his Lord. Thus he says he was&nbsp;<em>persuaded</em>&nbsp;by the Lord Jesus that all foods were clean (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>)- this is how he took the Lord's teaching in <em><a href='B:480 7:19'>Mar 7:19</a></em>. Those words&nbsp;<em>lived</em>&nbsp;to Paul, they were as the personal persuasion of his Lord, as if Christ was talking to him personally through the Gospel records. Peter was taught the same lesson (<em><a href='B:510 10:14-15'>Act 10:14-15</a></em>), as was Paul:&nbsp;"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself" (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>):&nbsp;Earlier, Paul had reasoned that to refuse certain foods was a sign of spiritual weakness (<em><a href='B:520 14:2'>Rom 14:2</a></em>):&nbsp;Our attitude to food "does not commend us to God" (<em><a href='B:530 8:8'>1Co 8:8</a></em>):&nbsp;Most incriminating of all is the warning that apostate Christians would teach men, "to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (<em><a href='B:610 4:3'>1Ti 4:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>15:19&nbsp;<em>For out of the heart</em>- I have repeatedly used this verse to demonstrate that sin comes from within, and not from any cosmic being called 'Satan'. If indeed Satan is responsible for initiating human sin, then this would be the classic place for the Lord to teach it. Instead, He traces sinful words and actions to their true source, the heart. That, in the end, is the great 'satan', or adversary. "Out of the heart" parallels "out of the&nbsp;<em>mouth</em>" (:18)- the implication is surely that sin is committed through the route of heart - mouth - action. The Lord heavily condemns thought (heart) and words (mouth) because these are considered not sinful, or not very sinful, by human judgment. What one thinks internally is not a criminal act in any court of law, and what one says is only rarely so. External actions are all important in human judgment (remember the context is of washing at meal times)- the Lord is saying that thought and word are the essence which God looks at rather than the external action. What comes out of the mouth comes out of the heart- that is the clear teaching. And yet we fool ourselves into thinking that we can think one thing, and say something else with our mouth. The Lord's parallel would suggest that sooner or later, that breaks down, and words reflect thought:&nbsp;</p><p>The Pharisees were concerned about things entering a person and defiling them. The Lord perceptively noted that this implied that a person was basically clean, and just needed to avoid contamination by externalities. His teaching attacked that base assumption- He taught that the inward parts of a man were the source of defilement. This difference in perspective is reflected in differing approaches to the Gospel today. Some focus upon the need for social reform and improvement of the circumstances surrounding people, believing that the right external environment will lead to reformation of life. I favour the approach taken by the Lord- that the essence is of internal reformation, so that in whatever external environment we are living, the internal spirit is pure. The Lord reasons from the very structure of the human alimentary canal, that unclean food is naturally passed out of our system. But there is no such natural, inbuilt ability to deal with matters of the heart. The implication could be that we therefore need external intervention in the arena of the human heart in order to be cleansed and have strength against defilement- and this is precisely the work of the Holy Spirit, bearing in mind that ‘spirit’ usually refers to the mind / heart. It may be that the Lord is not so much teaching the need to somehow control the fountain of potential defilement thrown up by the heart- as implying that we need a new, cleansed heart. This is what was promised as part of the new covenant (<em><a href='B:330 18:31'>Eze 18:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:26'>Eze 36:26</a></em>), and those in Christ have entered that new covenant and received the promised gift of the Spirit to transform the human heart, the "inner man" (<em><a href='B:560 3:16'>Eph 3:16</a></em>).</p><p><em>Come evil thoughts</em>- Mark's parallel record uses the same Greek word for "thoughts", but different ones for "proceed" and "evil", although the meaning is similar (<em><a href='B:480 7:21'>Mar 7:21</a></em>). The Lord likely said the same thing twice, repeating phrases in sentences, and repeating whole sentences with slight differences. This was inevitable in speaking without speech reinforcement and with much background noise. Further, given the illiteracy of the audience and the newness of the ideas being presented, any teacher would have repeated the ideas several times over, using slightly different words. I have often found myself doing this when speaking in a missionary context to illiterate people. Once I replayed a recording of my preaching, and noticed myself doing this. From then on, I never had much problem with the fact that the parallel records in the Gospels often use different words and phrases for the same ideas. And of course it's highly likely the Lord spoke in Aramaic, and Matthew and Mark are as it were translating that Aramaic into literary Greek. It's absolutely legitimate to translate an original spoken word in various ways, indeed it would appear suspicious, forced and unnatural if the Gospel writers used precisely the same Greek to translate the Lord's original Aramaic. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The Greek for "thoughts" means reasonings or disputings (s:w. <em><a href='B:570 2:14'>Phi 2:14</a></em>). The Lord surely had in mind the cunning but carnal reasoning of the Pharisees which is mentioned at the start of this section (<em><a href='B:470 15:1-6'>Mat 15:1-6</a></em>). There are separate Greek words used here for "evil" and "thoughts"; but every single one of the 14 New Testament usages of the word&nbsp;<em>dialogismos</em>&nbsp;("thoughts") is in a distinctly sinful context (<em><a href='B:480 7:21'>Mar 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:8'>Luk 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:46-47'>Luk 9:46-47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:38'>Luk 24:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:20'>1Co 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:14'>Phi 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:8'>1Ti 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:4'>Jas 2:4</a></em>). Yet the word itself has no moral overtone, it means simply 'to think / reason'. But the point is, that human thinking is so often sinful, and is the root cause of sinful behaviour.</p><p><em>Murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false witness and slander</em>- Notice the purposeful juxtaposition of bad&nbsp;<em>thinking&nbsp;</em>next to murder. This confirms the Lord's constant emphasis that the thought is equivalent to the action in His judgment. Murder, adultery and fornication have already been defined in the Sermon on the Mount as being essentially performed in the heart. The list of seven sins here is surely intended to encompass all sin in totality (seven)- whatever specific sin there may be, it originated in a human heart.</p>


text:
<p>15:20&nbsp;<em>These are the things which defile the man - but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man</em>- The emphasis may be upon the word "hands". The idea would then be that it is the heart which requires washing, rather than hands. In this case the Lord would be directing their minds to <em><a href='B:300 4:14'>Jer 4:14</a></em>: "O Jerusalem [note the Pharisees in question were from Jerusalem, <em><a href='B:470 15:1'>Mat 15:1</a></em>], wash your heart from wickedness, that you may be saved. How long shall your evil thoughts dwell within you?". But this of course begs the question- how can a man wash his own heart? Surely it needs the Father and Son to do this for us. The whole offer of Jesus is of a&nbsp;<em>holy</em>&nbsp;spirit or heart to be given to those who believe in Him. Perhaps John's equivalent of this section of teaching is in the repeated mention he makes of the Greek&nbsp;<em>nipto</em>, to wash- the same word used here in <em><a href='B:470 15:2'>Mat 15:2</a></em>. John records how utterly essential it is for the disciple to allow the Lord Jesus to wash&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:500 13:5-6'>Joh 13:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:8'>Joh 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:10'>Joh 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:12'>Joh 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:14'>Joh 13:14</a></em>, and also in the record of the cleansing of the blind man in <em><a href='B:500 9:7'>Joh 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:11'>Joh 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:15'>Joh 9:15</a></em>). The cleansing of the heart in and by Christ is implied by the teaching recorded here in Matthew 15, but only made explicit in John's Gospel.</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>koinoo</em>&nbsp;["defiles"] strictly means 'to make common'. The later New Testament uses it in a quite different and spiritual way, speaking of how there is a "common faith" (<em><a href='B:630 1:4'>Tit 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:3'>Jud 1:3</a></em>) which means that the community of believers are bound together by what they have "in common" (<em><a href='B:510 2:44'>Act 2:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:32'>Act 4:32</a></em>). The Lord's new Israel had new principles. If the heart was cleansed, then the focus moved from fear of collective&nbsp;<em>defilement</em>&nbsp;to rejoicing in and experiencing what we have&nbsp;<em>in common</em>&nbsp;in Christ.</p>


text:
<p>15:21&nbsp;<em>And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon</em>- The words is used of fleeing persecution or avoiding difficult circumstances (<em><a href='B:470 2:12-14'>Mat 2:12-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:22'>Mat 2:22</a></em>) and often about Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 4:12'>Mat 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:15'>Mat 12:15</a></em> “when Jesus knew it, He&nbsp;<em>withdrew Himself</em>”; <em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em> “When Jesus heard of it, He departed thence”). We get the sense of the Lord desperately needing to be away from the crowds, out of the limelight, alone with the Father and the disciples. And yet so often when He makes such a withdrawal, the crowds follow Him, or human need is felt by Him to an almost overpowering extent, so that He again comes into the public view. This need to ‘withdraw’ may simply have been from basic human fatigue, both physical and psychological. Or there may also have been the desire to focus upon training the twelve rather than being side-tracked by trying to give surface level fragments of teaching to the crowds who were clearly more interested in miracles than in His teaching. Recall how at the end of chapter 12 and from chapter 13 onwards, the Lord turned away from the crowds towards the minority who had responded. But whatever the reason, His responsiveness to human need and potential was amazing.</p><p>The Lord had emphasized earlier that His mission was not to the Gentiles but to the lost sheep of Israel. Perhaps He decided to go to Gentile areas in order to avoid engagement with the crowds and focus upon the disciples. But again, His humanity is indicated by the fact that even that plan had an outcome that He didn’t foresee, in that there He met a Gentile woman who so deeply impressed Him by her perception that He healed her daughter.</p>


text:
<p>15:22- see on <em><a href='B:470 18:11'>Mat 18:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>And a Canaanite woman</em>- Canaanite women are presented in the Old Testament as very much Israel's&nbsp;<em>femmes fatales</em>. Nobody else is described in the New Testament as a person "of Canaan" (see note on <em><a href='B:470 10:4'>Mat 10:4</a></em>). Indeed it would appear a term not commonly in use at the time. It is therefore used in order to create associations in Biblically aware minds that here was a woman whom classically, a believer should beware of and give a wide berth to. This fits with the inversion of stereotypes and shattering of expectations which this incident presents. For the Lord had gone to this Gentile area expecting to get a break from engagement with people, because His mission was not to the Gentiles (see on :21&nbsp;<em>Tyre and Sidon</em>).</p><p><em>From that region came out-&nbsp;</em>AV "Came out of the same region". The phrase is awkward and lengthy if the intention was simply to convey the idea that she was a local woman, a woman from that area:&nbsp;<em>Exerchomai apo&nbsp;</em>("Came out of") implies a proceeding forth from, and is even translated "escape":&nbsp;<em>Apo&nbsp;</em>has the sense of cessation, completion, separation, departure. Further, the Greek word translated "region" or "coasts" (AV) is not the same as that used to describe the region in :21. It strictly means a boundary or border. The impression we get is of a woman who lived in the area and yet had radically come out of it. Perhaps the awkward phrase is used to create this impression- that this Gentile woman had come out of her environment in the hope of connecting with the God of Israel. One could just about translate it with integrity: "A woman of Canaan who had emigrated out from that very area::.":&nbsp;</p><h4><em>And was crying: Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David-&nbsp;</em>These were the very words used by the blind men of <em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em>. Perhaps she was inspired by them, or at least the rumours she had heard of them, their understanding and their healing. See on <em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em> concerning the connection between David and mercy:&nbsp;"Lord"<em>, Kurios,</em>&nbsp;is used about men in passages like <em><a href='B:510 25:26'>Act 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:1'>Gal 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:5'>Eph 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:22'>Col 3:22</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>, so it is nothing but intellectual desperation which leads Trinitarians to claim that the use of&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;means that people thought Jesus was God. The confession of Jesus as Lord was however a fundamental part of conversion to Christianity in the early church. To openly accept Him as Lord of human life was and is the essence of the Christian call. To call upon Him as Lord is presented in the later New Testament as the essence of conversion to Him (<em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:16'>Act 22:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:9'>Rom 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:3'>1Co 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:5'>2Co 4:5</a></em>). The Gospels are full of examples of men and women who called upon Jesus as “Lord” during His ministry, and these individuals are being set up as the prototypes of those who would later convert to Him. The Gospel writers such as Matthew were preaching towards conversion, towards men and women calling upon Jesus as Lord in baptism and devotion to His Name. So the people they record doing this during His ministry are presented as role models to be followed by their audience. But those whom Matthew records as calling upon Jesus as&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;are those on the edge of Jewish society- a leper (<em><a href='B:470 8:2'>Mat 8:2</a></em>), a Gentile centurion (<em><a href='B:470 8:6'>Mat 8:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:8'>Mat 8:8</a></em>), blind men (<em><a href='B:470 9:28'>Mat 9:28</a></em>)- and now this Canaanite woman. Matthew emphasizes three times that she repeatedly called Jesus “Lord” (<em><a href='B:470 15:22'>Mat 15:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:25'>Mat 15:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:27'>Mat 15:27</a></em>). In a society where religion was largely a hobby for men, it was quite radical thinking to present a female role model- let alone a Gentile one. See on :27&nbsp;<em>masters’ table:&nbsp;</em></h4><p>The parable of <em><a href='B:470 18:33'>Mat 18:33</a></em> uses this same phrase "Have mercy on me" and presents it as the very essence of the Gospel. We all beg the Lord to “have mercy on me”, and are to likewise reflect that mercy to others. Again, the woman is being presented as typical of all who would come to Christ. And the word is used in the later New Testament about how all in Christ have received such personal mercy (<em><a href='B:610 1:13'>1Ti 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:16'>1Ti 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:10'>1Pe 2:10</a></em>):&nbsp;But the request was in fact for her&nbsp;<em>daughter</em>. The parent is totally identified with the sick child, and in this we see the absolute psychological credibility of the record.</p><p><em>My daughter is severely oppressed by a demon</em>- The very same words were repeated by the man of <em><a href='B:470 17:15'>Mat 17:15</a></em>. He likewise asked for&nbsp;<em>mercy</em>&nbsp;to be shown to his&nbsp;<em>son</em>, as she had asked for her daughter, because he was likewise “badly vexed” (the same two Greek words are used). Just as she was inspired by the blind men of 9:27 (see above), so she in her turn inspired another man who heard of her story. This is how communities can get into an upward spiral of spiritual growth:&nbsp;The idea was that a demon had possessed the daughter and was controlling her, perhaps [as was thought] convulsing her. However, today we understand what causes convulsions- and it isn’t demons. The language of being controlled by demons is clearly phenomenological, the language of the day for illnesses which were otherwise inexplicable to the people of the time. The healing of the daughter resulted in her being “whole” or “healed” (:28). The implied ‘driving out of demons’ was simply another way of saying she was cured.</p>


text:
<p>15:23- see on <em><a href='B:470 14:15'>Mat 14:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>But he did not answer her-</em>&nbsp;Another case of the apparent silence of the Lord, seen also in His not coming immediately to Lazarus when He received news of his sickness, His appearance of walking past the drowning disciples on the lake, and making as if He would go further on the way to Emmaus (cp. <em><a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a></em>). And, we might add, in His apparent delay in returning to establish the Kingdom, along with countless examples from human lives today. But this delay and silence is not at all from disinterest and hard heartedness, let alone distraction with other issues. We are accustomed to human lack of response to us being because of those things, and we can too easily assume that the Lord’s apparent lack of response is for similar reasons. But the Bible, and the Gospels especially, surely make it clear that the lack of response is indeed only apparent- it is ultimately part of a larger spiritual plan for our eternal good at our latter end. In this case, the silence elicited in the woman a depth of understanding and intensity of hope and faith which perhaps she had not had previously. For she didn’t shrug and walk away, muttering that all Jews were snobs and elitists. Instead, she considered that indeed, she was not worthy of any response, and yet seeing that this Son of David was the epitome of God’s grace, she renewed her faith and appeal. Instead of shrugging and walking off, “she worshipped Him” (:25), in the spirit of Job, who said he would trust God even if He slew him (<em><a href='B:220 13:15'>Job 13:15</a></em>). And was rewarded:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And his disciples came [pros-erchomai]&nbsp;and begged him, saying-&nbsp;</em>The woman “came” (<em>erchomai</em>) and worshipped Him (:25). The coming of the disciples to Jesus and begging Him (to send the woman away)&nbsp;<em>and being rejected</em>&nbsp;is clearly matched in the record by the woman coming to Jesus (a related word is used), begging Him-&nbsp;<em>and having her request accepted</em>. Again, the Gospel writers are presenting themselves negatively, in humility recognizing that their way of rejecting the Gentiles and turning people away was&nbsp;<em>wrong</em>. This of course had great significance in the communities of believers which were formed as a result of Matthew’s Gospel being believed. For the tendency to turn away Gentile believers was very strong.</p><p><em>Send her away</em>- The very word the disciples had recently used in requesting the Lord to ‘send away’ the hungry crowds (<em><a href='B:470 14:15'>Mat 14:15</a></em>). He intended them to learn from their mistake, and so providentially they were presented with another case of someone whom they were tempted to “send away”. And they failed the test. And so in the feeding of the 4000 which now follows in the record, they are again presented with a temptation to “send away” the crowds (<em><a href='B:470 15:32'>Mat 15:32</a></em>)- and again, they fail. Surely Matthew is bringing out the point that they had failed miserably to grasp this point- that the Lord’s followers are tempted to send away those whom He will not send away. This point was of extreme practical relevance amongst groups of Jewish converts who were tempted to ‘send away’ Gentile converts from table fellowship. It’s just possible that the disciples were using the term “send away” in the sense that it is sometimes used elsewhere- to loose, to send away with the request granted (<em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:12'>Luk 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:4'>Luk 14:4</a></em>). But it seems to me from the surrounding context of the sending away of the crowds that we are intended to read this as the disciples yet again wanting someone to be refused by Jesus, when He wanted to accept them:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For she cries out after us-</em>&nbsp;The Greek&nbsp;<em>opisthen</em>, “after”, really means ‘behind’; and the word used for ‘crying’ is literally ‘to growl or croak’. This is the language of an unwanted dog running behind men and irritating them with the noise of its barking. This paves the way for the language of the woman as a pestering dog (see on :25&nbsp;<em>worshipped Him</em>). But there is also a sadly typical attitude displayed here- ‘This person is irritating&nbsp;<em>us</em>, therefore, we deny them a relationship with the Lord personally’. So many of those called to Christ are indeed irritating types- it is the ‘normal’, calm, self-satisfied types who fail to perceive their need for Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:24&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said: I was only sent-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus, who spoke and acted the words of God, was clearly willing to change His position depending on human response. He initially declined to heal the daughter of the Canaanite woman because, as He clearly stated, He had been sent&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;unto “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”; and it was not appropriate, He said, to take the food from those children and feed it to Gentile dogs (<em><a href='B:470 14:24'>Mat 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:26'>Mat 14:26</a></em>). He may well have had in mind His own principle of not throwing pearls before swine [Gk. ‘wild dogs’] (<em><a href='B:470 7:6'>Mat 7:6</a></em>). But… He changed. He healed the woman’s daughter. He was so deeply impressed with her perception and faith that He changed the operation of His principles.</p><p><em>To the lost sheep of the house of Israel</em>- The ambiguous genitive here could mean that the lost sheep&nbsp;<em>were</em>&nbsp;the house of Israel; or that the lost sheep had been lost&nbsp;<em>by</em>&nbsp;the house of Israel. The&nbsp;<em>apollumi</em>&nbsp;sheep means more than ‘lost’ as in confused and in the wrong place; the word has the distinct sense of ‘destroyed’ or ‘dead’. The Lord’s mission was almost to resurrect the slain sheep of Israel:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:25&nbsp;<em>But she came and knelt before him, saying: Lord! Help me!-&nbsp;</em>The kneeling was worship. The Greek&nbsp;<em>proskuneo</em>&nbsp;is defined by Strong as meaning “to lick like a dog licking his master’s hand, to crouch”. This paved the way for the Lord’s response, that it was not appropriate to cast the children’s food to the dogs. And she responds that she is as a dog under the children’s table (:27). Her posture, therefore, was perhaps consciously intended to mimic a crouching dog. Her worship was not in song, but simply in recognizing that He alone can “help”.</p><p>The Canaanite woman simply prayed: "Lord, help me". The Lord's response was to heal her daughter, with the comment: "Be it unto you even as you wish" (<em><a href='B:470 15:25'>Mat 15:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:28'>Mat 15:28</a></em>). She didn't specifically ask for anything, she just stated her problem, but the Lord understood her few words as expressing her hidden will, and treated this as her specific prayer request. And here we have untold comfort for those who feel (needlessly) that they are not good at praying because they’re not good at verbalizing.</p>


text:
<p>15:26&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said: It is not right to take the children's bread</em>- The idea could be of taking the food the children were eating, and giving it to the dogs. Or, the Greek could equally mean ‘the food intended for the children’. In this case, the Lord would be implying that He had received food to give to the children, and it was inappropriate for Him to instead throw it to the dogs rather than giving it to the children. The&nbsp;<em>artos</em>, “bread”, is specifically bread rather than food in general. The bread obtained by the Lord is easily understandable as salvation; Judaism expected Messiah to bring manna for Israel, and the Lord makes it clear in John 6 that the manna He would give was Himself and salvation in Him. The bread of Israel was to be the salvation of the world, but it was only given to the world because of Israel’s rejection of it. In this we see the economy of God, how even through human rejection of the Gospel, the final purpose of God towards salvation is still furthered:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And cast it to the dogs</em>- The Lord so respected Israel that He felt giving the Gospel to the Gentiles instead of them was like casting good food to dogs (<em><a href='B:480 7:27'>Mar 7:27</a></em>). Israel (the children) didn't want to eat, but the Lord painted them as if they did. The "crumb" that was cast to the dogs was a great miracle; but Christ saw that as only a crumb of the huge meal that was potentially prepared for Israel. It seems the idea here is meant to be connected with His invitation to us to sit at table with Him and share the meal, both now (<em><a href='B:490 14:8'>Luk 14:8</a></em>) and in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). Just one crumb of the Lord's meal is a mighty miracle, and yet we are asked to sit down and eat the whole meal with Him: as symbolised in our eating of "the Lord's supper". This is an eloquent picture of the greatness of our position as members of His table now, as well as in the future:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:27<em>&nbsp;But she said-&nbsp;</em>Sometimes what is recorded as being actually said may be only a summary of the real words (consider what the Canaanite woman actually said: <em><a href='B:470 15:27'>Mat 15:27</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 7:28'>Mar 7:28</a></em>).</p><p><em>Yes, Lord</em>- A word signifying her assent to what the Lord had just said. She agreed with the position that the bread of salvation was primarily for Israel and that Gentiles were but dogs:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But even the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table</em>- She perceived the healing of her daughter as a mere “crumb” compared to the bread of the Kingdom, full salvation, which had been obtained for Israel by Jesus. She perceived too that that great salvation had been rejected by them, or at best, treated carelessly and without due respect, in that crumbs had fallen to her. The Lord at the end of Matthew 12 and throughout His subsequent parables of chapter 13 had explained how Israel had rejected the Gospel, and that He was therefore turning to the disciples for response. The parables of Matthew 13 were His attempt to help the disciples come to terms with the fact that in reality, Israel had rejected John’s message. But this woman perceived it well, and thereby perceived that the bread of salvation must therefore be available to the Gentiles if Israel didn’t want it. In this she was far ahead of the disciples themselves. It could be argued that she was not&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;‘crumbs’, in the sense of equating the hoped for healing with the crumbs. It could be that she is saying that she is already eating of those crumbs, in that she felt she was feeding on whatever small parts of the bread of salvation were possible for her as a Gentile. She says that the dogs&nbsp;<em>are eating</em>&nbsp;the crumbs- rather than begging for them. The Lord was so deeply impressed by the woman’s use of metaphor that He Himself builds it into a later parable- Lazarus the beggar desired to eat the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table (<em><a href='B:490 16:21'>Luk 16:21</a></em>). The rich man clearly represents Judaism, which was to be condemned and rejected, whilst the beggar was saved. In this we see the Lord’s humility as well as His sensitivity; He was deeply impressed by the woman, and absorbed her use of metaphor into His own mental material.</p><p>We can too easily assume that she is considering the Jewish children sitting at the table as the masters of the Gentiles. But she uses&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;for ‘master’, and I noted on :22 that she is recorded three times here as addressing Jesus as&nbsp;<em>kurios,&nbsp;</em>“Lord”. There is no Biblical nor spiritual warrant for thinking of Jews as ‘masters’ or ‘lords’ of the Gentiles. Her triple use of&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;regarding the Lord Jesus surely suggests that she is thinking of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;table, with the bread of Israel’s salvation placed upon it&nbsp;<em>by Him</em>, as the lord of the house and the feast- with the Jewish children sitting disinterested and disrespectfully at the table, throwing the food to the eager dogs beneath the table. It was exactly the attitude of the Lord Jesus to table fellowship, His eating with Gentiles and sinners, which was what led the children of Israel to reject Him. And this incident is sandwiched between the records of the feeding miracles, in which the Lord dealt His bread to all and sundry, including Gentiles. This amazing woman accepted Jesus as her Lord even though she felt that she was not fit to sit at His table; she got to be at His table by being as a dog. This amazing devotion to her Lord, fully accepting the barriers there were between them brought about by ethnic birth circumstances beyond her control- resulted in the Lord tearing down those barriers. Significantly, Paul uses the very same Greek words in <em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em> about eating at the Lord’s table- and he has the breaking of bread service in mind. The sharing of table fellowship with Gentiles was a highly divisive issue in the communities of Jewish Christians who first responded to Matthew’s Gospel. He is surely making the point that in a strange way, Gentiles partook of the Lord’s table in that even the dogs under the table still eat what is on the table:&nbsp; And this happened even during the Lord’s ministry. They were “under the table” (<em><a href='B:480 7:28'>Mar 7:28</a></em>)- but still&nbsp;<em>at</em>&nbsp;the table.</p>


text:
<p>15:28&nbsp;<em>Then Jesus answered</em>- This has been said in :23,25 and :26. His responsiveness to human words, actions and perceptions was clearly very impressive to Matthew. And this Lord is our Lord.</p><p><em>O woman, great is your faith-&nbsp;</em>The Lord commended the Canaanite woman for her understanding of the Hope of Israel and the Gentile's place in it: "Great is your faith" (<em><a href='B:470 15:28'>Mat 15:28</a></em>); great was her understanding, and therefore her faith. Mark records that the Lord also said: “For this saying go your way; the demon is gone out of your daughter" (<em><a href='B:480 7:29'>Mar 7:29</a></em>). This shows the value which the Lord placed on correct understanding. The Gentile woman had seen the feeding of the 5,000 and&nbsp;<em>understood</em>&nbsp;the implications of the lesson which the Lord was teaching. We get the feeling that the Lord was&nbsp;<em>overjoyed</em>&nbsp;at her perception and therefore made an exception to His rule of not being sent at that time to the Gentiles, but to the house of Israel:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Be it done to you even as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that moment</em>- It was done unto her daughter, for her sake- an example of a third party being healed&nbsp;or blessed by the Lord in response to the faith of another person (see <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em> for another example- the paralyzed man was cured for the sake of the faith of his friends). This sets a challenging precedent for us in our prayers for others. John seems to consciously allude to the Lord's words here when recording how the Lord stated a general principle, that if His words abide in us "You shall ask what you will, and it shall be done unto you" (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>; see too <em><a href='B:470 18:19'>Mat 18:19</a></em>). The Lord was setting up that woman as the role model of all who would believe in Him. His words abode in her- see comment on&nbsp;<em>from that very hour</em>. Mark adds: “The demon is gone out of your daughter”. The Lord Jesus used well known medical techniques in His ministry (<em><a href='B:480 7:33'>Mar 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:6'>Joh 9:6</a></em>); not because He needed to use them, but in order to somehow get His hearers at ease. And so, it seems to me, He used the language of demons. He dealt with people in terms which they would be able to accept.</p><p>We get the impression that the woman didn't have her daughter with her. She had to go home believing in the Lord's words, and according to that faith it was given to her.</p>


text:
<p>15:29&nbsp;<em>And Jesus departed from there and came near to the Sea of Galilee</em>- The Greek could imply a relocation, as if He had been based in that Gentile area and now returned to spend time in Galilee.</p><p><em>And he went up the mountain and sat there</em>- Reminiscent of the giving of the sermon on the Mount, the earlier feeding of the 5000 (<em><a href='B:500 6:3'>Joh 6:3</a></em> "Jesus went up into a mountain, and there He sat"), and also His sitting upon the Mount of Olives teaching (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>). Sitting on a mountain was metaphorical for reigning (<em><a href='B:730 17:9'>Rev 17:9</a></em>). Although His political Kingdom had not yet come, in His teaching He was as it were ruling over His people- which is exactly the sense in which He is now ruling over us His king-dom, those under the domain of His teaching and rulership as Lord and King.</p>


text:
<p>15:30&nbsp;<em>And there came to him great crowds</em>- The use of the Greek word&nbsp;<em>ochlos</em>&nbsp;is perhaps intended to be associated with the very similar word&nbsp;<em>oichos</em>, family. The Lord was seeking to turn those multitudes of variously motivated people into a family- His ecclesia.</p><p><em>Having with them the lame, blind, dumb, maimed and many others</em>- This is an intentional echo of the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 35:5-6'>Isa 35:5-6</a></em>, where we read of the healing of "the blind::. the deaf::. the lame::. the dumb". The Lord purposefully healed multitudes of lame and blind, and allowed them to come to Him in the temple (<em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em>). His acted out message was clearly that those who were despised as unfit for God’s service were now being welcomed by Him into that service. The lame and blind were despised because they couldn’t work. They had to rely on the grace of others. Here again is a crucial teaching: those called are those who can’t do the works, but depend upon grace.</p><p><em>And they put them down</em>- Another touch of the eye witness account. For they had just carried handicapped people up a mountainside:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>At his feet, and he healed them</em>- This is not merely an incidental description. To be&nbsp;<em>para pous</em>&nbsp;(“at the feet of”) a person was significant- it was a declaration of their seniority as a leader and teacher (<em><a href='B:490 7:38'>Luk 7:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:35'>Luk 8:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:41'>Luk 8:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:39'>Luk 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:16'>Luk 17:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:35'>Act 4:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:37'>Act 4:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:2'>Act 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:58'>Act 7:58</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:3'>Act 22:3</a></em>). The term would surely not have been used here unless it has that sense. The point is perhaps that people were brought to Jesus, with all the healing and teaching that implies, because of the effort of third parties for them:&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p>15:31&nbsp;<em>So much so that the crowd wondered</em>- They had struggled to carry those sick and handicapped folk up a mountainside, casting them down in exhaustion at the Lord’s feet (see on :30). Surely they did so because they believed. Precisely what they hoped and prayed for was given- hence the record labours the point that the dumb&nbsp;<em>spoke</em>, the blind&nbsp;<em>saw</em>, the lame&nbsp;<em>walked</em>, the maimed were&nbsp;<em>made whole</em>. And yet when they saw the fulfilment of what they had hoped and prayed for, they “wondered”. Rather like the believers praying for Peter’s release and then being amazed when he appeared at the door. We can genuinely believe and even act according to that faith, and yet not have the faith which calmly envisages the answer as having effectively been already given:&nbsp;</p><p><em>When they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel</em>- The implication is therefore that these were Gentiles. The Lord therefore broke His bread with non-Jews; see digression on <em><a href='B:470 14:20'>Mat 14:20</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>The account of the feeding of the 4000 is very similar to that of the feeding of the 5000. Therefore see notes on <em><a href='B:470 14:14-21'>Mat 14:14-21</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>15:32&nbsp;<em>Then Jesus called his disciples to him, and said</em>- We often meet this note in the Gospels. The implication is surely that if discipleship involves being with and following Jesus, then the disciples are therefore recording their own weakness in noting that they were often&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;with Jesus and had to be called unto Him. And it is observable that in many of the cases of being called to Him, they were somehow astray in action or attitude- separated from Him not just physically. The Greek specifically means ‘to call towards’, and so the pattern is established of the Lord’s basic call being repeated throughout the course of our discipleship.</p><p><em>I have compassion on the crowd</em>- Reflect how the Lord called His men unto Him, and informed them that He had compassion on the hungry multitude. He said no more than that. But the disciples immediately started bleating on about how there was no way they had the money nor ability to arrange so much bread in a deserted place (<em><a href='B:480 8:2'>Mar 8:2</a></em>). They understood that their Lord had transferred His compassion onto them; all that was true of Him became true for them:&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;wanted to feed the multitude;&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;was feeling compassionate to the crowd; so, axiomatically, so must they. And so must we today, as we face the crowds too. Whatever are the feelings, the mind, of Jesus towards this world; so must our mind be. And He came, without controversy, above all to give His all, to die, for this world’s redemption:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Because they have been with me now-&nbsp;</em>AV "Continue with Me". The same word is used about believers ‘cleaving unto’ Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 11:23'>Act 11:23</a></em>). The Lord uses the same word about His wish for the disciples to continue with Him in the heat of temptation in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:38'>Mat 26:38</a></em>), and it is the same word used so often in John for ‘abiding’ with Christ. The Lord was more sceptical about the (Jewish) crowd in the earlier feeding miracle (of the 5000), later commenting that their interest was largely in the food. This more Gentile crowd (see on :31) He felt were abiding with Him in a more spiritual sense:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Three days</em>- The provision of manna, the bread of salvation, after three days… this is surely prophetic of the resurrection. The Lord could have fed them at the end of the first day- three days is a long time not to eat, and they were at the point of losing consciousness due to lack of food (“they will faint in the way”). The Lord surely didn’t provide food earlier in order to prove the level of interest. Surely many did walk away in search of food. But 4000 (at least) remained. It certainly was a great expression of sincere interest in the Lord’s message, and compares favourably to that of the crowd of 5000, who were fed after only a few hours. The disciples’ desire to dismiss this extraordinary group therefore appears even worse:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And have nothing to eat</em>- The same Greek phrase is on the Lord’s lips in <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>, where He says that condemnation awaits the man who gives ‘nothing to eat’ to those who are hungry. The disciples like many of us assume automatically that it can’t be their problem to provide others’ needs if they don’t have what is required materially. But the connection between this verse and <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em> puts that assumption under a spotlight. Even if we do not have what is needed, our confrontation with that need requires to exercise faith that that need will be resolved. And the resolution of it may well depend upon our&nbsp;<em>faith</em>. This doesn’t mean that we ask that material resources are dropped from Heaven into&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;hands, but rather than they will be provided in order to meet the need.</p><p><em>I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way</em>- Mark adds “Because some of them had come from afar” (<em><a href='B:480 8:3'>Mar 8:3</a></em>). This again is a hint at Gentile presence in the crowd- see on :31:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:33&nbsp;<em>And the disciples said to him: Where can we get so many loaves in this deserted place to fill so great a crowd?</em></p><p>- “From whence shall we get bread here in the wilderness?” (AV) is how Peter / Mark recorded their question to the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 8:4'>Mar 8:4</a></em>). But the wording is so very similar to the LXX of <em><a href='B:20 16:3'>Exo 16:3</a></em>, where a faithless Israel asked the same of Moses; and Moses responded, as did the Lord, in providing bread from Heaven. Did the disciples actually say those words? Would they really have said the very words which Israel did in one of their lowest ebbs of faith and understanding? My suggestion is that they did indeed say something similar in essence, but Mark / Peter purposefully recorded it in terms which highlight the similarity with unbelieving Israel- to as it were emphasize how weak the disciples were at that point. Peter was the public leader of the early ecclesia, and yet the Gospels all emphasise his weaknesses. The Gospels all stress the disciples’ lack of spirituality, their primitive earthiness in comparison to the matchless moral glory of God’s Son, their slowness to understand the cross. But there are also more studied references to their failures. Mark’s account of their words at the feeding of the crowd is shot through with reference to the attitude of faithless Israel in the wilderness: “Where shall we [‘And this includes me, Mark:::this is what we said to Him:::’] get bread to satisfy this people in the wilderness?”. We must note that the very same word “Whence…?” was used by the disciples before the feeding of the 5000 earlier (<em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>). The answer to the question then had been ‘From Heaven’. But the repeated situation didn’t seem to register with the disciples. Just as circumstances repeat in our lives too, but we don’t perceive it.</p><p>Mark has ‘Whence can a man…” (<em><a href='B:480 8:4'>Mar 8:4</a></em>). Their reasoning was that no&nbsp;<em>man</em>&nbsp;could meet this huge need, and so therefore, they naturally couldn’t meet it- for they were only men. Man can’t, therefore we can’t. And so our reasoning goes so often. Something is humanly impossible, therefore it is impossible to me, because I am human. The life and person of the Lord Jesus challenged this thinking very deeply. For He was fully human, of our nature, our representative, and yet did super-human things. With God’s manifestation and involvement in human life, then human beings can achieve that which is humanly impossible. And this was exemplified supremely in the Lord Jesus, once we appreciate He was of our nature and not some Divine puppet playing a mere role- as required by Trinitarian theology.</p><p>They were indeed “filled” (:37). The Lord has just said to the Gentile woman that the Jews must first be “filled” (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 7:27'>Mar 7:27</a></em>) before the Gentile dogs are fed. In Matthew 15, the feeding of the 4000 comes straight after the Lord’s encounter with that woman. It seems the point is that the Lord judged that the time had now come to fill the Gentiles. For this was largely a Gentile crowd (see on :31):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:34&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: How many loaves have you? And they said: Seven, and a few small fish</em>- The feeding of the 4000 is clearly recorded in the same style and with much the same language as the feeding of the 5000. We are surely intended to place the events together. Five loaves were used in the healing of the 5000, and seven here- making a total of 12 loaves. Jewish minds would surely have thought of the 12 loaves on the table of showbread (<em><a href='B:30 24:5'>Lev 24:5</a></em>). Moses personally was to "set them" on the table in rows (<em><a href='B:30 24:1'>Lev 24:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:6'>Lev 24:6</a></em>), which connects with how the loaves were "set" before the people (<em><a href='B:480 8:6'>Mar 8:6</a></em>), who at the feeding of the 5000 were set down in rows (<em><a href='B:480 6:40'>Mar 6:40</a></em> Gk:). The hint was clearly that the most sacred bread of Judaism, the 12 loaves of the showbread, were being set before Gentiles, women, children and secular Jews- by non-priests, the disciples. And all were welcome to partake, without testing their qualification. The rending of the veil into the Most Holy at the Lord's death was only really making public that which the Lord had already achieved in His life:The Lord’s teaching style continually revolved around posing explicit and implicit questions to His hearers, such as "How many loaves do you have?". John’s Gospel contains a total of 161 questions; and one brief passage in Mark (<em><a href='B:480 8:14-21'>Mar 8:14-21</a></em> - the parallel to this section in Matthew) records how the Lord asked seven questions in quick succession. In this sense, the Lord Jesus intended to be intrusive into human life; He penetrates the depths of our being. His call to pick up a cross and follow Him was radical- so radical, that His hearers both then and now tended to [even unconsciously] negate the totally radical import of His demands.</p><p>Mark’s record speaks as if the fish were something of an afterthought (<em><a href='B:480 8:7'>Mar 8:7</a></em>); the use of the diminutive word for&nbsp;<em>little</em>&nbsp;fish suggests they thought them hardly worth mentioning. The stress (in Mark) is that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;had a few small fish. The situation is of course purposefully similar to that of the feeding of the 5000. They were really intended to learn from it. But they didn’t. There were some differences, and one of them was that this time, their own small amount of food was used rather than that of the boy. The Lord was seeking to show that what little they personally had, fish they had personally caught but felt inadequate for the task, could and would be used by Him in order to meet the hunger of the Gentile world.</p>


text:
<p>15:35&nbsp;<em>And he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground</em>- The Greek really means to recline at table. This is another indication that He was presenting as it were the Messianic banquet, and fellowshipping at table in a spiritual sense with whoever wished to be present. See the digression at <em><a href='B:470 14:20'>Mat 14:20</a></em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:36&nbsp;<em>He took the seven loaves and the fish; and he gave thanks and broke the bread and gave it to the disciples</em>- The same Greek words for ‘took’ and ‘loaves’ have just been used in <em><a href='B:470 15:26'>Mat 15:26</a></em>, where the Lord told the Gentile woman that it was not appropriate to ‘take’ the ‘bread’ (s:w. “loaves”) intended for Israel and give them to the Gentiles. But now, just ten verses later in the narrative, He does just that (bearing in mind the evidence that this is a partly Gentile crowd). The impression is surely that the woman’s spiritual perception deeply impressed the Lord, to the point that He decided the time had come to begin giving Israel’s bread to the Gentiles. This openness in both the Father and Son is a function of their supreme sensitivity to men. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:5'>Mat 16:5</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the disciples gave them to the crowds</em>- The Lord gave the broken bread to the disciples, eloquently speaking of the gift of His life. They in their turn “did set before the people” (<em><a href='B:480 8:6'>Mar 8:6</a></em>). We must pass on that which was given to us by the Lord. Paul is our example in this (<em><a href='B:530 11:23'>1Co 11:23</a></em>). We must, of course, have a valid relationship with the Lord in the first place, feeling we have definitely received something from Him, if we are to pass it on. The Greek term for “set before” recurs in <em><a href='B:610 1:18'>1Ti 1:18</a></em> and <em><a href='B:620 2:2'>2Ti 2:2</a></em> concerning how we simply&nbsp;<em>must&nbsp;</em>pass on the word which has been given to us. Quite simply, if we’ve really heard it, really received it, we must pass it on. Paul saw the breaking of bread prefigured in Christ's feeding of the 4000 (<em><a href='B:470 15:36'>Mat 15:36</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>15:37&nbsp;<em>And they all ate and were filled</em>- See on :33&nbsp;<em>to fill</em>.</p><p><em>And they collected-&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;According to <em><a href='B:480 8:19-21'>Mar 8:19-21</a></em>, one of the reasons behind the Lord telling them to do this was simply to make them more deeply aware of the huge amount of bread which the Lord had created- to the point that they should realize that things like bread, and indeed all physical externalities, were just ultimately insignificant to the Lord:&nbsp; "And they reasoned one with another, saying: It is because we have no bread::. When I broke the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you gather? They said to Him: Twelve. And when the seven among the four thousand, how many basketfuls of broken pieces did you gather? And they said to Him: Seven. And He said to them: How is it that you do not yet understand?". Clearly the Lord was carefully working out a plan of spiritual education for them- and they failed to respond well to it. He does the same in our lives, although we may be barely perceptive that the process is even running.</p><p><em>What was left over of the broken pieces- seven baskets full!<br/></em>- Literally, ‘the breakages’. The word is only ever used in the Gospels about the broken pieces of bread from the feeding miracles. The related verb&nbsp;<em>klao</em>, to break, is used only of the ‘breaking of bread’ in the feeding miracles, and every other occurrence in the New Testament concerns the breaking of bread service in memory of Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:22'>Mar 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:19'>Luk 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:30'>Luk 24:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:7'>Act 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:11'>Act 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 27:35'>Act 27:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em>). Clearly the breaking of bread in the miracles is intended to be seen as programmatic for the later ‘breaking of bread’ services. In this connection it becomes highly significant that there were Gentiles participating, along with women and children, and there was no ‘test of fellowship’ operated. The simple fact people wanted to be present around Jesus was enough:&nbsp;</p><p>"what was left over" is Gk. ‘super-abounded’. This is noted in all five records of the feeding miracles. The poor notice wastage of food, and this was the wastage of food&nbsp;<em>extraordinaire</em>. But such super generosity is the hallmark of God’s activity, as it should be a feature of our spirit too. The prodigal recalled how there was always ‘an abundance of loaves’ with the Father (Gk. “bread to the full”, AV; <em><a href='B:490 15:16'>Luk 15:16</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The Greek of this verse is identical to the conclusion concerning the feeding of the 5000 in <em><a href='B:470 14:20'>Mat 14:20</a></em>. The similarity between the two feeding miracles is very pointed and extensive. The point may simply be that the Lord was consciously repeating a situation so that the disciples would have the chance to put into practice what they should have learnt from the earlier situation. This principle would explain the strong sense of&nbsp;<em>déjà vu&nbsp;</em>which surely all of us have observed in the course of our lives.</p><p>The crowd were filled, totally satiated; and the leftover food&nbsp;<em>filled</em>&nbsp;the baskets. The impression is given of superabundance of provision.</p>


text:
<p>15:38&nbsp;<em>And besides women and children-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'at a space from'. This was literally true, in that women and children would have sat separately from the men. At least 10,000 people would've been present in total:&nbsp;</p><p><em>They that had eaten were four thousand men</em>- Eating is a consciously presented theme in this chapter. The disciples are condemned for eating in an unclean manner (<em><a href='B:470 15:2'>Mat 15:2</a></em>), the Gentile woman eats the crumbs rejected by the Jews (<em><a href='B:470 15:27'>Mat 15:27</a></em>), and now a huge crowd of Gentiles (see on :31) including women and children (the socially and religiously marginalized) also “eat”. The incident is surely placed next to that of the Gentile woman eating the ‘crumbs’ in :27 in order to show the eagerness of the Gentiles for the bread of Israel. The amazing example of going three days without food in order to receive spiritual food (:31) demonstrated beyond doubt the legitimacy of Gentile interest in the Messianic bread / manna of the Kingdom.</p><p>The way the number of eaters is presented at the end of the meal might suggest that this is the equivalent of a bill being presented at the conclusion of a meal. If this is the case, then the hint would be towards <em><a href='B:290 55:1-2'>Isa 55:1-2</a></em>, where again we have the theme of free provision of food, and being utterly filled / satisfied: "Come, he who has no money, buy, and eat! Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which doesn’t satisfy? Listen diligently to Me, and eat you that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:39&nbsp;<em>And he sent away the crowds, boarded the boat and went into the region of Magdalla</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>horion</em>&nbsp;definitely means a border, rather like a state line in North America. Matthew especially uses the term, 7 times in all; it only occurs twice in the other Gospels, and only one other time in the New Testament. At the borders of the regions there were often customs posts through which travellers must pass. Matthew had once 'sat at the customs table', and likely knew these crossing points, or at least, took note of them as they passed through them. This is yet another incidental evidence of the veracity of the records- the Gospel of Matthew really was written as it claims, by a tax collector called Matthew- albeit under Divine inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>16:1&nbsp;<em>The Pharisees also with the Sadducees-&nbsp;</em>The force of&nbsp;<em>kai&nbsp;</em>("also") is that they were united. Here we see the theme being developed of how groups who were otherwise against each other united against the Lord as their common enemy. This came to its ultimate term in the Lord's crucifixion, where even Pilate and Herod became friends (<em><a href='B:490 23:12'>Luk 23:12</a></em>). <em><a href='B:510 4:27'>Act 4:27</a></em> comments that not only Pilate and Herod, but even Jews and Gentiles, were gathered together in unity against Him. This of course was a parody of how in the sphere of God's Kingdom, Jew and Gentile were brought together in Christ- for Him, rather than against Him. All that is true of God's sphere of operation appears to have its parody in the system of the world.</p><p><em>Came to test him</em>- This was exactly the situation in the wilderness temptations, strengthening the impression that the source of the temptation was the 'Satan' or adversary of Jewish thinking and the Jewish system.</p><p><em>And asked him to show them a sign</em>- This appears an exact repetition of the situation in <em><a href='B:470 12:38-39'>Mat 12:38-39</a></em> - the same words are used. The point is simply that the same requests and answers were given at different times throughout the Lord's ministry. That seems to me to have the ring of truth- for anyone with any missionary experience will nod their head and recall how often that has been their experience. And yet the critics love to make elaborate claims based on the similarity with 12:38,39. It simply depends with what spirit we come to the records- those who believe in inspiration will see circumstantial evidence for veracity in such things, whereas those bent on downgrading the Gospels to human, fallible records will use the same material to find fault.</p><h4><em>From Heaven</em>- The implication was that the Lord's miraculous signs were from 'satan', from beneath rather than from above. This was tantamount to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. See notes on 12:38,39</h4>


text:
<p>16:2&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said to them: When it is evening, you say: It will be fair weather, for the sky is red</em>- The Lord's examples relate to reading the appearance of the sky. This is His answer to their request for a "sign&nbsp;<em>from Heaven</em>"- bearing in mind that in Hebrew and Aramaic, the words for 'sky' and 'Heaven' as in the abode of God are the same. They realized that the same sign- the redness of the sky- could signify two different things. The sign is specifically defined as being the sign of Jonah- the resurrection of Christ (<em><a href='B:470 12:38-39'>Mat 12:38-39</a></em>). If they perceived the sign of reddened sky in the evening, then it was a sign of “fair weather”. The word “weather” is an insertion from the translators and reflects no original Greek word. Most other usages of the Greek for “fair” refer to acceptance with God: “<em>Well done</em>&nbsp;(s:w. “fair”) good and faithful servant” (<em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>); “<em>Well</em>&nbsp;(s:w. “fair”), you good servant” (<em><a href='B:490 19:17'>Luk 19:17</a></em>; and see <em><a href='B:510 15:29'>Act 15:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:3'>Eph 6:3</a></em>). If they read that sign right in the evening, then their morning would be ‘fair’- acceptance with God. But if it was in the morning that they saw the sign, then there would be “foul weather” (:3). Again, “weather” is an insertion by the translators, but the Greek really refers to heavy rain- it is translated “tempest” or “storm” in <em><a href='B:510 27:20'>Act 27:20</a></em>, and where it is elsewhere translated “winter”, the literal sense would be ‘rainy season’. The language of rain, storm and tempest recalls Noah’s flood and is a clear metaphor for condemnation. The Lord is observing that the same sign can portend two different destinies- depending upon when it is perceived. The sign is that of Jonah, and the resurrection of Jesus. If they perceived that in the evening, before the night time and darkness of death- then that sign would mean their salvation and blessing. But if only in the morning, after His resurrection- then it meant the rainstorm of condemnation for them.</p>


text:
<p>16:3&nbsp;<em>And in the morning: It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening-&nbsp;</em>See on <em><a href='B:470 16:2'>Mat 16:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky-&nbsp;</em>AV "You hypocrites". Hypocrisy may seem a strange charge to level at men who could read the weather but did not want to perceive that they were Nineveh with Jonah in their midst; and according to their response to the Lord’s resurrection, their eternity would be decided. The charge of hypocrisy would seem to me to imply that they realized indeed who Jesus was, but were acting as if they didn’t. The Lord said as much in designing a later parable to have the Jews saying “This is the heir; come, let us kill Him” (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>). Another option is that their ability to read basic signs in the weather made them responsible to discerning who Christ was and their need to repent; and to not use our potential abilities is perhaps seen by the Lord as hypocrisy.</p><p><em>But you cannot interpret the signs of the times-&nbsp;</em>The “sign[s] of the times” which they wanted but couldn’t discern can be seen as the whole work of Jesus, rather than specifically the signs of His coming again. The “sign[s]” which they sought for were in front of them at the time of their asking for them. They therefore cannot really refer to fulfilled latter day prophecies. The lesson is that as farmers and shepherds act accordingly as they interpret the weather, so we ought to respond to the resurrection of Christ [cp. that of Jonah], because it portends the return of Christ in judgment. And the outcome of that sign was either to their blessing [“fair weather”] or condemnation [rainy / foul weather]. There is no reason to think that “signs” and “times” have to be read as plurals. They could just as easily refer to the one great sign of the one great and ultimate time. The one great sign would then refer to the Lord’s resurrection, perception of which (and&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;it was perceived) would lead to either acceptance or rejection at the ultimate “time” of the last day. This is how the Lord elsewhere uses the word&nbsp;<em>kairos</em>&nbsp;(“times”): “The time of harvest” (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>); “the time of the fruit” (<em><a href='B:470 21:34'>Mat 21:34</a></em>); “you know not when&nbsp;<em>the time</em>&nbsp;is” (<em><a href='B:480 13:33'>Mar 13:33</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>16:4 See commentary on <em><a href='B:470 12:38-39'>Mat 12:38-39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:45'>Mat 12:45</a></em>.</p><p><em>An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and there shall be no sign given to it except the sign of Jonah</em>- This sign is defined in <em><a href='B:470 12:38-39'>Mat 12:38-39</a></em> as his figurative death and resurrection, symbolic as it was of the Lord’s. But seeing the Lord only appeared to His followers, how was His resurrection such a compelling sign to the Jews? Likewise, the resurrection of Jesus was to give assurance “to all men” (<em><a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a></em>). But how? They hadn’t seen Him. There was no Euclidean reason for them to believe in His resurrection. How is it an assurance to all men and a sign to the Jews? Surely in that the disciples (and ourselves, in this age) are the risen Lord’s representatives “to all men”, and through us they see the evidence of Christ risen, and thereby have assurance of God’s plan for them. This explains how the wicked and adulterous generation to whom the Lord witnessed were given the sign of the prophet Jonah- that after three days, the Lord would re-appear. But that sign was only given to them through the preaching of the apostles- that generation didn’t see the risen Lord Himself. But the witness of the disciples was as good as- for in their witness, they represented the Lord.</p><p><em>And he left them and departed</em>- The original words suggest that this is more than a mere notice of the Lord moving on. The Greek for "left" can imply a more conscious and formal abandoning (see examples in <em><a href='B:470 19:5'>Mat 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:28'>Luk 5:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:19'>Act 18:19</a></em>). This would be in line with how in the similar incident in 12:38-45, the Lord had decided to 'leave' the masses of Israel and instead focus upon a minority. He 'left' the majority in the wilderness and went after the one lost sheep until He found it (<em><a href='B:490 15:4'>Luk 15:4</a></em> s:w:). In Matthew 12, the Lord made clear His change in policy- that He was leaving a wicked and adulterous generation and focusing upon the few who had truly responded, i:e. the group of disciples. But here He is again reasoning with the Jews and again formally leaving them. This is not inconsistency, but rather is such behaviour typical of the love that always hopes, that draws a line and yet revisits it in the hope that some will still change. Paul's behaviour to the Jews was the same- having turned away from them and towards the Gentiles, he still revisits the Jews in hope they will yet respond to Christ (<em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:5&nbsp;<em>When the disciples reached the other side</em>- The style of reporting this doesn't say 'When&nbsp;<em>they::.</em>'. And yet presumably the Lord went with them. Hence the impression is given of a mental separation between the disciples and the Lord. This would have been all the more painful for Him because He had just 'left' the Jewish masses to focus upon them (see on <em><a href='B:470 16:4'>Mat 16:4</a></em>)- and even they were now somewhat 'off' with Him, and still caught up in hardness of heart, not perceiving the wonder and meaning of the feeding miracles (:9).</p><p><em>They had forgotten to bring any bread</em>- This is the very same Greek phrase used about the Lord ‘taking the bread’ in the feeding miracles (<em><a href='B:470 14:19'>Mat 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:36'>Mat 15:36</a></em>). The phrase occurs five times in the next verses (<em><a href='B:470 16:5-10'>Mat 16:5-10</a></em> - “loaves” is s:w. “bread”). The phrase is used a total of 23 times- here, about the taking of bread in the feeding miracles, and about ‘taking bread’ at the breaking of bread service. The only other use is directly in the context of the feeding miracles (see on <em><a href='B:470 15:26'>Mat 15:26</a></em>). To ‘take bread’ therefore refers to an act of religious significance- for the ‘taking of bread’ in the feeding miracles was clearly invested with deeper meaning, as brought out in John 6. The disciples at this point seem to have sensed that there was something significant in ‘taking bread’- but they had not figured out what. Because when the Lord warns them about the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees, they assume He is referring to their failure to ‘take bread’. Their slowness to understand is really brought out in the record. The Lord had earlier used yeast as a symbol of influence and effect worked by teaching (<em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>). But they didn’t grasp that He meant ‘beware of the influence and teaching of the Jewish leaders’- even though that had been such a major theme of His teaching from the beginning. Instead, they superstitiously felt that they must be at fault concerning ‘bread’ because the Lord had mentioned yeast, and so they concluded that the Lord considered their forgetting to ‘take bread’ as being somehow sinful. They were really so far off in understanding, and yet the Lord elsewhere speaks so positively about their understanding of His message.</p>


text:
<p>16:6- see on <em><a href='B:470 15:2'>Mat 15:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Jesus said to them</em>- The disciples heard the Lord’s warning about yeast, missed the danger of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and therefore wrongly assumed the Lord was saying something about the bread they had not taken.</p><p><em>Beware of the yeast</em>- Their fear that they might have done something ritually wrong regarding bread was an outcome of their being influenced by the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Their doctrines led to folk like the disciples becoming paranoid and self-suspicious over issues which were irrelevant, and indeed a distraction from the thrust of the Lord's teaching and intended way of life for His followers. The same effect can be observed in sincere believers who have fallen under the influence of Christian legalists.</p><p><em>Of the Pharisees and Sadducees</em>- Here, yeast is used in a negative sense. The preaching of the Kingdom by us is also likened to yeast- a symbol for that which is unclean (<em><a href='B:480 8:15'>Mar 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:6-8'>1Co 5:6-8</a></em>). Perhaps the metaphor is simply of ‘spreading’. Or maybe the Lord used this symbol to show that it is our witnessing as humans, as the sons of men, which is what will influence the ‘lump’ of humanity. People are increasingly acting like the personalities they feel they are expected to be, rather than&nbsp;<em>being</em>&nbsp;who they&nbsp;<em>are</em>.</p>


text:
<p>16:7&nbsp;<em>And they discussed this</em>- Every one of the 16 NT usages of&nbsp;<em>dialogizomai</em>&nbsp;(and they are all found in the Gospels) is in a negative context, of the reasoning of the flesh against the spirit, or of legalism against faith. The flesh prefers the way of internal debate rather than simple action in faith, because the longer we keep ourselves talking (as it were), the greater the chance we shall be finally disobedient. They "reasoned among themselves", and the Lord perceived that they so "reasoned" (:8). This double usage of the word is to be found in an earlier Gospel incident, where the Scribes "reasoned in their hearts", "among themselves", and the Lord likewise "perceived::. that they so reasoned amongst themselves" (<em><a href='B:480 2:6'>Mar 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:8'>Mar 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:21-22'>Luk 5:21-22</a></em>). The point is that the disciples were acting like the Jewish religious leaders- which is precisely the context here, for in the preceding verse the Lord has warned them not to become mentally influenced by these people. This part of the Lord's ministry has rightly been described as His "crisis in Galilee"- the disciples present themselves here in the Gospel records as far from Him in understanding and spirit.</p><p><em>Among themselves</em>- The impression is given of the disciples away from Jesus, huddled together keeping out of the Lord's earshot- and He perceives what they are whispering, and raises the issue with them (:8):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Saying: We did not bring any bread</em>- See on :5&nbsp;<em>take bread</em>.</p>


text:
<p>16:8&nbsp;<em>And Jesus, aware of it, said: O you of little faith!&nbsp;</em>- Note the Lord's parallel of 'little faith' with little&nbsp;understanding:&nbsp;<em>Pistis</em>, one of the NT words for 'faith', is translated in the LXX as both 'faith' (e:g. <em><a href='B:50 32:20'>Deu 32:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a></em>) and 'truth' (<em><a href='B:240 12:17'>Pro 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 14:22'>Pro 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a></em>). Indeed, another word used in the LXX is 119 times translated 'truth' and 26 times 'faith'. There&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;a connection between true knowledge of the Gospel and faith. And this faith is the basis for our works. We don't just learn the propositions of the one faith before baptism, and forget them. The triumphant spiritual life&nbsp;<em>lives them out</em>. Knowledge and faith are paralleled in John's thought (<em><a href='B:500 8:32'>Joh 8:32</a></em> cp. 14:1; and 6:69 cp. 11:27)- in stark contrast to this world's emphasis upon works rather than faith. Hence Isaiah's appeals to&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>believe</em>&nbsp;Yahweh (<em><a href='B:290 43:10'>Isa 43:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>16:9<em>&nbsp;Do you still not understand? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered-&nbsp;</em>One gets a fraction of insight into the Lord’s struggle when we read that He perceived that the disciples were worried about bread; and He laments that they do not perceive the miracle of the loaves which He had wrought (<em><a href='B:470 16:9'>Mat 16:9</a></em>). His perception, His sensitivity, is contrasted with the lack of these things in His followers. He must have therefore been so humanly alone.</p>


text:
<p>16:10&nbsp;<em>Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many baskets you took up?</em>- It seems that in educating the twelve, the Lord designed the numbers of baskets they took up in order to be memorable by them. As they were immersed in all that broken bread, they were intended to perceive that bread was utterly no issue to the Lord. But they failed to learn that intended lesson, and the Lord was disappointed that the memory and intended lesson had not remained with them.</p>


text:
<p>16:11<em>&nbsp;How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees-&nbsp;</em>The disciples were rebuked as being "of little faith" in the matter of not&nbsp;<em>understanding</em>&nbsp;the Lord's teaching about leaven (<em><a href='B:470 16:8-11'>Mat 16:8-11</a></em>). It has been commented that the sayings of Jesus "are everywhere too subtly penetrated with theological claims and dogmatical instruction for the distinction commonly drawn between Christian "ethics" and Christian "dogma" to be other than forced or artificial". His doctrines lead to His practice. Doctrine is likened by the Lord to yeast- it is going to affect the holder of it (<em><a href='B:470 16:11-12'>Mat 16:11-12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>16:12&nbsp;<em>Then they understood</em>- On their own admission in the Gospel records, the understanding of the disciples was pitiful. Not only did they not really listen to the Lord’s words, the words of the Only Begotten Son of God, but they retained many misconceptions from the world around them which did not accept Him. Thus they failed to see after two miracles relating to bread, that literal bread was not so significant to the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 8:19-21'>Mar 8:19-21</a></em>). It’s possible that “then they understood” doesn’t necessarily mean that finally, they got what the Lord was on about. Because on another occasion He identifies “the leaven of the Pharisees” as “hypocrisy” (<em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>), rather than their teaching generally. So perhaps they still did not totally get the drift of the Lord’s thinking.</p><p><em>That he told them not to be careful concerning the yeast in bread but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees</em>- The Lord's teaching to the disciples about this came directly after He had told the Jews that they would be given no sign apart from that of Jonah. I have suggested above that He foretold that the Jews would fail to perceive the meaning of His resurrection; and He feared that the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees would lead the disciples likewise to not perceive this. We see here a classic example of where wrong teaching about apparently smaller issues can lead to.</p>


text:
<p>16:13&nbsp;<em>Now when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi</em>- Again we get the impression that the Lord was working to educate the disciples according to some kind of program. He surely would have loved to ask them this question earlier, but He waited for some reason until they were in Caesarea Philippi. What that reason was isn't clear. Perhaps He wanted to wait until they were back in Jewish territory after their excursion into Gentile territory, the purpose of which had been to get away from the spotlight of publicity and teach the disciples. And like a good teacher, now the Lord tested their apprehension of His teaching.</p><p><em>He asked his disciples, saying</em>-&nbsp;<em>Erotao</em>&nbsp;can mean to pray, to entreat, to ask for something- rather than to casually enquire about an opinion held. He asked the question seeking a positive answer; He was indirectly asking them to believe in Him as God's Son.</p><p><em>Whom do men say</em>- This was to pave the way for His more significant, personal question: Whom do&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;say I am? (:15). "Say" translates&nbsp;<em>lego</em>&nbsp;which more specifically means to speak rather than 'to believe' or 'to understand'. He wanted to know the words of men’s' actual lips about Him- which again hints that the disciples were not with the Lord all the time. They were often with people when the Lord wasn't present. Psychologically, considering others' views of Christ helps us better understand where we personally stand regarding Him- indeed, this is true generally in terms of self-understanding. Hence the Lord firstly asks whom others thought Him to be, rather than simply asking the disciples whether they believed in Him as the Son of God.</p><p><em>That the Son of Man is?</em>- This is how the Lord saw Himself. Twice in Mark, Jesus is addressed as "Messiah" but He replies by calling Himself "the Son of man" (<em><a href='B:480 8:29-31'>Mar 8:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:61-62'>Mar 14:61-62</a></em>). If this was His preferred self-perception, should it not be how we perceive Him? AV "That I the Son of Man am" is good translation but it remains an awkward phrase, until we perceive that the Lord is juxtaposing His humanity as "son of Man" and His Divine aspect, as the 'I am', the revelation of Yahweh in human flesh (see on :17&nbsp;<em>Simon Barjona)</em>. Often we encounter this in the New Testament, especially in John's Gospel. The most highly exalted language about the Lord is to be found nearby to other statements of His absolute and total humanity. The Lord's words here lay the ground for His question to the disciples as to whom they thought Him to be. He has led up to that question by describing Himself as "the Son of Man". This was His preferred self-perception. Peter's response: "The Son of the living God" was therefore especially gratifying to the Lord, because Peter didn't merely repeat the Lord's own phrase "the Son of Man". Peter shows that he perceived the Divine side to Jesus, despite His evident humanity. Perhaps Peter was joining in the implied dialogue set up by the Lord juxtaposing His humanity ("son of Man") and Divine side ("I::. am") in the phrase "I the Son of Man am". The Lord says that He is "Son of Man", and asks the disciples whom they think He is- and Peter gives the other side of the story, by saying that He is "Son of::. God". Perhaps Peter was responding to the Lord's hint at this when He asks "Whom do you say that&nbsp;<em>I am?</em>" (:15), for this could have been heard as an allusion to the Yahweh Name. We see this kind of dialogue ("banter" would not be too coarse a word) going on in the Lord's conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4. And He seeks to lead us in such dialogue, speaking personally to us through His word and life experiences, as we respond in the words of prayer and life decisions made for and to Him.</p><h4>Another possibility is to translate the phrase: “Who do men say that I am? The Son of man?”. This would be tantamount to asking the disciples whether people generally believed He was Messiah. As made clear at the end of chapter 12 and throughout chapter 13, the Lord knew full well that the majority did not accept Him as that, because they had effectively rejected John's message about Him. The crowds had simply liked his hard line about sin and his invitation to recognize human sinfulness. They had not gone further in accepting the solution he had proposed, which was acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. The Lord knew full well the answer to His question, but He wanted the disciples to consider it in order to elicit from them the recognition that John's ministry had not been accepted by Israel, and that their belief in Him as Messiah left them standing with their backs to the Jewish world. Compromise with that world, intellectual or social, was impossible.</h4>


text:
<p>16:14&nbsp;<em>And they said: Some say John the Baptist</em>- Literally,&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>John the Baptist. "Some::." is simply translating&nbsp;<em>ho</em>, the definite article. "The John the Baptist" would therefore appear to be the main opinion- after that, some thought Jesus was Elijah, others thought He was another of the prophets. There was a strong belief in dead people reappearing in the form of others,&nbsp;<em>redivivus</em>, a kind of reincarnation. This had been Herod's view of Jesus, that He was the resurrected John the Baptist. None of the opinions they list include the possibility that Jesus was Messiah. The disciples' answer is therefore a tacit recognition of the failure of John's ministry. He was known even at that early stage as "John the Baptist" because his baptism of so many people was what he was noted for. But that baptism, that recognition of sin, had not led people to accept Jesus as the Christ. It happens so often, that we can have a temporary conviction of sin, and even do something about it- but to fully come to Christ is a different question, and it seems that few go on to make that vital connection:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Some Elijah</em>- John's crisis of faith in prison involved him thinking that perhaps he had only been the herald of Elijah, rather than Messiah- and that therefore perhaps Jesus was the Elijah prophet. See on <em><a href='B:470 11:3'>Mat 11:3</a></em>. And it seems some had accepted that view. This is the problem with crises of faith- others are affected by them and can easily share our opinion. In <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em> we learn that after the miracle of feeding the 5000, the crowd thought that Jesus must be "that prophet which should come into the world". But by "that prophet" they likely referred to Elijah or a herald of Elijah- and not Messiah.</p><p><em>And others Jeremiah</em>- Why was Jeremiah a popular candidate? Was the persecution of Jeremiah by the Jerusalem leadership seen as a common theme with Jesus? Or the urgency of his appeals for repentance before the day of judgment came? Or the depth of his grief for Israel?</p><p><em>Or one of the prophets</em>- Why so much misunderstanding? Perhaps because it demands far less faith to accept Jesus as a prophet, a holy man, than as being the unique Son of God, Saviour and Messiah; it demands far less response in practice. Islam presents Jesus as a "prophet", the new age religions as a "top bloke". But to accept Him as He is demands not only more faith, but also far more response in practice.</p><p>We can note that in <em><a href='B:470 12:23'>Mat 12:23</a></em> the crowd asks: "Is not this the Son of David?". That was a Messianic title. But the answer given here shows that this suspicion that Jesus might be Messiah was just a passing thing. The miracles themselves did not persuade the crowds of the Lord's Messiahship. Pentecostals should take note of that- miracles do not necessarily produce faith.</p><p>The false notion that the Lord Jesus literally pre-existed and was then somehow incarnated, or re-incarnated, was a pagan idea that had become popular in Judaism around the time of Christ. In fact the road to the Trinity began with Justin and other 'church fathers' coming to teach that Jesus personally pre-existed- even though they initially denied that He was God Himself. The Qumran sect, some of whose followers became the first Christians, believed that the "Teacher of Righteousness" pre-existed as the former prophets and would be an incarnation of them. This explains why they thought Messiah had previously been incarnated as Moses, Elijah and the prophets. In this lies the significance of the account in <em><a href='B:470 16:14-18'>Mat 16:14-18</a></em>. Jesus enquires who the people think He is- and the disciples answer that the popular view is that Jesus of Nazareth is Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets reincarnated. But this was exactly who first century Judaism thought Messiah would be. So the crowd view was indeed that Jesus was Messiah- but "Messiah" as they understood Messiah would be. The significance of the incident lies in Peter's affirmation that Jesus, whom he accepted as Messiah, was not a re-incarnation of a pre-existent prophet but was the begotten Son of God. Note in passing that the false doctrine of pre-existence is connected to the pagan myth of incarnation and re-incarnation. If, for example, Jesus really was existing in Old Testament times, then somehow He would have had to have been re-incarnated in Mary's womb.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:15'>Mat 16:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to them: But who do you say that I am?</em>- The effort required in interpreting Jesus is, it seems to me, designed by God, whose word it is which we are discussing. The intention is to make us think about Jesus, struggle with the issue of His identity and nature, in order that we should understand Him better, and thereby love and serve Him the more intently. Perhaps that is why so little is recorded of Jesus- all the speeches and actions of Jesus found in the Gospels would've occupied only three weeks or so of real time. The rest of His life, words and actions we are left to imagine, given what we do know of Him. He wants us to reflect, as He did the disciples, "Whom do&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;think I am?" (<em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em>). Perhaps that is why at least in Mark's Gospel there is the theme of Jesus not wanting men to be told in point blank terms that He was Messiah.</p><p>"Say",&nbsp;<em>lego</em>, means to talk out loud, and is the same word used in <em><a href='B:470 16:13'>Mat 16:13</a></em>. The Lord may have been asking whom they talked about Him as:&nbsp;<em>Lego&nbsp;</em>means specifically to talk about; the Lord chose not to use words like 'understand' or 'believe'. Maybe He is alluding to His principle that words express inner thoughts and beliefs. And so instead of asking them whom they&nbsp;<em>believed&nbsp;</em>or<em>&nbsp;thought&nbsp;</em>Him to be (although that is the essence of His question), He asks them whom they talk about Him as. Because spoken words do ultimately reflect inner faith and understanding.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:16'>Mat 16:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Simon Peter answered and said</em>- Peter is set up as our example and pattern. The records portray him in such a way that we see so clearly the similarities between him and us. The good intentions, the flashes of zeal, the miserable failures, the essential loyalty to the Man who was better than he. The Gospels also portray Peter as the representative of the group of disciples. It is Peter who answers when the Lord asks a question of them all (<em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em> cp. the other accounts). The way Jesus looks upon all the disciples as He speaks to Peter makes Peter some kind of representative of them all in the Lord’s eyes (<em><a href='B:480 8:33'>Mar 8:33</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> Peter is commended for having had the Father reveal Jesus to Him. Yet <em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em> says that the Father reveals the identity of His Son to&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;who truly come to Him. Thus Peter is representative of all who have truly perceived the Son’s identity in Jesus of Nazareth. In one Gospel, all the disciples ask a question, while in the parallel passage Peter is stated to have asked it (<em><a href='B:480 7:17'>Mar 7:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 15:15'>Mat 15:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 21:20'>Mat 21:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 11:21'>Mar 11:21</a></em>). Even outsiders considered Peter to be representative of all the disciples (<em><a href='B:470 17:24'>Mat 17:24</a></em>). “Peter and those with him” is how the group is described (<em><a href='B:480 1:36'>Mar 1:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:45'>Luk 8:45</a></em> Gk:; <em><a href='B:470 9:32'>Mat 9:32</a></em>). Peter’s crucial confession that he believed that Jesus was the Son of God is repeated almost verbatim by all the disciples, sometime later (<em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:30'>Joh 16:30</a></em>). He is truly the representative disciple:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You are the Christ</em>- The confession of Messiahship and this incident of trying to stop the Lord dying are also juxtaposed in Mark’s Gospel, which seems to be Mark’s transcript of the Gospel account Peter usually preached [note, e:g:, how Peter defines the termini of the Lord’s life in <em><a href='B:510 1:21-22'>Act 1:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:36-42'>Act 10:36-42</a></em> - just as Mark does in his gospel]:&nbsp; Surely Peter is saying that yes, he had grasped the theory that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah; but the import of Messiahship was totally lost upon him. For he had utterly failed to see the connection between Messianic kingship and suffering the death of the cross. He knew Jesus was Messiah, but strongly rejected the suggestion Messiah must suffer. And yet the Lord warmly and positively grasped hold of Peter’s positive understanding, such as it was. The Lord’s comment ‘Get behind me’ was exactly the same phrase He had earlier used to the ‘satan’ in the wilderness when the same temptation to take the Kingdom without the cross had been suggested. It could even be that Peter was the ‘satan’ of the wilderness conversations; or at least, in essence he was united with that satan. Hence the Lord told him that he was a satan. And interestingly, only Mark [aka Peter] describes the Lord as being tempted in the wilderness of<em>&nbsp;Satan</em>&nbsp;[rather than the&nbsp;<em>devil</em>]. And he records how&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;was a satan to the Lord later on. &nbsp;</p><p>Peter’s proclamation of Jesus as Messiah half way through Matthew and Mark’s records of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em>) is presented by them as a climax of understanding. And yet according to <em><a href='B:500 1:41'>Joh 1:41</a></em>, Andrew and Peter had known this right from the start. The implication is surely that they, as simple working men, probably illiterate, had merely repeated in awe words and phrases like “Messiah” and “Son of God” with no real sense of their import. Yet again, the Lord gently bore with their misunderstandings, and Peter of his own initiative, 18 months later, came to gleefully blurt out the same basic ideas but with now far deeper insight- although he still incorrectly perceived the Messiah as one who would not suffer but provide instant glorification. Thus the spiritual growth of the disciples is revealed.</p><p>Rarely in the Gospels does someone actually declare Jesus to be the Christ, the anointed one, Messiah. This of course was the thrust of John's teaching, denying that he was the Christ but saying that he was heralding Him. Despite all the surface level response to John, with so many baptized that he was known as "the Baptist" very soon after His death (:14), it seems that only the disciples really grasped his essential message about Jesus. See on :14. Peter had made the same confession of faith in the same words ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") some time previously, after the feeding of the 5000 (<em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>). It would seem that "the Christ, the Son of God" is therefore being presented as a formula for confession of faith. Martha likewise confesses faith in Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:500 11:27'>Joh 11:27</a></em>). The connection between the words "Christ" and "Son of God" is found elsewhere. Mark's Gospel is a proclamation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (<em><a href='B:480 1:1'>Mar 1:1</a></em>); Luke begins his Gospel predicting that Messiah would be "called::. Son of God" (<em><a href='B:490 1:32'>Luk 1:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:35'>Luk 1:35</a></em>), not by being named "Son of God" by Mary (He was named 'Jesus'), but called on as Son of God by those believing in Him. Indeed it was the whole intention of John's Gospel to bring people to faith in "the Christ the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>). Therefore the Eunuch's confession before baptism that he believed that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:510 8:37'>Act 8:37</a></em>) can be seen as a triumph of the Gospel- Philip likewise preached towards the same end as John did through his Gospel. Paul likewise preached the "Christ::. is the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:510 9:20'>Act 9:20</a></em>). A 'Christ' was simply an 'anointed one', someone anointed or commissioned for a specific task- and there had been many people anointed in this way. The uniqueness about Jesus the Christ was that this Christ was the uniquely begotten Son of God. This explains why there is such a strong emphasis upon believing that Jesus was the Christ who was Son of God. And to this day, it is this uniqueness which differentiates the real Christ from a mere understanding that He was a good man who did indeed historically exist and die. The question is how much more, if anything, was required from people in terms of understanding before a person was considered to have believed 'in Christ'. The evidence of Acts and the Gospels would appear to indicate that 'belief in Christ' meant simply believing that He was Son of God and identifying with Him. The centurion (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em>), healed persons (<em><a href='B:480 3:11'>Mar 3:11</a></em>)</p><p><em>The Son of the living God</em>- We naturally enquire as to the significance of "the&nbsp;<em>living</em>&nbsp;God". In <em><a href='B:470 22:32'>Mat 22:32</a></em> the Lord seems to connect this with resurrection; He says there that God is still the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because He will ultimately resurrect and immortalize them, seeing He is 'not the dead God but the living God' (Gk:; see <em><a href='B:490 20:38'>Luk 20:38</a></em>). His 'living' becomes ours in that He will give us life; "living water" refers to water which gives life (<em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>), and "the living God" likewise (see another hint of resurrection by "the living God" in <em><a href='B:520 9:26'>Rom 9:26</a></em>). "The living&nbsp;<em>bread</em>" meant 'the bread which gives life', and this is paralleled by the Lord with "the living&nbsp;<em>Father</em>" who also gives life (<em><a href='B:500 6:51'>Joh 6:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:57'>Joh 6:57</a></em>). Having taught that, Peter had gone on to state that Jesus was indeed "that Christ, the son of the living God" (<em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>). This would suggest to me that Peter perceived this connection with resurrection, and when here in <em><a href='B:470 16:16'>Mat 16:16</a></em> he uses the same phrase again, we may be justified in seeing within it an understanding of how the Lord would not only be resurrected but would be the source of life to others. The phrase "living God" was used in Judaism, e:g. the High Priest adjures the Lord Jesus "by the living God" (<em><a href='B:470 26:63'>Mat 26:63</a></em>)- but more in the sense that the living God sees and knows all things. Again, we note that it was John the Baptist who preached (AV "bare record") that Jesus was the Son of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:34'>Joh 1:34</a></em>). Yet after his death, it was only Peter, the disciples and a few others who accepted this- for :14 has made it clear that most people considered Jesus to be some reincarnation of a previous prophet, but not "Son of God". In commenting upon the end of Matthew 12 and the meaning of the parables about poor response to the word in Matthew 13, I suggested that the Lord recognized at that point that the Jews had been unresponsive to John apart from the circle of disciples- and He switched focus at that point onto them. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>gates of hell</em>.</p><p>Even before this the disciples on Galilee had confessed: “Of a truth thou art the Son of God!”. Peter’s confession was evidently of an altogether higher level. The titles we apply to God and Jesus come to have more meaning to us over time. But straight after his confession, he showed his complete misunderstanding of the Lord’s death, and the whole message of following Him to that same end. He was rebuked: “Thou savourest not the things of God”, straight after having been told that his understanding of Jesus’ Sonship was given to him of God. If he savoured that knowledge, he would have understood the message of the cross which his Lord so insistently preached. But he wasn’t yet at that level. He had to be told at the transfiguration: “This&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;my beloved Son… hear ye him” (<em><a href='B:470 17:5'>Mat 17:5</a></em>). It was as if the Father was emphasizing the imperative which lay in the fact that Jesus really is Son of God: if that is truly comprehended, we must hear Him. The implication is surely that Peter had almost painlessly confessed the Divine Sonship of Jesus. Perhaps the Father had in mind the way Peter, for all his acceptance of that Sonship, would later forget the Son’s words and mindlessly deny Him. Straight after this incident, Peter says that his Master pays taxes, as if this is something the Lord just had to do. But the Lord seems to rebuke Peter, by reminding him that if He is truly Son of God and Lord of all, then it is quite inappropriate for Him to have to pay such taxes; for the Father’s children are free (<em><a href='B:470 17:24-27'>Mat 17:24-27</a></em>). This evidence all indicates that there are different levels in knowing that Jesus of Nazareth is Son of God. <em><a href='B:690 5:13'>1Jn 5:13</a></em> says as much: those who believe on the name of the Son of God must come to believe (i:e. on a higher level) on the name of the Son of God. We must ask ourselves of our own degree of appreciation. For every member of the ecclesia is built up on the foundation of faith that Christ is the Son of God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 13:11'>Mat 13:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Jesus answered and said to him: Blessed are you</em>- The Lord is thrilled that although John's teaching about Him as Son of God had generally been ignored or rejected (see on :14), Peter had grasped it. He had earlier explained that although the preaching of the word by John had generally not brought forth a permanent response in Israel, the disciples were "blessed" because they&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;understand (<em><a href='B:470 13:16'>Mat 13:16</a></em>). The idea of being "blessed" with an understanding suggests that the understanding was a blessing given- see later in this verse on&nbsp;<em>not revealed</em>.</p><p><em>Simon Bar-Jonah</em>- Simon, son of John. The Lord is contrasting Peter's natural origins, speaking of Peter's old name and his natural father, with Peter's high spiritual status as one of the few who perceived the Lord as being the Son of God. This juxtaposition of the natural and spiritual sides in a person is exactly what the Lord had just done with regards to Himself- see on <em><a href='B:470 16:13'>Mat 16:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Son of Man</em>:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>For flesh and blood has not revealed it to you-&nbsp;</em>The correct understanding of the Lord was a "blessing", something given. Earlier the Lord had taught that the Father through Himself had chosen to "reveal" Himself [s:w:] to the spiritually immature disciples ("babes"), and not to the Jewish religious leaders who studied every letter of the Old Testament from dawn to dusk (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em>). John's equivalent of this is his record of the Lord's comment that the Jews generally did not believe because Isaiah had prophesied that the "arm of the Lord" had to be "revealed" [s:w:] to people, and it was revealed only to a few (<em><a href='B:500 12:37-38'>Joh 12:37-38</a></em>). And our spiritual birth is not of "flesh and blood" but by the sovereign will of God for us (<em><a href='B:500 1:13'>Joh 1:13</a></em>). Paul surely has all this in mind when he writes that the things of God "are revealed unto us by His spirit" (<em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:550 3:23'>Gal 3:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:15'>Phi 3:15</a></em>). Faith in Christ therefore requires 'revelation' from God. There was an element to which the disciples, and all of us who have truly responded to the word of Christ, have chosen to do that, and this is pleasing to the Lord. But if that was where the story ended, then salvation would be a matter of human works and intellectual tenacity and correctness in interpretation. Grace would be out of the equation, and God would face off against man over an open Bible which man must correctly interpret and live by if he is to be saved. The will of the Father for human salvation, and the depth of human moral and intellectual weakness, is such that this cannot be the way to salvation. Paul in Romans starts talking about predestination and election in the context of demonstrating that salvation is by grace, and therefore such metaprinciples exist- so that human works and correctness of understanding is only&nbsp;<em>part&nbsp;</em>of the final, invisible equation which finds its sum in human salvation. And so it has to be so that there is&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;element of God revealing Truth to us, blessing us with that revelation. Hence the Lord tells Peter that it is God's grace in revelation, His 'blessing', rather than "flesh and blood" which has revealed this to Peter. And yet the Lord says this against the backdrop of having spoken about the mixture of flesh and spirit in human salvation- see on&nbsp;<em>Simon Barjona</em>&nbsp;and on <em><a href='B:470 16:13'>Mat 16:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Son of Man</em>:&nbsp;</h4><p><em>But my Father who is in Heaven</em>- Luke's equivalent seems to be that the Father which is in Heaven gives the Spirit to His children (<em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:13'>Luk 11:13</a></em>). Again, the emphasis is on God's part- our part is to request and then to be receptive and responsive.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I also say to you</em>- The theme of :17 has been that human action, faith and response is only part of the overall picture of spiritual work and human salvation. The church is to be built- by Jesus- upon the rock of faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Again, the two aspects come together. Flesh and Spirit, Son of Man and Son of God, "flesh and blood" and Heaven.</p><p>The idea was perhaps that the Lord was going to build His church upon Peter and the confession of faith which Peter had made, but the Lord was going to be the builder and not Peter. This would instil into Peter an appropriate humility for his later work of bringing thousands to Christ so publicly.</p><p><em>You are Peter</em>- In response to Peter's 'You are the Christ'. We note here the mutuality the Lord was seeking to build up in His dialogues with His followers, and that sense of mutuality between us and our Lord can be felt today too:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And upon this rock</em>- The term could refer to Peter personally, as his preaching was chronologically the basis upon which the church began. Perhaps the Lord held the shoulders of Jesus and spoke those words to the disciples- that upon the rock of Peter ["rock"], the future community was to be built. But the context is of declared faith in Him as God's Son. If this confession of faith (see on :16&nbsp;<em>The Christ</em>) is the basis upon which the community was and is built, then we need to ask what else is really required as the basis for Christian faith. That confession is only a beginning- the Lord will build upon it. The Lord is surely alluding to Rabbinic teaching that Abraham was the rock upon which the community of Israel was to be built- and showing that each believer in Him as Son of God was no less than Abraham in the new Israel.</p><p><em>I will build</em>- The idea of building upon a rock naturally recalls the Lord's parable of <em><a href='B:470 7:24-26'>Mat 7:24-26</a></em>. As so often, the Lord told that parable to Himself as well as to us; He Himself built a house upon a rock, and He therefore knows how very slow the progress Is. In that parable, the ability of the house to withstand the testing storm of judgment day depends upon the builder. We must take the step of faith, and yet the Lord builds upon that and our final passing through judgment day is partially dependent upon His building of us. And yet the metaphor of building is taken over by Paul as referring to the work that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>do in building others up (<em><a href='B:520 14:19'>Rom 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:4'>1Co 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:17'>1Co 14:17</a></em> Gk:). The clear implication is that our efforts for others are partially responsible for their entry into the Kingdom. I keep saying 'partially', because as we have seen throughout this chapter, the human factor works together with the Divine factor to achieve ultimate salvation for individuals. The Jewish religious leaders are likened to builders who built without a true foundation (<em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>)- and so the Lord is saying that He has taken over that job, and the leaders of the ecclesia share with Him in doing it (the 'masterbuilders', <em><a href='B:530 3:10'>1Co 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:8'>2Co 10:8</a></em>). But not only the leaders- for we each are to build each other up (<em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:11'>1Th 5:11</a></em> s:w:). And yet it was Peter himself who speaks of how we are "built up" by the Lord (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>)- it's just that in practice He works through others, so that the church in a sense builds itself up (<em><a href='B:560 4:16'>Eph 4:16</a></em>).</p><p><em>My church</em>- The first reference to&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;in the New Testament. The only other usage of the word in the Gospels is in <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em>, where the Lord speaks of a process of telling a matter unto "the church" in the case of interpersonal disputes. The Lord implied, therefore, that He was confident that despite the failure of John's ministry, the minority who had responded and believed in Him as God's Son would provide the basis upon which He would successfully build a community of believers. Every reference to "the church" in the later New Testament needs to be understood in the context of how the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;is first introduced in the Gospels. It is a community built by the Lord Jesus personally. The Septuagint had used&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;concerning the community of Israel; the Lord's talk of building another&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;based around faith in Him was radical stuff- for the obvious objection of Judaism would have been that the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;already existed. The Lord's use of&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;in this sense was radical, and an effective rejection of the old Israel in order to build a new one- not on Abraham personally, but on faith in Him (which Abraham exemplified through his faith in the promised seed). The LXX of <em><a href='B:10 28:3'>Gen 28:3</a></em> speaks of an '<em>ekklesia'&nbsp;</em>(AV "multitude") of people' being created from Abraham's seed. And the Lord is now redefining this- as those whom He would build up into a new nation, based upon faith in His Divine Sonship.</p><p><em>And the Gates of the grave</em>- An allusion to Rabbinic teaching that Abraham sat at the gates of hell to prevent the circumcised falling into it (mentioned by Edersheim in&nbsp;<em>Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah</em>). The Lord is saying that faith in Him is what shall save us rather than descent from Abraham. And yet the Old Testament speaks of the gates of death as being under God's control (<em><a href='B:220 38:17'>Job 38:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 38:10'>Isa 38:10</a></em>), and He can "lift me up from the gates of death" (<em><a href='B:230 9:13'>Psa 9:13</a></em>). The "gates of hell" can only not prevail against us through resurrection of the body. Peter's confession of faith was that Jesus was "Son of&nbsp;<em>the living&nbsp;</em>God", and I outlined the connections between "the living God" and the idea of resurrection under <em><a href='B:470 16:16'>Mat 16:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Son of the living God</em>. We should note that there were many wrong beliefs about "the gates of hell". The Lord doesn't specifically dismantle nor criticize them, just as He doesn't do so with the wrong idea of demon possession. Instead He places emphasis upon belief in Him and the hope of resurrection, which meant that death, and whatever "the gates of hell" were imagined to be- simply had no power over the believer in Him. His repeated 'casting out of demons' showed the same- however 'demons' were understood, the Lord's power was so great over them that they remained no credible worry for the believer in Him.</p><p>This may also be an allusion to a cavern in northern Palestine known as "the gates of hell". The Lord had just been in that area instructing the disciples- it's likely they had heard of it, or even made a tourist excursion to view it. The Lord is saying that even that much feared precipice, into which the locals threw sacrifices to ward off the powers of the underworld, had no power against faith in Him as the Son of God.</p><p><em>Shall not prevail against it</em>- The only other time the word is used is in <em><a href='B:490 23:23'>Luk 23:23</a></em>, speaking of how the voices of the Jews "prevailed" to get Christ crucified. He must have recalled His own words here, that the gates [or gatekeepers / rulers] of the grave would not ultimately prevail against Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em>The root word for 'key' means literally to close or shut. The Scribes "shut up" the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em> s:w:) - the job of Peter was to use the Gospel to open the way to salvation to ordinary people and those otherwise shut out by the Jewish leadership. The same word is found in <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em> where the Lord speaks of how He will shut the door to the Kingdom at judgment day to those who didn't want to be there in this life (and again in the context of final condemnation in <em><a href='B:730 20:3'>Rev 20:3</a></em>). The parable of <em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em> adds an interesting insight- even if in this life the door is shut [s:w:] to a person, if their way of life warrants condemnation, such is the Lord's grace that it can be opened in response to the intercession of others on behalf of that person. The key to entry or exclusion from the Kingdom was given to Peter in the sense that the Gospel of Jesus as Son of God could open the Kingdom to people, and if they hear that message and reject it, then the Kingdom is closed to them. It doesn't mean that Peter could just chose to condemn or save individuals. Rather does it show that the keys to eternity are in our hand, and we should therefore be devoting our lives to opening the doors for others to that eternal future. The keys of knowledge were given to Peter, and through his preaching they opened up the closed door of salvation to many who would not otherwise have entered (<em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>). Losing bonds is the language of bringing salvation and forgiveness (<em><a href='B:290 51:14'>Isa 51:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>). And those keys are likewise in our hands too. If we introduce the Gospel of salvation to a man, the door is opened to him; if we don’t, it remains closed for him. In this sense what we bind and loose is automatically confirmed by God, in that He has delegated to us the preaching of entrance into His Kingdom:&nbsp; Because the salvation of others is in our hands, both in and outside of the ecclesia, we are held responsible for their eternal loss if we do not minister to them. “Rescue those being led away to death [if we don’t, then they will die]::. if you say, “But we knew nothing about this”, does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;life [as you keep your brother’s life] know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? [at judgment day]” (<em><a href='B:240 14:11-12'>Pro 14:11-12</a></em> NIV).</p><p><em>Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven</em>- The promise is repeated to all the disciple in <em><a href='B:470 18:18'>Mat 18:18</a></em>, disproving Roman Catholic interpretations of Peter. There is here a continuation of the idea of the Gospel as being the keys to the Kingdom. "Whatever" could equally be translated "Whoever". The idea of binding is connected in the Lord's thought with condemnation (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). The idea isn't that Peter arbitrarily had the power to condemn someone, and have his decision confirmed by Heaven. Rather is this almost hyperbolic language an encouragement to us as to the eternal power of the Gospel we also preach. By men rejecting it, they are bound in condemnation; by accepting it, they are loosed. Their response to the Gospel we preach is to their condemnation or salvation, and what goes on here on earth is reflected in Heaven. We can think that if we offer the Gospel to a man and he shrugs and walks on in his life, somehow the passing of time after the encounter makes it less eternally meaningful. But not so. He encountered the offer of salvation from us, and the choice of rejecting or accepting it is reflected and noted in Heaven. This is the intense significance of our witness, the eternal moment of every encounter. Another time the words for binding and loosing occur together is in the account of the disciples being sent to loose a donkey that had been tied (<em><a href='B:480 11:2-5'>Mar 11:2-5</a></em>). One wonders if the Lord intended them to perceive in that simple domestic task an acted parable of their possibilities- through unloosing that which had been bound, the way was enabled for the Lord to enter into Jerusalem. The hint might be that the witness of His people in the last days is what can enable His return and triumphant entry to Jerusalem. So very much has been delegated to us.</p><p>Binding and loosing were terms widely used amongst the Rabbis with respect to the force of their commandments and judgments having God’s agreement (even in the NT record, ‘binding’ means ‘to decree’ in <em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em>). They had the keys to the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>), and shut it up against men. Now, in the Lord’s new Israel, Peter was to have that power. An uneducated fisherman was to have the place of the learned Scribes; it would have seemed so much more appropriate if Paul took this place. James and John were to be the “sons of thunder" (<em><a href='B:480 3:17'>Mar 3:17</a></em>), another Rabbinic phrase, used of the young trainee Rabbis who stood at the left and right of the Master of the Synagogue during the Sabbath services (hence the later appeal for confirmation as to whether they would&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>stand at the Master’s right and left in His Kingdom). These uneducated men were to take the place of the learned Scribes whom they had always respected and lived in fear of::. truly they were being pushed against the grain:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:20'>Mat 16:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he ordered the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ</em>- The Greek word is used five times in Mark, but never in the other Gospels. This has the ring of truth to it- a group of people observing one man would each be struck by different things He did, and their records would reflect that. And that's just what we see in the Gospels:&nbsp;</p><p>"Tell" translates&nbsp;<em>epo</em>, to say, and it has just been used in recording how Peter&nbsp;<em>said</em>&nbsp;that Jesus was the Christ (:16). The Lord is progressing with the revised plan of operation which He began to make public at the end of chapter 12. He was effectively giving up on the masses, and instead focusing upon the disciples as the method through which He would after His death be able to appeal to the masses. In order to not be distracted, to spent time more intensely with them, He asks them not to fuel the kind of Messianic speculation which was then rife in Palestine:&nbsp;</p><p>"That he was the Christ" is AV "Jesusthe Christ"- an unusual phrase. 'Jesus' was one of the most common names in Palestine at the time. The Lord's idea was perhaps that they were not to tell people that He, the man named with the common name 'Jesus', was in very truth the Christ. They were allow people to continue to merely see 'Jesus' rather than 'the Christ'. By the very silence of the disciples about what they firmly believed and so wanted to share, they would have been driven to discuss the Messiahship of&nbsp;Jesus&nbsp;<em>amongst</em>&nbsp;<em>themselves</em>&nbsp;and also to reflect personally within themselves about the Lord's Messiahship.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:21'>Mat 16:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>From that time</em>- Again we see the Lord educating the disciples according to a timetable. Now He was satisfied that they were convinced of His Messiahship and Divine Sonship, He felt He could move on to teach them more about His death and resurrection. This is how we were likewise taught the components of the Gospel; but we should not think that the Lord's teaching process ends there for us. He is continuing to teach us, in accordance with how quickly we have grasped the preceding elements:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Jesus began</em>- Matched by Peter 'beginning' to argue with the Lord (:22):&nbsp;</p><p><em>To explain to His disciples-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:480 8:32'>Mar 8:32</a></em> adds that "He spake that saying openly". But He has just given the impression in :20 that these things were private; He showed them "to His disciples". "Openly" in <em><a href='B:480 8:32'>Mar 8:32</a></em> is a poor translation; the word is elsewhere rendered 'boldly' or 'confidently'. The words He spoke about His forthcoming death and resurrection He spoke with a boldness of spirit that came only from total faith.</p><p><em>That</em>- The sense of&nbsp;<em>hoti</em>&nbsp;in the context is definitely causative. The idea is that He showed them&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;these things must happen. He didn't just foretell the events of the passion, but explained why they must be.</p><p><em>He must</em>- The usage of&nbsp;<em>dei</em>&nbsp;is so common in the Lord's discussion of His death.</p><p><em>Go to Jerusalem</em>-&nbsp;<em>Eis</em>&nbsp;has more the sense of '<em>into</em>&nbsp;Jerusalem'. Perhaps He foretold the 'triumphal entry' and how so quickly, things would unlovely themselves. Such explanation was necessary, otherwise the euphoria of the triumphal entry being dashed by what then happened would've been perhaps too hard for the disciples to cope with.</p><p><em>And suffer many things-&nbsp;</em>The phrase is used elsewhere of the sick woman who had "suffered many things" at the hands of "many physicians" (<em><a href='B:480 5:26'>Mar 5:26</a></em>), and yet is used elsewhere about the Lord's 'many' sufferings at the hands of the Jewish leaders (also in <em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em>). Surely the Lord perceived in her someone who was sharing something of His final sufferings. All our sufferings are likewise part of His crucifixion sufferings, and if we suffer with Him, we shall also therefore experience His resurrection. That woman was therefore set up as an example of us all.</p><p>Mark and Luke (<em><a href='B:480 8:31'>Mar 8:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:22'>Luk 9:22</a></em>) add here that the Lord added that He would be "rejected" by the Scribes, elders and Priests. The same word is used about the stone of Christ being "rejected" by themselves, the builders (<em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>). The word carries the sense of legally condemning. They rejected the sinless Son of God as a condemned sinner and demanded His death. If nothing else we learn some basic psychology- that when a person touches the conscience of less spiritual people, they are likely to intensely slander the person and effectively demand their death, which in our day may be the social death of rejection:&nbsp;</p><p><em>From the elders</em>-&nbsp;<em>Presbuteros</em>&nbsp;is specifically used of the Sanhedrin members. The Lord's predictions here are highly specific and detailed:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised</em>- Literally, 'High Priests'. There was only supposed to be one High Priest, but the position was so lucrative and argued over that there were a group called the 'High Priests'- so far had Judaism fallen away from basic Biblical teachings, despite their zeal to keep the details.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:22'>Mat 16:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying: Be it far from you, Lord. This shall never happen to you!</em></p><h4>- Peter is quoting verbatim here from <em><a href='B:290 54:10'>Isa 54:10</a></em>, which speaks (in the Septuagint) of showing mercy to oneself. "Be it far" is&nbsp;Gk. 'Be merciful to yourself' (s:w. only <em><a href='B:650 8:12'>Heb 8:12</a></em> "merciful"):&nbsp;As an illiterate fisherman, he must have meditated and meditated upon the words he heard spoken to him in the synagogue readings. Let's be aware that in the preceding verse 21, Jesus had been explaining that passages like Isaiah 53 pointed forward to Christ's suffering and resurrection. Peter is responding by quoting a verse a little further on, in the same context. If Peter understood that Jesus was the Old Testament Messiah, he surely understood, in theory at least, that the Old Testament required a suffering Messiah. For him, of all men, to discourage Jesus from fulfilling this was serious indeed; hence Christ's stiff rebuke, likening him to the satan of His wilderness temptations, in that Peter too misquoted Scripture to provide an easy way out:&nbsp;If, as we have discussed elsewhere, Mark is really Peter’s Gospel, it is surely significant that Mark especially emphasizes how Peter especially didn’t understand the need for Jesus to suffer crucifixion (<em><a href='B:480 8:17-21'>Mar 8:17-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:27-33'>Mar 8:27-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:6'>Mar 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:32'>Mar 9:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:37'>Mar 14:37</a></em>). Showing the chinks in our own armour is surely the way to be a credible warrior for the Gospel. &nbsp;</h4><p>Mark's record brings out the sustained mutuality between the Lord and Peter- for Peter rebukes the Lord, and then the Lord rebukes Peter (<em><a href='B:480 8:32-33'>Mar 8:32-33</a></em>). About twenty times in the Gospels we read of the Lord rebuking or charging (s:w:); but whenever the disciples do it, they seem to rebuke the wrong person over the wrong issues. Again, the Gospel writers bring out the distance and mismatch between the disciples and their Lord:&nbsp;</p><p>"This shall not be" could suggest that Peter thought that by his own strength and use of force he could stop this happening. By saying this he not only over-estimated his own strength, but showed his naivety about the strength and nature of the opposition to the Lord. He likely still didn't appreciate how evil were the Jewish religious leaders:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Turned and said</em>- The very same words are used in <em><a href='B:490 22:61'>Luk 22:61</a></em> where the Lord turns and&nbsp;<em>looks</em>&nbsp;upon Peter. The repetition of such visual images serves to teach how circumstances are repeated in human lives, each bearing the same Divine hallmark. The way the Lord "turned" and addressed people is recorded often in the Gospels, especially noticed by Luke (<em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:44'>Luk 7:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:55'>Luk 9:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:25'>Luk 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:61'>Luk 22:61</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:28'>Luk 23:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>). Again this is exactly what we would expect from eyewitness testimony- a certain physical characteristic or aspect of body language noticed, remembered and reflected in a write up of those memories.</p><p>The Gospel records, Luke especially, often record how the Lord turned and spoke to His followers- as if He was in the habit of walking ahead of them, with them following (<em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:44'>Luk 7:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:25'>Luk 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:28'>Luk 23:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:22'>Mat 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>). As we saw above, Peter thought that following the Lord was not so hard, because he was literally following Jesus around first century Israel, and identifying himself with His cause. But he simply failed to make the connection between following and cross carrying. And we too can agree to follow the Lord without realizing that it means laying down our lives. The Lord brought Peter to face this with a jolt in <em><a href='B:470 16:22-25'>Mat 16:22-25</a></em>. Peter was following Jesus, after He had predicted His crucifixion (for Jesus “turned, and said unto Peter”). He thought he was following Jesus. But he was told: “Get thee&nbsp;<em>behind me</em>… if any man will come&nbsp;<em>after me</em>&nbsp;(s:w. ‘behind me’), let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and&nbsp;<em>follow me</em>&nbsp;(s:w:)”. The italicized words are all the same in the original. Peter didn’t want the Lord to die by crucifixion at Jerusalem, because he saw that as a follower of Jesus this required that he too must die a like death. Peter needed to get behind Jesus in reality and really follow, in the sense of following to the cross, although he was there physically behind Jesus, physically following at that time. The Lord was saying: ‘Don’t think of trying to stop me dying. I will, of course. But concentrate instead on&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;getting behind me in the sense of carrying my cross’. John’s record stresses that the key to following Jesus to the cross is to hear His word, which beckons us onwards (<em><a href='B:500 10:4'>Joh 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:27'>Joh 10:27</a></em>). All our Bible study must lead us onwards in the life of self-sacrifice. But Peter loved the Lord’s words; but, as pointed out to him at the transfiguration, he didn’t hear those words of Christ deeply. And so he missed the call to the cross. He had just stated that Jesus was Messiah; but soon afterwards he is recorded as saying that it was intrinsic within Jesus’ Messiahship that He&nbsp;<em>mustn’t</em>&nbsp;die or suffer.</p><p><em>To Peter</em>- Mark says the Lord “rebuked” him (<em><a href='B:480 8:33'>Mar 8:33</a></em>). But the very same Greek word has occurred just prior in the narrative, when Peter has just declared Jesus to be “the Christ of God”. The Lord responded by commending Peter for his blessed insight, but the record continues: “And [Jesus] strictly charged them [s:w. “rebuked”] them, and commanded them to tell [i:e. preach to] no man that thing”, and He goes on to underline to them how He must suffer on the cross (<em><a href='B:490 9:21'>Luk 9:21</a></em>). Why did the Lord both commend and rebuke Peter for discerning that He was indeed the Christ of God? Surely because, in the context, Peter understood Messiah to be someone who would there and then bring salvation without the cross. Again we see how there was something in Peter as there is in us all which somehow revolted at the idea of real cross carrying. And it was for the same reason that the Lord “strictly charged” [s:w. rebuked] those who wanted to blaze around the news that He was Messiah- because they didn’t perceive that the Messiah must first suffer and rise again before being declared in fullness “Lord and Christ”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Get behind Me, Satan</em>- When He said He was going up to Jerusalem to die, Peter asked him not to. “Get behind me, Satan" was not the Lord wishing temptation to get behind him. He was telling Peter, whom He here calls ‘Satan’, to get behind Him and follow Him up there to Jerusalem, carrying His cross with Him (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>). Peter didn’t want the Lord to go up there, to die like that, because he knew that this meant that he too must carry the cross. Here lies the reason for our recoiling at the cross. We realize that it implies all too much for us, if this is truly what the Lord went through.</p><p>"Get" is the same word translated "Get hence [Satan]" in <em><a href='B:470 4:10'>Mat 4:10</a></em>. The temptation here was to take Peter's position and think that the Kingdom was possible without the death of the cross. And clearly the situation here is reminiscent of the wilderness temptation, which was in essence the same- to think of ways around the cross. And again, the Lord told the Satan to "get hence". In essence, this is the sum of all human temptation, hence the Lord's very clear statement in the next two verses about the absolutely unavoidable necessity of the cross. The Lord was therefore speaking to Himself when He envisaged a person wishing to "save his life", to avoid death, yet wanting to "gain the whole world". This had been exactly the temptation of <em><a href='B:470 4:8'>Mat 4:8</a></em>, to try to take "the whole world" without the death of the cross (:26). The command to 'get away behind' the Lord and follow Him is expanded upon in :24,25 to mean 'to follow to the cross'. But by the time of His death, the Lord knew that Peter just wasn't going to make it. For the Lord uses the same word translated "Get" here in <em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em> in telling Peter: "Where I am now<em>&nbsp;going</em>&nbsp;[s:w. "get"], you cannot follow Me [s:w. <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em> "follow Me"] now". It seems it was the Lord's particular desire that Peter should die with Him on the cross - Peter's willingness to do this was therefore partly a desire to follow his Lord's intention for him, rather than the mere language of bravado. But finally He realized that Peter wasn't going to make it, at least not at that time: "But you shall follow Me eventually" (<em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>). We can usefully meditate upon the Lord's intentions for us, and at what times He intended us to rise up to them::. and how even when we fail to mature as we should, He still holds out hope that we shall eventually get there. And this is to be reflected in our patience with our likewise developing brethren.</p><p><em>"</em>Behind Me" is the same word translated "come after Me" in :24. This is a command to Peter to stop trying to dissuade Christ from the cross, but rather to get behind Him and carry that cross. Note how following behind the Lord and carrying His cross are identified in <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>. Instead of just literally walking behind Him, the Lord is saying that real discipleship is to carry a cross behind Him.</p><p><em>You are a hindrance to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>skandalon</em>&nbsp;literally means a trap or snare. But the Lord Jesus saw the snare and therefore didn't fall into it:&nbsp; Peter's attitude was a snare to the Lord in that it was attractive to Him- a savouring of the flesh rather than of Godly things was therefore attractive to the Lord. Some reflection on this will surely find in this a profound evidence of the Lord's utter humanity. For 'very God of very God' would no way have reasoned like this nor found the things of men an attraction over the things of God. Peter's fleshly thinking was a trap or snare to the Lord Jesus in that it was found superficially attractive by Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then said Jesus to his disciples: If anyone wants to be my follower, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me</em>- The disciples had a psychological barrier in understanding the teaching of the cross, just as we can likewise. Often when He spoke of the cross and His sacrifice, His followers either changed the subject or turned away. They were even against the idea of crucifixion (<em><a href='B:480 8:32'>Mar 8:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:32'>Mar 9:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:35-40'>Mar 10:35-40</a></em>). They failed to see the centrality of the cross. And these reactions can characterize our response to the cross, both in terms of turning away from considering its physicalities, and also in our own cross-carrying. And yet there is a sense of inevitability about the cross. We&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;face these things. Circle all the times in John 19 words like "therefore" occur (and cp. <em><a href='B:510 2:23'>Act 2:23</a></em>). Consider how Luke records the indefatigable determination in the Lord's face during the final journey up to Jerusalem. There is the same inevitability about our cross carrying; even if we flunk it all the way through our lives, we eventually come to death. My name chiselled by some disinterested artist on a gravestone, with the radio playing in the background as he sits hunched up in his workshop.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em> adds that the Lord asked us to take up our cross&nbsp;<em>daily</em>. Having spoken of the need to take up the cross daily, the Lord Jesus employed this form of logic to encourage people to really take on board what He was suggesting: "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross:::&nbsp;<em>for</em>&nbsp;whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, and the gospel's, the same shall find it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own life (AV "soul")? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (<em><a href='B:480 8:34-37'>Mar 8:34-37</a></em>). If we follow Christ, we must lose our natural life. If we don't, even if we gain the whole world, we will lose our natural life:&nbsp;<em>I must lose my life, one way or the other</em>. We need to go through life muttering that to ourselves. God asks our life, our all. If we hold it back in this life because we want to keep it for ourselves, He will take it anyway. The cross was a symbol of shame (<em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em> speaks of the shame of the cross). In this context verse 38 continues: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed" at the day of judgment. We either go through the shame of carrying the cross now, especially in our personal witnessing to those around us; or we will suffer the eternal shame of rejection (<em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>); our shame will then be evident to all (<em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>).</p><p>Mark, who as we have suggested elsewhere was effectively Peter writing, records three instances of where the Lord’s prediction of the cross was met by the disciples’ misunderstanding, and His subsequent efforts to teach them the real meaning of discipleship, and the paradoxes which this involves:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>&nbsp;</td><td><em><a href='B:480 8:27'>Mar 8:27</a></em> -<em><a href='B:480 9:1'>Mar 9:1</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:480 9:30-37'>Mar 9:30-37</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:480 10:32-34'>Mar 10:32-34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:35-45'>Mar 10:35-45</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Geographical description</td><td>8:27</td><td>9:30</td><td>10:32</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Note that the incident took place whilst they were on the road walking</td><td>8:27</td><td>9:31</td><td>10:33,34</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Misunderstanding by the disciples</td><td>8:32,33</td><td>9:32</td><td>10:35-41</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jesus calls the disciples to Him, implying they were no longer following behind Him</td><td>8:34</td><td>9:35</td><td>10:42</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Teaching about true cross-carrying discipleship</td><td>8:34-9:1</td><td>9:33-37</td><td>10:42-45</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Paradox</td><td>Save life / lose life</td><td>First / last</td><td>Great / least</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The point is, that following Jesus in the way involves picking up and carrying His cross. But this repeatedly wasn’t understood by the disciples, and they seem to have stopped walking behind Him as they should’ve done. Be aware that Mark is a transcript of Peter’s preaching of the Gospel message; He’s surely pointing out how terribly slow he had been himself to pick up the fact that walking behind Jesus is a call to carry a cross. And of course a glance back at our own discipleship and walk behind Jesus indicates just the same with us; and perhaps we should admit that more freely in our preaching, in order to like Peter make a stronger appeal for men to follow Jesus with no misunderstanding of what this involves:&nbsp;</h4><p>Luke gives more detail about this saying about carrying the cross (<em><a href='B:490 9:23-26'>Luk 9:23-26</a></em>). In the context of telling His followers to witness to Him, the Lord equates this with taking up their cross daily (<em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em>). To not bear that cross is to deny the knowledge of Him before men. To live the crucifixion life is the essential witness. Every act of grace, every evident sign of self-control, every statement of forgiveness towards misunderstanding and unrepentant men::. all this is showing something of the cross. And in this, painful and difficult as it is, demanding and driving-to-the-limit as it must be, lies the essence of our being the Lord’s witnesses. To witness Christ is not to just painlessly distribute a few tracts. It is to live out the dying of the cross. Take up the cross, and follow me" is inviting us to carry Christ's cross with Him - He speaks of "the cross" rather than 'a cross'. The Greek translated "take up" is that translated 'to take away' in the context of Christ taking away our sins. Strong says that it implies "expiation" (of sins). This connection, between our taking away / up the cross, and Christ's taking away our sins, suggests that the efficacy of His cross for us depends upon our daily 'taking up the cross'. It is vital therefore that we "take up the cross" if our sins are to be taken away by Him. But our taking up of the cross is a response to the taking away / up of our sins. We all know from experience that how we start each day is important. Indeed, how we start any enterprise is crucial- hence the need for a sound understanding of the basic Gospel before we're baptized. We so often meet the phrase "rose early in the morning" in the Hebrew Bible. Strong defines the Hebrew&nbsp;<em>shawkam&nbsp;</em>translated "rose early" as essentially meaning "to incline the shoulder to a burden::. literally to load up on the back of man". In this we see an evident connection with the Lord's thought about taking up the cross&nbsp;<em>daily</em>, for that surely implies we are to take it up each morning (<em><a href='B:490 9:23'>Luk 9:23</a></em>). Men and women had arisen each morning for 4000 years and inclined their shoulders to the burden of the day, loaded themselves with it onto their back. And the Lord now took humanity further, in redefining that "load", that burden, as His cross. Practically, does this not mean that we are to reflect as we come to consciousness each morning that we are to load ourselves with His cross? This thought need not necessarily lead to an image of having to burden ourselves with an impossible, awful weight. For again in allusion to this idea of loading oneself up each morning, the Lord spoke of how His burden is&nbsp;<em>light</em>! Here perhaps is one of the finest paradoxes of the spiritual life- that His cross, the life of self-sacrifice and self-giving unto the very end, is indeed heavy and demanding::. yet in another sense it is "light", far lighter than the burdens of legalism which Pharisaic religion bound [and binds] upon people. <em><a href='B:490 9:23-24'>Luk 9:23-24</a></em> describes cross carrying as a rejection of saving&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;life, of making our present life as rich and fulfilled as possible; and instead concentrating on&nbsp;<em>giving up</em>&nbsp;our lives. William Barclay comments on this passage: “A man must spend his life, not hoard it::. the Christian must realize that he is given life, not to keep it for himself, but to spend it for others; not to husband its flame, but to burn himself out for Christ and for men::. the questions are not ‘How much can I&nbsp;<em>get</em>?’, but, ‘How much can I&nbsp;<em>give</em>?’. Not ‘What is the&nbsp;<em>safe</em>&nbsp;thing to do?’, but ‘What is the&nbsp;<em>right</em>&nbsp;thing to do?” (William Barclay,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel Of Luke (</em>Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), p. 122). The threat of <em><a href='B:490 9:23-25'>Luk 9:23-25</a></em> rung in Paul’s mind (in <em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:9'>2Co 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:8'>Phi 3:8</a></em>): If a man gains the world for Christ but does not take up the cross, or is ashamed of Christ's words and principles in this world, he will be&nbsp;<em>cast away</em>. Especially does Paul allude to these words in <em><a href='B:530 9:27'>1Co 9:27</a></em>: "Lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway". Paul recognized his temptation: to think that his zeal for preaching excused him from taking up the cross. In essence, we must all see our own likely temptations: to focus on one area of spirituality, with the hope that it will excuse us from the cross:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>16:25&nbsp;<em>For whoever would save his life</em>- The Lord is speaking also to Himself here- see on :23&nbsp;<em>Get</em>:&nbsp;I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that it is the process of our engagement with God's word, our love of it, our integrity in considering it etc:, which is therefore more important to God than our grasping the final 'truth' of each clause in a final, Euclidean sense. By saying this I take nothing away from the fact that "the truth" is "in Jesus", that there is a wonderful personal reality of salvation for each of us in Christ, a living personal relationship with Him. My point is simply that God's intention in giving us His word is surely not to relay to us a heap of individual specific truths- for the written word isn't the best way to convey such things to simple, illiterate folk, nor indeed to computer-assisted students of our own times. Rather does He seek us to enter into&nbsp;<em>relationship</em>&nbsp;with Him and His Son, and He uses His word and its ambiguities as a way of achieving this. The Lord Jesus used language like this- consider how He uses the word&nbsp;<em>psuche</em>, life, in <em><a href='B:480 8:34-37'>Mar 8:34-37</a></em>. We are to lose our life in order to find life::. and "what does a man gain by winning the whole world at the cost of his true self? What can he give to buy that self back?" (NEB). The ambiguous usage of&nbsp;<em>psuche</em>&nbsp;is surely in order to get us thinking about our relationship with Him. And thus the Lord's parables often end with questions which have open-ended, ambiguous answers, through which we reveal and develop our relationship with Jesus- e:g. "What will the owner of the vineyard do?" (<em><a href='B:480 12:9'>Mar 12:9</a></em> - kill them? be gracious to them? give them yet another chance? keep them as His people anyway?). I am not saying that correct interpretation of Scripture doesn't matter; rather am I saying that in&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;ways, in some places, in some aspects, interpreting the Lord's words is designed by Him to be open-ended rather than intended to lead us all to identical conclusions.</p><p><em>Shall lose it</em>- Luke’s record speaks of forfeiting life or self. 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>). Being ashamed of Christ's words doesn't just apply to not speaking up for the Truth when someone invites us to a topless bar after work. It's equally true, and the punishment for it just the same, in the context of not speaking out Christ's word in the ecclesia, to our very own brethren (<em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a></em>). The Lord Jesus will be ashamed of the rejected when He comes in the glory of the Father (<em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>). There is a telling juxtaposition of ideas here- shame and glory. Amidst the utter glory of the Father's throne, surrounded by Angels, the Lord will be sitting there with eyes downwards in shame as the rejected stand before Him and walk away. The Proverbs speak of how shame is to be the ultimate end of the wicked, and glory the end of the righteous. Yet it is&nbsp;<em>the rejected who</em>&nbsp;go away "into shame":&nbsp;<em>They</em>&nbsp;will be "ashamed before him at his coming". Yet the Lord will so feel for even the rejected, that He feels for them and reflects their feelings. This is no stern-faced judge chasing away those He is angry with. This is a window into the Lord's ineffable love and feelings even for those for whom it truly is too late, for whom the way to the tree of life is now barred. The way the Lord Jesus says that He will be "ashamed" of those He has to reject (<em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>) opens an interesting window into what it means to have Divine nature. It doesn't mean that we will not then know the range of emotions which we have as humans today- for we are made in God's image. To think of the Lord of Heaven and earth, on the throne of His glory, sitting or standing there "ashamed"::. because of His people. And shame is really a concept relevant to the presence of others- and the others who will be present will be the Angels and ourselves. Before us, we who are ourselves&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;weak and saved by His grace alone, He will feel shame because of those He has to reject. But there's another way of looking at the Lord's 'shame'. It is the rejected who will have shame in that day (<em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>). Such is the nature of the Lord's love and empathy that He will somehow feel their shame, feel embarrassed for them as it were. Which thought in itself should banish for ever any idea that we are coming before an angry Master. The Lord of grace is the One who will be, and is, our judge. And even in His condemnation of men, His essential love shines through. His condemnation of Israel involved them wandering for years in the wilderness; but during that wandering, "in all their affliction, he was afflicted" (<em><a href='B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>). God shared in their feelings and suffering of rejection; just as the Lord Jesus will share in the shame of those who walk away from Him at the last day in shame. God's being with Israel during their wilderness wanderings is cited in <em><a href='B:370 2:10'>Amo 2:10</a></em> as an example of His especial love for His people.</p><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 he is ashamed of His words and seeks to gain the world for himself in this life. 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. But in <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em> the Lord teaches that men cannot take that “life” from us- only God can, at the day of judgment. He clearly doesn’t simply have mortal life in view, because this can be taken from us by men. Perhaps the idea is that for those written in the book of life, they ‘have’ eternal life, as John’s Gospel makes clear. No man can take that from us. But if we spend our lives trying to find the ideal life for ourselves in this life (the coolest place to live, high income, fulfilling career etc:), we are in fact losing or destroying that eternal life, and therefore there is such a thing as names that were once written in the book of life being erased from it. In Luke’s record, the Lord goes on to say 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. <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><p>The Greek text in <em><a href='B:470 16:25-26'>Mat 16:25-26</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> can bear a re-translation and re-punctuation which quite alters the sense as found in the English translations. It shows the Lord emphasizing the evident and compelling logic of losing our lives for His sake: "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For how much a man is profited if he shall gain the whole world (in the Kingdom) and lose his own soul (now, as I asked you to do, to lose your soul for me)!::. for the Son of man shall come::. and then he shall reward every man according to his works", i:e. the losing of our soul is through our everyday works. <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em> makes the same point: 'How is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world (the Kingdom) and lose himself (now)!:&nbsp;<em>or</em>&nbsp;- be cast away, be condemned at the judgment, because he tried to keep his soul, he didn't see the logic of all this!'. The point is, a man at the day of judgment will be willing to give up&nbsp;<em>everything</em>, even the whole world if he possesses it in order that he may find acceptance. But then it will be too late:&nbsp;<em>Now</em>&nbsp;is the time to resign all for the sake of that blessed acceptance.</p><p>I mentioned above that the Greek for ‘losing life’ has been used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 10:28-29'>Mat 10:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em> to speak of losing or destroying life in the condemnation of the last day. Perhaps the idea is that we resign not only any attempt to materially turn this life into the eternal life, our small world into God’s Kingdom- but we also condemn ourselves now, so that we shall not be condemned in the last day. Flesh must be condemned, and it is our wisdom to do it now.</p><p><em>And whoever shall lose his life for my sake</em>- <em><a href='B:480 8:35'>Mar 8:35</a></em> adds: "And the Gospel's". The Lord envisaged that the preaching of the Gospel could likely involve the loss of life. For many of us today, that is not the case; and in fact it has usually not been the case for the majority of Christ's followers over time. But the idea is that we are to sacrifice life for the Gospel; be it momentary embarrassment, social death, defriending on social networks or sacrifice of career and wealth. This is the large part which "the Gospel" was envisaged as playing in the life of a believer. <em><a href='B:480 8:35-38'>Mar 8:35-38</a></em> records the Lord’s teaching here slightly differently: “For whoever would save his life shall lose it, and whoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, he shall save it! For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? For what should a man give in exchange for his life? For whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also shall be ashamed”. The Lord Jesus paralleled "my sake and the gospel's" with "me and my words" (<em><a href='B:480 8:35'>Mar 8:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>). He Himself thus understood the Gospel to be His words:&nbsp;Preaching, in whatever form, is not glamorous. It is a sacrifice of self, a not saying and doing as we feel, a surrendering of our own rights- for the sake of others’ salvation, both in the preaching of the Gospel and in helping our brethren to salvation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Shall find it</em>- 10:39 has made it clear that if we find our lives we shall lose them. This finding of life likely refers, therefore, to finding it in the day of judgment. However, according to John’s Gospel, the essence of the eternal life, the kind of life we can eternally live, can be lived right now in Christian experience today. So this is an element to which we who have forfeited having the Kingdom now, in all the apparent possibilities for self-fulfilment which there are today, can find the eternal life now in that we can live the Kingdom life today. Likewise if we take the Lord’s yoke upon us, we shall “find rest unto [our] lives / souls” (<em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em> s:w:). And the implication is that that experience begins now, having shed the heavy burdens of guilt and legalism.</p>


text:
<p>16:26&nbsp;<em>For what shall a man be profited</em>- <em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em> records the Lord as teaching: “What&nbsp;<em>will it</em>&nbsp;[future] profit a man [i:e. at the future judgment], if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?”. <em><a href='B:480 8:36'>Mar 8:36</a></em> has: “What&nbsp;<em>does it</em>&nbsp;[right now] profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?”. Could it be that the Lord said both these things at the same time- to make His point, that the essence of judgment day is being decided right now by our decisions today? And the Lord’s next words make the same point: “What shall [at judgment day] a man give in return for his life?” (<em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>) is matched by <em><a href='B:480 8:37'>Mar 8:37</a></em>: “What can [right now] a man give in return for his life?”. The question we will face at judgment day, the obvious issue between winning for a moment and losing eternally, or losing now and winning eternally… this is being worked out right now. The choice is ours, hour by hour, decision by decision.</p><p>The metaphor is clearly of trading: profiting, gaining, exchanging, losing. The parable of trading the talents uses the same metaphor. <em><a href='B:470 25:17'>Mat 25:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em> speak of ‘gaining’ more talents- the same word used here about ‘gaining’ the world. And yet the intended paradox is that by losing materially, declining to profit and gain in the material things of this world, we shall gain eternal things. The idea of not being profited by gaining the things of this life is recorded in all the Synoptics (<em><a href='B:480 8:36'>Mar 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em>). John’s equivalent is to record the Lord’s teaching that the flesh can “profit” (s:w:) nothing, whereas His words are spirit and life (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>). The spiritual life, lived in response to His word, is the true profit. There can be no ultimate profit in any fleshly, worldly enterprise:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>If he shall gain</em>- See on&nbsp;<em>profit</em>. We are to ‘gain’ more talents for the Lord, not the world for ourselves (<em><a href='B:470 25:17'>Mat 25:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:20'>Mat 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:22'>Mat 25:22</a></em> s:w:). We ‘gain’ our brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>)- not for ourselves, but for the Lord; Paul wanted to ‘gain’ men by all means for Christ (<em><a href='B:530 9:19-22'>1Co 9:19-22</a></em> s:w. four times). Unspiritual husbands are to be ‘gained’ by the spiritual efforts of believing wives (<em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>). The first century believers likely memorized the Gospels, and so Paul’s repeated usage of the word ‘gain’ regarding gaining others would’ve been easily connected with the ‘gaining’ of talents in the parable, where the same word is also repeatedly used. Instead of gaining the world for ourselves, we are to gain people for Christ. Instead of careers and long hours at work to fund a cool lifestyle, we are to spend time visiting, phoning, writing, emailing, arranging things… for the gaining of individuals for Him. The contrast is between gaining&nbsp;<em>persons</em>&nbsp;for&nbsp;<em>Christ&nbsp;</em>and gaining&nbsp;<em>things&nbsp;</em>for&nbsp;<em>ourselves</em>. Paul had clearly meditated upon the Lord’s teaching here because he says that whatever things were once “gain” for him [s:w:] he now counted as&nbsp;<em>loss</em>, and even saw his death, the loss of this present life, as “gain” (<em><a href='B:570 3:7'>Phi 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:21'>Phi 1:21</a></em>). The “things” he no longer wished to “gain” refer to his life of legalistic obedience and condemnation of others (<em><a href='B:570 3:4-6'>Phi 3:4-6</a></em>). The call to no longer gain but lose is not simply an invitation to unload our wealth in monetary terms. If it were, then it would only apply to the minority of believers over time who have been wealthy. More essentially, the call is to lose whatever human advantage we have had, even spiritual power and advantage over others, in order to align ourselves with the life and death of our Lord. Paul continues the allusion to this section by saying that he has counted all such human advantage as “loss” (<em><a href='B:570 3:8'>Phi 3:8</a></em>)- the same word used in “lose his own soul / life”- in order that he might “gain” Christ. The gaining of life which the Lord spoke of is described by Paul as a gaining of Christ- for He is our life (<em><a href='B:580 3:4'>Col 3:4</a></em>). Our existence is eternally intertwined with his:&nbsp;&nbsp;</h4><p><em>The whole world-&nbsp;</em>An allusion to the Lord’s wilderness temptations. Yet again, He speaks largely to Himself in His teaching of others, as every true teacher does. The parallel records in Mark and Luke speak of suffering and loss in order to not be ashamed of the Lord’s words and to preach those words. The work of witness is the ‘gaining’ of people for Him. It is not incidental, therefore, that the only other reference in Matthew to&nbsp;<em>holos kosmos</em>, “the whole world” is in the context of speaking of how the Gospel is to be preached to “the whole world” (<em><a href='B:470 26:13'>Mat 26:13</a></em>). With this in mind, it may also be that the Lord is warning that a preacher may indeed gain the whole world for God in a spiritual sense- and yet be cast away himself. In this case, He was more than ever speaking to Himself, He who did die in order to gain the world. What we do for others is no replacement for personal spirituality. If this is a valid interpretation, perhaps subtly built in by the Lord into His appeal to not gain the material world for ourselves, then we must re-examine the common assumption that a person must be good and spiritual because of all the good they have done for others. That good may indeed have been done, but is no guarantee of deeply personal integrity before God:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And forfeit his life</em>- The allusion to <em><a href='B:470 10:28-29'>Mat 10:28-29</a></em> means that no man can take life from us, but God can, at the condemnation of the last day. Therefore the “life” in view is not simply mortal life, which can be taken from us by men. Rather does it refer to our eternal life, potentially given to us from the foundation of the world in Christ. We cannot give anything for that, it is priceless. We are to accept it, but if we accept it, then we will not seek to gain the world for ourselves in a material sense in this life. Note the emphasis upon his “own” life. The eternal life which we shall eternally experience is personal to each of us. The Bible teaches personal salvation. You, and me, as the sum total of all we have experienced, we as persons… shall personally be saved. The eternal life is not therefore merely a biophysical state which can no longer die; immortality is not merely the absence of death. It is more personal than that. It is about you and me personally existing for eternity; we ourselves as persons shall be saved and eternally continue. This of course highlights the eternal importance of character development in this life; for we shall eternally be who we develop into.</p><p><em>Or what shall a man give in exchange</em>- The Lord is perhaps envisaging how some might think to offer their wealth in order to buy eternity at the last day- verse 27 goes on to speak of the day of judgment as if this is the scene which the Lord has had in view throughout this section. Surely nobody will actually do that- at that day. But effectively, that is how so many live today, thinking that their attempts to acquire this world can somehow be compared to the riches of eternity.</p><p><em>For his life</em>- The Greek and Hebrew words translated “soul” ["life"] have a very wide range of meaning. The idea is usually of the person, the life, often the natural life. But here we have one of a few usages where the word is used about the person and their life in the sense of the person and life which they could eternally be in God’s Kingdom. The use of “soul” here rather than “life” is perhaps because the Lord has been emphasizing personal salvation- see on&nbsp;<em>his own life</em>.</p>


text:
<p>16:27&nbsp;<em>For&nbsp;the Son of Man shall come-&nbsp;</em>There is a powerful practical result of the connection between the cross and the judgment. The Lord brings it out when He gives three reasons for denying ourselves and taking up the cross; the final and most compelling is “<em>For</em>&nbsp;(because) the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he give every man according to his works" (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>). Take up the cross, do what is hard for you spiritually, because this is the basis upon which you will be judged- how far you took up the cross, really denied yourself. Before the cross of Christ, we know the way we ought to take. Before the judgment seat, we will know likewise. But we make the answer now.<br/>Luke adds that the Lord will be “ashamed” of those who have been ashamed of Him in this life. If we are&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;ashamed of our Lord before men, we will be in the condemnation process (<em><a href='B:490 9:26'>Luk 9:26</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>).</p><p><em>In the glory of his Father with his angels</em>- The intention of this phrase may be to demonstrate that the Lord will execute judgment with the full authority of the Father. Or perhaps the language is to remind us of the awesomeness of the day of judgment, and how inappropriate it would be to stand there and think that before the light of that moral and physical glory, with all the Angels present, we could suggest giving our wealth as an exchange for our soul.</p><p><em>And then shall he repay every man according to his deeds</em>- The Greek refers to payment, and this is how the word is usually translated in the Gospels. And this is in keeping with the metaphor used here- of trading, gaining, losing and exchanging. The payment to us is for our loss of material advantage in this life; the attitudes which led to this are therefore the “works” which shall be paid back. It could be argued that the idea of paying a reward implies that the “every man” in view here refers to the group of faithful believers. For it is those accepted into the Kingdom who shall be given payment. In one sense, the penny a day refers to salvation, which all the same requires us to resign seeking the reward of this world. Or it could be that in another sense, the nature of eternity will indeed be according to the works we have done, in that one star differs from another in glory, and the servants were rewarded with different levels of reward according to their trading on their Master’s behalf.</p><p>The ‘deeds’ of the context refer to taking up the cross, not wanting to gain the world for ourselves but seeking to gain men for Christ. These ‘works’ appear largely to be mental attitudes rather than deeds physically performed. The work of God is to believe in Christ (<em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>). The outcome of the day of judgment is according to human works in the sense that it is only a confirmation of the decision and judgment about ourselves which we ourselves have decided in this life- see on <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>lose it</em>.</p>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And after six days</em>- <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em> speaks of “about an eight days after”, reckoning inclusively and perhaps wishing to express the idea of ‘About a week later’:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother-&nbsp;</em>Peter is mentioned first. An over-reaction against Catholic views of Peter can lead us to under-estimate the undoubted supremacy of Peter in the early ecclesia. He was in the inner three along with James and John, and in incidents involving them he is always mentioned first, as the leader (<em><a href='B:470 17:1-2'>Mat 17:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:37'>Mar 5:37</a></em>). He is the first to confess Jesus as Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 16:13-17'>Mat 16:13-17</a></em>), the first apostle to see the risen Christ (<em><a href='B:490 24:34'>Luk 24:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:5'>1Co 15:5</a></em>), the first to preach to the Gentiles. Being given the keys of the Kingdom is language which would have been understood at the time as the Lord making Peter the Chief Rabbi of His new ecclesia. The Acts record without doubt gives primacy to Peter as the leader and chief representative of Christ’s fledgling church. But, humanly speaking, he was the most unlikely choice. The one who in the eyes of the world and brotherhood should have sat a fair while on the back burner, done the honourable thing… in fact, many honourable things, in just keeping a respectful and bashful silence. And there is no lack of evidence that Peter himself would have preferred that. But no, he was commissioned by the Lord to specifically lead the church. The early church was to be built on the rock of Peter. Whether we like to read this as meaning the rock of Peter’s confession that Christ was the Son of God, or as simply meaning Peter’s work as the manifestation of Christ,&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>rock, the Acts record shows clearly that the early church was built upon the specific work of Peter.</p><p><em>And led them up a high mountain by themselves</em>- Being led up [Gk:] a high mountain by the leader to be present at a theophany is very much the language of Moses taking Joshua and earlier another trio of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu) with him part way up Mount Sinai, and likewise experiencing a shining face (<em><a href='B:20 34:29-35'>Exo 34:29-35</a></em>) and God’s voice from a cloud (<em><a href='B:20 34:5'>Exo 34:5</a></em>). Moses returned from the Mount with shining face and the people were afraid- just as happened here (<em><a href='B:480 9:6'>Mar 9:6</a></em>). Perhaps Peter vaguely comprehended all this when he wanted to build ‘tabernacles’, because this was the task given to Moses for Israel to complete. <em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em> speaks of the&nbsp;<em>exodus&nbsp;</em>which the Lord was to make at Jerusalem- a reference to His death. It was the Passover lamb which died at the Exodus- the implication is that now God’s people were free to leave Egypt. Again, those secular fishermen were being shown (through the obvious parallel) that they were none less than Joshua in this new Israel which was being created; and after the Lord’s departure, they were to take His place and lead God’s Israel into the Kingdom:&nbsp;</p><h4>The idea seems to be that just as He had taken the twelve into Gentile areas for a period of intense teaching of them, so even within the twelve He focused upon these three and wanted to spend time alone with them. He “took” them means to desire association with, to come close to. This was His intention, and one wonders whether the transfiguration was therefore unexpected for Him. Previously when He had tried to get the twelve away by themselves, there had been unexpected events which hampered that, such as the crowds following them, and even in Gentile areas the Lord seems to have been surprised by the faith and need to perform miracles which He encountered. In this case, it would be unintentional that the transfiguration is recorded as following straight after His words about His coming in His Kingdom; it wasn’t as if the Lord said those words knowing that some would witness the transfiguration. According to <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>, the Lord’s intention was to go up the mountain “to pray”, but whilst He prayed, the transfiguration occurred. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:28'>Mat 16:28</a></em>:&nbsp;</h4><p>Luke mentions that the Lord took Peter, James and John, started praying and then there was a theophany; but in their human weakness they missed much of it because they fell asleep. This was exactly the situation in the Garden of Gethsemane, with the same three involved; it was as if He was seeking to train them for it. They were “heavy” with sleep (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>), and the word is only used elsewhere in the Gospels to describe how the same three were “heavy” with sleep in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:43'>Mat 26:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:40'>Mar 14:40</a></em>). Even if Jesus Himself wasn’t consciously doing this, we have here an example of how the Divine hand leads us through experiences in order to prepare us for others which are to come later in similar form:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:2'>Mat 17:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he was transfigured before them-&nbsp;</em>Christ's transfiguration was a cameo of the change that should be apparent deep within us, for Paul says that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>should likewise be transformed (<em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> s:w:), and he uses a related word in speaking of how Christ is to be “formed” within us (<em><a href='B:550 4:19'>Gal 4:19</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Metamorphoo</em>&nbsp;means a change of&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>; not necessarily of essential nature, because we too are to be transformed in this life, and have a new&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;develop in us (<em><a href='B:550 4:19'>Gal 4:19</a></em>). But it could be that the ‘other form’ in which the Lord now appeared was in the form in which He will be in the Kingdom. The idea of a change of&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of the Lord Jesus recurs only one other time- in the hymn concerning the Lord’s death in <em><a href='B:570 2:6-7'>Phi 2:6-7</a></em> where we read that although Had the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of God, He went through a seven stage progressive humiliation until He took on the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of a slave in the final death of the cross. One purpose of the transfiguration was for Moses and Elijah (who had both had Divinely arranged deaths or departures from ministry) to encourage the Lord concerning His upcoming death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>). And yet He appeared as He will in the Kingdom, with shining Kingdom glory. The suffering and the glory were thereby manifested to and upon Him at the very same time, to show how inextricably linked they are. Perhaps too the point was being made that when He would hang there with the&nbsp;<em>morphe</em>&nbsp;of a dying and rejected slave, in Heaven’s eyes, He was in Kingdom glory. John’s equivalent of this is to record how the Lord spoke of His death as a ‘lifting up’, an idea which in Hebrew has connotations of ‘glory’. The shame of the cross was only from the world’s viewpoint, whereas from a spiritual viewpoint, His death was the very acme of spiritual glory. The blood drenched garment became in God’s eyes a glistering white raiment (<em><a href='B:490 9:29'>Luk 9:29</a></em>). This would explain why in one sense the transfiguration was a Kingdom vision, and yet it was also about the Lord’s death. Peter later reflected that he could preach with conviction about the coming of Christ because he was present at the transfiguration (<em><a href='B:680 1:16-18'>2Pe 1:16-18</a></em>). The Kingdom element of the experience cannot be divorced from the fact it was also an encouragement from Moses and Elijah concerning the cross. Note that John was also powerfully inspired by the transfiguration, opening his Gospel with an allusion to it in saying that “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). James likewise appears to reference the transfiguration when he writes of how the Lord's glory is so surpassing that there should be no jostling for human glory amongst us His people (<em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>). The descriptions of the Lord Jesus are very similar to the language used about the scene at His resurrection- Angels in shining garments (<em><a href='B:470 28:3'>Mat 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:4'>Luk 24:4</a></em>), frightened and uncomprehending disciples (<em><a href='B:470 28:5'>Mat 28:5</a></em>). And yet the theme of the conversation was the Lord’s death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>)- but it took place with a preview of the resurrection scene:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And his face shone</em>- The same word used about the shining associated with the Lord's second coming (<em><a href='B:490 17:24'>Luk 17:24</a></em>). Having taught that we too should be transfigured (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> s:w:), Paul goes on to say that God has “shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>). This is transfiguration language. We are to be transformed into that same image. He there becomes the picture of what each of us in Him are evolving into.</p><p><em>As the sun</em>- The Lord's return will be as the rising of the sun (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>). The same figure is used for the Kingdom age and His return in <em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em> and <em><a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And his garments became white as the light</em>- The same word used about the white clothing of the Angels at the resurrection ("white as snow", <em><a href='B:470 28:3'>Mat 28:3</a></em>, just as in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:5'>Mar 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:12'>Joh 20:12</a></em>). In the midst of the conversation about His upcoming death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), there was the encouragement of what the resurrection glory would be like. The same word is also used about the Lord's current appearance in Heavenly glory with clothes "as white as snow" (<em><a href='B:730 1:14'>Rev 1:14</a></em> - the very phrased used in <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>). Indeed, the description of the risen Lord in Revelation 1 has many connections with the language used about His appearance at the transfiguration. Again the idea was to show Him how He would be after His glorification, to motivate Him to go through with the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;at the cross which He must fulfil at Jerusalem:&nbsp; “As the light” is hard to understand, but the Codex Bezae reads “as the snow”, in line with <em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>.</p><p>Mark adds that the Lord's clothing was "white as snow, such that no fuller on earth can white them" (<em><a href='B:480 9:3'>Mar 9:3</a></em>). The Hebrew mind would have obviously thought of the clothing of God Himself, the "ancient of days" of <em><a href='B:340 7:9'>Dan 7:9</a></em>, which is described likewise. The comment that no&nbsp;<em>man</em>&nbsp;could ever make them so white is also a hint in that direction. He was clothed with the clothing of God. This doesn't make Him God, for Revelation has many descriptions of the faithful having the same kind of clothing. Against this background, the promise of <em><a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a></em> becomes the more awesome- that even although our sins are red as crimson, yet they can become white as snow. This can only be achieved by the wearing of God's own clothing, the gift of His imputed righteousness, which Paul extensively glories in throughout Romans 1-8. <em><a href='B:730 7:14'>Rev 7:14</a></em> speaks of plunging our robes in the blood of the lamb, and them becoming white. It's all so paradoxical- that this whiteness cannot be achieved by man, no fuller on earth could do this, but by plunging [surely an allusion to baptism] into the red blood of Christ. This is the challenge of faith- to believe that the promised whiteness can be achieved through Christ. It was possible even in Isaiah's time, on the basis that God looked ahead to the work of Christ which as it were enabled Him to do this. Therefore the reference to "no fuller on earth" suggests that there is a fuller in Heaven who can do this. And <em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em> is specific that the Messiah heralded by the Elijah prophet, John the Baptist, would be like "fuller's soap" in cleansing men through the judgment of their sins. David in the depth of his sin appealed to God to 'full' him ("wash me", but s:w. 'fuller'- <em><a href='B:230 51:2'>Psa 51:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a></em>); and this was done for him, on account of the future work of Christ which the Father then held in view:&nbsp; The Lord's glistering garments are therefore available for all of us. And it is with that connection that the scene there becomes no mere spectacle to behold in awe from afar, but a real picture of our own possibility before God.<br/>Luke adds that the disciples “saw his glory” (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>). This is absolutely the language of Moses and the Old Testament heroes seeing Divine glory in theophanies, and like the disciples, hearing God’s voice (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> Heb. – “shew” is the same word translated ‘to see’’ Isaiah- <em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>; Ezekiel- <em><a href='B:330 1:28'>Eze 1:28</a></em>). Yet again the Lord was seeking to show those secular men that they were called to work on the level of Moses and the prophets in the new Israel which the Lord Jesus was creating out of manual labourers, prostitutes, tax collectors, swindlers and sinners. See on :5&nbsp;<em>cloud</em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:3'>Mat 17:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And there appeared before them</em>- See on :9&nbsp;<em>the vision</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Moses and Elijah</em>- They appeared “in glory” (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), as the Lord did- this is clearly a vision of the Kingdom. The Lord Jesus was the firstfruits from the dead, who opened the way to immortality. So there is no way that they were already glorified before His death and resurrection. It was a vision (:9), of the Kingdom. Just as Jesus was not then glorified Himself at that time, neither were they. They spoke of how the Lord was going to “fulfil” the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;in His death at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>). It was Moses who could supremely explain this to the Lord, having himself slain the Passover lamb and experienced the&nbsp;<em>exodus</em>&nbsp;made possible thereby.</p><p><em>Talking with Jesus-&nbsp;</em>The transfiguration follows straight on from the Lord’s talk about the Kingdom at the end of chapter 16. It was a foretaste of the Kingdom. Yet the Kingdom is fundamentally a&nbsp;<em>relationship</em>&nbsp;with God. Thus the foretaste of the Kingdom presented at the transfiguration was of faithful men in spiritual conversation with the glorified Lord Jesus, with His face shining as the sun as it will in the Kingdom, as the “sun of righteousness” (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>Luke adds that the disciples’ eyes were heavy and they fell asleep at the critical moment. But earlier, “having remained awake”, the same disciples were blessed with a vision of the Lord’s glory (<em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em> RVmg:). If they had remained awake in the garden, they would have seen the Lord being glorified by Angelic visitation. But they didn't perceive how the circumstances were repeating, and thus didn’t find the strength and inspiration which was potentially prepared for them through the similarity of circumstance:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:4'>Mat 17:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Peter said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here. If it pleases you</em>- Throughout the Lord's ministry, Peter had a mental barrier to the idea of his Lord suffering and dying. It could be argued that his desire to build tents and remain in the mountain of transfiguration was rooted in this- Moses and Elijah had just spoken with the Lord Jesus about the path He must take to death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), and Peter somehow wants the Lord to stay there in the mountain (<em><a href='B:480 9:5'>Mar 9:5</a></em>). And yet Peter's later preaching has so much to say about the Lord's death. And his letters contain quotations and allusions from Isaiah's suffering servant prophecies (<em><a href='B:670 2:21'>1Pe 2:21</a></em> etc:). Further, if we accept the idea elsewhere discussed that Mark's Gospel is a transcript of Peter's preaching of the Gospel, it becomes significant that Mark's version of the Gospel likewise emphasizes Jesus as the suffering servant. Thus what Peter was once blind to, he made a special point of preaching. The content of his witness reflected his deep awareness of his past blindness- and therefore his appeal to others to 'get it' was the more powerful seeing that he himself had patently 'not got it' for some years. And it shouldn't be hard to translate his example into our daily experience, speaking of our weaknesses and former blindnesses rather than coming over as the self-congratulatory religious guy.</p><p>It is also possible to understand Peter’s suggestion simply as the kind of inappropriate thing a man would say who wants to make a response to spirituality, but doesn’t know how to. He wanted to do something material and physical- he simply didn’t know what to say (<em><a href='B:480 9:6'>Mar 9:6</a></em>). The response was the voice from Heaven telling Peter to&nbsp;<em>hear</em>&nbsp;Jesus, to respond to His word, rather than run around doing inappropriate works just because we feel we have to&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something.</p><p><em>I will make here three tabernacles- one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah-&nbsp;</em>See on <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>. It may have taken much of the day to climb the mountain, and Peter was maybe thinking of where they were going to sleep for the night. Or was did he also have in mind a celebration of the feast of Tabernacles at that time? Later, Peter came to see his death as a taking down of a tent (<em><a href='B:680 1:13'>2Pe 1:13</a></em>), using the same word for the tabernacle he had wanted to build for his Lord at the transfiguration. Then, he had wanted the tent to be set up so that the time of the Lord’s departure wouldn’t come; so that the Lord would stay with them there, with Moses and Elijah, in what must have seemed like the Kingdom of God. Again, Peter didn’t want the cross, neither for his Lord nor for himself. But by the time he wrote 2 Peter, he had learnt his lesson; he saw that his tent must be taken down. The vision of the glory of the Lord Jesus, the words of His coming death and future Kingdom, these were quite enough. There had been no need of the tent on the mountain, and now he saw there was no need for the tent of his body either. We are all the same. Our death will literally be a death with the Lord, in that our resurrection will be after the pattern of His (<em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>). Peter learnt this lesson from the transfiguration because he describes his coming death as his&nbsp;<em>exodus&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:680 1:15'>2Pe 1:15</a></em>), just as Moses and Elijah had spoken then of the Lord’s coming death (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>17:5- see on <em><a href='B:470 16:16'>Mat 16:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>While he was yet speaking, a bright cloud</em>- Moses had previously entered the cloud of glory, seen God’s glory and heard God’s voice- on the top of a mountain. Moses’ ascent into the mountain and into the very cloud of Divine glory was understood in Judaism as the very zenith of human spiritual achievement of all time, coming so close to the very personal presence of God, never to be repeated amongst men. And now, three fishermen were having the very same experience. No wonder they feared as they themselves entered into that cloud (<em><a href='B:490 9:34'>Luk 9:34</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased</em>- This was literally the word of God, and yet it was actually a string of three quotations from God’s word in the Old Testament: “You are My Son” (<em><a href='B:230 2:7'>Psa 2:7</a></em>), “In whom My soul delights” (<em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>), “Hear Him” (<em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>). It must have been a profound evidence of the Bible’s Divine inspiration. The very voice of God repeating His own words as found in the Law, Psalms and Prophets- the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Hear Him-&nbsp;</em>This was intended to take the mind back to <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>, where it was written that Messiah would be ‘heard’ by the faithful. But Peter fell down paralyzed with fear; he didn’t really hear the son of God then. Yet in <em><a href='B:510 3:22'>Act 3:22</a></em>, Peter quotes <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em> and asks his hearers to obey the passage by hearing Jesus, through his preaching of Him. He was asking his audience to do what he himself hadn’t done. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:6'>Mat 17:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face and were terrified</em>- The strong similarity with Moses (see on :5&nbsp;<em>cloud</em>) was such that they felt utterly unworthy, which is what falling on the face is commonly associated with in the Old Testament (Abraham, <em><a href='B:10 17:3'>Gen 17:3</a></em>; Joseph’s brothers, <em><a href='B:10 50:18'>Gen 50:18</a></em>; Moses, <em><a href='B:40 16:4'>Num 16:4</a></em>; Balaam, <em><a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a></em>; Joshua, <em><a href='B:60 7:6'>Jos 7:6</a></em>; Ruth, <em><a href='B:80 2:10'>Rth 2:10</a></em>; Nebuchadnezzar, <em><a href='B:340 2:46'>Dan 2:46</a></em>). Their fear is similar to Israel’s when confronted with the sight of a similar theophany on a mountain. They felt, as we all do at times, that all this was beyond them. The Lord’s comfort of them was not simply reassuring them that they were not going to be consumed by the vision, but more so encouraging them that they really could rise up to the height of the calling to be as Moses. Paul grasped the point when he invites us&nbsp;<em>each one</em>&nbsp;to see ourselves as Moses, beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ, “we each with unveiled face” (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV). Each of us are as Moses, not just the church leadership, but each one of us who has entered a personal relationship with Christ and seen God’s glory in His face.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:7'>Mat 17:7</a></em><em>&nbsp;And Jesus came and touched them, and said: Arise and be not afraid-&nbsp;</em>This is intentionally similar to the experience of Daniel in Daniel 10, with the Lord Jesus lifting up the disciples, who were feeling unworthy as Daniel did. Again, the disciples were being taught that in the new Israel, there are no heroes set in stained glass that are high above our possible reach. We are the heroes. Just as Daniel felt unworthy, so did the disciples- the connection made the point that the heroes of Judaism were also weak and felt their sinfulness, and on this basis the disciples were encouraged to be like them and rise up to their spirit:&nbsp;</p><p>Their fear was not simply of the majesty of the moment, but more fundamentally their fear of being called to be as Moses- see on :6. A massive 23 times we find the Greek phrase translated “Fear not” on the lips of the Lord Jesus. His consistent, persistent reassurance of His faltering followers, whose fear is often because of their own moral inadequacy, is significant indeed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:8'>Mat 17:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And lifting up their eyes, they saw</em>- ‘Lifted up’,&nbsp;<em>epairo</em>, is surely intended to resonate with&nbsp;<em>egeiro</em>&nbsp;[“arise” / ‘get up’] of :7. The picture is given of the Lord bending down and touching them, as if they are children, and urging them to rise up. Instead, they just raise up their eyes, and see only Jesus. We really are invited to play ‘Bible television’ here. The scene is so imaginable. And again, the Gospel writers and speakers were emphasizing the weakness of even the three leading disciples. Peter spoke inappropriately, offering to make booths when instead God wanted him to ‘hear’ His Son; their fear is likened to the fear of unspiritual Israel at the theophany on Sinai; they are scared to get up in obedience to Jesus’ touch, raising their large childlike eyes to Him instead… Indeed the record of the transfiguration really stresses the disciples’ weakness, exhibited in the face of the Kingdom glory of their Lord and the earnest encouragement of Him by more spiritual men to go through with the cross- whilst they slept.</p><h4><em>No one, save Jesus only</em>- In the Greek as well as in translation, this is really labouring the point. The “save / only”,&nbsp;<em>monos</em>, is redundant- they saw ‘nobody except Jesus’ is a statement which needs no further qualification, indeed grammatically it almost&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;be given further qualification, and reads awkwardly because of the&nbsp;<em>monos</em>, “only”, that is added. But the word “only” is added to emphasize that their focus was solely upon Him. That was the purpose of the event, and it had been achieved. Christ centeredness is the ultimate, final and total issue of our experience of Him, the Law and the prophets. The transfiguration ends with this total focus&nbsp;<em>monos</em>&nbsp;upon Christ; this was the practical effect of the theophany. John’s Gospel doesn’t record the transfiguration, but as so often, it is indeed alluded to. For John’s Gospel is full of references to seeing glory, to hearing the Son. It’s as if John presents Jesus to us a constant theophany, not one that three of the best disciples go up a mountain to see for a short period, but one which is continually before each of us, and which according to Paul’s allusions to it, draws us into its very process. For we too are transfigured as we like the disciples behold the Lord’s transfiguration (<em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> s:w:).</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:9'>Mat 17:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying: Tell the vision to no one, until the Son of Man be risen from the dead</em>- Whilst this literally means ‘the thing seen’, the transfiguration was indeed a vision. Seeing that Christ is the firstfruits from the dead and that there is no conscious survival of death, it follows that at best Moses and Elijah were resurrected especially for the occasion. But they “appeared in glory” (<em><a href='B:490 9:31'>Luk 9:31</a></em>), as if they were in the Kingdom. The Greek translated “appeared” has the strong sense of ‘being seen / observed’. This is how they were seen- another hint at a vision. When the event finished, <em><a href='B:490 9:36'>Luk 9:36</a></em> says that Jesus was “found alone”- but that is a poor translation of&nbsp;<em>heurisko</em>. He was seen, perceived alone- again hinting that the entire experience was a vision rather than occurring in reality. The way that “Suddenly, when they had looked round about” they saw only Jesus, finding Moses and Elijah had disappeared (<em><a href='B:480 9:8'>Mar 9:8</a></em>) would also hint at a visionary experience. Note that there is no suggestion that Moses and Elijah went off anywhere, let alone ‘returned’ to Heaven. The vision of them simply abruptly ended. They saw nobody “except Jesus only with themselves” or “they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus” (<em><a href='B:480 9:8'>Mar 9:8</a></em>) would suggest that they were as it were looking at themselves from outside of themselves- again, ideas appropriate to a visionary experience rather than an actual personal encounter. And this is how the incident with Moses and Elijah began, for “there&nbsp;<em>appeared unto them</em>&nbsp;Moses and Elijah talking with Him” (:3). It was an appearance&nbsp;<em>unto them</em>, a vision which ended when they saw themselves from outside themselves and realized they were actually alone with Jesus. The language of ‘appearance’ used throughout the records of the transfiguration would also suggest that the incident with Moses and Elijah was an appearance&nbsp;<em>to them</em>, in their eyes and perception, rather than necessarily in reality.</p><p><em>"</em>To no one" maybe connects with the fact that they saw “no man” except Jesus (:8); and so they are asked to tell the vision to “no man” until after the Lord’s resurrection. It could be that the Lord wanted them to retain their focus upon Him by not telling others but instead meditating personally upon what they had seen. The vision had been of the Lord’s resurrection glory- we noted above the similarities in language to the shining garments of the Angels at the resurrection scene. The Lord didn’t want people to think that He had already attained that glory without the cross. Even though in prospect He had that glory, He was insistent that no impression be given that He could attain it without passing through the cross. This was particularly important for Peter to appreciate, who several times entertained a hope that glory was possible for the Lord without the cross.</p><p>The Synoptics each record the transfiguration. But did John? He saw it, and here he was commanded to tell it to others after the resurrection. It would be almost impossible for his Gospel record to not mention it. I have suggested that he actually begins his Gospel with the recollection of how he had seen the Lord’s glory at the transfiguration (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> “we beheld His glory”), and that the whole Gospel presents Jesus in “glory” and being “beheld” or ‘seen’ in that glory.</p><p>Mark adds (<em><a href='B:480 9:10'>Mar 9:10</a></em>) that “they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean”. This comment indicates how secular they were; for the idea of bodily resurrection was well known within Judaism- the Pharisees believed that the dead would rise, although the Sadducees denied it. But the disciples were clearly unfamiliar with the idea, because they simply hadn’t been seriously religious people. The word for ‘questioning’ is used 10 times in the NT and always in a negative sense, mainly of the unbelieving Jews questioning the things of Christ. Thus it is used twice later in Mark 9 (<em><a href='B:480 9:14'>Mar 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:16'>Mar 9:16</a></em>) about the Jews questioning about Jesus. Such questioning is so often an excuse for lack of faith, pressing for over-definition of everything as an excuse for disbelief. Instead of focusing on the glory of Jesus, they got distracted (wilfully) by semantics, words and meanings.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:10'>Mat 17:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And his disciples asked him: Why do the scribes say-&nbsp;</em>The disciples were evidently still under the influence of Judaism and the religious world around them, and this background died hard for them. “Why say the scribes…?”, they reasoned, implying that their view was of at least equal if not greater weight when compared with that of the Lord Jesus [as they also did in <em><a href='B:470 17:9-10'>Mat 17:9-10</a></em>]. He had to specifically warn them against the Scribes in <em><a href='B:490 20:45-46'>Luk 20:45-46</a></em>; He had to specifically tell them not to address the Rabbis as ‘father’ (<em><a href='B:470 23:8-9'>Mat 23:8-9</a></em>), implying they had too much respect for them. The way the disciples speak of the Scribes as if they have such a valid theological position reflects their upbringing and respect for the ruling elite of the synagogue (<em><a href='B:470 17:10'>Mat 17:10</a></em>), with whom the Lord was at such total variance. They were concerned that the Pharisees had been offended by the Lord’s words (<em><a href='B:470 15:12'>Mat 15:12</a></em>). We again see here how the disciples were out of step with the Lord’s thinking, pursuing their own mental agenda, and not doing that they had just been told- to ‘hear Him’. For the Lord has just told them very seriously (“charged them”) to not say anything about this experience until He was resurrected. But instead they are grappling with another issue- if this Jesus was really Messiah, well why hadn’t Elijah come first, as the Scribes taught? Clearly we see them pursuing a line of thought which precluded their attention to what the Lord was so earnestly seeking to tell them.</p><p><em>That Elijah must first come</em>- This provides another insight into the shallowness of their understanding. The transfiguration had persuaded them, at least for the moment, that Jesus was Messiah. But they were confused as to why the Elijah prophet hadn’t come first. John the Baptist, whom they had followed and believed, had clearly cast himself in the role of Elijah. But it seems that they hadn’t really grasped the significance of John’s ministry at all.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:11'>Mat 17:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said: Elijah indeed comes</em>- There can be no doubt that 'Elijah' will come in some form:&nbsp; "I will send you Elijah the prophet before the&nbsp;<em>coming&nbsp;</em>of the great and dreadful day of the Lord::. lest I&nbsp;<em>come</em>&nbsp;and smite the earth" (<em><a href='B:460 4:5-6'>Mal 4:5-6</a></em>). The coming of the Lord must therefore be preceded by Elijah's work. His mission will be to direct Israel's attention to God's Word, "lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (<em><a href='B:460 4:4'>Mal 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This was evidently not totally fulfilled by John the Baptist, seeing that the land was smitten after A:D. 70 due to Israel's failure to repent:&nbsp;"Lest I come::." is clearly referring to God's manifestation in Christ's second coming - it is associated with the arising of "the sun of righteousness" (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; Whilst John fulfilled the role of the Elijah prophet to those who truly repented (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>), he emphatically denied that he was 'Elijah' (<em><a href='B:500 1:21'>Joh 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:23'>Joh 1:23</a></em>):&nbsp;This can only mean that the Elijah prophet is yet to come:&nbsp;&nbsp; Our Lord silences all doubt about this:&nbsp; "Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things" (<em><a href='B:470 17:11'>Mat 17:11</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; Elijah's work will be to turn the hearts of Israel back to the patriarchs in repentance (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a></em>), so that Christ comes to an Israel who have turned away from unGodliness (<em><a href='B:290 59:20'>Isa 59:20</a></em>). John being a mini-Elijah prophet, it is to be expected that the broad features of his ministry will be repeated in the work of the final Elijah prophet. John was called "the Baptist", so evident was his emphasis on water baptism. Indeed, the name 'John' and the image of water baptism are hard to separate. There is fair reason to think that 'Elijah' will also literally baptize. "That (Christ) should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water" (<em><a href='B:500 1:31'>Joh 1:31</a></em>) seems to make baptism a pre-requisite for accepting Christ. Indeed, Jewish theology expects baptism to be associated with the coming of Messiah and the Elijah prophet. Therefore the Jews asked John: "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias" (<em><a href='B:500 1:25'>Joh 1:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>And shall restore all things</em>- The restoration of the Kingdom is ultimately Messiah’s work (<em><a href='B:510 1:9-11'>Act 1:9-11</a></em>). The restoring referred to here would therefore mean spiritual restoration. Mark’s account of John’s activities clearly alludes to the Malachi passages about the Elijah prophet, and the descriptions of Elijah’s clothing, appearance and diet are clearly intended to help us identify him with a prophet like Elijah. The LXX in <em><a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a></em> speaks of how the prophet will&nbsp;<em>restore</em>&nbsp;the hearts of the fathers to the children. This confirms that the restoration to be achieved by the Elijah prophet is largely spiritual, psychological and internal. The more physical restoration of the Kingdom on earth is Messiah’s work. But the Lord is placing Elijah’s work in the future- because Israel had failed to respond to it. And yet what are we to make of the repeated descriptions in the Gospels of “all” Israel going out to John and repenting? My suggestion is that they were eager for a Messiah to come and save them from the Romans; John appeared looking like and alluding to Elijah, and so they were eager to accept him as an Elijah prophet, knowing that this heralded Messiah. They ‘repented’ because there was a clear connection made in Judaism between Jewish repentance, and the Elijah prophet and Messiah’s coming. Thus: “Israel will fulfil the great repentance when the Elijah of blessed memory comes” (Pirqe R. Eliezer 43 [25a]); and many other examples are quoted by Walter Wink (Walter Wink,&nbsp;<em>John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P. 2006) p. 3). The Qumran documents even claim that the faithful would go out into the wilderness to the Elijah prophet and separate themselves from the unholy in Israel (1 QS <em><a href='B:470 8:12-16'>Mat 8:12-16</a></em>) (More examples are given in Carl Kazmierski,&nbsp;<em>John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist&nbsp;</em>(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999) p. 26). Hence the intended sarcasm of the idea that in fact “all” Israel went out to the wilderness to John! Therefore their repentance was as it were self-induced and merely symbolic, because they believed it was part of a sequence of events which would lead to Messiah’s coming and liberation from Rome. This would be a classic example of surface level spirituality and response to God’s word, when in fact the response was motivated by selfish and unspiritual motives. No wonder John appealed to them to&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;repent. The Lord says that Elijah comes “first”,&nbsp;<em>proton</em>, above all, most importantly, to achieve this restoration- the implication being that the fact John’s ministry had failed to bring “all” Israel to this position, meant that there must therefore be another Elijah ministry which would succeed before Messiah could come in glory. And this would indeed “restore” the&nbsp;<em>hearts</em>&nbsp;of Israel, as <em><a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a></em> LXX requires.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I say unto you, that Elijah came already and they knew him not, but did to him-&nbsp;</em>Christ accused the Jews of rejecting John the Baptist (<em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:32-35'>Luk 7:32-35</a></em>), and on other occasions He commented on the fact that they had accepted his teaching, with the result that spiritually their house was swept and garnished (<em><a href='B:470 12:44'>Mat 12:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>). We can conclude from this that their&nbsp;<em>appearance</em>&nbsp;of accepting John’s message was spoken of by Jesus as if they had accepted it. Likewise Christ called the Jews both children of hell (<em><a href='B:470 23:15'>Mat 23:15</a></em>) and children of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>); the latter was how they perceived themselves. The things “done” to John surely include his death for the Lord goes on to say that He will “likewise suffer of them”, “of this generation” (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>). But it was the despised Herod who had John murdered. And yet Jesus here says that that generation had done that to John- despite the fact that he remained, it seems, immensely popular amongst that generation. Again the Lord is stressing that all the apparent response to John had not been sincere- the Jews who had seemingly responded to him were in fact as bad as apostate Herod and it was effectively&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;who had killed him. Naturally such language begged the response that no, it was Herod and his courtiers who killed John, not the mass of people. But the Lord is saying that effectively, it was that generation who had locked John up and killed him.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em> adds more detail to the Lord’s words: “Elijah indeed comes first and restores all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nothing?”. His question was (as so often with Him) in answer and response to their unexpressed question- that surely Elijah is to have a successful ministry and then the Messiah would begin His Kingdom in glory. The Lord was asking them the question about the prophesied sufferings and rejection of Messiah in order to answer the question He could see in their minds. So often “He answered and said…” something, when no question was verbalized. But He perceived the question in the minds of His audience, such was His sensitivity. Only a week or so ago He had told them how messiah must “suffer many things” (<em><a href='B:470 16:21'>Mat 16:21</a></em>) and now he uses the same phrase again- although it seems they had forgotten or not appreciated what He had then told them.</p><p><em>Whatever they would</em>- <em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em> adds: “As it is written of him”. There seems no specific prophecy stating that the Elijah prophet would be unsuccessful, unless one really reads between the lines of Malachi’s prophecy about the Elijah prophet. More likely is that the “him” refers to the historical Elijah. All that was written of&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;had come true of John the Baptist, in that the alliance between Ahab and the manipulative Jezebel which led to Elijah’s persecution was mirrored in that between Herod and the equally manipulative Herodias, which led to John’s demise.</p><p><em>Likewise shall the Son of Man suffer by their hands</em>- <em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em> extends this in saying that He would likewise “suffer many things and be set at nought”. Significantly, the same Greek word is used in <em><a href='B:490 23:11'>Luk 23:11</a></em> to describe how Herod “set at nought” Jesus at His trial; and it was the same Herod who had John the Baptist murdered.</p>


