# comment

text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to them: You shall drink</em>- Seeing even the Lord baulked at drinking that cup in Gethsemane, this is an incredibly positive comment to make. But none of us, including the twelve, die the death of the cross as Jesus did. He may have seen this as true insofar as by baptism into His death, His personal death and resurrection are counted to us, as if we have participated in it. As we reconstruct in our own minds His death, every fibre in our being cries out: 'I would not have endured that'. The wonder is that by baptism into Him, His death, that death, even the death of the cross, is counted to us. And with that we should be content, rather than seeking for grandeur in the resurrection age as the disciples were doing. When it came to actually giving the twelve His cup to drink, the Lord invited them: "You- drink all of it" (<em><a href='B:470 26:27'>Mat 26:27</a></em>). The force of&nbsp;<em>pas&nbsp;</em>there appears to refer to all of the cup, the whole cup- rather than inviting all of the disciples to drink, because it was surely axiomatic that they were to all drink it. The Lord was saying that He counted them as having fully drunk His cup- a cup which He Himself flinched to take. This is the degree to which we are in Him and counted as participating in His death by reason of our status "in Him". Another possibility is that the Lord spoke these words specifically to the twelve and envisaged that each of them would die through crucifixion- although whether they did is not historically confirmable.</p><p><em>My cup indeed</em>- John's equivalent of this is the Lord's word that unless we drink His blood and eat His flesh, we can have no salvation (<em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>). This therefore has reference to our participation in His death, and our symbolic acceptance of this in the breaking of bread. To drink the Lord's cup is parallel with partaking at the Lord's memorial table in <em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>. The breaking of bread means many things, and each time we do it we may likely focus on different aspects. But it is not easy for us, or it should not be easy for us. To drink that cup can never be done in a blasé spirit of 'Yes, we are able'. Rather with humbled hearts do we accept that our being counted as having participated in it is by grace alone. Peter was amongst those who thought he was able to drink the Lord's cup, and yet the Lord had to rebuke Peter for seeking to deter Him from drinking it- "Put up your sword::. the cup which My Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?" (<em><a href='B:500 18:11'>Joh 18:11</a></em>). Peter's desire for the Lord not to drink it was psychologically rooted in his recognition that the Lord's cup was to be his cup.</p><p><em>But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand-&nbsp;</em>When the disciples foolishly sought to have what they thought were to be the favoured places at His right hand and His left, the Lord could have answered: ‘You foolish people Those on my left hand will be condemned’. But He graciously didn’t comment on their glaring error. He pushed a higher principle- that we should not seek for personal greatness, seeing that God is the judge of all (<em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>). Yet sadly, so much of our preaching has been solely concerned with pointing out the errors of others without being sensitive to what little faith and understanding they&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;have, and seeking to build on it.</p><p><em>Is not Mine to give</em>- A profound rebuttal of the primitive and mistaken equation of Jesus with God which is found in Trinitarian theology.</p><h4><em>But it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father</em>- A specific future is being prepared for each of us in God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em> "He has prepared for them a city"), a unique place prepared in the Kingdom for us by the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em>) and yet&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>are likewise being "prepared" (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 1:17'>Luk 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:47'>Luk 12:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:21'>2Ti 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:7'>Rev 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em> "His wife has&nbsp;<em>prepared</em>&nbsp;herself"). God is preparing a unique destiny and role for each of us in His Kingdom, but that preparation work is in terms of how we are being prepared in this life. Therefore all our present experiences are specifically intended to prepare us for the kind of person and role we shall eternally have. In this lies the ultimate significance and meaning to human experience if we are indeed Kingdom people. A huge amount of intense preparation is being packed into a very short space of time in this life. The lack of meaning and significance attached to even is what causes the depression which dogs each secular person, especially as they grow older. The Lord's point was that He was going to the cross to prepare places for them all in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em> s:w:). He had just predicted His death. This was where their focus was to be, rather than seeking something for themselves.<br/>It’s often been commented that God is beyond or even outside of our kind of time. God pre this present creation may have been like that, and He of course has the capacity and possibility to be like that. But it seems to me that particularly in connection with those with whom He is in relationship, He chooses to not exercise that possibility. Instead, God Almighty throws Himself into our experience, by limiting Himself to our kind of time- with all the suspense, hope, excitement, joy, disappointment which this involves. Time and again we read of how God says He is “shaping evil against you and devising a plan” against His enemies (<em><a href='B:300 18:11'>Jer 18:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 26:3'>Jer 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 49:20'>Jer 49:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 49:30'>Jer 49:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 50:45'>Jer 50:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 2:3'>Mic 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 4:12'>Mic 4:12</a></em>). For the faithful, He says that He is making plans for them for good and not for evil, “to give you a future” (<em><a href='B:300 29:11'>Jer 29:11</a></em>). The Lord Jesus had this sort of thing in mind when He spoke of how the Kingdom will have been being&nbsp;<em>prepared&nbsp;</em>for the faithful from the beginning of the world (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>).</h4><p>John the Baptist was to “prepare” the way for the Lord’s coming- evidently a process- in reflection of how God had been working a long time to “prepare” same Greek word the way for His Son’s coming (<em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:31'>Luk 2:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>). We likewise, in our preaching work in these last days, are working in tandem and in step with God. The idea of God 'preparing' implies that there is therefore a gap between the plan being made, and it being executed- hence “The Lord has both planned and done what He spoke concerning the inhabitants of Babylon” (<em><a href='B:300 51:12'>Jer 51:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:28'>Jer 4:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 22:11'>Isa 22:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 37:26'>Isa 37:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 1:6'>Zec 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 8:14'>Zec 8:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:24'>Mat 20:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation concerning the two brothers</em>- This suggests that the favour asked was asked secretly. The Lord sensed or overheard their anger, and called the group to Him (:25). The ebb and flow of the disciples to and from Jesus is noted especially in Matthew, probably another indication of their own weakness which formed such a major part of their witness. For the ideal was to abide in Him, to constantly follow Him, and not come to Him and then go from Him in squabbles and jealousies amongst ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:25'>Mat 20:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Jesus called them to himself, and said: You know</em>- This is in response to the anger of the ten against the self-seeking manipulation of the two. He now taught them the spirit of absolute servanthood as an answer to feeling resentful against the unspirituality of our brethren. Even if they are indeed so terribly wrong and simply 'don't get it', as the two brethren clearly didn't, our response should not be anger but rather servanthood towards them. This is all to be found in the implication of the word "But::.".</p><p><em>That the rulers of the Gentiles</em>- The&nbsp;<em>archon</em>, literally, 'the first'. The Lord had just taught in the parable of the labourers that a principle of His Kingdom was that the first were to be last.</p><p><em>Lord it over them-&nbsp;</em>Gk:&nbsp;<em>katakurieuo</em>. Literally, to be&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;over, to be as Lord over. His idea was that if He is our&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;Lord, then there can be no lording it over others even when they are clearly unspiritual as the two brethren were at this time. This is where our belief in the Lordship of Jesus really cuts deep. For we naturally would like to think that we are superior to those who 'don't get it' about the spirit of Christ. But we are to see Him as total Lord, and ourselves as servants. Our natural anger and indignation at others' weakness is to be replaced by servanthood. And yet the body of Christ is littered with the wreckage of believers angry with others who refused to serve them but rather stormed out from them or rejected them- rather than staying to serve them, realizing that they are under the Lordship.</p><p>The style of leadership / control known in this world isn’t to be exercised by the elders of God’s flock (<em><a href='B:470 20:25-26'>Mat 20:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:3'>1Pe 5:3</a></em>); ecclesial organization shouldn’t reflect the structures and practices of big commercial organisations, e:g. Leadership is to be based upon spiritual attributes and the ability to change and convert the lives of others, rather than secular skills such as fund raising, computer literacy, management etc. Yet sadly many ecclesias and Christian organisations seem to confuse the difference between management skills and spiritual leadership. The two things aren’t the same. An executive director of a company may very well not be the right brother to lead an ecclesia. The Greek language is full or words containing the compounds&nbsp;<em>kata-</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>arch</em>-, implying power over others, as part of a hierarchy. The leaders of the Roman world used these terms (<em><a href='B:470 20:25'>Mat 20:25</a></em>), as did the synagogue leadership. But never does scripture use these kind of words about those who are ‘elders’ in the true ecclesia. It’s a pointed omission. On the other hand, there are many&nbsp;<em>sun-</em>&nbsp;prefixes: fellow-worker, fellow-citizen, fellow-soldier, fellow-heir etc. The New Testament emphasis is certainly on what we have in common rather on the fact that in practice some are more capable of organising, or deserve especial respect for their evident spirituality and “for their work’s sake”. And the teaching of the Lord Himself was more concerned with how to follow Him than how to lead others. Likewise, there were many contemporary Greek words used to describe religious gatherings, e:g:&nbsp;<em>heorte, synodos, koinos</em>. But instead the word&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;is used, meaning a gathering together of town citizens with equal rights to discuss a matter. This is how the word was understood at that time.</p><p><em>And their great ones-&nbsp;</em>The&nbsp;<em>megas</em>, the mighty, the strong, the superior. The context is the sense of spiritual superiority felt by the ten against the spiritual weakness of the two brethren and their mother:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Exercise authority over them</em>- They have&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>, power, control, over their inferiors. It is the Lord Jesus who is&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;Lord, and who has this&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;uniquely over His followers and indeed the whole world (<em><a href='B:470 7:29'>Mat 7:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:6'>Mat 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:24'>Mat 21:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em> etc:). For us to be indignant and superior against the unspirituality of our brethren is thus to usurp the unique role of the Lord Jesus. Quite rightly should we refer to Him as "the Lord", for this is who He must be in daily life and thought. The failure of others does give us in a human sense this&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>, this control, power and superiority- but the Lord goes on to say that it must&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be so amongst us (:26), we are to resign this for servanthood. The Lord repeated His teaching here almost verbatim in <em><a href='B:490 22:25'>Luk 22:25</a></em> - and He states it there immediately after predicting that one of the twelve would betray Him. He did so because He did not want them to be angry and superior over even Judas- He wanted them to instead resign those feelings for servanthood.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:26'>Mat 20:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you</em>- This is in the singular- for "let&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;be your minister". The Lord may not be intending 'If any of you wants to be the greatest, then be the servant'. He may instead be developing the theme of His absolute and unequalled Lordship by saying that&nbsp;<em>the one</em>&nbsp;who shall be great shall be the minister- and He had solely Himself in view. He knew that He was to be the greatest in the Kingdom, the one with ultimate and total&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;(see on :25). And the path to that was through servanthood, and He invited His men to likewise participate in that servanthood:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Must be your servant</em>- The idea may be an appeal for the disciples to allow the Lord to be their minister. This appeal had to be repeated at the last supper, when He wished to wash their feet, to be the ultimate servant, and Peter didn't want to "let Him" be his minister. So instead of thinking about what they could personally get out of the Kingdom as the two brethren, or being spiritually superior over their weaker brethren the ten, they were to instead accept the Lordship of Jesus and His ministration to them. And the form in which He was supremely a servant was in His death on the cross. And yet as so often, the Lord is speaking to Himself on one level, as well as to the disciples on another level. He is the one who to be great had to make Himself a minister of all, and yet He invites all those in Him to pass through the same process. For all that is true of Him is to be true of us. Hence He goes on to say that "Even as" He ministered, so should they (:28).</p><p>One of the commonest allusions to priesthood in the NT is the idea of ministry. Time and again, the Old Testament speaks of the priests&nbsp;<em>ministering</em>&nbsp;in the priest's office. The priests are specifically called God's ministers (<em><a href='B:290 61:6'>Isa 61:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 33:21'>Jer 33:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 45:4'>Eze 45:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 1:9'>Joe 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 1:13'>Joe 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:17'>Joe 2:17</a></em>):&nbsp; The early Christians would have heard and read many of the New Testament references to ministers and ministry as invitations to see themselves as a new priesthood. The Lord said that we should aim to be a minister, a priests, to every one of our brethren, not expecting them to minister to us, but concentrating on ministering to them (<em><a href='B:470 20:26'>Mat 20:26</a></em>). This is exactly against the grain of our nature, and also of the concept of religion we find in the world. People&nbsp;<em>expect</em>&nbsp;to have others spiritually ministering to them. They expect a priest-figure to do all their thinking for them. But our Lord said that we are each other's priests, we're not here to be ministered&nbsp;('priest-ed') to, but to minister, and give our lives in service to each other.</p><p>When James and John asked to have the senior positions, the Lord didn’t rebuke them; he just told them that the greatest would desire to be a servant (Gk:&nbsp;<em>diakonos</em>) of all (<em><a href='B:470 20:20-28'>Mat 20:20-28</a></em>). The utter degradation of the cross, and the Lord’s willing humbling of Himself to accept it, is a pattern for all who would take up His cross. The “servant of all” would make no distinctions concerning whom or how he would serve; such servanthood was a complete and unqualified act of surrender. And this is taken by the Lord as a cameo of His mindset on Calvary. In conscious allusion to this, Paul could speak of how he had become a slave of all men, that he might help some to Christ (<em><a href='B:530 9:19'>1Co 9:19</a></em>). He was a slave of the Gospel, a slave of the kind who was lower than the least of all others, i:e. a slave of all (<em><a href='B:560 3:7'>Eph 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a></em>). He didn’t preach himself, but rather preached that he was a servant to all his brethren, for the sake of the fact that he was in Christ, the servant of all (<em><a href='B:540 4:5'>2Co 4:5</a></em>). Thus he almost advertised his servant status; he preached himself as a slave. Paul wished to be perceived by his brethren and the whole world as merely a slave of Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 4:1'>1Co 4:1</a></em>). In our talking to each other, or in our writing, it does us good to analyse how many personal pronouns we use; how much we are preaching ourselves rather than Jesus Christ. Any who may appear to be leaders or organisers are serving&nbsp;<em>Him</em>, who debased Himself to that depth. There can be no room&nbsp;<em>at all</em>&nbsp;for any sense of superiority amongst us. We are servants&nbsp;<em>of all</em>, not just of those individual brothers or ecclesias whom we happen to get on well with.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:27'>Mat 20:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And whoever would be first among you</em>- The&nbsp;<em>protos</em>&nbsp;(chief) amongst the disciples was clearly the Lord Himself. So again, the Lord may not necessarily be inviting His followers to seek greatness in the future Kingdom, but rather inviting them to focus upon His Lordship and achievement through His upcoming death. Instead He may have Himself in view- the One who is to be chief is to be the servant of the disciples, which the Lord did through His death on the cross. And it is His death there which is the context for this whole teaching, seeing He has just given a detailed prediction of it. However, the Lord's teachings often have reference to both Himself and to the disciples, and we have noted a number of times where He seems to have specific reference to Peter. For Peter was the&nbsp;<em>protos</em>, the chief disciple, according to <em><a href='B:470 10:2'>Mat 10:2</a></em> s:w:. And within the Lord's words there is the nod to Peter that he must learn the spirit of servanthood if he is to be worthy of that special calling as the leader of the pack which the Lord clearly had in mind for him. The Lord has just had a lot to say about the&nbsp;<em>protos</em>&nbsp;being last in the preceding parable of the labourers, using the word three times in <em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:10'>Mat 20:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>. He is perhaps answering the question which arises from that parable: How practically can we be the last? The answer is by serving as He served, by identifying ourselves with the "last" labourers rather than the "first" who thought they were spiritually superior over their weaker fellow labourers.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was the supreme example of spiritual ambition in daily life:&nbsp;&nbsp; When the disciples debated about who would be greatest in the Kingdom, Christ said that "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be::. servant of all" (<em><a href='B:480 9:34-35'>Mar 9:34-35</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; Christ was the "servant of all" because He&nbsp;<em>desired</em>&nbsp;to be the greatest in the Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp; It was this ambition which motivated His endurance of the daily cross of His life: &nbsp;"Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>even as</em>&nbsp;the Son of man came::. to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (<em><a href='B:470 20:27-28'>Mat 20:27-28</a></em>). He was drawing on the ideas of <em><a href='B:350 13:1'>Hos 13:1</a></em>, where Ephraim exalted himself when he humbled himself to speak to God with the trembling of a true humility. The Lord Jesus was not esteemed by men in His death (<em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em>); the same word occurs in <em><a href='B:340 4:17'>Dan 4:17</a></em>, concerning how Yahweh will exalt the&nbsp;<em>basest</em>, the least esteemed, to be King over the kingdoms of this world. That made-basest man was a reference to the Lord Jesus. He humbled Himself on the cross, that He might be exalted. Peter had his eye on this fact when he asks us to humble ourselves, after the pattern of the Lord, that we might be exalted in due time (<em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>):&nbsp; Christ desired greatness in the Kingdom, and so can we;&nbsp;for the brighter stars only reflect more glory of the Sun (<em><a href='B:530 15:41'>1Co 15:41</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This very thought alone should lift us up on the eagle wings of Spirit above whatever monotony or grief we now endure.</p><p><em>Shall be your slave-&nbsp;</em>Consider the influence of Christianity on the Greek language of humility. The Lord taught that the leaders, the great ones, in His Kingdom, would be the humble servants (<em><a href='B:470 20:27'>Mat 20:27</a></em>). Christ spoke of himself as a humble King, which would have been a contradiction in terms to the first century Greek mind. Consider the following commentary by Alan Hayward: "The ancient Greeks had no time for humility. In fact, their language didn't even have a word for it until well into the first century::. the early Christians evidently had to coin a word for it. It's a clumsy, long word, made by sticking together the Greek word 'low-down' and the Greek word 'mentality'. The sudden appearance of this new word in Greek literature during the first century is generally attributed to the influence of the early church" Alan Hayward,&nbsp;<em>The Humble King</em>, 'The Bible Missionary' No:131, January 1994.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:28'>Mat 20:28</a></em><em>&nbsp;Even as the Son of Man came-&nbsp;</em>If the Lord was speaking of Himself as the One who was to be the minister so that He might be great, it is possible that verse 28 is a commentary from Matthew rather than the words of the Lord- pointing out that in fact the Lord had Himself in view in the preceding verses.</p><p><em>Not to be ministered to</em>- Surely the Lord develops this teaching when He characterizes the rejected as insisting that they had never missed an opportunity to minister unto Him personally (<em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>). Putting these teachings together, perhaps the Lord means us to understand that He did not come to be personally served, but rather does He 'come' to us in the form of His needy brethren, each encounter with them is an encounter with Him. People did of course minister to the Lord in His life (<em><a href='B:470 27:55'>Mat 27:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:31'>Mar 1:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:41'>Mar 15:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em> s:w:), but He surely means that He didn't come&nbsp;<em>so much as to be ministered to</em>&nbsp;as to Himself minister to others. In this the exquisite beauty of His Lordship. He is indeed Lord, but He didn't come to be personally treated as Lord but rather His psychological focus was upon what He could do for others. And this is His comment upon the desire of the two brethren to have a grand place in the Kingdom "for us", they were seeking something for themselves, whereas the example of the Lord which they were to follow was of focusing upon serving, rather than having an eye upon the reward.</p><p><em>But to minister</em>- The Lord is the same yesterday, today and forever. His focus in His life was upon serving others, and yet the word is used of how He who served at the last supper shall also 'come forth' s:w. "the Son of Man&nbsp;<em>came</em>", <em><a href='B:470 20:28'>Mat 20:28</a></em> to "minister" to His people at the future Messianic banquet (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And to give his life as a ransom for many</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>lutron</em>&nbsp;is only used in this place in the NT, although the LXX uses it for the Hebrew&nbsp;<em>pidion</em>, the ransom payment for human life (<em><a href='B:20 21:30'>Exo 21:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:49-51'>Num 3:49-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:31'>Num 35:31</a></em>). The word means literally 'to loose'. The idea may be that something a life, an eternal life was potentially prepared for the "many" which was tied up by human sin, which the Lord's death would unloose and make available. But why use this particular term in this context? The connection is clearly with the idea of being a servant, a slave of the lowest order. And what did they loose? The sandals of the guests at meals, after which they washed their feet. There is clearly a connection of thought between the Lord's teaching here and His washing of the disciples' feet at the last supper, whereby He visually fulfilled the picture of being a servant and not being ministered unto, despite Peter's objections. His unloosing of the disciples' sandals and cleansing their feet, dressed as He was on the cross, having laid aside His outer garment and being clothed only with a loincloth, was all a prefigurement of His death on the cross. He invited us all to do as He had done- to participate in His death by dying for others that they might live. And that has various fulfilments day by day, in self control, not demanding from our brother, forgiving, rebuking, caring for, teaching::. telephoning, emailing, and so forth.</p>


text:
<h4>20:29&nbsp;<em>And as they went out from Jericho</em>-&nbsp;The healing of the two blind men as they left Jericho must be compared with the healing of Bartimaeus as He left Jericho (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>), and the healing of a blind man as He approached Jericho (<em><a href='B:490 18:35'>Luk 18:35</a></em>). These accounts are not in contradiction. One of the two blind men was Bartimaeus, and he is the one Mark focuses on. The healing of the first blind man is indeed described in the same terms as the healing of the other blind men, but the similarity of the language is in order to demonstrate how the Lord worked in the same way in different lives at slightly different times. And there are other examples of incidents repeating in Biblical history but being described in similar language. We are left with an abiding impression that what happens in our lives has been in essence repeated in other lives. And surely the healing of the first blind man inspired the others to take the same leap of faith, just as we are to be inspired by the way others have responded to the Lord's hand in their lives.</h4><p><em>A great crowd followed Him</em>- The section began with the idea of the Lord now being on His journey to death in Jerusalem, and bidding the disciples follow Him on that path. The crowd followed, but not in that deeper sense. The same term is used of the healed blind men- they too "followed Him" (:34), but the implication is that they followed Him with understanding. The parallel <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em> records that one of the men, Bartimaeus, "followed Jesus in the way". That last phrase would surely be redundant unless it was pregnant with some deeper meaning, and that meaning surely rests in the idea of following the Lord in the way of the cross which led to Golgotha.</p>


text:
<p>20:30&nbsp;<em>And two blind men who were sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying</em>- <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em> speaks of how at least one of these blind men followed Jesus "in the way", using the same word&nbsp;<em>hodos</em>&nbsp;as used here for "the way". Their sad position, sitting maybe for years day by day&nbsp;<em>para</em>&nbsp;or by, next to "the way", was in fact putting them in a position when at the right time, they could get up and follow the Lord along that "way". See on :34&nbsp;<em>Followed Him</em>:&nbsp;<br/><em><br/>Lord, have mercy on us, you Son of David</em>- These were exactly the words of the two blind men of <em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em>, who were likewise cured as the Lord "departed" from a town, just as here the cure happened as He departed from Jericho. The similarity and connection is obvious. From God's side, we see how He works according to pattern in the lives of people. And humanly, the blind men had somehow passed on to other blind men the truth that there was mercy / grace in the Son of David, which could be manifested in the restoration of sight. In this lies the significance of the fact that according to <em><a href='B:490 18:35'>Luk 18:35</a></em>, another blind man had very recently said exactly these words and made exactly this request as the&nbsp;Lord&nbsp;<em>approached</em>&nbsp;Jericho. Far from being as supposed by the critics a jumbling up of material by uninspired writers, we see rather the development of a theme- that blind men at various places and times approached the Lord with the same words, and made the same connection between His mercy and Him being the Son of David. They may simply have thought that as the Son of David, He had the characteristics of David- which included remarkable mercy and grace to his enemies. We also see how once a community is broken into with the Gospel, it spreads within that community, expressed in the words and concepts which that community understands, and in the style which originated with the first ones in the community who accepted the Gospel. I have seen this happen in communities of the deaf, Gypsies, HIV patients, ethnic minorities under persecution, language groups etc. And so it happened amongst the blind beggar community in Palestine. Such communities have amazing links to each other and paths of communication:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The connection between "the son of David" and "mercy" is surely rooted in the description of the promises to David as "the mercies&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;of David" (<em><a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:34'>Act 13:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 1:8'>2Ch 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 89:49'>Psa 89:49</a></em> "The mercies which You promised unto David"; <em><a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a></em> "In mercy shall the throne be established::. in the tent of David"). These promises were utter grace; "mercy" translates&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>, which is about the closest the OT comes to the NT concept of grace. David rejoiced in this&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>/ mercy shown to him (<em><a href='B:100 22:51'>2Sa 22:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 101:1'>Psa 101:1</a></em>). Solomon pleaded for grace on the basis of the fact that God had shown such covenant mercies to David (<em><a href='B:140 6:42'>2Ch 6:42</a></em> "Remember the mercies of David"). The mercies of David surely also refer to God's mercy, the mercy of grace, shown to David in forgiving him the sin with Bathsheba and Uriah- he begged for forgiveness on the basis of God's "tender mercies" (<em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em>). It could be argued that David's forgiveness was on account of his pleading for the mercies shown to him in the Davidic covenant to be continued to him. For in that covenant God had promised that&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>would not depart from David (<em><a href='B:100 7:15'>2Sa 7:15</a></em>), and David therefore begs for forgiveness on the basis that grace /&nbsp;<em>chesed&nbsp;</em>would indeed not be withdrawn from him (<em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em>). From all this, David pleaded in crisis towards the end of his life to fall into God's hands because "His mercies are great" (<em><a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a></em>). In response to the&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;"mercy", or grace shown David, he too was characterized by humanly senseless&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;to his enemies in the family of Saul (s:w. <em><a href='B:90 20:15'>1Sa 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 2:5'>2Sa 2:5</a></em> "you have shewed this kindness /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;unto Saul"; <em><a href='B:100 3:8'>2Sa 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 9:1'>2Sa 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a></em>) and to Hanun his Ammonite enemy (<em><a href='B:100 10:2'>2Sa 10:2</a></em> "I will shew kindness /&nbsp;<em>chesed</em>&nbsp;unto the Hanun"). What is so impressive is that the network of blind men, from Galilee to Jericho, had figured this out, or at least part of it. They saw the connection between grace and David, and were inspired to throw themselves upon the grace of David's Messianic Son. There was in those times as there is in much of the world today a deep belief that blindness was the direct result of sin (<em><a href='B:500 9:2'>Joh 9:2</a></em>). These blind men almost certainly felt that their blindness was a result of their sin, and so they felt a moral need for forgiveness, so that the blindness would be lifted. According to <em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>, one of the blind men was called Bartimaeus, literally 'Son of the unclean'- doubtless this was what he had been dubbed by others, for no Hebrew mother would have named her son that. And they believed that Jesus could indeed cleanse them, morally forgive them, and thereby restore their sight. This would explain why they screamed Gk. "Have mercy on us". This was a moral request; they didn't simply call out for healing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:31'>Mat 20:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the crowd rebuked them</em>- This is yet another example of where the Lord is presented as eager to accept, when men including disciples are more eager to reject. The same word has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 19:13'>Mat 19:13</a></em> for how the disciples rebuked the little ones from coming to the Lord- and were in turn rebuked. The impression is that in the disciples' exclusivity, they weren't being as they supposed more spiritual than the world around them, but rather were they being simply as that world. Soon afterwards, the Pharisees told the Lord to "rebuke" His disciples, and He replied that it was impossible for them to "hold their peace" (<em><a href='B:490 19:39-40'>Luk 19:39-40</a></em>). These are all words and phrases taken from this incident. Now it is the disciples who refuse to be quiet, and it is the Pharisees who want them to be quiet. Again the point is made that the desire to silence and exclude others is from the world, and not of Christ. The Lord's acceptance of people is consistently painted by the Gospels as being far more inclusive and extensive than that of men. The human tendency to reject and erect barriers is simply not there in Christ.</p><p><em>That they should hold their peace; but they cried out the more, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, you Son of David</em>- This fits with my comment on <em><a href='B:470 20:21'>Mat 20:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What do you want?</em>, in that this could be seen as piquing their sense of urgency for Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus stood still and called them, and said: What do you desire I do for you?</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 20:21'>Mat 20:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What do you want?&nbsp;</em>The Lord a way of focusing men upon their need. Thus He would have passed by the desperate disciples as they struggled in the storm, He would have gone further on the road to Emmaus, and He asked the blind men the obvious question: “What will ye that I shall do unto you?” (<em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>). He only partially cured another blind man, to focus that man’s mind on the faith that was needed for the second and final stage of the cure (<em><a href='B:480 8:23-25'>Mar 8:23-25</a></em>). He elicited from the father of the epileptic child the miserable childhood story of the boy- not that the Lord needed to know it, but to concentrate the man on his need for the Lord’s intervention (<em><a href='B:480 9:21'>Mar 9:21</a></em>). He wanted them to focus on their need: in this case, for sight. He let Peter start to sink, and only then, when Peter’s whole heart and soul were focused on the Lord, did He stretch forth His hand. The Lord deliberately delayed going to see Lazarus until he was dead and buried; to elicit within His followers the acuteness of their need. And was He&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>sleeping in the boat with the storm all around Him? Was He not waiting there for them to finally quit their human efforts and come running to Him with faith in no other (<em><a href='B:480 4:38-39'>Mar 4:38-39</a></em>)? Only when men were thus focused on their desperate need for the Lord would He answer them. The Lord further focused men’s need when he asked the lame man: “Wilt thou be made whole?” (<em><a href='B:500 5:6'>Joh 5:6</a></em>). Of course the man wanted healing. But the Lord first of all focused his desire for it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:33'>Mat 20:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They said to him: Lord, that our eyes may be opened-&nbsp;</em>The one thing&nbsp;they wanted was to see. Those healed blind men are types of us. True understanding (seeing) should be the one thing we want. "Wisdom is the&nbsp;<em>principal&nbsp;</em>thing; therefore get wisdom" <em><a href='B:240 4:7'>Pro 4:7</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 20:21'>Mat 20:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What do you want?&nbsp;</em>This was obviously a rhetorical question, and it succeeded in the intention of making the men verbalize their dominant desire. Likewise the Lord works with us to make us focus and understand what is our dominant desire- and then seeks to reposition that focus. In this section He has done that by placing all human desires and requests in the shadow of His death for us. For how could we want anything 'extra' after He has done that for us, with all it enabled.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 20:34'>Mat 20:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus, being moved with compassion</em>- So often we read this, indeed the Greek word is only used for the compassion of Jesus during His ministry; and it is never in itself because the object of the compassion had some great spirituality or was somehow worthy of that compassion. Rather was it basic pity, which is the idea in the Greek; pity at the human condition. It is exemplified in how the Samaritan had compassion upon the wounded man, and how the Father has compassion on the prodigal (<em><a href='B:490 10:33'>Luk 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). In this case, as explained above, the blind men did indeed have quite some spiritual insight. But that of itself didn't elicit the Lord's compassion. The Lord who is the same yesterday as today was and is simply moved by human need- and responds:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Touched their eyes</em>- Which were likely secreting ritually unclean emissions. Again the Lord shows an eagerness to identify with human uncleanness rather than avoid it. He could, after all, have cured the men in a different manner. This was the same manner in which the Lord had cured the two blind men in <em><a href='B:470 9:29'>Mat 9:29</a></em>. The critics love to see here a confusion in reporting a singular incident twice. But it seems perfectly likely that the Lord rewarded the fact that these men had heard of the faith of the other blind men, come to share it- and therefore the Lord treated them likewise. There is a continuity and similarity in the way in which the Lord works in human lives, which is why our sufferings are designed so that we can share what we learnt from them with others who are suffering in the same way (<em><a href='B:540 1:4'>2Co 1:4</a></em>). It likewise explains the otherwise uncanny similarities which there are between the experiences of believers, both with those contemporary with us and personally known to us, and others in the past or of whom we read in the Bible:&nbsp;</p><p>If indeed there are major bloomers in the Gospels and in the Bible generally as the critics suggest regarding these incidents of healing the pairs of blind men, then naturally the question arises as to how reliable the Biblical text really is. Liberal Christians tend to argue that some is, other parts aren't. But no basis is given for deciding which parts are reliable and which are not. Nor does there seem any reason why God would inspire some parts of the Bible but not others. But the wonder is that the Bible, and the Gospels particularly, can be analysed at depth and found not to contradict but rather to dovetail seamlessly in a way in which no human piece of writing ever could. This is particularly seen in the four Gospels, and it is this seamlessness and lack of contradiction which led sceptics like Frank Morrison in&nbsp;<em>Who Moved the Stone?</em>&nbsp;to become committed believers in the bodily resurrection of Christ. In musical terms, the whole united record reads as a symphony. There is no need to remove one note from it, or a few notes here and there. The overall wonder is lost by doing so, to the point that it is a desecration of the Divine product. If there are passages which we cannot reconcile, the way of humility is surely to accept that we are still waiting for more insight and understanding- rather than arrogantly insisting that Divine inspiration somehow faltered at that point:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And immediately they received their sight and followed him</em>- See on :30&nbsp;<em>Followed Him</em>&nbsp;and :30&nbsp;<em>Sitting by the way</em>. <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em> adds that at least one of the blind men "Followed Him&nbsp;<em>in the way</em>". But He told the man "Go&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;way" (<em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>). The man's way was now the Lord's way, the way of the cross. There's surely a play on words here, for&nbsp;<em>akoloutheo</em>&nbsp;translated "followed" means literally 'to be in the same way with'. The Lord told the man to go&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;way, but the man followed Jesus in&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;way, the way which has been defined in :17,18 as the way to the cross. Our way is His way, not in that He dominates and subsumes our individuality beneath His own, but in that we each follow Him in our own particular and unique way. That is not to say that we each have our way in life and that journey must of itself be the right one. It's axiomatic that every man has his own path in life. As believers in Christ, our path must be&nbsp;<em>following Him</em>, and not just wandering around in life; but each one in Christ follows their Lord in their own unique path.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:1'>Mat 21:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when they drew near to Jerusalem</em>- This suggests that Matthew was not with them at the time. I suggest he was, but in the analogy of the cameraman, he has as it were shifted his camera to Jerusalem and records the group approaching.</p><p><em>And came to Bethphage, to the mount of Olives, then Jesus</em>- 'The house of figs'. There is likely a connection to the incident later in this section when the Lord curses the fig tree (:19). Perhaps we are to assume that He hoped for figs in Bethphage too, and was likewise disappointed. Bethphage has even been given the meaning 'House of unripe figs', which would confirm this impression (See Marcus Jastrow,&nbsp;<em>Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature</em>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Horeb, 1903, reprint) p. 1132).</p><p><em>Sent two disciples</em>- The question arises as to why He didn't simply take the two animals Himself. The practical answer would be that if He had gone further into Jerusalem to get them, then he would as it were have entered Jerusalem but not in the way He intended to, which was to consciously fulfil the prophecy about the humble King entering Jerusalem on a donkey. But that explanation throws the question one stage further back. Why was it specifically a donkey from that village and person which was required? Could He not have found one in Bethphage? The effort required to send two disciples ahead of Him to get the animals and then bring them back to Bethphage seems considerable, when donkeys were common enough. The answer is not clear, but it could be that there was an anonymous person who specifically wanted to give those animals to the Lord in order to fulfil that prophecy. The Lord knew this and had obviously discussed it with the owner previously, because the owner would recognize Him as "the Lord" (:3), and would provide them once he perceived the Lord wanted them. In this little incident we see therefore the extent the Lord will go to, now as well as then, in order to take up the initiative of those who love Him. If we take that initiative in service, the Lord will surely use it, and make every effort to do so.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:2'>Mat 21:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Saying to them: Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me</em>- The Greek words translated "tied" and "loose" occur together several times, usually rendered 'bind' and 'loose'. Earlier in Matthew, the idea of binding and loosing has been used about the way that the decisions and actions of believers can have eternal consequence upon others, and our bind and loosing is to some extent reflected in and confirmed by Heaven (<em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:18'>Mat 18:18</a></em>). This conception of binding and loosing was surely intended by the Lord. Verse 4 makes clear that all this was done in order to fulfil the prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> that Messiah would come to Zion riding on a donkey and her foal. But that prophecy had to be consciously fulfilled. Whether or not the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled was therefore left to the initiative of the Lord and His followers. And it's the same in our last days- if, e:g:, we choose to fulfil the prophecy that the Gospel must go into all the world before the end comes, then in that sense the actual time of Christ's coming is left in our hands. There are other Messianic associations with a donkey- Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed on a donkey (<em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:5'>Gen 22:5</a></em>); Solomon rode to his coronation on David's donkey (<em><a href='B:110 1:33-44'>1Ki 1:33-44</a></em>).</p><p>The question arises as to why both a donkey and foal were required. He surely didn't straddle both at the same time. He rode on the donkey whilst the colt followed. Perhaps this has reference to the way that the Lord's final entry into His Kingdom would be on the backs of both Jews and Gentiles; the immature foal with no rider would therefore look forward to the Gentiles. Another possibility is that "A donkey,&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;on a colt, the foal of a&nbsp;donkey" is a Semitic parallelism effectively meaning 'A donkey, actually, a foal of a donkey'. If that's the case, then the Lord rode the foal of a donkey, not yet broken in. It would've been hard to ride, probably trying to throw Him; His journey into the city would've been almost comical, because He would nearly have been thrown and would've hardly made a sedate, solemn procession. The parallel records stress that no man had ever sat upon it (<em><a href='B:480 11:2'>Mar 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:30'>Luk 19:30</a></em>). This would've spoken clearly of the difficulty of the Lord's entry to His Kingdom whilst riding on Israel. However, :2 speaks in the plural, of loosing the animals and bringing&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to the Lord. It may simply be that a donkey nursing her foal, distracted by this, was the most unmilitary, non-glorious form upon which the Lord could've entered Jerusalem. Perhaps it was a parody of how triumphal entries require a King to be on a charger pulling a chariot. The Lord had a donkey instead of a charger, and instead of a chariot being pulled by the charger, the foal was in tow behind the donkey:&nbsp;</p><h4><em><a href='B:480 11:4'>Mar 11:4</a></em> says that the donkey was tied at a gate, at "a place where two ways met<em>":&nbsp;</em>This translates the word&nbsp;<em>amphedon&nbsp;</em>which in the LXX (e:g. <em><a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a></em>) is used for a palace. Herod had a palace on the Mount of Olives and maybe this is what is being referenced. It could be that the donkey and foal were provided by Herod's servants, because Joanna was a disciple of Jesus who provided for Jesus from her "substance"- and she was the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (<em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>). In this case, the Lord was further parodying a King's triumphant entry by riding upon Herod's donkey.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:3'>Mat 21:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if anyone says something to you, you shall say: The Lord</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 21:1'>Mat 21:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Sent two disciples</em>.</p><p><em>Has need of them</em>- God in a sense is in need of man, just as Jesus was, or allowed Himself to be:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And immediately he will send them</em>- "Send" here translates&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>, and naturally we think of the apostles, those sent forth with the Gospel. And as so often taught by implication, the Lord is in need of man, the harvest needs workers and without them, in His wisdom, it will not be harvested. We are surely being invited to see these animals as representative of those upon whom the Lord will ride in order to enter Jerusalem in glory. But He rode upon the bucking, difficult colt which had not yet been broken in. This hampered His triumphal entry. And there was the donkey itself with nobody sitting upon it. Just as the Lord consciously tried to fulfil <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> by obtaining these animals, so the hint surely is that His final triumphal entry will be on the basis of us His people carrying Him in.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:4'>Mat 21:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now this happened so</em>- The Gospels are highly abbreviated accounts, and yet a significant amount of time is spent explaining how the Lord obtained the donkey and foal. This is to show how consciously He tried to fulfil God's word. He consciously tried to make the word become flesh in Him, as we must (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>).</p><p><em>That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying</em>- The use of&nbsp;<em>hina</em>&nbsp;definitely suggests action&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;there might be a specific outcome, in this case, the fulfilment of prophecy. This construction is common in the Lord’s ministry- something was done&nbsp;<em>hina</em>, in order to achieve, the fulfilment of prophecy (<em><a href='B:470 1:22'>Mat 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:15'>Mat 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:14'>Mat 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:5'>Mat 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:56'>Mat 26:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:35'>Mat 27:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:38'>Joh 12:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:25'>Joh 15:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:24'>Joh 19:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:36'>Joh 19:36</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:5'>Mat 21:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Tell the daughter of Zion</em>- A term used in the prophets for the righteous remnant within Jerusalem. The idea was that they would perceive how the Lord was fulfilling the Messianic prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. However, the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> says that the King comes “having salvation”- but that is omitted in this quotation. The ultimate ‘triumphal entry’ was yet to come. The Lord entered Jerusalem to obtain salvation through death on the cross, not to bring the immediate salvation from Rome which the people were so fixated upon.</p><p><em>Look, your King comes to you, meek and riding upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass</em>- Kings were supposed to enter their new capital on a charger, a war horse, beaming in proud triumph. The idea of a humble king was an oxymoron to the first century mindset. But the Lord was a King like no other- a humble king, who entered Zion not on a charger but on a donkey with a colt wandering insecurely behind them. <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> goes on to say that by doing this, He will bring deliverance from the war horse / charger: "Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he,&nbsp;<em>humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey</em>. He will&nbsp;<em>cut off the chariot&nbsp;</em>from Ephraim&nbsp;<em>and the war horse</em>&nbsp;from Jerusalem; and the&nbsp;<em>battle bow shall be cut off</em>, and he shall&nbsp;<em>command peace</em>&nbsp;to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River Euphrates to the ends of the earth". In this we see the principle of non-violent victory over violence; the King who comes riding on a donkey will thereby "cut off::. the war horse" which was threatening Jerusalem. That war horse was initially a reference to Rome, from whom the Jews thought Messiah would violently deliver them. The Lord went to great efforts to fulfil this prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> - in order to demonstrate that it was by humility and non-violence that deliverance from violence would finally come. The other accounts say the Lord&nbsp;rode upon the foal of the donkey (e:g. <em><a href='B:500 12:15'>Joh 12:15</a></em>). If He sat upon this animal rather than the mother donkey, the Lord was showing how He chose to ride in the 'chariot' rather than on the donkey pulling it. But the donkey and foal were the humblest and weakest imitation possible of a charger and chariot. But this was exactly His point. The glorious victory procession came from Bethphage "and Bethany" (<em><a href='B:480 11:1'>Mar 11:1</a></em>), which can mean 'house of the poor'. It was here that the Lord sat upon the humble donkey- again reinforcing the idea that He came as a humble King.<br/>21:6 The record emphasizes the disciples’ obedience and solidarity with the Lord, placing their personal clothes as His saddle (:7). It must’ve all seemed rather bizarre, for they too nursed hopes of an immediate salvation and Kingdom, but they were commendably willing to go along with His insistence of teaching the lesson of ‘the humble King’. <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em> adds the information that the disciples didn’t understand at the time, nor did they see the connection with <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>: “These things his disciples did not understand at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about him, and that they had done these things to him”. And yet they went along with it all. It is an essay in loyalty and obedience, although not in perception and faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:6'>Mat 21:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the disciples went and did as Jesus directed them</em>- This is to note their obedience to an otherwise very strange command. They surely secretly hoped that He would achieve a dramatic Messianic salvation. And He was teaching them that that salvation was not now, and He was deconstructing the whole idea of a triumphal entry, as noted on :6. It is to their credit that they humbled themselves beneath this idea.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:7'>Mat 21:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And brought the ass and the colt and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon</em>- Using their garments as saddles. The fact both animals were saddled was to make the point that one rider was missing. For according to the other Gospels, the Lord sat upon the colt. The mother donkey was saddled, but without a rider. This added to the strangeness of the spectacle. The missing rider was perhaps a reference to how Israel had not as a whole responded in bringing Messiah to Zion. Maybe it referred to the Gentiles who had yet to be converted. Or perhaps to the fact that Israel had rejected John the Baptist and he had been killed- and therefore there was no Elijah prophet bringing Messiah into Zion. Elijah was the great horseman of the Divine chariot (<em><a href='B:120 2:12'>2Ki 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 13:14'>2Ki 13:14</a></em>; he is called the “horsemen” plural, but this is an intensive plural for ‘the one great horseman’). Elijah was the chariot horseman, the one who was to ride on the horse which pulled the chariot in which there was Messiah this was a Rabbinic understanding of the Elijah prophet. But he was strangely absent in this acted parable. The saddle was there for him, provided by the few disciples who had responded to John / Elijah; but he wasn’t there. This absence of the Elijah prophet was surely indicative of the fact that John had not been the Elijah prophet for most of Israel- they hadn’t responded properly to his message. Therefore the true triumphant entry of Messiah was yet future. This is why the phrase “bringing salvation” is excluded from the quotation of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. It was not so much a ‘triumphant entry’, but a&nbsp;<em>parody</em>&nbsp;of a triumphant entry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:8'>Mat 21:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road</em>- Paul speaks of how Israel were cut off branches because of their rejection of Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 11:17'>Rom 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:19'>Rom 11:19</a></em>). The crowds who accepted Him in the wrong way very soon rejected Him; so in a sense, they cut themselves off. And they did this because they misunderstood Him, expecting Him to give immediate deliverance.</p><p><em><a href='B:500 12:13'>Joh 12:13</a></em> says they were palm branches. But palms and the shout of "Hosanna" are associated with the feast of Tabernacles. And this was Passover, not Tabernacles. All the way through this brilliant visual stunt by the Lord, there was the message that He was not as they had imagined, He had come to die as the Passover Lamb, not to immediately give them the Tabernacles celebration which they wanted to see there and then.</p><p>The behaviour in this verse was exactly that associated with the triumphant entry of a victorious king. The much laboured account of the Lord’s obtaining a donkey and her foal and thus riding into the city was really a studied parody of that whole conception of Messianic victory. For Him, the victory would be to hang lifeless upon a cross. True greatness was in humility. And instead of beaming with pride, <em><a href='B:490 19:41'>Luk 19:41</a></em> adds the detail that He wept over the city, knowing how they had rejected Him. According to Harry Whittaker,&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels, "</em>The rabbis had a saying: "If Israel be worthy, Messiah comes with the clouds of heaven (<em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em>); if unworthy, riding upon an ass" (<em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>)". So the entire triumphant entry was indeed a parody which sooner or later the Jews came to grasp. Hence their anger- for the whole incident declared them unworthy.</p><p>Whilst what the Lord arranged was indeed a parody of a triumphant entry, designed to highlight the importance of humility and sacrifice, He was surely conscious that He was acting out, however dimly, the prophesied future and ultimate triumphal entry of Messiah into Jerusalem and the temple, coming from the Mount of Olives (<em><a href='B:450 14:4'>Zec 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:11'>Isa 62:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:9'>Mat 21:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the crowds that went before him and that followed shouted: Hosanna to the Son of David Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord Hosanna in the highest-&nbsp;<br/></em>Hosanna means ‘Save now’. This obsession with ‘Salvation now’ was their equivalent of today’s prosperity Gospel, which is a similarly false understanding of the Lord:&nbsp;<br/>Matthew records here that the people cried ‘Hosanna’ at Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. Seeing that first century Israel spoke Aramaic, this is doubtless what did actually come out of their lips. But Luke says that the same group of people shouted “Glory” (<em><a href='B:490 19:38'>Luk 19:38</a></em>). Luke’s Gospel seems to be designed for the Greek speaking world, and so he uses the Greek equivalent of ‘Hosanna’, even though they did not actually say that word. The way the New Testament quotes the Old with slight changes without pointing this out is another example of how God’s word mixes interpretation with direct transmission of facts (e:g. <em><a href='B:230 32:1-2'>Psa 32:1-2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 4:6-7'>Rom 4:6-7</a></em>). God has inspired His word in order to interpret certain facts to us. This is further proof that we are not intended to insist on a strictly literal meaning to everything we read (for example, that the sun literally rises). This fact is not irrelevant to the issue of demons. The accounts of demons being cast out are framed in such a way as to show the supremacy of God’s power over the vain traditions of the first century world.</p><p>"He that comes" was a clearly Messianic title. They accepted Jesus as Messiah, but their understanding of Messiah was so wrong. They assumed He would bring ‘salvation now’, and immediate freedom from the Romans and economic hardship.</p><p>Hosanna<em>&nbsp;"</em>in the highest" suggests that because the people wanted ‘Save&nbsp;<em>now</em>’ and immediate deliverance from Rome, they assumed that God shared their view. Thus they assumed that their cry of ‘Salvation now’ was being uttered in Heaven too. This assumption that God is of course in tune with our wishes is very dangerous- the dashing of this expectation was what unleashed the fury and gross misjudgement in these people which lead to their very soon screaming for the death of God’s Son.</p><p>The other records add that the Pharisees asked the Lord to restrain His supporters. His response was "I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out". There's a strong similarity between the Aramaic and Hebrew words for "sons" and "stones"; and the Lord's 'sons' were the disciples, His spiritual children. It was the disciples who were enthusiastic for His triumphant entry- the crowds soon lost their enthusiasm.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:10'>Mat 21:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he had arrived in Jerusalem</em>- See on :11&nbsp;<em>The prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.</em></p><p><em>All the city was stirred, saying</em>- This is the word for a quake or tremor, the crowd were shocked deeply- by the idea of a humble King.</p><p><em>Who is this?</em>- The Lord was well known in Jerusalem, His miracles and previous visits had hardly gone unnoticed. The question was rather 'What kind of person is this?'. His careful effort to obtain a donkey and colt, and ride the bucking colt in imitation of a charger and chariot::. had worked. It had achieved the desired effect of stunning people by the new paradigm of humility which He was exemplifying. The "daughter of Zion" (:5) was singularly unimpressed by the coming of their King. Doubtless there was a connected element of sarcasm in Pilate's question: "Shall I crucify your King?" (<em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em>). And they stated beyond question that they would rather have Caesar as their King than this humble man from Nazareth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:11'>Mat 21:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the crowds said: This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee</em>- I think we can conclude that this answer was not given in proud introduction of their Messiah, but rather agreeing with the sceptical question 'What kind of person is<em>&nbsp;this</em>?'. For Nazareth and Galilee were despised and hardly seen as the origin of Messiah nor of any half decent prophet. "Out of Galilee arises no prophet" was the Jewish position (<em><a href='B:500 7:52'>Joh 7:52</a></em>). It was to them an oxymoron to say that a prophet, let alone Messiah, could come from there. And Nazareth, with its Gentile connotations and a reputation for siding with the Roman occupants, was likewise despised. Nathanael struggled with the idea that Messiah could come from Nazareth: "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (<em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>). We can feel the mockery in the recorded words of the girl in the courtyard concerning Peter: "This fellow was also with Jesus&nbsp;<em>of Nazareth</em>", and the subsequent comment that Peter shared the Galilean accent of Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 26:71'>Mat 26:71</a></em>). This sceptical answer to the Jerusalem crowds was given by the "multitude" that welcomed the Lord into Jerusalem. In the hour or so which His parody of a 'triumphal entry' took, their enthusiasm turned to bitter disillusion. This was not the Messiah they had expected. And their enthusiasm turned to bitter cynicism and disappointment. This is the significance of the information that they said this "When He was entered into Jerusalem" (:10). The crowd greeted Him as their Saviour King, throwing their garments in the street before Him, but as He rode the bucking colt with the dawdling, unenthusiastic donkey before Him, their views changed over that 30 to 60 minutes. <em><a href='B:490 19:41-44'>Luk 19:41-44</a></em> adds that He burst into tears of desperation and predicted that the enemies of Israel clearly He had the Romans in view would soon destroy the city and temple. This was so unpatriotic, and the exact opposite of what the crowds expected from Him: “When he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying: If you had known in this day, even you, the things which belong to your peace But now they are hid from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies shall set up a barricade around you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and shall dash you to the ground, and your children within you; and they shall not leave in you one stone upon another. All this will happen because you did not perceive the time of your visitation”. The Lord implies that their rejection and destruction was precisely because they turned away from perceiving His entry into the city as their “visitation”. They didn’t think this was the “time” because they weren’t seeing immediate salvation. Or rather, they didn’t wish to see it. All they could think was that this was not their man, not at all the Messiah they had expected. Their cry of 'Save now' 'Hosanna' produced no dramatic action on His part. He just kept on riding that awkward beast, wandering probably in a zig-zag through the streets.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:12'>Mat 21:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus entered into the temple of God</em>- This again was a conscious parody of Judaism’s Messianic hopes. Their idea was that Messiah would enter Jerusalem in triumph against their Gentile enemies, and enter the temple. This was based upon their reading of <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>: “The Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple”. But the context of Malachi 3 required a positive response by Israel to the herald of Messiah, i:e. John the Baptist. And this had not been forthcoming. And the next verse goes on to suggest that this coming of Messiah will not be of much blessing to Israel- “But who may abide the day of His coming i:e:, “to His temple”? And who shall stand when He appears?” (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>).</p><p>Mark’s record appears to state that the Lord first entered the temple, looked around and walked out (<em><a href='B:480 11:11'>Mar 11:11</a></em>) and the next day returned to cleanse the temple of traders. It could be that He cleansed the temple twice. Or it could be that this silent looking around and walking away, returning to Bethany, ‘the house of the poor’, was another intentional creation of an anti-climax. The Jews expected Him to do something dramatic- and He simply looked around in sadness and left for ‘the house of the poor’- to return and cast out the traders and thus make the performance of sacrifice impossible there.</p><p><em>And cast out</em>- A verb elsewhere used by the Lord about condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em> and soon after this incident, in <em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). Instead of bringing salvation to Israel's temple, He entered it and condemned the orthodox, casting them out of God's house and forbidding them to enter it to carry things through it (Mk:, Lk:). Instead of them, the Lord in their place welcomed children and the handicapped into God's house. Sacred space was a major concept in Judaism; the Lord's expulsion of the Orthodox from it and replacing them with those considered unworthy of entry was a highly significant thing to do.</p><h4><em>All them that sold and bought in the temple</em>- This is the context of <em><a href='B:450 9:8'>Zec 9:8</a></em>: "And I will encamp for the sake of thine house as a garrison that none pass through or return; and no exactor shall pass through them any more: for now I have seen with mine eyes<em>":&nbsp;</em>This would allude to the Lord's looking around the temple and walking out of it; He banned carrying things through the temple (<em><a href='B:480 11:16'>Mar 11:16</a></em>), and all exaction of money. The Lord had not long earlier described Sodom as the place where the wrong kind of buying and selling went on, and He had likened His generation to Sodom (<em><a href='B:490 17:28'>Luk 17:28</a></em>). This, again, was hardly what the crowds expected to hear- a likening of their most sacred place to Sodom, and a prophecy of its destruction at the hands of the Gentiles. The ban on carrying things through the temple referred to the practice of taking a short cut through the court of the Gentiles rather than having to walk all around the temple complex. The Lord was thereby proclaiming the court of the Gentiles as holy as the rest of the temple building. Note that the Lord also expelled those who were&nbsp;<em>buying</em>&nbsp;the animals for sacrifice- ordinary Jews wanting to offer sacrifice. This surely hinted at an ending of the Mosaic law in view of the Lord's upcoming sacrifice. This was all so much what the Jewish masses did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;want to hear.<br/><em><br/>And overthrew</em>- This was not done in simple anger. The Lord's motive was still their reformation. He had entered the temple in allusion to their expectation that Messiah would triumphantly enter Jerusalem and proceed into the temple. They had based that idea upon Malachi 3. But that prophecy continued: "Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple . . .<em>&nbsp;and he shall purify the sons of Levi</em>" (<em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a></em>). This 'cleansing' of the temple was His attempt to purify the sons of Levi. His hopefulness was simply amazing. And it is a strong pattern for we who give up so easily with people:&nbsp;<br/><em><br/>The tables of the moneychangers and the seats of them that sold the doves-&nbsp;</em>These were the sons of Annas, the High Priest. This deepened the anticlimax- the Lord entered Jerusalem and the temple- and cast out the sons of the High Priest. Instead of entering the temple in glory, fulfilling the hope of Ezekiel’s vision of the temple where Messiah enters the temple from the East, instead the Lord entered the temple- and in a huge anti-climax, castigates the Jewish religious leadership, throwing them out of the temple, and being acclaimed only by those excluded from Judaism: children, the lame and blind. See on :17&nbsp;<em>Went out of the city into Bethany</em>.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:13'>Mat 21:13</a></em><em>&nbsp;And he said to them-&nbsp;</em>The Lord several times quoted an OT passage which if quoted further would have made a telling point. Thus He quoted <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>: “My house shall be called an house of prayer”, leaving His hearers to continue: “:::for&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;people”. He recited <em><a href='B:230 8:2'>Psa 8:2</a></em>: “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise”, leaving them to complete: “:::that thou mightest still through their witness the enemy and the avenger”. For the Bible minded, these things ought to have taught them. There is reason to think, in the subsequent response of a Jewish minority after Pentecost, that at least some did make these connections. They made use of the spiritual potential they had been given.</p><p><em>It is written</em>- The Lord quotes from <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>, but the surrounding context of the quotation is relevant to the Jewish leadership who were present and deeply critical of the Lord's actions (:15). <em><a href='B:290 56:10-11'>Isa 56:10-11</a></em> condemns Israel's elders as "blind watchmen::. dumb dogs::. greedy dogs which can never have enough, shepherds that cannot understand, every one looking for gain". "Dogs" was understood as a reference to the Gentiles- and the Lord is saying that they are effectively Gentiles. Significantly, <em><a href='B:290 56:6'>Isa 56:6</a></em> has spoken of "the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord::. taking hold of His covenant". This is often how God works- for those who are sensitive to His word, the quotations given speak far more deeply. The potential for greater understanding is thereby given to those familiar with His word. This is one reason why I encourage perseverance in reading the Bible even if at the point of reading we feel we are not understanding much and simply building up a familiarity with the text. That familiarity can be a basis for later revelation to us.</p><p><em>My house</em>- Just as the "feasts&nbsp;<em>of the Lord</em>" are described as "feasts&nbsp;<em>of the Jews</em>",&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;house becomes "<em>your</em>&nbsp;house" (<em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>). They had hijacked God's religion for their own ends, just as so many do today.</p><p><em>Shall be called</em>- Luke uses the present tense, "<em>is</em>&nbsp;called". The Lord surely said both, His point being that prophecies of the future Kingdom are to be lived out by us in essence today:&nbsp;<br/><em>Den of thieves</em>- The Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a></em> that there will no longer be a trafficker in the Lord's house was fulfilled by the Lord's casting out the traders from the temple. Many of the Kingdom prophecies of healing were it seems consciously fulfilled in the Lord’s healings: <em><a href='B:290 35:6'>Isa 35:6</a></em> LXX the stammerer healed = <em><a href='B:480 7:32-35'>Mar 7:32-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 2:3-12'>Mar 2:3-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:1-6'>Mar 3:1-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:8'>Isa 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 11:1'>Mar 11:1</a></em> Bartimaeus following on the Jerusalem road. This doesn’t mean that these passages will not have a glorious future fulfilment. But in the person of Jesus and in the record of His life we see the “Kingdom come nigh”, as He Himself said it did. We can so focus on the future fulfilment that we can forget that He was the Kingdom in the midst of men; the essence of our eternal future, of the coming political Kingdom of God, was and is to seen in Him. Satan fell from Heaven during His ministry ((<em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em>), as it will at the second coming (Revelation 12).</p><p><em>A house of prayer; but you make it a den of robbers</em>- This invites us to see the thieves who robbed the man in the Samaritan parable as the Jewish leadership, whose priests and Levites refused to help people after the damage they themselves had caused (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>). The thieves "stripped him of His clothing" just as they later did to the Lord Jesus. The Lord uses the same figure of thieves for the Jewish leadership in <em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:8'>Joh 10:8</a></em>. The Lord quotes here from <em><a href='B:300 7:11'>Jer 7:11</a></em>, which speaks of the temple being profaned by adultery and Baal worship, resulting in the Babylonian invasion. He is saying that Israel's hypocritical piety in His day was none less than Baal worship, and therefore the Gentiles would come and destroy that place.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the blind and the lame</em>- Previously banned from the temple on the basis of <em><a href='B:100 5:8'>2Sa 5:8</a></em> LXX. Those rejected from the sacred space now came in to replace those whom the Lord had ejected from it. Clearly His view was that kids and cripples were to replace the pious religious Jews:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Came to Him in the temple and he healed them</em>- The time scale couldn't have been more than a few hours. It presumably took Him some time to eject the Jews from the temple and to stop people carrying burdens through it. The marginalized had heard that the others had been ejected- and came to Him naturally. They would've walked or looked around with glee at the sacred space previously denied to them. Quite why the temple guard didn't arrest the Lord is a significant question. They were surely there, and the Jews would've wanted them to intervene. I suggest the Lord stopped them in their tracks by supernatural power, just as He had earlier been able to walk through the midst of those seeking to kill Him (<em><a href='B:500 8:59'>Joh 8:59</a></em>). The Lord demonstrated clearly that He could restrain the power of civil authority, guards and soldiers- if and when He wished. His submission to them in the process of arrest and crucifixion was therefore the more remarkable. It was His submission, not their power. Those same leaders and soldiers would surely have realized that He had the power to restrain them- for He had done so here in the temple, so shortly before His arrest and death. We see here an essay in how the process of His death was a result of His wilfully giving His life; it was not taken from Him, He laid it down (<em><a href='B:500 10:17-18'>Joh 10:17-18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:15'>Mat 21:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did and the children that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David</em>- Presumably they too had been cast out of the temple. This conversation likely took place after the Lord had finished in the temple:&nbsp;</p><p><em>They were moved with indignation, and said to him</em>- Their eye was evil because He was good. The welcoming of the previously marginalized into sacred space produces a similar reaction today. If such categories are allowed to break bread, some get angry to the point of white hot hatred, which in God's eyes is murder. Their eye became evil because He was good. The same Greek word for "displeased" is used regarding how the ruler of the synagogue was indignant because the Lord had healed on the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:490 13:14'>Luk 13:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:16'>Mat 21:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you hear what these are saying? And Jesus said to them: Yes. Did you never read</em>- He was speaking to the educated who could read. "Never read" would've jarred with them- they spent their lives poring over the Scriptures. But we can read and yet never really read as God intends.</p><p><em>Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise?</em>- A strange grammatical construction, the plural "babes" have a singular "mouth", so united are they in devotion to the Lord. Hence we find that the word translated "perfected" is elsewhere rendered "perfectly joined together". The quotation from <em><a href='B:230 8:2'>Psa 8:2</a></em> is from a Psalm often alluded to in the New Testament. It was first written as David reflected upon his victory over Goliath, an incident clearly typical of the Lord's victory on the cross. The young people rejoiced in David's victory and joined Him in triumphing over his enemies in praise to God for the victory. This indicates that the Lord considered His victory as in a sense already accomplished; He saw those youngsters' praise of Him and acceptance of their place in God's house as being effectively their praise for His victory over the Goliath of sin. The quotation also associates the angry, intellectually defeated Jewish leaders with the Philistines- another one in a series of suggestions that they are effectively Gentiles and no longer God's people (see on :13). Let's pause to give all this teaching its due weight- that legalism and exclusiveness are no better than Baal worship, and such orthodoxy is only a faithfulness to human tradition rather than to God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:17'>Mat 21:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he left them and went out of the city</em>- His ‘going out of the city’ is allusive to the language of Ezekiel, in that the glory begins within the city but progressively lifts up and goes out of it.</p><p><em>To Bethany and lodged there-&nbsp;</em>This continues the radical subversion of Jewish Messianic expectations. They had expected a glorious entry into Jerusalem by Messiah, and His entering the temple in order to fulfil the hopes of Ezekiel’s temple visions- that Messiah in glory would enter the temple. Instead, the Lord enters Jerusalem on a rider-less donkey, Himself sitting awkwardly on a wayward foal, enters the temple and castigates the Jews, throwing them out of it. And now He leaves the city and goes to Bethany, “the house of the poor”. Rather like a pretender to the Presidency mounting a not very serious coup attempt, and going to spend the night in a low cost housing area, perhaps in an apartment in a run down tenement block known as ‘the house of the poor’. Or perhaps a night shelter would be the most dynamic equivalent. That is not to say that the home in Bethany was actually poor, my comment is on the meaning of ‘Bethany’ as ‘house of the poor’. The use of&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, "into", rather than a word carrying the sense of&nbsp;<em>unto</em>, serves to heighten the sense of anti-climax. He ended this parody of a triumphal entry by entering into 'the house of the poor':&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord being the psychologist&nbsp;<em>extraordinaire</em>&nbsp;that He was, it could almost seem that He was engineering a situation which would turn public opinion against Him and lead to His betrayal to the Romans. And yet on the other hand, He had made all these points multiple times in His teaching, beginning in the Sermon on the Mount. He had explained as clearly as could be that His Kingdom was not at that time a political one, rather was it about service of others and internal transformation. He had so often elevated humility above anything else. But all His teaching had been skim listened to; people had taken what they wanted from Him, and decided that He was who they wanted and needed Him to be, rather than who He said He was. And so through this parody of a triumphal entry, He was visually and very publicly explaining what He really stood for. And thereby very powerfully exposing their hopes as mere selfishness, their ideals as misplaced, their understandings as faulty. I wouldn’t say that&nbsp;He did this with the express intention of bringing about His death, but rather motivated by the hope that His one last appeal might still trigger response amongst the true “daughter of Zion”. His predictions of His death, however, indicate that He knew what would happen. A psychologist weighing up the situation as it stood at the triumphant entry, even if he didn’t know how the story would end, would likely be able to predict accurately what would’ve happened. The Jews would become deeply angry with Jesus, their hopes in Him would have turned to hatred and anger, they would desire to kill Him, and being unable to legally do so, would hand Him over to the Romans to execute. Indeed, Judas had already trodden this road one step ahead of the masses.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:18'>Mat 21:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now in the morning as he returned to the city</em>- A hint that His final return in the morning of Zion's new day will require at least some fruit on the fig tree, the beginnings of repentance and spiritual fruit in Israel:&nbsp;<br/><em><br/>He became hungry</em>- Hungry in the morning, having spent the night at Mary and Martha's home? Had Martha failed in providing food for some reason? More likely the Lord had been fasting for Israel's repentance. And His hunger spoke of His desire to see even the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel. His fast was for fruit on Israel; if He had found it, He would have eaten it and thus broken His fast:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And seeing a fig tree by the roadside, he went to it and</em>- Symbolic of Israel (<em><a href='B:300 24:1-8'>Jer 24:1-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:16'>Hos 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 28:4'>Isa 28:4</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:290 34:2'>Isa 34:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:4'>Isa 34:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:8'>Isa 34:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:6'>Luk 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:6'>Luk 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:1'>Mic 7:1</a></em> RV). Israel were seen by the Lord as the tree by the roadside, whose fruit should have been for all that passed by (<em><a href='B:50 23:24'>Deu 23:24</a></em>). But because there was not even the glimmer of this kind of giving of fruit, they were condemned by the Lord.</p><p><em>Found nothing thereon</em>- His disappointment was great because of His earlier parable about Himself and the fig tree, in which He had put these words in His own mouth: "Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it: and if it bear fruit, well; but if not, after that thou shalt cut it down". He looked over and around the tree, desperate to see at least some signs of fruit. He realized that the tree of Israel had to be cut down.</p><p><em>But leaves only</em>- The inadequate covering for sin with which human history began in Eden.</p><p><em>And he said to it: Let there be no fruit from you</em>- If the fruit on the fig tree represents spiritual fruit, does this suggest that now the possibility of repentance was taken away from them? It was as if judgment day had really arrived for them even in this life; for there will be no possibility of repentance then. Or it could be that the Lord was annulling the prophecies about&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;filling the face of the earth with fruit. His emphasis then would have been on "May no fruit grow&nbsp;<em>on you</em>". The tree of Israel was to be cut down, and the fruit was to come from the fig tree "and all the trees" of the Gentile nations. This is the connection with the Lord's later sign of the fig tree and all the trees (<em><a href='B:490 21:29'>Luk 21:29</a></em>); when spiritual fruit is seen on all of them, when the Gospel has gone into all the world, to all the trees / nations, then shall the end come (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Again-&nbsp;</em>AV "For ever", for the&nbsp;<em>aion</em>, the age. He could mean throughout the new age which was to start, for Israel are prophesied as finally blossoming and filling the face of the earth with fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). Or it could be that that prophecy about Israel was conditional, and the Lord is accepting that their rejection of Him meant that it and other such prophecies were now disallowed from fulfilment in themselves by what they were going to do to Him.</p><p><em>And immediately the fig tree withered away</em>- "From the roots", Mark adds. This meant the ground was cursed- the land of Israel. And the roots may refer to the ending of the Mosaic law. "Ephraim 'fruitful' is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit::. My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations" (<em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:16-17'>Hos 9:16-17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>21:20&nbsp;<em>And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying-&nbsp;</em>Their amazement is presented in <em><a href='B:480 11:21-22'>Mar 11:21-22</a></em> as a lack of faith, calling forth from the Lord the rebuke: "Have faith in God". After all the miracles they had seen, it's pathetic that they doubted as to the Lord's ability to dry up a fig tree. Yet again, the initial Gospel writers and preachers draw attention to their own weakness of faith. Seeing that the fig tree was such a well known symbol of Israel (see on :19), the disciples may have perceived the incident as an acted parable. Their comment "How soon is the fig tree withered" (Mk:) could be seen as a criticism of how quickly the Lord had withered it. But this would in turn indicate that they had totally failed to understand His earlier teaching of how He had asked the Father for more time for Israel than He had intended to give it, and had personally done the servile work of digging and dunging it in the hope that fruit would come. Their struggle to believe what the Lord had done reflected the wider struggle they and we have to accept that humility, the humble entry rather than the triumphal one, is the way of God. They struggled to believe that the entire system of formal religious worship was being done away and replaced by kids and cripples, literally and spiritually, in the sacred space. The Lord's subsequent exhortations to faith must be seen in this context- the faith to believe this. I recall a brother once at the heart of a community of believers being disfellowshipped over a false accusation. I urged him to break bread alone. He told me that he didn't have the faith::. to sit and break bread alone, with no hymns, no president, no surrounding church. We sat in a fast food joint in a London suburb and I had to lead him in the breaking of bread service- he was so used to standing there on Sunday mornings, either presiding or giving the lesson::. He has often recalled that there in McDonalds, he found his faith. Faith in God and Jesus, and not in any organization or human church:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>How did the fig tree immediately wither away?</em>- The Lord had said that it would happen immediately (:19). According to the other records, the disciples made this comment the next day. They somehow doubted the Lord could work with such immediate effect. And this strange lack of faith was surely because they perceived that the fig tree represented Israel and all they had once held dear in their culture. The disciples asked how the fig tree cp. Israel withered away so quickly. The answer, of course, was in that Jesus had faith that it would. He goes on to tell them that if&nbsp;<em>they&nbsp;</em>had faith, the mountain of Zion, the hope of Israel, would be cast into the sea of nations (:20,21). The Lord Jesus is surely saying that&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>faith should not be seen as separate from&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;faith. According to the faith of the disciples, the Hope of Israel, rejected by the withered fig tree of Israel, could be spread to the Gentiles. But the spread of the Gospel world-wide was and is conditional upon our faith, modelled as it must be upon His example.</h4>


text:
<p>21:21&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answered and said to them: Truly I say to you, If you have faith-&nbsp;</em>See on :20. The faith in view was faith in the Lord's new way of doing things, a religion of kids and cripples outside of organized religion.</p><p><em>And doubt not</em>- The 'faith' was faith in the passing of the Jewish system. "Doubt not" translates&nbsp;<em>diakrino</em>&nbsp;which can better be translated to make a difference, to discriminate. It was as if the Lord was saying: 'I know you believe. But to believe in&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;will be hard. Don't make a difference, believing in some things and not others. Believe in this too':&nbsp;</p><p><em>You shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if you shall say to</em>- They too were to play a part in the withering of the fig tree- by preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles.</p><p><em>This mountain</em>- There is a clear semantic connection between the cursing of the fig tree and the moving of the mountain into the sea. The mountain in view was the temple mount. The Lord is comforting them that not only would the tree of Israel be withered, but the whole mount Zion, the most sacred space in Judaism, would be cast to the Gentiles the "sea". This kind of thing was what His parody of a triumphal entry had been all about, and His casting out of the religious Jews from the temple and replacing them with kids and cripples, those formerly excluded from the sacred space. The faith to move the temple mount to the Gentiles was the very faith which Peter was later required to have in preaching to the Gentiles represented by Cornelius:&nbsp; The Lord recognized that this paradigm shift was a matter of faith, and He urged the disciples to realize their psychological problem and accept it needed special help from God to get over. This incident obviously had huge relevance for the first century communities of believers who were baptized as a result of Matthew's Gospel; for acceptance of the end of the Jewish system and the acceptance of the Gentiles was the live issue for the early churches. <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em> adds: "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses". The motivation in accepting others into fellowship, in accepting the casting of the sacred space of Mount Zion to the Gentiles, was to be from realizing their own urgent need for forgiveness and their moral frailty. Those faced with similar struggles about accepting others, or allowing previously rejected categories into Christian fellowship, need to take this advice.</p><p><em>Be taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done</em>- To be removed and cast into the sea was a word picture of condemnation. And yet&nbsp;<em>airo</em>, to remove or take away, surely reflects the Hebraism of 'taking away' with reference to taking away sin (s:w. <em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em> "takes away the sin of the Jewish world"). This was a phrase with two possible meanings. The disciples could achieve this in that their preaching would give mount Zion both the possibility of sin being taken away if they responded and of condemnation, being cast into the sea like Gentile Babylon if they rejected their message. The same words and ideas are found in <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>, where Babylon is 'taken up' s:w. "removed" and cast into the sea. However, the Lord soon uses the same word in telling the Jews that the Kingdom was to be "taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of the Kingdom" (:43). This reference to fruit connects with the Lord's teaching about the fig tree which was cursed for not bearing fruit. The rejected servant was likewise to be 'taken away' in condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>), just as the flood "took them all away" (<em><a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a></em>), the talent was 'taken away' from the rejected (<em><a href='B:470 25:28-29'>Mat 25:28-29</a></em>). Significantly, the Lord had used this same word for 'remove' or 'take away' in the first cleansing of the temple, when He commanded the traders to "Take these things away" (<em><a href='B:500 2:16'>Joh 2:16</a></em>); and likewise it is used about the 'taking away' of the branches of the tree of Israel (<em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em>). The Lord is telling the disciples that they too will be able to make such a removing of the unclean from the system of Judaism, and likewise cause the withering of Israel's tree. In fact it was the Romans who "took away our place and nation" (<em><a href='B:500 11:48'>Joh 11:48</a></em> s:w:) but this was on account of Israel's rejection of the disciples' preaching. In that sense, therefore, it was they who had caused the temple Mount to be taken away and cast into the sea of Gentiles. This too is the power of our preaching. We are not merely discharging a responsibility to evangelize so that we feel better, let alone doing a PR exercise for our local church or denomination. Our presentation of the message to others has eternal consequence for them- to their salvation or condemnation. Significantly, the same word is used for how on the cross, the Lord 'took away' the Mosaic Law (<em><a href='B:580 2:14'>Col 2:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>Cast into the sea" were the very words used by the Lord in describing the fate of the Jews who made the little ones stumble (<em><a href='B:480 9:42'>Mar 9:42</a></em>). The little ones had been brought into the temple to replace the Jewish religious leaders. Those leaders had previously refused to accept those little ones. Their judgment was to be cast into the sea as Babylon (<em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em> same words). But this would only happen once the disciples had preached to them after the resurrection- they were given chance after chance, despite the Lord's cursing of the fig tree with immediate effect.</p><p><em><a href='B:470 21:21'>Mat 21:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em>. Paul saw Abraham as being like the man in the parable who had the faith to throw mountains into the sea.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:22'>Mat 21:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And all things, whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive</em>- This evidently has some context and limitations, because there is no reason to think that we literally receive whatever we ask. Even the Lord didn't. The context is the ability to change, the ability to accept paradigm shifts, to have the courage to preach; the mindset which can cope with a previous worldview coming to an end. This is exactly why people are so unwilling to change cherished beliefs and practices- because their conservatism is more powerful in their own minds than God's word. We need to accept we have this problem, and rejoice that whatever we ask for in this psychological and at times practical battle will indeed be granted to us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:23'>Mat 21:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he had entered into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said</em>- "Entered" is&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>&nbsp;, and is matched by the priests and elders 'coming' to Him,&nbsp;<em>proserchomai</em>. The impression is created of direct confrontation, head on:&nbsp;</p><p><em>By what authority do you do these things?</em>- Presumably they thought they had Him caught out, because&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;was supposedly solely with Rome. He could hardly say the Romans had given Him such authority. And yet if He said anything other than 'Rome', then He could be reported to the Roman authorities. However, their reference may have been to what we noted at <em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em> - the Lord had held back the temple guard from arresting Him and stopping His forceful overthrowing of the temple traders. This question was quite to be expected of a man who had recently used violence to overthrow tables and force men off the premises. Who had given Him such authority?&nbsp;</p><p><em>And who gave You this authority?</em>- To this day this question is heard. People, especially religious people, find it so hard to accept that somebody can have a personal relationship with God which enables and empowers them to operate as sovereign free agents amongst mere men. This cry is especially heard from those who themselves think they have authority and seek to hold on to their petty power at all costs. It is the typical cry when someone obeys their Lord's command to baptize people, takes the initiative to extend fellowship to another etc:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:24'>Mat 21:24</a></em><em>&nbsp;And Jesus answered and said to them: I also will ask you one question, which if you tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things-&nbsp;</em>It is not necessarily wrong to avoid answering a question- although few of us could do so in the spiritually and logically flawless way the Lord did here, let alone at a moment's notice.</p><p>The AV is mistaken in translating "If you tell me, I will tell you". The sense rather is: 'If you answer this question, then in that answer you will have My telling you the answer to your question'. They finally answered in :27 that 'We cannot know' (AV again is unhelpful by offering here "We cannot tell"- the Greek words for AV "tell" are all different in this section):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:25'>Mat 21:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The baptism of John</em>- Perhaps John's message was so centred around the appeal for baptism that "the baptism of John" is being put for 'the teaching and ministry of John'. Or maybe the Lord has in view His own baptism by John. In this case, His reasoning would be that His authority came from the fact that He had been baptized by John. Seeing John's work was from God and had Divine authority, this meant therefore that the Lord was empowered by that baptism to operate with God's authority. If that is indeed what the Lord intended, then we have another window onto the perplexing question of why the Lord was baptized by John:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Where was it from? From heaven or from men?-&nbsp;</em>Gamaliel uses the same logic in <em><a href='B:510 5:38-39'>Act 5:38-39</a></em> in urging the Jews to boil all the personal feelings and doubts down to a simple issue: Are these men and their work of God or man? This approach is helpful to us too, assailed as we are by unclarity about others. Is a man in Christ or not? Does God work through him or not? Is he of God or men? There is no middle ground here. This is what I submit concerning myself to those who doubt me, and it is the approach I seek to take with others with whom I have to engage in spiritual life. And Gamaliel rightly concluded that if something is of man and not of God, then we have little to worry about. Finally it will come to nothing. We should be concerned rather with the eternal consequence of refusing those who are clearly of God. If of God, we must accept them:&nbsp;<br/><em><br/>And they discussed it among themselves, saying: If we shall say, from heaven, he will say to us, why then did you not believe him?</em>- This could imply they withdrew for discussion amongst themselves. But such a withdrawal would've been a sign of weakness. More likely we have here an insight into their own internal reasonings. In this case, the statement in :27 that "They answered::. and said, We cannot tell" was uttered by each of them in turn as the Lord asked them individually.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:26'>Mat 21:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if we shall say, from men, we fear the crowd</em>- They all considered John as a prophet, whereas the chief priests and elders did not. We see here a marked difference between the people and their religious leaders. Indeed, the leaders despised the common people: "This people who know not the Law are cursed" (<em><a href='B:500 7:49'>Joh 7:49</a></em>). And yet very soon now, the leaders would be apparently controlling the people to cry for the blood of Jesus. But this chapter so far has shown that this was not really the reason why the masses turned against Jesus. They turned against Him because of His dashing of their hopes and refusal to pander to their expectations, exemplified by His wilful parody of a triumphal entry into the city and temple. The huge gap between the elders and the masses was so great that it cannot be credible that the elders managed to manipulate them so quickly to turn 180 degrees and to reject the Jesus whom their hero John had insisted was the Messiah.</p><p><em>For all hold John as a prophet</em>- And yet the Lord had said that “the men of this generation” held John to be demon possessed, i:e. crazy (<em><a href='B:490 7:33'>Luk 7:33</a></em>). We can on one hand feel and state respect for someone, whilst in reality not accepting them as any authority at all, and effectively considering them as if they are mad, not to be taken seriously:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:27'>Mat 21:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they answered Jesus and said: We do not know</em>- See on :25&nbsp;<em>They reasoned with themselves&nbsp;</em>and :24&nbsp;<em>If you answer Me:&nbsp;</em>The Greek means 'We cannot&nbsp;<em>know</em>'. They had set themselves up as defenders of the Faith, whose duty it was to analyse the claims of teachers and decide whether or not they were false prophets. But now they are beaten in fair intellectual fight. They can give no answer, and yet by saying they could not judge John's claim to be a prophet, they were abdicating the very role of assessors of teachers which they claimed to have, and which they were using against the Lord.</p><p><em>He replied to them: Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things</em>- He meant that they knew in their consciences and did not need Him to spell it out to them in words. This was again His style in His silence before His judges, and in His brief answer to Pilate: "You are saying it" (<em><a href='B:490 23:3'>Luk 23:3</a></em>). The answer was in Pilate's own words rather than the Lord's.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:28'>Mat 21:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But what do you think? A man</em>- God.</p><p><em>Had two sons, and he came to the first, and said</em>- In the form of John, who “came unto you” (:32- a related word is used for “come”). God was manifest in the preaching of John, just as He personally comes to men through our preaching. This accounts for the special sense of Divine presence which we have in our efforts to preach His Son and appeal to men. Paul can speak of how God Himself appeals to people through us (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>).</p><p><em>Son</em>- These people were already in the family of God. They represent those to whom John the Baptist came (:32).</p><p><em>Today</em>- The suggestion is that there is urgent work to do, presumably harvest was ripe and what was not gathered today would be lost. The refusal to work was therefore rooted in a refusal to appreciate the significance of their work. Without it, harvest would be lost, and they would all be the poorer.</p><p><em>Go and work</em>- The Lord’s interpretation is that the “work” required was belief and repentance (:32). The work of God is indeed to&nbsp;<em>believe</em>&nbsp;in the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>). This definition of ‘works’ was so different to that held by Judaism, according to which ‘works’ were physical acts of obedience to specific legal regulations. And yet clearly the Christian call is to action, to “works”, without which any profession of faith is “dead”. We are to “go trade” s:w. “go work” with the talents given us, and the man who does not so work with them will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 25:16'>Mat 25:16</a></em>). Paul’s apparent deprecation of “works” in Romans (<em><a href='B:520 4:4-5'>Rom 4:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>) is surely to be understood with reference to “the works of the Law” of Moses (<em><a href='B:520 3:27'>Rom 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:32'>Rom 9:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:2'>Gal 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:10'>Gal 3:10</a></em>), i:e. works done in obedience to that legislation in the hope of salvation upon that basis. The call is to work in response to the call. Not simply assent to theology, the specific doctrines of a Christian denomination, join a Christian social club; but work, labour, toil for Him in His service.</p><p><em>In the vineyard-&nbsp;</em>The vineyard must refer to the means of bringing forth spiritual fruit, according to the Lord's use of the vine figure in John 15. Being in the vineyard is therefore all about bringing forth the fruits of spirituality, showing forth the moral likeness of God. This is the intended “work” we are asked to do. And yet the idea of being called by God to work in His vineyard Israel was language used in Judaism for the call of the priestly class to do the work of religious specialists amongst the nation of Israel, God’s vineyard. But the parable teaches that this is God’s invitation to everyone in the new system of things which He is developing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:29'>Mat 21:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said: I will not-&nbsp;</em>Not so much a bald refusal as ‘I don’t wish to, I don’t have the desire to’.</p><p><em>But afterward he repented and went</em>- This Greek word for "afterward" is used three times in Matthew 21 (and only 9 times elsewhere in the NT). The Jews are criticized for not repenting “after” they had seen the whores repent at John’s teaching (<em><a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a></em>); and “afterward” (AV “last of all”), after sending the prophets of which John was the last, God sent His Son to appeal to Israel (<em><a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a></em>). The son who initially refused to work therefore speaks of those in Israel who refused to hear the prophets and John, and yet “after” all that appeal, responded to the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>"</em>Afterward he repented" is exactly the same words in :32. Afterwards- after the Lord's ministry- they did&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>repent. The Jews who initially responded to John are therefore are the son who said he would work but never did. The same Greek word for "afterward" is also found in :37: "Last of all s:w. "afterward" He sent unto them His Son". The Lord's coming was intended to bring the disobedient son to repentance- and to go work in the vineyard:&nbsp;</p><p>He went-to work in the vineyard. The motivation of the man to labour was because he had repented and been forgiven. His motive was not simply obedience out of respect to his Father, but rather now was it gratitude for forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:30'>Mat 21:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said: I go sir</em>- Literally, "I, Sir". The suggestion is that he was presenting himself as more obedient and respectful than his brother. And yet as so often, those who consider themselves the longer and harder workers in the vineyard, feeling superior to their weaker brothers, are in fact less than them in practice. Surely the Lord had in mind <em><a href='B:20 24:7'>Exo 24:7</a></em>: "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient".</p><p><em>But did not go</em>- In the parable of the two sons, the Lord divides us into two groups- those who respond to a calling to ‘go’ by saying they will, but don’t go; and those who refuse to go but afterwards go. This is clearly an allusion to Jonah. But Jonah is thus made typical of each and every one of us:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:470 21:31'>Mat 21:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Which of the two did the will of his father? They replied: The first. Jesus said to them: Truly I say to you</em>- The contrast is between doing the will of God, and simply saying in words that we will. This is the very tension which the Lord illustrates in the parable of the houses built on sand and rock. The same words for 'doing the will of the Father' are found in <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>: "Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that&nbsp;<em>does the will of My Father</em>". Israel's response to John had been a saying of "Lord, Lord" to Jesus, a prompt response to the request to work in the vineyard- but they never went further. They did not actually repent, even though John's message had been a call to repentance. Repentance can be easily 'made' in words, but this is merely surface level. We need to examine our own repentance in the light of this caveat. Surely the Lord had this same category in view when He spoke of how "many stripes" await the one who knows his Lord's will, but doesn't do it (<em><a href='B:490 12:47'>Luk 12:47</a></em> s:w:). As ever, the Lord had Himself in mind as He spoke such demanding words. He was the Son of the Father who "did the will" and finished His "work"; who said yes straight away, and fulfilled it (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:7'>Heb 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:9'>Heb 10:9</a></em> s:w:). In all our teaching of others we must likewise never take our eyes off our own position before God:&nbsp;</h4><p><em>That the tax collectors and the prostitutes</em>- Matthew, the speaker and author of this Gospel, had been one of them, a tax collector. His appeal for others to respond to the call was therefore interlaced with his own recognition and proclamation that he was in the category of those who had initially said 'No', but afterwards repented. Doubtless the Lord was aware that His followers included tax collectors and prostitutes and He was seeking to justify them:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Go into the Kingdom of God before you</em>- To 'go before',&nbsp;<em>proago</em>, means just that. The word has just been used of how the crowd 'went before' Him in His parody of a triumphant entry into Jerusalem (:9). It doesn't necessarily mean that they would enter the Kingdom, for as mentioned above, the Lord's teaching was that those who did not do the will of God would not enter the Kingdom at all. The idea is rather that the harlots and tax collectors would go into the Kingdom as their heralds, suggesting that their judgment at the time of the Kingdom would be on the basis that the serious sinners had repented and entered the Kingdom, but they had not. And that fact would be waiting for them as they arrived for judgment at the gates of the Kingdom. Paul may be alluding to this when he says that the sins of some men 'go before' them to judgment (<em><a href='B:610 5:24'>1Ti 5:24</a></em> s:w:). Or it could be that even at this dire moment, the Lord still entertained the hope that His persecutors and enemies would enter the Kingdom finally, even if the whores would have a better place in the Kingdom than them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For John came to you</em>- His coming to the people was as it were God's coming to them (:28,30). God was manifest in him, as He is in all preachers. We are His voice and appeal to men.</p><p><em>In the way of righteousness</em>- The very phrase used in <em><a href='B:680 2:21'>2Pe 2:21</a></em> about the Christian Gospel. John's work had been to prepare the Lord's "way" (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:10'>Mat 11:10</a></em>), over which Messiah could have come in glory to Zion, in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies about this. The Lord is referencing the idea that if Israel had responded to John, then the triumphant entry into Zion which He had just parodied earlier in this chapter could really have been achieved.</p><p><em>And you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him-&nbsp;</em>This was clearly intended to address the inner thought of the audience, that “If we shall say, from heaven, he will say to us, why then did you not believe him?” (21:25). The Lord knew their thoughts- clearly, in this instance at least, not so much as from direct Divine revelation, but from His sensitivity to them and reading of their minds.</p><p>John the Baptist was a popular preacher. All Jerusalem went out to hear him. Even the hardline Orthodox were baptized by him. People liked his hard line austerity, his criticism of them. They lined up to hear it, and to confess their sins to him. But Jesus interpreted it differently. He said John’s ministry was like children wanting to play at funerals with some other children- so they started weeping, but the others still wouldn’t respond. Jesus came, piping; He wanted them to play weddings. But still they didn’t respond in true repentance (<em><a href='B:490 7:32-35'>Luk 7:32-35</a></em>). The Lord judged that Israel didn’t respond to John; indeed,&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;they had truly received him, he would have been the Elijah prophet for them (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em> RVmg:). What this teaches is that believers can respond to a tough line, to the ra-ra of an uncompromising moralizing message; and yet not&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;repent nor accept the Lordship of Jesus in their hearts. <em><a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a></em> states clearly that the Jews generally didn't believe John the Baptist, nor repent. And yet they flocked to him in apparent repentance and were baptized. As we all know, repentance is one of the hardest things to be thoroughly genuine about.</p><p><em>And afterwards when you saw it</em>- The second son who had said 'Yes' but not gone to work needed to become as the first son; realizing he was no better than the first son, and likewise repenting and going to work whilst there was still time, to achieve at least something in the Father's vineyard. But it was a bridge too far for the Jewish leadership and Israel in general to make this connection- that they had to shift from their self-righteousness into the position of the whores and tax collectors.</p><p>The good example of others contributes to our experience of the upward spiral. And yet if we don't respond to them, we can be held accountable for it and slip into the downward spiral. Thus the Lord held the elders of Israel guilty because when they saw the whores and tax collectors repenting at John's preaching, "you, when you had seen it, repented not". They should have been influenced by the repentance of those people; they should've allowed repentance to be contagious. But they didn't, and so they were held guilty for that. The Lord is telling the Jews that they were even more culpable for not repenting at the preaching of John the Baptist because the publicans and sinners had done so; and they hadn't. They should've changed their minds 'repented' after they saw the publicans and sinners repent- so the Lord incisively observed and judged. The implication of that seems to me to be that we are intended to be inspired to faith and repentance by that of others. This is why the Christian life is intended to be lived in community.</p><p><em>You still did not repent-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:470 21:29'>Mat 21:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a></em> parallel 'repent and work' with 'repent and believe'. As the Lord said in <em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>, the work of God is to believe- in the forgiveness of sins. The experience of repentance and forgiveness will result in an ever deeper faith, and the works of gratitude which are inseparable part of faith. The parable speaks of repenting and going to work in the Father's vineyard; as if care for our brethren, seeking their fruitfulness and that of this world after the pattern of the vineyard of Isaiah 5 is the obvious work of repentance. The Lord castigated the audiences of John the Baptist that they did not “repent, that ye might believe”. Repentance would lead to faith… and yet it is faith which leads to repentance. The two things work together to form an upward spiral of growth.</p><p><em>And believe him-&nbsp;</em>Their repentance and acceptance of the forgiveness of sins which John spoke of necessitated their belief in Christ as the lamb of God, the sacrifice for sin, of whom John also spoke. The repentance he urged them to make suggests that forgiveness was available- but his message was that that forgiveness was possible ultimately through the work of Jesus as the lamb of God who took away the sin of the world (<em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>). Paul explained this in so many words: “John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe in Him Jesus who should come after him” (<em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>).</p><p>AV "Repented not so that you might believe him" translates an awkward phrase in the Greek, and the translations which suggest ‘You didn’t repent and believe him’ are being too simplistic. There is definitely a causative sense implied- they did not repent&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;they believed him. To repent, to change their minds as required by John, involved believing his message, which was about Jesus as the lamb of God who took away sin and thereby gave meaning and possibility to their repentance. Here, the Lord connects repentance with belief; yet we read that in practice, people believe and are baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sin. So belief and repentance are connected. The belief in John that is spoken of here was effectively a belief in Jesus: “John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe in Him Jesus who should come after him” (<em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>). If we repent, change our minds and decide to respond, then immediately the issue of forgiveness is thrown up. Have I now been forgiven? Can I be? How? And this is what leads seamlessly into faith in Christ as the lamb of God to take away our sin.</p>


text:
<p>21:33&nbsp;<em>Hear another parable</em>- The Lord’s hopefulness at their response is remarkable; He makes a continued appeal to those who in other teaching He has stated have gone too far and are even now condemned. His hopefulness for human response is outstanding and a huge encouragement for us.</p>&nbsp;<p>There are strong similarities between the Lord's parable and the song of the vineyard of <em><a href='B:290 5:1-7'>Isa 5:1-7</a></em>, especially in the LXX:<br/>"<em>Let me sing for my well beloved a song of my beloved about His vineyard</em>&nbsp;The genre is significant; what begins as a joyful, idyllic harvest song turns into bitter disappointment and declaration of judgment<em>. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill&nbsp;</em>The environment was ideal<em>. He dug it up&nbsp;</em>to dig was the work of the lowest servant, but God did this<em>, gathered out its stones&nbsp;</em>the effects of the curse were ameliorated<em>, planted it with the choicest vine&nbsp;</em>"the men of Judah"<em>, built a tower in its midst, and also cut out a wine press therein. He looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?&nbsp;</em>Absolutely all has been done to enable our fruitfulness. The Father wants fruit above all- in the Matthew 21 parable, the owner seeks the actual fruit, rather than cash payment. This element of unreality serves to show His passionate interest in fruit&nbsp;<em>Why, when I looked for it to yield grapes, did it yield wild grapes? Now I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take away its hedge, and it will be eaten up. I will break down its wall of it, and it will be trampled down&nbsp;</em>The downtreading of the temple at the hands of the Gentiles<em>:&nbsp; I will lay it a wasteland. It won’t be pruned nor hoed, but it will grow briers and thorns&nbsp;</em>The language of the curse in Eden. The land was as the Garden of Eden, but Israel sinned "as Adam"<em>. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it&nbsp;</em>the language of Elijah, prototype of John the Baptist<em>. For the vineyard of Yahweh of Armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant: and He looked for justice, but, behold, oppression; for righteousness&nbsp;</em>the fruit required was justice and righteousness- instead, as Isaiah 5 goes on to explain, there was materialistic selfishness<em>, but, behold, a cry of distress</em>".</p><p><em>There was a man that was master of a house</em>- Literally, the head of the family. Clearly in this parable it refers to God, but the Lord used exactly this term to refer to Himself specifically (<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:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). It is far too simplistic to conclude 'Therefore Jesus is God'. There is too strong a weight of Biblical evidence against that position. The titles and functions of the Father are clearly applicable to the Son- and in fact the same Greek word is used about us as believers "in Christ" (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>).</p><p><em>Who planted a vineyard</em>- The language of planting a vineyard and eating the fruit of it is used in <em><a href='B:530 3:6'>1Co 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em> about&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;work of preaching. Paul was unafraid to interpret the parable on multiple levels. We are to be fruitful; but in our work of sharing the Gospel with others we are also the planters who come seeking fruit on our converts. The suggestion could be that the owner personally did the planting and preparing. I say this because Isaiah 5, upon which the parable is based, includes this feature- of the owner doing so much personally. See on :34&nbsp;<em>The winepress</em>. All has been done so that we can produce spiritual fruit; but so often we excuse our lack of fruitfulness by blaming environment factors. The situation in our country, our town, workplace, marriage, family, health etc. And we can put huge effort into trying to change environment because we consider that we can be more fruitful for God in a different environment. But whilst passivity and fatalism are just as wrong, it must be accepted that our environment in the bigger picture has been uniquely and thoughtfully prepared by God so that we might be fruitful. For it is clear from the parable that our fruitfulness is God’s most passionate desire and intention for us. He would hardly place us in any other environment, therefore, than one ideally prepared by Him in order to enable and enhance our fruitfulness.</p><p><em>And set a hedge about it</em>- The same word is used for the Law of Moses as the "wall of partition" (<em><a href='B:560 2:14'>Eph 2:14</a></em>). Although the vineyard was to be given to others, it was itself destroyed and dismantled by the owner; which involved the taking away of the Law of Moses. The vineyard functioned differently, on the basis of fruit being produced in the vine of Christ (John 15):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And dug a winepress</em>- This was the place where the grapes were trodden to produce wine. It features in all record of this parable. What does it represent? Perhaps the temple, designed to be the means of producing the wine of covenant relationship with God. The targums on Isaiah 5, the song of the vineyard upon which the parable is based, interpret it as a reference to the destruction of the temple. But the Lord only elsewhere uses the term when three times using it as a symbol of God's final judgment of condemnation (<em><a href='B:730 14:19-20'>Rev 14:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:15'>Rev 19:15</a></em>). This is typical of the structure of God's plans with men. What is designed for our blessing can also be for our condemnation, just as a cup of wine is used as a symbol of both blessing and condemnation. Time and again we are left with nothing but two choices before us- of acceptance or condemnation. Israel were the vine of God's planting which produced bad fruit (<em><a href='B:300 2:21'>Jer 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:32-33'>Deu 32:32-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>). The lack of good grapes on the vine was because of Israel's unspirituality (<em><a href='B:300 8:13'>Jer 8:13</a></em>) and allowing the wonderful vineyard to become overgrown (<em><a href='B:300 5:17'>Jer 5:17</a></em>). The reason why the workers beat and killed the servants was surely because actually they had no fruit to give them, even though the environment was perfect for good wine. The land of Israel was an environment and climate ideally suited to producing good vines (<em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>). There was supposed to be joy at the gathering of the vine harvest- and that connection is frequently made in the Old Testament. Indeed, the pictures of joy and wine at harvest are the pictures of the Messianic Kingdom. It could have come- but Israel didn't produce the good grapes. Likewise, believe it or not, God has created an ideal environment for each of us to produce spiritual fruit. The song of the Vineyard in <em><a href='B:290 5:1-7'>Isa 5:1-7</a></em> is clearly the basis of the Lord's parable here, and this is the thrust of that story- that all had been done by God for the viticulture to flourish, but it didn't because of Israel's refusal to respond and to work. Isaiah 5 goes on to condemn Israel for drunkenness (<em><a href='B:290 5:11-13'>Isa 5:11-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:22'>Isa 5:22</a></em>), as if they had used the vine for their own selfishness, rather like the Jews had made the "feasts of Yahweh" the "feast of the Jews", His house had become "your house", and just as we can use the structure of God's working with men, the body of Christ, the mystical temple, as a social club for our own pleasure. God therefore withheld rain so that in any case, fruit was now impossible for Israel (<em><a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a></em>); and that is exactly the Lord's message in Matthew 21. The Isaiah 5 passage is in turn developed in <em><a href='B:290 27:2-6'>Isa 27:2-6</a></em>, where we find that Yahweh Himself guarded the vineyard, watered and weeded it, such was His almost obsessive interest in this project (<em><a href='B:290 27:3'>Isa 27:3</a></em>). The fruit hoped for was righteousness and justice (<em><a href='B:290 5:7'>Isa 5:7</a></em>); human injustice usually arises from passivity, going along with a group situation which hurts individuals and denies them justice. And this was the lack of fruit which led to condemnation. <em><a href='B:290 5:5'>Isa 5:5</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 80:13'>Psa 80:13</a></em> say that the judgment of the vineyard is in terms of having its walls broken down and it being destroyed; the Lord's parable doesn't deny that, but doesn't specifically mention it- rather does He focus upon fruit being produced by different workers. John 15 uses the imagery of the vine to suggest that fruit now comes from being branches within the vine of Christ- which grows with no reference to any vineyard, freestanding in the world.</p><p><em>And built a tower</em>- It may be that the emphasis upon the tower and winepress is simply to show the degree of effort God went to so that the vineyard could produce fruit. The details of the allegory fall away compared to the supreme point- that God did all possible to provide an environment which would produce fruit.</p><p><em>And let it out to husbandmen; and went into another country</em>- Not necessarily the ascension of the Lord Jesus. It could be a reference to God’s entry of covenant with Israel, at which "God came down on mount Sinai" (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:19'>Exo 20:19</a></em>) and then "ascended up on high" (<em><a href='B:230 68:18'>Psa 68:18</a></em>):&nbsp; The Greek specifically means to go into a foreign, i:e. Gentile, country. It is used of the prodigal son going into a far country (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>). Let us remember that the Son in the parable represents the Lord Jesus, the owner is clearly God. This going away is not therefore representative of the Lord's ascension to Heaven, although it appears to be used that way in <em><a href='B:470 25:14-15'>Mat 25:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em> "the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey", s:w:. This may just be the furniture of the parable, alluding to the common experience of absentee landlords. These were often characterized by being uncaring for their land; but this owner was particular careful for his project to the point of obsession. He wanted the fruit, not money. It therefore may be part of the impression given, that the owner appears to be absent and disinterested- but in reality He is passionately interested. And this is exactly the position with God, who is perceived as somehow distant and passionless about His project on earth. There may also be the hint that even before He considered giving His precious vineyard to the Gentiles, which appears at the end of the parable, He had in fact initially envisaged this, and had in some form gone to the Gentiles right from the start of His project with Israel.</p><p>Initially, the parable would've got the hearers on the side of the labourers; because it was a frequent complaint that absentee landlords abused their tenants, who worked hard just to send cash off to the landlord in another country. But the parable twists around, so that after initially identifying with this group, the people came to see that it was they who stood condemned.</p>


text:
<h4>21:34&nbsp;<em>And when the harvest season drew near</em>- A phrase used by Matthew about the drawing near of the Kingdom at Christ's time (<em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:17'>Mat 4:17</a></em>). But by the end of His ministry, the Lord was warning that false teachers would wrongly claim that "the time draws near" (<em><a href='B:490 21:8'>Luk 21:8</a></em>). Clearly He taught that the time had drawn near, but not come. He taught at the end of His ministry how He was as a man who had gone to&nbsp;a far country for a long time. This invites us to understand that with each appeal of the prophets, and of John as the last prophet, the time potentially could have come. God's purpose is thus open ended. Peter uses the same word to speak of how the end of all things is drawing near (<em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>), and Paul likewise (<em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em>). It could have come in AD70- but again, a great delay, until our last days. This is why setting any date for the second coming is inappropriate- for it is a case of fulfilling preconditions, rather than awaiting a day fixed on a calendar. "The season" for fruit (<em><a href='B:480 12:2'>Mar 12:2</a></em>) had indeed come, many times- all was potentially ready for it, but human failure meant there was no harvest.</h4><p><em>He sent</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>&nbsp;again encourages the apostles to see themselves as the equivalent of the Old Testament 'sent ones'- the prophets.</p><p><em>His servants to the husbandmen, to get his fruit</em>- The prophets (<em><a href='B:120 9:7'>2Ki 9:7</a></em> and often). Note that the prophets were sent from God, as the Lord Jesus was; but this doesn't imply they were in Heaven with God before their sending, and neither was the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the husbandmen took his servants and beat one-&nbsp;</em>When the world reviled him, Paul saw himself as the beaten prophets Jesus had spoken about (<em><a href='B:540 11:24-25'>2Co 11:24-25</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 12:4'>Mar 12:4</a></em> adds that the last servant was “wounded in the head”, surely a reference to the beheading of John the Baptist and shameful treatment of his severed head.</p><p><em>And killed another and stoned another</em>- There are few accounts of Old Testament prophets being killed or stoned. But beating, stoning and killing are Mosaic punishments for apostasy, and so the idea may be that Israel excused their lack of spiritual fruitfulness by judging as apostate the prophets who demanded this of them. This is typical- the unspiritual transfer their own anger with themselves and awareness of their own coming judgment onto others, whom they condemn as worthy of judgment and punishment.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:36'>Mat 21:36</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Again, he sent other servants more than the first, and they did the same to them</em>- The two groups of servants is unique to Matthew’s account, and is perhaps an allusion to the Jewish distinction between the “former prophets” and the “latter prophets”.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And last of all he sent his son to them, saying: They will respect my son</em>- <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em> adds "It may be that::.". The Greek&nbsp;<em>isos</em>&nbsp;is tantalizingly hard to understand. It could mean 'Perhaps'; or equally it could mean 'They will, surely'. <em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em> adds “My beloved Son”. Thus the joyful harvest song of <em><a href='B:290 5:1'>Isa 5:1</a></em>, the "song of my beloved”, becomes the tragedy of "My beloved son":&nbsp;The invitation "O inhabitants of Jerusalem… judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard" (<em><a href='B:290 5:3'>Isa 5:3</a></em>) is matched by the rhetorical question: "What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?" (<em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>). This too was addressed by the Lord to Jerusalem’s inhabitants.</p><p>We wonder of course how the Father could truly feel like this if He is omniscient. My suggestion is that He limits His omniscience in order to enter fully into our human experience; which means that His expressions of shock and disappointment are legitimate reflections of how He actually feels.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves</em>– That is, they conspired. This is quoting the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:18'>Gen 37:18</a></em>. And the allusion is also to&nbsp;<em>"When they shall see him,&nbsp;</em>there is no beauty that they should desire him" (ls. 53:2). "Shamefully handled" (<em><a href='B:480 12:4'>Mar 12:4</a></em>) is s:w. <em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em> LXX "despised".</p><p><em>This is the heir</em>- The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:20'>Gen 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They saw (i:e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>). It was because they "saw" Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (<em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>). This explains why the Roman / Italian nation was not held guilty for crucifying Christ, although they did it, whereas the Jewish nation was. And yet there is ample Biblical evidence to suggest that these same people who "saw" / recognized Jesus as the Christ were also ignorant of his Messiahship. "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am::. Ye neither know me, nor my Father::. when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>) were all addressed to the same group of Jews. Did they know / recognize Jesus as Messiah, or not? As they jeered at him on the cross, and asked Pilate to change the nameplate from "Jesus, King of the Jews", did they see him as their Messiah? It seems to me that they didn't. In ignorance the Jewish leaders and people crucified their Messiah (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em> RV). And yet they knew him for who he was, they saw him coming as the heir. I would suggest the resolution to all this is that they did recognize him first of all, but because they didn't want to accept him, their eyes were blinded, so that they honestly thought that he was an impostor, and therefore in ignorance they crucified him. And yet, it must be noted, what they did in this ignorance, they were seriously accountable for before God.</p><p><em>Come, let us kill him and take his inheritance</em>- Their assumption therefore was that the landlord must have died, for otherwise, killing the son would not have given them the inheritance. They acted, as we can, as if God is dead; although they would never have admitted that. The apparent non-action of God can likewise lead to the wrong impression that He is effectively dead. Seizing a vineyard for personal possession reminds us of Ahab’s actions in <em><a href='B:110 21:15-16'>1Ki 21:15-16</a></em> - making Naboth a type of Christ, and associating the Jewish religious leadership with wicked Ahab. However, Ahab did repent- and one wonders whether the Lord built in this allusion in reflection of His amazing hopefulness for Israel’s repentance. The allusion to Ahab may have been born in the Lord's Bible-saturated mind by the way that <em><a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a></em> spoke of rain being withheld from the vineyard, as happened in Ahab and Elijah's time. The confirmation of Israel in their evil way was brought to its climax in the crucifixion of Christ. The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:20'>Gen 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They saw (i:e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>). It was because they "saw" Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (<em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>). This explains why the Roman / Italian nation was not held guilty for crucifying Christ, although they did it, whereas the Jewish nation was. And yet there is ample Biblical evidence to suggest that these same people who "saw" / recognized Jesus as the Christ were also ignorant of his Messiahship. "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am::. Ye neither know me, nor my Father::. when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>) were all addressed to the same group of Jews. Did they know / recognize Jesus as Messiah, or not? As they jeered at him on the cross, and asked Pilate to change the nameplate from "Jesus, King of the Jews", did they see him as their Messiah? It seems to me that they didn't. In ignorance the Jewish leaders and people crucified their Messiah (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em> RV). And yet they knew him for who he was, they saw him coming as the heir. I would suggest the resolution to all this is that they did recognize him first of all, but because they didn't want to accept him, their eyes were blinded, so that they honestly thought that he was an impostor, and therefore in ignorance they crucified him. And yet, it must be noted, what they did in this ignorance, they were seriously accountable for before God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him</em>- Surely a reference to the Lord being crucified outside Jerusalem. In this case, the vineyard specifically speaks of Jerusalem and the temple. <em><a href='B:480 12:8'>Mar 12:8</a></em> appears in English to suggest a different order: Took, killed, cast out of the vineyard. But the Greek text doesn’t have to be read strictly chronologically. Strictly, they “took Him, killed and cast out of the vineyard”. The killed-and-cast-out need not be chronological. Or it could be that the Lord is teaching that effectively, they had killed Him before casting Him out and crucifying; the essence of the cross was ongoing in His life. That is clear enough in a number of Gospel passages.</p><p><em>"</em>Cast Him out<em>"</em>&nbsp;has obvious connection to the way in which the Lord was crucified outside the city limits of Jerusalem. But 'cast him out' is parallel with the stone being "rejected" by the builders (:42). The 'casting out' therefore speaks of religious rejection from the community. The same word is used of how the Lord was cast out of Nazareth (<em><a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a></em>), and how believers would be cast out from Judaism (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>) and the synagogue (<em><a href='B:500 9:34'>Joh 9:34</a></em>); and even from the legalistic church (<em><a href='B:710 1:10'>3Jn 1:10</a></em> "casts them out of the church"). Any who experience being cast out of the visible body of God's people are thereby fellowshipping the Lord's crucifixion sufferings. Yet sadly the experience destroys many- when it can be taken as a share in His sufferings, knowing that if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him. It is the same word used for the casting out of the rejected from the Kingdom to final condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>); those who cast out of the vineyard, the Kingdom (:43) will themselves be cast out of the Kingdom at the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:40'>Mat 21:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When therefore the owner of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those husbandmen?</em>- The Lord Jesus said this with the cry still echoing in His ears concerning Himself: "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord" (:9). He clearly has Himself in view, 'coming' in behalf of His Father. His parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was really an entering of Jerusalem in judgment upon them. His entry into Jerusalem and the temple was in essence the Lord of the vineyard coming. He certainly uses the language of the Lord coming with reference to Himself (<em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:42'>Mat 24:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:48'>Mat 24:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:19'>Mat 25:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They said to him: He will miserably destroy those miserable men</em>- In the Greek, "miserable"&nbsp;<em>kakos</em>&nbsp;is related to "wicked"&nbsp;<em>kakos</em>. Those men will suffer their own wickedness. And just as the Jews said that those wicked men would be punished with their own wickedness, so out of their own mouths they were judged; in the same way as the Father had asked the Jews to "judge between Me and My vineyard", even though they were the vineyard (<em><a href='B:290 5:3'>Isa 5:3</a></em>). It would seem that the literal words of the rejected will be quoted back to them at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em> "Out of your own mouth will I judge you"; <em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em> "To convict all that are unGodly::. of all their hard words"). This is just as David was invited to speak words of judgment on a sinner, and was told: "thou art the man". God will remember against Edom the specific words they spoke when Jerusalem fell (<em><a href='B:230 137:7'>Psa 137:7</a></em> RV). See on <em><a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a></em>.</p><p><em>And will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen-&nbsp;</em>The Lord’s judgment is different. He will&nbsp;<em>give&nbsp;</em>the vineyard to the others (:44). And yet He will come and destroy the vineyard, and the new nation He will choose will not just give Him some of the fruit, but will themselves become part of the vine, and themselves bear fruit to Him (:43; John 15).</p><p><em><a href='B:480 12:9'>Mar 12:9</a></em> records that the Lord spoke of how the owner Himself would “come and destroy the husbandmen”. This is a shocking change in tempo- the owner has appeared impotent, distant and naive, to the point that the husbandmen considered He was effectively dead:&nbsp; They reasoned that if they killed the Son, then the vineyard would be theirs. But this is exactly the nature of Divine judgment. The God who appears effectively dead, at least impotent, distant and naïve, will suddenly reveal Himself in direct judgment. We believe that now by faith, but it shall surely happen.</p><p><em>Who shall pay him the fruits in their seasons</em>- Literally, 'times'. But for the Lord there is only one harvest. Once the fruit is ripe from the first harvest, then it will be reaped. Or it may be that God's aim is that we the husbandmen bring forth all the required fruits (of the spirit) "in their seasons". This indicates that over time, the various members of the body between them will bring forth every aspect of God's spirituality. The parable of the talents indicates how we have each individually been given something different by Christ. The parable of the pounds is along the same lines; as is the story of the Master who went away and left his servants looking after the house:&nbsp;<em>Each</em>&nbsp;of them was given his own&nbsp;<em>separate</em>&nbsp;work to do (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). This accounts for the way in which each of us will be judged according to our own works- i:e. according to how far we have done those things which Christ intended us personally to do.</p>


text:
<p>21:42&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to them: Did you never read in the scriptures</em>- They spent their whole lives reading Scripture, and Psalms 118 was a well known Passover Hallel. But we can read and yet never really read as God intends.</p><p><em>The stone which the builders rejected</em>- The Lord would be "rejected of the elders, chief priests and scribes" (<em><a href='B:480 8:31'>Mar 8:31</a></em> s:w:); indeed, "rejected by this generation" (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>The same was made the head of the corner</em>- If the builders rejected this stone, the implication is that another set of builders used it in another building, which became the temple of God. This is precisely the situation with the vineyard being taken away from the Jewish tenants and another group of workers being taken on. The quotation is seamlessly in context with the parable.</p><p><em>This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes</em>- In whose eyes would the elevation and acceptance of the stone a similar Hebrew and Aramaic word to "son" be marvellous or miraculous / praiseworthy? The quotation is from <em><a href='B:230 118:23'>Psa 118:23</a></em>. This Psalm is a dialogue between the speaker, who is in suffering and rejection and yet has hope of resurrection and glorious acceptance, and another group of people who sing or speak their response. This is why there are statements in the first person e:g. "The Lord is&nbsp;<em>my</em>&nbsp;strength:::&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;will praise you", and then responses of the group: "It is marvellous in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;eyes:::&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;will rejoice and be glad:::&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;have blessed you::. the Lord has showed&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;light". Who is this group? The Psalm opens with instruction to "The house of Aaron::. Israel::. them that fear the Lord" to respond to the Messiah figure in praise (<em><a href='B:230 118:2-4'>Psa 118:2-4</a></em>). The priesthood are often paralleled with all Israel, because it was God's intention that eventually all Israel should be a priestly nation. The significance of the quotation in <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em> is that it was to be the intended response of the "house of Aaron", Israel's religious leaders, to the acceptance of the rejected stone / son of God. But it was the Lord's disciples who would make this response. They, therefore were the new "house of Aaron"- yet another hint that the Lord was creating a new Israel with another priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>21:43&nbsp;<em>Therefore say I to you: The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you</em>- The whole vineyard system is spoken of as the Kingdom of God. The Jewish people were therefore not the Kingdom of God- because the Kingdom was taken&nbsp;<em>from</em>&nbsp;them and given to others. They had been instated as God's Kingdom at Sinai, but now, by implication, that status was being withdrawn from them.</p><p><em>And shall be given to a nation</em>- In the singular. The various nationalities of the new group of workers are irrelevant, we are seen as one new nation, a new people.</p><p><em>Bringing forth the fruits of it</em>- This is subtly different to 'rendering Him the fruits in their season' (:41). The new nation are no longer merely tenants, but are the vine themselves; the fruit is to be on them. And this is exactly the way the imagery of viticulture is used in John 15. Spiritual fruit is the fruit of the Kingdom. The fruits of the Spirit in terms of personality traits, characteristics etc. are the fruits which will eternally be seen in the Kingdom. They are a firstfruits, a foretaste, of the Kingdom age. In John's terms, we are living the eternal life now, the kind of life which we shall eternally live.</p>


text:
<p>21:44&nbsp;<em>And he that falls on this stone shall be broken to pieces, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust-&nbsp;</em>AV "Will grind him to powder". There is an unmistakable allusion here to the stone destroying the image, the Kingdoms of men, in <em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>. The choice we have is to fall upon Christ and break our bones, to get up and stumble on with our natural self broken in every bone; or to be ground to powder by the Lord at his return, to share the judgments of this surrounding evil world- being&nbsp;“condemned with the world::.". Yet strangely (at first sight) the figure of stumbling on the stone of Christ often describes the person who stumbles at his word,&nbsp;who rejects it (<em><a href='B:290 8:14-15'>Isa 8:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7-8'>1Pe 2:7-8</a></em>). In other words, through our spiritual failures we come to break ourselves, we become a community of broken men and women; broken in that we have broken our inner soul in conformity to God's will. As Simeon cuddled that beautiful, innocent baby Jesus, he foresaw all this: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again (resurrection) of many in Israel::. that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" (<em><a href='B:490 2:34'>Luk 2:34</a></em>). If we are to share his resurrection, if we are to experience such newness of life in this life, we must fall upon him, really feel the cutting edge of his word. We must be broken now; or be broken and ground to powder at the judgment. See on 3:11:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>21:45&nbsp;<em>And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived</em>- The connection with Isaiah 5 was so clear, and that song of the vineyard was a well known passage understood as the justification for the destruction of the first temple.</p><p><em>That he spoke of them</em>-&nbsp;<em>Peri</em>&nbsp;in this construction more means 'through'. They realized that their very own words of :41 were the Lord talking to them. They had been trounced, and stood self-condemned. And so they went blindly ahead in their hurt pride and confirmed it by planning to murder the Son who had been sent to them. They should have stopped in their tracks and repented. They realized they had uttered the words of their own condemnation. The Lord Jesus had spoken to them through their own words. They were furious about it. The only options were to repent, to give in; or to go madly ahead, fuelled by the hurt pride of a moment, and do the unthinkable in murdering God's Son.</p>


text:
<p>21:46&nbsp;<em>And although they were seeking</em>- The very language of Herod seeking to destroy God's son (<em><a href='B:470 2:13'>Mat 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:20'>Mat 2:20</a></em>). They were no better than the despised Herod:&nbsp;</p><p><em>To arrest him-&nbsp;</em>The Greek for "Lay hands on / arrest" is likewise used for what Herod did to John the Baptist (<em><a href='B:470 14:3'>Mat 14:3</a></em>). The Lord uses the same word soon afterwards to describe how His servants will likewise suffer (<em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em> "The remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully and killed them"). The Lord intends us to see all our sufferings as part of his. Matthew repeatedly uses the word to describe how the Jews laid hands on the Lord to arrest and kill Him (<em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><h4><em>They feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet</em>- We see the fickleness of the crowd. They were soon crying for the Lord's blood.</h4>


text:
<p>22:1&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answered and spoke again in parables to them, saying-&nbsp;</em>As often with the Lord's parables, He begins by setting up an expectation (in this case, of joy and fulfilment) which is then dashed by human failure, and turns very unpleasant and indeed calls forth the hardest judgments. The parable is clearly related to that of the wicked husbandmen at the end of chapter 21, and seeks to add more detail and justification for that judgment upon Israel. The feast&nbsp; can be understood as a betrothal feast, to celebrate the engagement of the Son, rather than speaking of the marriage supper of the Lamb. And yet it could also refer to this, in that this was planned and could have happened far earlier than it finally will do, just as in the previous parable, the time of fruit was ready right from the time of the sending of the first servant.</p><p>The parable is clearly quarried from <em><a href='B:430 1:7-8'>Zep 1:7-8</a></em>: "The day of the Lord is at hand; for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests. And it shall come to pass::. that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel". The context of Zephaniah is his appeal to Judah at Josiah's time (<em><a href='B:430 1:1'>Zep 1:1</a></em>), who had&nbsp;<em>appeared</em>&nbsp;to respond to Josiah's call to repent, but not in their hearts. It was exactly his "princes" who had apparently responded to his appeal for radical reformation (<em><a href='B:140 34:29-32'>2Ch 34:29-32</a></em>); but in Zephaniah 1 they are condemned as insincere. This is clearly seen by the Lord as analogous to Israel having responded to John's attempted reformation- when their hearts were far from it, and eventually they like the Judah of Josiah's day were to be judged and have their city and temple burnt by the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>22:2&nbsp;<em>The kingdom of heaven is likened to a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son-</em>&nbsp;The parable of the marriage supper is what "the Kingdom of heaven is like". As with so many of Christ's parables, this one too is quarried from the book of Proverbs; in this case <em><a href='B:240 9:2-5'>Pro 9:2-5</a></em>, which describes how wisdom makes everything ready for her feast. The food and wine which is there represents the wisdom of God. The Kingdom of God is therefore likened to this supreme feast on the knowledge of God. The Kingdom will therefore be a feast of such things. We love God in this life, but surely we cry out for a greater understanding and appreciation of Him? Do we not cry for wisdom, and lift up our voice for understanding? If we do have this feeling, then we will be supremely motivated to strive to reach that glorious time of true knowledge.</p>


text:
<p>22:3&nbsp;<em>And sent out his servants</em>- The parable is similar to that of the preceding parable of the wicked husbandmen. These servants are God's "servants the prophets" who in Old Testament times called Israel to repentance and the Kingdom. The term "servants" is used throughout the parable. The servants go again to Israel, and are beaten and killed (:4). Those "other servants" are perhaps the apostles in their witness to Israel after the Lord's death, whose rejection culminated in the burning up of their city of Jerusalem (:7). More "servants" are then urgently sent to bring in anyone willing to say "yes". And they refer to our witness in this age. Yet it is also the "servants" who bind and destroy the rejected (:13). These servants are all "sent",&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>. There is a clear continuity between the witness of the prophets, the apostles and ourselves. "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" in the sense that our preaching of Him is in the spirit of the Old Testament prophets (<em><a href='B:730 19:10'>Rev 19:10</a></em>). Again we are all encouraged to see ourselves as brethren of the prophets; they were not, as Judaism supposed, some separate group of white faced saints. Our witness is the equivalent of being them in the new Israel. The "servants" who bind the man in condemnation refer in other parables to the Angels. It could be that we too do this work; or it may be that we're being shown that we are not only in a continuum with the Old Testament prophets and 1st century apostles, but are likewise inline with the Angels. Hence an Angel urged the apostle John that He was one with John and also "your brethren the prophets" (<em><a href='B:730 22:9'>Rev 22:9</a></em>). We are not alone. We are in a direct line, on a continuum, with Angels, prophets and apostles, the&nbsp;<em>elohim</em>&nbsp;of the new Israel and new age created in Christ.</p><p>God's servants (the Old and New Testament prophets - <em><a href='B:730 2:20'>Rev 2:20</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:510 2:18'>Act 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:29'>Act 4:29</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:450 1:6'>Zec 1:6</a></em>) were sent by God "to call them that were bidden to the wedding:&nbsp; but they would not come" (<em><a href='B:470 22:3'>Mat 22:3</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; The Greek word for "call" being the same translated "bidden”, we have here an example of the interplay between predestination and the calling of God through the Gospel - the word of the prophets/apostles 'called them who were (already) called' in God's purpose:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This class must primarily refer to the Jews:&nbsp;&nbsp; The refusal to attend the wedding obviously equates with the Jewish rejection of Christ's work:&nbsp;&nbsp; God pleaded, "I have prepared my dinner", i:e. the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 22:2'>Mat 22:2</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This corresponds with the Kingdom 'coming nigh' to Israel through the first century preaching of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:490 10:9'>Luk 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:11'>Luk 10:11</a></em>) and the primary fulfilment of the Olivet prophecy in the run up to A:D. 70 (<em><a href='B:480 13:29'>Mar 13:29</a></em>).</p><p><em>To call them that were invited-</em>&nbsp;Literally, 'to call the called'. Israel and in a sense all God's people were called from the foundation of the world. The allusion may be to the way in which people were invited to banquets, gave their agreement to attend, and then a servant was sent to actually take them to the banquet. But we should be aware that the language of 'calling the called' doesn't necessarily mean that there is a list of called ones, established from the beginning of the world, and our preaching is a hit and miss affair, sometimes reaching the 'called' and sometimes not, in which case our words were wasted. 'Calling the called' could equally mean that whoever hears the call is therefore and thereby 'called'. The invitation is to "whomsoever will", and the more people we call, the more are called. The urging of men to respond with the encouragement "whomsoever will::." is hardly appropriate if some cannot respond because they were not 'called' from the beginning, were never on the list. And yet in the bigger picture, there clearly is an element of predestination involved with calling; and Paul references this in Romans as the ultimate example of grace. In the final picture, not all have heard the call. Because God's servants didn't take the call to all, and so for whatever reason, some are not called- and in that is the element of predestination. And yet the parable gives some further insight into this question. The first group of servants 'call the called', but the last group of servants after the burning of Jerusalem are urged to drag in whoever they can find. It's as if in Old Testament times, the appeal was to all within Israel, the called people. But now, all men can be called.</p><p><em>To the marriage feast</em>- An engagement banquet, or the actual wedding? In either case, the principle is established that the Messianic banquet of the Kingdom could have come in Old Testament times; it could have come when the second set of servants the apostles made their appeal in the first century up until the burning of the city in AD70; and it will come whenever we as the servants of God in this age have finally gathered in enough potential guests. This is the same idea as in the preceding parable, where the harvest was ready, the time had 'drawn near', at the time of every appeal to Israel through the prophets. God's purpose is taught, time and again, to be open-ended and dependent upon Israel's response and our efforts in witness. For&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;the Gospel has gone to all the world,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall the end come (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>). The whole idea of a royal couple being kept waiting, in fact kept waiting for centuries and a few millennia, is shocking and tragic. We feel sorry for them, just as we in a sense feel sorry for the Father and Son. This unexpected delay in the wedding banquet is developed in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins in chapter 25. Because of it, they all fell asleep when, according to the allusions to the parable in 1 Thessalonians 5, they should have stayed awake. It was a huge tragedy and shame all round, if we put the parables together.</p><p><em>But they would not come</em>- The same words in <em><a href='B:470 21:29'>Mat 21:29</a></em> of the son who said "I will not" work in the vineyard but repented and went to work. The Lord wished to gather Jerusalem's children under His wings to save them from the great fire of destruction coming upon them, but they "would not" (<em><a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a></em> s:w:). But in what practical way did they not want to come? The same words are used of how the Jews "would not" help their brother with the burden of human failure (<em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em>), or how the unforgiving debtor "would not" forgive his brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>) and the older brother "would not" go in to the celebration banquet for the returned prodigal (<em><a href='B:490 15:28'>Luk 15:28</a></em>). They "would not come" to Jesus in repentance (<em><a href='B:500 5:40'>Joh 5:40</a></em>). Their refusal of the invitation to the Messianic banquet, to the Kingdom, was in terms of their attitude to others. Just as if we don't want a part in the church as the body of Christ, we don't want a part in Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Again</em>- This and the use of the word "other" later in the sentence develops an impression of the King's continued effort with the guests:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited-&nbsp;</em>People are called to the Kingdom, and yet also called s:w. to repentance (<em><a href='B:470 9:13'>Mat 9:13</a></em>) and called to appear at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>). When we hear the call and respond, we begin our journey towards judgment day. That day, therefore, is not just for the baptized, but for any who heard the call and began the journey. The parable and teaching of Luke 14 show that we are those called, and yet we are also those who call others (<em><a href='B:490 14:10'>Luk 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:13'>Luk 14:13</a></em>). We are to reflect the grace of how we were called by calling others. The Greek&nbsp;<em>kaleo,&nbsp;</em>"call", isn't a passive word when used in the sense of inviting persons. It's from&nbsp;<em>keleuo,&nbsp;</em>to command or urge onwards. Our calling of others, and God's calling of us, involves an urging towards response:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Look, I have made ready my dinner</em>- The obvious unreality of the story is that the dinner sits on the table, as it were, for centuries. But this is indeed the strangeness of God's openness to us. The time has always been ready, if human response and the effort of His servants has been enough. John's mission had been to "prepare" the way for Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em> s:w:), through 'preparing' a people for Him (<em><a href='B:490 1:17'>Luk 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em> s:w:). Although it had indeed been prepared, Israel didn't want it. A unique place in God's Kingdom has been "prepared" for each of us from the foundation of the world (<em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em> "Them for whom it has been prepared of My Father"; <em><a href='B:500 14:2'>Joh 14:2</a></em> "to prepare a place for you"; <em><a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a></em> "the things which God has prepared for those who love Him"; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em> "He has prepared for them a city"; <em><a href='B:670 1:5'>1Pe 1:5</a></em> our salvation is "prepared" for us). The tragedy of the story is that such a wonderful feast had been "prepared"- the same word is found later in :4 "All things are&nbsp;<em>ready</em>" and in :8 "the wedding is&nbsp;<em>ready</em>". Perhaps this helps us understand the otherwise enigmatic words of the Lord to the Jews in <em><a href='B:500 7:6'>Joh 7:6</a></em>: "Your time is always&nbsp;<em>ready</em>" (s:w:)- the time of establishment of the Kingdom, the time of the harvest&nbsp;in the previous parable of the labourers, was always potentially prepared and ready, it just depended upon Israel's acceptance of it.</p><p><em>My oxen and My fatlings are killed</em>- Perhaps a reference to the end of the Mosaic system, or perhaps an intensive plural referring to the one great sacrifice that had been made in the Lord Jesus. "Oxen" or bulls are specifically spoken of as the animals which prefigured the Lord's sacrifice (<em><a href='B:650 9:13'>Heb 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em> s:w:). "Killed" translates&nbsp;<em>thuo</em>, the word for sacrifice. We could also note that the Greek word translated "prepared" is used about 15 times in the Gospels for the preparation of the last Passover, which was typical of the Lord's death.</p><p><em>And all things are ready</em>- The same word for "prepared". Absolutely all things were prepared for the Messianic banquet, it really could have come in the first century:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Come to the marriage feast</em>- "Come" translates&nbsp;<em>deute</em>, which is a summons in the imperative. It's the same word used in "Follow Me" (<em><a href='B:470 4:19'>Mat 4:19</a></em>), "Come unto Me" (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>), "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>). The wonder of what has been prepared coupled with the tragedy of it having been refused means that the Father is eager to compel people to accept it. This intense desire of the Father is to be ours as we in our day appeal to men to "come". In no way is God somehow passive and disinterested in human response, even if His apparent silence in the face of the rejection of His Kingdom may appear that way. Behind that apparent silence is an intense desire for our response. "Come unto", using&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, really means 'Come into'. This isn't simply an offer 'for your information', it is a willing desire to compel men to enter into the Kingdom through their response to the Gospel call.</p><p>We are on our way to judgment day, and that day is rushing towards us (cp. <em><a href='B:490 14:31'>Luk 14:31</a></em>); the hearing of the Gospel is in itself a call to go forth and meet the Lord.</p><p>There are ample hints that this parable should also be given some reference to the burning up of Jerusalem in the last days:&nbsp;&nbsp; The prophetic "servants" of :4 who call Israel to repentance are matched by a singular "servant" in the similar parable in <em><a href='B:490 14:17'>Luk 14:17</a></em>:&nbsp;There can be no doubt that such differences are designed:&nbsp;'Elijah' and his latter-day school of prophets will minister the word to Israel, which would explain the use in the parables of "servant" and "servants" - the group of prophets being led by one particular prophet.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:5'>Mat 22:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But they made light of it</em>- The note of tragedy in "But::." mustn't be missed. This is the tragedy of human rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom- the greatest things are prepared, but they are 'made light of' because the things of this life seem heavier. Israel's making light of the invitation is our warning, for <em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em> uses the same word here translated "made light": "How shall we escape, if we&nbsp;<em>neglect</em>&nbsp;such a great salvation". Paul uses the same word in urging Timothy not to "neglect" the gifts of potential service which he had been given (<em><a href='B:610 4:14'>1Ti 4:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And went their ways</em>- Albeit masked in translation, this one Greek word&nbsp;<em>aperchomai&nbsp;</em>is related to the word&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>&nbsp;used in :3- "They would not&nbsp;<em>come</em>". Instead of going to the banquet, they went::. to their various concerns. Two ways were therefore placed before them- to go the way to the banquet of the Kingdom, or go the ways of worldly cares. Although again concealed in most translations, this is the connection of thought with the unusual word&nbsp;<em>diexodos</em>&nbsp;translated "highways", literally 'the parting of the two ways', in :9. It was there, at the fork between two ways, that the appeal was to be made by the later servants:&nbsp;</p><p><em>One to his farm</em>- Literally 'this one to his farm, this one to his trading'. We are thus invited to imagine these characters. Maybe the Lord was nodding His head towards passers by as He spoke these words. Banquets began in the evening hence the man thrown out of it was thrown out into darkness, :13, and so this apparent element of unreality makes us interpret the Lord as meaning that&nbsp;<em>in their minds</em>&nbsp;they went off to their various secular concerns. For they would hardly be going off to those things in the evening. The farmer was presumably living at his farm when the servant came to take him to the banquet, so this going to his farm must be interpreted psychologically. Time and again we must remember that John's message, which had been primarily about the Lord and the need for repentance (<em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>) had enjoyed amazing response. But it was all surface level response- even the baptisms. In their hearts, people made light of it and went off in their secular worries and concerns. This has biting relevance to us, who can be fully and positively engaged with the call to the Kingdom as we consider it in reading about it or listening to it preached in church. But that enthusiastic agreement with the message can so quickly and easily be displaced by the cares of this world. The Lord's parable of the sower was initially His commentary upon how the people had responded to John's message about Him and the Kingdom, but the cares of the world and other factors soon choked the growth of that seed.</p><p><em>Another to his business</em>- Again, trading isn't done in the evening, which was when the banquet would have begun. The only other time the Lord uses this idea of trading or 'merchant-ing' in the Gospels is in speaking of the merchant man who sold up all he had in order to buy the pearl of great price, and thus quit his trading (<em><a href='B:470 13:45'>Mat 13:45</a></em>). The parable is alluding to the way in which invitations were sent out, accepted, and then a servant came to escort the invited person to the banquet. This generation had accepted the invitation in that they had accepted John's preaching. But when it came to actually entering the Kingdom, they were instead dominated by the cares of secular life. And it is exactly this, rather than any logical or intellectual difficulty in accepting the message, which is the real reason people turn down the invitation. "They made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise" would imply that there was a period of crazy addiction to materialism among Jewry between the crucifixion and A:D. 70:&nbsp;&nbsp; This is confirmed by the epistles to the Jewish believers, notably James and Peter; it also finds a counterpart in our present 'last days'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>While the rest seized his servants</em>- "Took /seized" means to lay hands on by force, and has just been used about the Jews' desire to arrest the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a></em> "They sought to&nbsp;<em>lay hands on</em>&nbsp;Him"). And it's used in that connection when they did finally 'take' Him to death (<em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Treated them shamefully</em>- Again, the very word used about the Lord's final sufferings: "He shall be&nbsp;<em>treated shamefully</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em>). The point is, that the Lord's final crucifixion sufferings were to be shared by His people as they took His appeal to the Jews. Paul seems to have grasped this, for he uses this same word in precisely this context: "We were&nbsp;<em>shamefully treated</em>" by the Jews when preaching the Gospel to them (<em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:5'>Act 14:5</a></em>). Paul saw himself in the parables- just as we should. Paul describes himself as having been “shamefully entreated” when he brought the Gospel to Philippi (<em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>)- using the Greek word used in <em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em> concerning how the messengers sent to the vineyard were “entreated spitefully”. And maybe Paul was consciously aware that the Lord Himself had spoken of how He would be “spitefully entreated” (<em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em>) during His final sufferings. Hence Paul could speak of filling up the measure of Christ’s sufferings through what he suffered whilst preaching Christ’s Gospel (<em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em>).</p><p><em>And killed them</em>- To put to death, the same word used about the Lord's crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 16:21'>Mat 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:23'>Mat 17:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>). The killing or slaying s:w. of the Son sent to the vineyard in <em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em> was to be repeated in the slaying of the first century preachers of the Gospel. Even today, our sufferings for preaching the Gospel are a share in the Lord's crucifixion sufferings.</p><h4>The question arises: Why the extreme treatment of the servants by those invited, and why does the King react so devastatingly in destroying their entire city? Marriages of King's sons were political statements. Often the King's son would be pronounced as heir to the throne when he got married. The guests were invited in order to test their political loyalty to the King and his son. To refuse an invitation to a King's banquet was therefore highly significant- it was tantamount to a declaration of disloyalty. Even worse was to accept it, to proclaim loyalty to him and his son, and yet in practice not follow through with that declaration of loyalty. Israel's widespread acceptance of John, whose message was largely about Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>), had been a declaration of loyalty to God and His Son. To not take it seriously in practice and to in fact turn against His Son was therefore the ultimate betrayal. This explains the King's anger, the wrath of God against Israel as a whole.</h4><p>The persecution of the prophets connects with the same thing happening in Revelation 11, where the two witnesses make a similar last-minute appeal amidst great opposition:&nbsp; We have commented elsewhere how the true prophets within Jerusalem at the time of the Babylonian invasion represented the Elijah ministry - and they too were persecuted:&nbsp;&nbsp; The servants were "entreated spitefully" (<em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em>), as was our Lord on the cross (<em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em>):&nbsp;The righteous fellowship Christ's sufferings during the tribulation:&nbsp;The idea of persecuted servants occurs again in <em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:2'>Rev 19:2</a></em>, both of which passages have an application to latter-day persecution.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:7'>Mat 22:7</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>.<br/><em>When the king heard</em>- AV. When the news came to His ears. This may be just the furniture of the parable, or it may reflect the Old Testament impression given that God has a mechanism whereby He is informed of happenings on earth, e:g. of the wickedness of Sodom or the building of the tower of Babel. That mechanism presumably involves the Angels. "When the king heard thereof" implies that as soon as Israel's rejection of Christ came to God's notice, "he sent forth his armies::. and burned up their city":&nbsp;This is similar language to <em><a href='B:10 6:12'>Gen 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:21'>Gen 18:21</a></em> concerning God 'noticing' man's wickedness at the time of the flood, Babel and Sodom:&nbsp;&nbsp; The judgments with which He reacted on those occasions were typical of the second coming:&nbsp;As Babylon burnt Jerusalem with fire, so it seems certain from many other prophetic references that literal fire will be used by Israel's enemies to inflict her final punishment:&nbsp;The Arab armies will therefore be those of God and Christ, as were those of Israel's earlier Arab invaders:&nbsp;They are called 'sanctified' in <em><a href='B:360 3:9'>Joe 3:9</a></em> (A:V. mg:), i:e. 'separated unto' God's specific purpose in punishing Israel.</p><p><em>The King was angry</em>- "Wrath s:w. upon this people" was what happened in AD70 (<em><a href='B:490 21:23'>Luk 21:23</a></em>). New Testament references to the wrath of God are often specifically about His wrath with Israel for rejecting His Kingdom and His Son. Of particular interest is <em><a href='B:560 2:3'>Eph 2:3</a></em>, where Paul writes of how he had been one of those who were "by nature the children of wrath". I suggest this refers to his being part of the generation of Jews who had rejected the Son of God; but now Paul could rejoice that God has "delivered us from the wrath to come" in AD70 (<em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em> he specifically defines that "wrath" as God's wrath upon Israel. The fact he speaks of this as a past status which he had now come out of would make it hard to interpret this as any global statement about what it means to be human. I don't think this passage means that the wrath of God is upon every bearer of human nature. God's own Son had human nature but the wrath of God was not upon Him. God's wrath comes upon "the children of disobedience" (<em><a href='B:560 5:6'>Eph 5:6</a></em>). To be a child of wrath therefore has no reference to physical birth, but is parallel to being a child of disobedience.</p><p><em>And he sent</em>- A reference to the common Old Testament concept of the court of Heaven, whereby God is presented as reviewing evidence and sending out His Angels, His "hosts", in response. Those Heavenly hosts have hosts of soldiers on earth which they can move and use as they wish:&nbsp;</p><p><em>His armies</em>- The Roman armies were God's armies, just as the Babylonians had been. Josephus appealed to the Jews in Jerusalem in AD70 in these terms: "It is God, therefore, it is God Himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions" (<em>The Jewish War&nbsp;</em>6:2:1). The Romans being described as “his armies" connects with <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em>, where they are spoken of as "the people of the prince" - Jesus. We must take the lesson that we can be strongly used by God, but this is no guarantee at all that we are His people.</p><p><em>And destroyed those murderers</em>- Using the word for "destroy" which the Jews had just used in <em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>, saying in response to the parable of the wicked labourers that they should indeed by "destroyed". Out of their own mouths they were to be judged. The 'destruction' of the Jews for persecuting and killing the Lord Jesus and His apostles was in AD70, when their city was burned up. But the same word is that used in John when the Lord taught that those who believed in Him would not "perish" or be destroyed (<em><a href='B:500 3:15-16'>Joh 3:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:28'>Joh 10:28</a></em>). Whatever else may be referred to in this teaching, it could also have simply meant in the first context that those Jews who believed in Christ would not be destroyed in the destruction of the Jewish system in AD70. The same word is used by Peter in predicting the perishing / destruction of the Jewish 'heavens and earth' in AD70 (<em><a href='B:680 3:6'>2Pe 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>). This destruction, however, was not going to touch those who were in Christ. They would not "perish" or be destroyed. For in the terms of the parable, they were not the murderers.</p><p><em>And burnt their city</em>- The burning of Jerusalem in AD70. The Roman soldiers who actually did this were directly moved and controlled by God to do so. Stephen used the same word when accusing the Jews of being Christ's "betrayers and murderers" (<em><a href='B:510 7:52'>Act 7:52</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; The Romans being described as “his armies" connects with <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em>, where they are spoken of as "the people of the prince" - Jesus:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he said to his servants</em>- We are meant to imagine how they felt. The previous servants had been at best ignored, others beaten and killed. And now::. it was for them to go out with the same message? We too should not fail to see the cost involved in the work of the Gospel, for we stand in direct continuum with the persecuted prophets and preachers who have gone before us. It may even be that by following the Lord's instructions to persuade all men, bad and good, to enter the Kingdom, simply on the basis of them saying 'yes', we will suffer isolation and rejection from our own brethren. And that too would be a sharing in His crucifixion sufferings, and taking our place in the sufferings of the Gospel. The work of the Gospel, if done properly, can never ultimately be 'fun' or purely pleasurable:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The wedding is ready::.</em>- This statement seems so obvious it doesn't need to be made. But it is made in order to motivate the servants in their efforts to get at least someone somewhere to say "yes". They were being asked to do something most unusual- to just grab anyone and urge them to come in to a King's banquet without a prior invitation and agreement, as was the norm. This appeal to secular people&nbsp;<em>without</em>&nbsp;the prior invitation was so wonderful and unusual that the very unusualness of it would be hard for both preacher and listener to accept. Surely there was a catch somewhere::. And so often when we present the things of the Kingdom to people, their honest response is that 'Can that really be::. it sounds just too fantastic'. This is the difficulty with the level and depth of grace we are asked to believe in and share. It is so unusual and out of our experience that we find it hard to believe for real:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But they that were invited were not worthy</em>- John's appeal had been to bring forth fruit "worthy" s:w. of repentance (<em><a href='B:490 3:8'>Luk 3:8</a></em>). They had initially agreed to this, but hadn't come up with the fruit. Paul surely had this part of the parable in mind when he turned away from preaching to the Jews and went to the Gentiles, because the Jews had "judged themselves unworthy s:w. of everlasting life" (<em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The parable of the marriage feast&nbsp;highlights the tragedy of Jewish rejection of what could have been theirs. There will be an ever-increasingly vigorous preaching campaign by the "servants", seeing that&nbsp;“they which were bidden were not worthy" (<em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>) - the Greek perhaps implying not enough numerically:&nbsp;&nbsp; As a result of this preaching, "the wedding was furnished ('filled' - numerically) with guests" (<em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This indicates that in some ways, God does work to a number. Once the required number of converts is made, then the supper can begin. Their appeal being to "the poor::. maimed::. halt and::. blind" suggests that the marginal and desperate within society will be those who respond- and this is happening right now in the triumphant progress of preaching in our day. The servants are sent "into the highways" (<em><a href='B:470 22:9'>Mat 22:9</a></em>), one possible meaning of the Greek is 'a market square':&nbsp;&nbsp; This must be designed to recall the parable of the labourers standing idle in the market place at the 11th hour (<em><a href='B:470 20:6-7'>Mat 20:6-7</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; The very short probation of those 11th hour workers will match that of the latter-day converts. And again, it was the old and weak who nobody wanted to hire. See on <em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:9'>Mat 22:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore, go-&nbsp;</em>Leading up to “go therefore and teach all nations”.</p><p><em>To the main roads-&nbsp;</em>AV "Highways<em>":&nbsp;</em>See on :5&nbsp;<em>Went their ways:&nbsp;</em>The RV offers: "unto the partings of the highways”. The point from which He foresaw us making our appeal was a fork in the road. We are to appeal to men and women with the message that there is no third road; that it truly is a case of believe or perish. The art of preaching seems to be to bring people to perceive that they stand at a fork in their life's journey, they can take the road to the Kingdom or the road of temporary absorption in the things of this life. The point from which He foresaw us making our appeal was a fork in the road. We are to appeal to men and women with the message that there is no third road; that it truly is a case of believe or perish:&nbsp;<em>Diexodos</em>&nbsp;can also be understood as the place of crossing the city boundaries, out into the countryside- a possible hint at taking the invitation beyond Jerusalem, for the work of the Gospel was to begin in Jerusalem and spread outwards (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>).</p><p>Another possible meaning for the term is 'a market square'. This would then be designed to recall the parable of the labourers standing idle in the market place at the 11th hour (<em><a href='B:470 20:6-7'>Mat 20:6-7</a></em>):&nbsp;In the Septuagint this word&nbsp;<em>diexodos&nbsp;</em>describes "the&nbsp;<em>issues&nbsp;</em>from death" (<em><a href='B:230 68:20'>Psa 68:20</a></em>), the&nbsp;<em>waters&nbsp;</em>of death (<em><a href='B:120 2:21'>2Ki 2:21</a></em>), "<em>rivers&nbsp;</em>of water" (<em><a href='B:230 1:3'>Psa 1:3</a></em>), "<em>watersprings"</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:230 107:35'>Psa 107:35</a></em>). If this usage was in the Lord's mind and I am unsure it definitely was, then the idea would be that people were to be called from their seeking of water to seeking the water of life eternal; to exchange their secular passions and concerns for a concern about eternity.</p><p><em>And as many as</em>- The phrase could possibly imply that there was a specific number that had to be found and invited. That certainly is the teaching of the parable overall. Therefore the more people we invite, the quicker the wedding begins. The repetition of the phrase in :10 suggests that the servants were obedient to the instruction, strange as it was- to scrap the idea of a guest list and invite people from the street, bad or good, to a royal banquet which was getting cold on the table, without any pre-invitation or agreement to attend having been given by the people:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You shall find, invite them to the marriage feast-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus is described as “finding” His people- the lost sheep, lost son, the idle workers in the marketplace (<em><a href='B:470 20:6'>Mat 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:5-6'>Luk 15:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:8-9'>Luk 15:8-9</a></em>); and yet He sends us out to “find” s:w. those who are to be invited into His Kingdom, just as the disciples ‘found’ fish when they obeyed the Lord’s commission to fish (<em><a href='B:500 21:6'>Joh 21:6</a></em>). We do the Lord’s work for Him in this sense. And yet of course people “find” the narrow way themselves, they&nbsp;“find” the treasure and pearl of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>); but only because we have gone out and ‘found’ them. The Lord’s finding of us leads to us doing His work in finding others for Him and on His behalf. Thus Jesus “finds” Philip, and Philip’s response is to go and ‘find’ Nathanael (<em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em>). And so it must be ours too. Just as the disciples ‘found’ fish when they obeyed the Lord’s commission to fish (<em><a href='B:500 21:6'>Joh 21:6</a></em>). We do the Lord’s work for Him in this sense:&nbsp;</p><p>It was totally scandalous that the majority of guests refused an invitation by the King (<em><a href='B:470 22:9'>Mat 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:21-23'>Luk 14:21-23</a></em>), and that whilst the dinner was cold on the table, a desperately urgent expedition was sent to get people to come in and eat it. This is the urgency of our Gospel proclamation. And no King or wealthy man would really invite riff-raff off the street into his party; yet this is the wonder of God’s grace in calling us through the Gospel. And such is the tragedy of humanity's rejection of the Gospel. To reject a royal invitation was tantamount to rejecting a royal command. It was unheard of in the time of Jesus. Yet people just don't perceive the honour of being invited by the King. Notice too how it is the King Himself who makes all the arrangements- not, as the initial hearers would have expected, a senior steward or his wife. But the King Himself. And this reflects the extraordinary involvement of God Almighty in personally inviting each of us to fellowship with Him, through the call of the Gospel. Likewise that&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the girls should fall asleep whilst awaiting the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>) is unusual- they must have been a pretty lazy, switched off bunch.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And those servants went out into the highways</em>- The same word in <em><a href='B:480 16:20'>Mar 16:20</a></em> "They&nbsp;<em>went out</em>&nbsp;and preached everywhere", just as the sower "went out" to sow, with varying response (<em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And gathered together</em>- Just as the net in the sea of nations gathered together fish "of every kind" (<em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em> s:w:)- here they are called "both bad and good". The suggestion may be that one intention of preaching is to gather people together into one. Hence the language of gathering together. The figure of the Lord's servants gathering together His called ones is exactly the figure of the gathering to the final judgment (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>). By inviting people to Christ we are inviting them to the day of judgment. Knowledge of the Gospel thereby brings responsibility to the day of judgment. The moment we respond, we begin our journey to judgment. The Lord seems to have developed the thought of this parable in His later teaching in <em><a href='B:470 25:35'>Mat 25:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:38'>Mat 25:38</a></em>, where the same Greek word translated "gathered together" is translated 'to take in'; the Lord said that those who gathered together or took in a stranger had accepted Him, and those who refused to do so had rejected Him personally. 'Stranger' was understood to refer to a Gentile. The Lord might be saying that our gathering in of the Gentiles, the strangers, the despised, is related to our salvation; and if the early Jewish believers refused to gather in the Gentiles, then the Lord would take that as a personal rejection of Him. Those who refuse to gather in others because they consider them not to know enough or to not be appropriate material may well be under this threat of condemnation by the Lord:&nbsp;</p><p><em>All as many as they found</em>- The specific use of the word "all" here adds nothing, surely, unless the idea is that there is a specific number who must "all" be gathered to the banquet. <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em> says this in so many words, in talking of how the 'full number of the Gentiles' must "come in"-&nbsp;<em>ex-erchomai</em>. The same word&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>&nbsp;is used in <em><a href='B:470 22:3'>Mat 22:3</a></em> about how the invited would not "come":&nbsp;<br/><em><br/>Both bad and good</em>- This is quite radical for many Christian preachers today. There was&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to be any thought about whether the persons being brought to the banquet were bad or good. The focus was upon simply persuading them to come in, to say yes to the most unusual invitation. Just as the servants of an earlier parable were told not to worry about dividing the wheat from the weeds, so here, the servants were not to worry about the impressions they had about the worthiness or sincerity of people. Their job was to persuade them to say 'yes' and to come on in. So much outreach today is tacitly concerned with what kind of person is being brought in to the community of believers. And even more concern is expressed about who exactly sits at the Lord's table. But according to this parable, the general public are to be encouraged to say "yes" to the Kingdom invitation, and come in and sit at the banquet table, the breaking of bread. Only then, once they are sitting there, does the Lord come and judge who is bad and good. The implication could possibly be that He comes to inspect us at the breaking of bread, both mystically every time we break bread, and literally in that His coming may be at the breaking of bread.</p><p><em>And the wedding was filled with guests</em>-When the wedding is “filled with guests” as a result of the final appeal to absolutely all men, ‘all you can see / perceive’, then the wedding starts (<em><a href='B:470 22:9-10'>Mat 22:9-10</a></em> Gk:). “Filled” translates&nbsp;<em>pletho</em>, which carries the sense of being filled up. When the full number of guests are seated, when a certain number of true converts to the Kingdom feast have been made,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;the King comes in, and the wedding starts. This is what imbues our latter day witness with such a sense of urgency. Every baptism or invitation to the Kingdom could be the last. "They which were bidden were not worthy" (:8) - the Greek could imply not enough numerically:&nbsp;&nbsp; This indicates that in some ways, God does work to a number:&nbsp;&nbsp; Whilst there may be reference here to an appeal to Gentiles, the implication is that it will be to Jews in particular:&nbsp;&nbsp; The servants go "into the streets and lanes of the city" (<em><a href='B:490 14:21'>Luk 14:21</a></em>), i:e. Jerusalem:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>Guests" are literally, recliners at the table. The word is usually translated like this in its 14 occurrences in the New Testament. In a sense, the banquet had begun- even before the King entered to review the guests. Just as the Kingdom experience, crystallized and epitomized in the breaking of bread, has begun for all who respond. Although this is no guarantee of ultimate acceptance by the King. The contrast between recliners at table and servants is brought out in <em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>: "For which is greater, he that reclines at table s:w. "guest", or he that serves? Is not he that reclines at table?". In the parable, we are asked to identify ourselves with the servants. Our audience are the recliners at table. In the context of preaching, of bringing people in to the banquet, we are to consider our audience greater than us and to approach them with every respect. Our witness to them, therefore, is a serving of them; not a showing off to them of our superior Bible knowledge, the superiority of our positions over theirs:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><h4>According to Luke's version of an earlier telling of the parable with some differences, the King Himself invited beggars into His feast. This also stands out as strange::. what kind of king is this? And what fortunate beggars. Immediately, we have the lesson powerfully brought home to us. And why ever would a guest refuse the wedding garment offered to him on entry to the feast (<em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>)? The element of unreality in the story makes it stand out so clearly. And yet ask people why they are not baptized, why they are refusing the righteous robes of Christ, the call of the Gospel::. and it is anything from clear and obvious to them. The scandal of the parable hasn't struck them. And there's another strange element to the story. Whilst the supper is still getting cold, the King sends off a military expedition (<em><a href='B:470 22:7-8'>Mat 22:7-8</a></em>), but this is incidental to his desire to get on with the feast with his guests. Surely the message is that what is all important for the Father and Son is our response to their invitation, our desire to be at that feast, our turning up there- and the punishment of the wicked is not that significant on their agenda, even though it has to be done.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when the king entered to see the guests</em>- The same words used about the Lord's 'coming in' to Jerusalem and looking around the temple, in His parody of a triumphant entry (<em><a href='B:470 21:10'>Mat 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:12'>Mat 21:12</a></em>). This was the immediate context of this parable, and the point was that He had come to judge Israel and found them unworthy:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>He saw there</em>- We are set up by the story line to expect that the King will question "the bad" out of the "both bad and good" which have been gathered. But instead He focuses upon the lack of a wedding garment. Banquets functioned on the basis of the guests arriving, accompanied by a servant, who then gave them a wedding garment, which they wore. This man obviously thought that his clothes were good enough, and he didn't need the wedding garment offered. This man would likely have been in what appeared to be "the good" category, the type who was well dressed and apparently appropriate for invitation to a King's banquet. It was exactly those types who will be ultimately rejected from the Kingdom banquet, because self righteousness, a refusal to be clothed in the white garment of imputed righteousness, is far worse than being an immoral street person:&nbsp;</p><p><em>A man who was not wearing a wedding-garment</em>- Literally 'not clothed with the wedding clothing'. We are to 'put on' s:w. Christ; and "as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have&nbsp;<em>put on</em>&nbsp;Christ" (<em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>). But baptism only 'works' if we believe in what it represents- our clothing with His righteousness by the imputation of righteousness to us. Clearly enough, before the coming of the King, those without a wedding garment obtained through faith and baptism are sitting in the same place as those who have one. They sit at the same table- the division is only made by the Lord’s coming.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: Friend</em>- Another element of unreality, because a King would hardly address a street person as "Friend". But this is how close the King of the Universe feels to any who have at least responded to the call, even if they have to be rejected:&nbsp;The Lord foretells the spiritual culture which He will show even to the rejected, when He mentions how He will call the rejected "friend" (<em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>), using the same word as He used about Judas (<em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>). Vine describes it as a word meaning "comrade, companion, a term of kindly address expressing comradeship". If this is how the Lord will address those who have crucified Him afresh- surely there is hope, abundant hope, for us. The suggestion is that there are Judases amongst us, although we can't identify them (and shouldn't try), just as the disciples couldn't. The evil servant who (in Christ's eyes) beat his brethren was a hypocrite, he didn't appear to men to be like that (<em><a href='B:470 24:48-51'>Mat 24:48-51</a></em>); he was only cut asunder, revealed for who he was, at the judgment. He appeared to be an ecclesial elder who loved the flock. &nbsp;</p><p><em>How did you come&nbsp;in here without a wedding-garment?</em>- Obviously a rhetorical question, rather like God's question to Adam: "Where are you?". The King knew. The purpose of the day of judgment is to explain to the rejected why they have been rejected- and it is this realization which is itself the punishment, for it will elicit from them weeping and gnashing of teeth in anger with themselves. <em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em> speaks of false believers as being spots marring the love feast. There will be such persons at the breaking of bread meetings of the believers, but this parable teaches that it is the King who reveals and removes them, at the last day. It is our duty to simply gather men and women into the Kingdom, both bad and good, just as the net gathers both bad and good fish, but they are only separated from each other when the judgment sits at the last day.</p><p>Judgment day is not only for our personal education and humbling. It is for the enlightenment of us all as a community, in that there is fair evidence that in some sense the process of judgment will be public, and all the believers will see the true characteristics of those with whom they fellowshipped in this life. Thus the unworthy will be revealed as being without a wedding garment, and the faithful will see him (for the first time) as walking naked and in shame (<em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>).</p><p><em>And he was speechless</em>- Other pictures of the rejected describe them as having plenty to say in self-justification ("When did we see you::.", <em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em>, "You are a hard man", <em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em>). But in this picture, they are speechless. It's possible to put the various pictures of the judgment together and create a chronological impression of them initially knocking on the door pleading for acceptance, justifying themselves, and then being left speechless in the ultimate darkness and loneliness. Or it could be that different ones of the condemned respond in different ways, some with words, some in silence.<br/>22:13&nbsp;<em>Servant</em>s<em>-&nbsp;</em>In the Lord's other parables, it's the Angels who carry out he condemnation of the rejected. But in this parable, the prophets, Angels, apostles and Christian preachers are all called "servants", encouraging us to see ourselves as of equal significance and meaning in God's Kingdom plan as the other servants.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then the king said to the servants: Bind him hand and foot</em>- It is the reapers, who represent the Angels (<em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>), who bind the rejected for destruction in <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>. The 'binding' suggests that the rejected will desperately want to be in the Kingdom, to the point they would even forcibly push their way in. Nobody will be indifferent at the last day; all will want more than anything to be in the Kingdom. And this should be our view now.</p><p><em>And throw him-&nbsp;</em>The Lord uses this picture three times, using the same words for 'casting out' and 'darkness' (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). The implication is that these people were within the light of the Kingdom banquet, and then are taken out of it into the darkness outside. This is why having a positive feel and sense about our presence amongst God's people is not of itself any guarantee of our final salvation; for some will be ejected from that into the darkness of condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p>The language used here for the condemnation of the rejected 'bind::. take away::. cast away' is also used about the Lord's final sufferings and death. He too was bound (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:24'>Joh 18:24</a></em>; and the only other Gospel reference to being bound hand and foot is to the dead Lazarus in <em><a href='B:500 11:44'>Joh 11:44</a></em>, as the term implied 'death'). 'Taken away' translates the same Greek word used about the 'taking up' of the cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em>) and the cry 'Away with Him to the cross' in <em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em>. 'Cast away / out' is the same word used to describe how the wicked husbandmen killed and then 'cast out' the Son, representative of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 21:39'>Mat 21:39</a></em>); it is also used of how "the prince of this world" was to be 'cast out' at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>). Whether or not that prince refers to the Lord Jesus is an open question, however:&nbsp; The 'outer darkness' would then connect with the darkness at the crucifixion, and the "weeping" with the weeping for the death and suffering of Christ (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 16:10'>Mar 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:28'>Luk 23:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:20'>Joh 16:20</a></em>). Why this similarity between the language of the Lord's death, and that of condemnation? Surely because on the cross, the Lord was treated as if He were a condemned sinner, even though He personally never sinned. So close was His identity with sinners and their condemnation. He can identify, therefore, even with the rejected; He is not like a human judge, who hands down punishments which he has nowhere near experienced himself. The Lord carefully designed His parables and teachings; their various elements are clearly intended to dovetail with each other. It is therefore no accident that He uses the same language for His condemnation to death and the condemnation of the wicked at the last day. He consciously identified with them:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Outside into the darkness , where there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth</em>- The rejected are described as being cast into outer darkness. This is even an Old Testament concept: "Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in the blackest darkness" (<em><a href='B:240 20:20'>Pro 20:20</a></em> RV). The rejected will be "pursued into darkness" (<em><a href='B:410 1:8'>Nah 1:8</a></em> RV). It is doubtful whether this darkness is literal, unless there will be a specific geographical location into which they are driven which is totally dark. <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em> might imply this by saying that "there", in the darkness into which the rejected are cast, there will be weeping. It perhaps more implies a depression so deep that everything loses its colour. There is no point in existence, no meaning to anything. It could be that "darkness" is to be understood as blindness, which is how it is sometimes used in Scripture. "The eyes of the wicked shall fail, and they shall have no way to flee. And their hope shall be the giving up of the spirit" (<em><a href='B:220 11:20'>Job 11:20</a></em> RV). This is all the language of the final judgment. They will seek death and hope for it, because existence in the state of condemnation is simply unbearable. But remember that outside of Christ, mankind is likewise in such an unbearable state, if only he will perceive it. He is even now in a figurative furnace of fire.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:14'>Mat 22:14</a></em> - see on&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 24:5'>Mat 24:5</a></em>.<br/><em>For many are called but few chosen</em>- When the Lord said that many are called but few chosen, He was actually alluding to a well known saying from 4 <em><a href='B:150 8:3'>Ezr 8:3</a></em>: “Many have been created, but few shall be saved”. He was as it were raising the bar. It was to be a minority of those called, not just a minority of all creation, who were to be saved. In the context of the parable, the servants call many; but only relatively few are chosen, in that few chose to really accept the gift of imputed righteousness in the garment of Christ. Although only one such person is detailed in the parable, this final observation could imply that the majority of those invited will be ejected. The language of 'chosen' is maybe used to emphasize that it is our duty to call people into the banquet; it is not for us to choose who will ultimately be accepted, because that is not our work.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:15'>Mat 22:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then the Pharisees went and plotted</em>- The Greek suggests they went away from Him and held a conference:&nbsp;They found strength in numbers; we wonder how many were individually convicted of their position.</p><p><em>How they might trap him in his talk</em>- The same word used of how&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to be entangled in condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 21:35'>Luk 21:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:9'>Rom 11:9</a></em>). As they treated the Lord, so they were treated. Our attitude to Him is in a way our attitude to ourselves and our eternal destiny.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:16'>Mat 22:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they sent to him their disciples</em>- The use of&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>&nbsp;"sent out" and&nbsp;<em>mathetes</em>&nbsp;"disciples" obviously recalls the use of these words concerning the Lord sending out&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>disciples. Just as the kingdoms of Babylon and Assyria are described in terms of&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;Kingdom, thus making them anti-Kingdoms of God and their leaders antiChrists, so the Jewish system of the first century was a parody of God's Kingdom as it was exemplified in the Lord and His group of followers:&nbsp;<br/><em><br/>Along with the Herodians</em>- The Pharisees and Herodians were sworn enemies. Herod was anathema to the Pharisees, who saw him as a false Jew and some kind of antiChrist figure. But a theme of the Lord's judgment and death was that His enemies were united together by a common hatred of Him.</p><p><em>Saying: Teacher. We know that you are true</em>- <em><a href='B:490 20:21'>Luk 20:21</a></em> adds that they also said at this point: "You say and teach&nbsp;<em>rightly</em>", Gk:&nbsp;<em>orthos</em>, from whence 'orthodox'. They were thereby trying to lead Him to make a right wing, conservative answer, namely, that tribute should be given to God and not Caesar. And then the Herodians could legally swoop upon Him and have Him arrested for disloyalty to the empire:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And teach the way of God in truth</em>- John the Baptist had attempted to prepare the way or path over which God's glory in Messiah could come to Zion. The only other occurrence of "the way of God" is when we read that Apollos, who knew only John's teaching, had to have "the way of God", i:e. John's message about the way, explained more fully to him (<em><a href='B:510 18:26'>Act 18:26</a></em>). It may be that John had been so unworldly that he had not paid tribute to Caesar, or at least, he had been interpreted that way; and so now the Pharisees were commenting that if the Lord truly upheld John's teaching, then what was his answer about paying the tribute money? Because it was perceived, at very least, that John had advocated not paying it.</p><p><em>And care not for anyone</em>- That was, in a sense, the impression which people took of Jesus. The same words and accusation about His not caring for people are to be found on the lips of the disciples, in the same words (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em> "Don't you care that we perish?"; Martha thought the Lord 'didn't care' that she was serving alone, <em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>). In reality, it was the hireling who cared not for the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:13'>Joh 10:13</a></em> s:w:), and the Lord was the one who cared for them so much that He died for them. That the most caring man of all time and space could be so misunderstood, even by His closest followers, is encouragement to us when we feel so globally misunderstood. We are thereby fellowshipping part of the Lord's sufferings and existential loneliness:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For you regard not the person of men</em>- This again was an appeal to Jewish orthodoxy, whereby the righteous Jew was supposed to be obedient to God regardless of what others thought. They were trying to lead the Lord into a position whereby He said 'No' to the question about giving the tribute money. And the Herodians were ready to pounce on Him if He did. We can reconstruct how the Pharisees and Herodians worked together in this; the Pharisees were trying to lead the Lord by a path of theology and logic to a position whereby He denied the need to pay tribute- and then Herod's supporters could pounce on Him. The verisimilitude and internal agreement of the record is again strong encouragement to accept this as the inspired word of God, recording he actual words spoken rather than giving a mere summary or imagination of them from a distance of time and space.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:17'>Mat 22:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Tell us therefore, what you think-&nbsp;</em>If all the flattering things they had said in :16 were indeed true, then what on this basis was His view of the tribute money?</p><p><em>Is it lawful</em>- This was purposefully vague, because they didn't clarify whether they meant the law of Moses or that of Rome. This was part of the trap. If the Lord said it was lawful according to Roman law, then they could accuse Him of breaking the law of Moses. If He said it was lawful according to the Law of Moses, and therefore that law must surely be obeyed, then He was breaking the law of Rome. But the Lord majestically rises above the trap, by (as usual) taking the whole issue to a far higher level.</p><p><em>To give tribute to Caesar, or not?</em>- The word translated "tribute" was used by the Jews for the poll tax of <em><a href='B:20 30:12-16'>Exo 30:12-16</a></em>; the argument was that this should be paid to the temple and not to Gentiles. By pushing the Lord for a yes / no answer, they thought they would force Him into an untenable position. Judas of Galilee had agitated about not paying the tribute money to the Romans (<em><a href='B:510 5:37'>Act 5:37</a></em>) and had been executed for this in around AD6, in recent memory. The Lord as always appealed to higher principle- if it has Caesar's image, then give it to him; but what has God's image, your own body, then give it to God. The giving of our entire person to God made paying an annual tax to the temple seem cheap and irrelevant.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:18'>Mat 22:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Jesus perceived their wickedness and said: Why do you test me?</em>- The wickedness could be their hypocrisy, which the Lord goes on to comment upon. But their "wickedness" could refer to their personal sins, and because in that moment the Lord perceived those sins, He thereby perceived their hypocrisy and therefore challenged them about their hypocrisy. He may have been given that perception of their sins by some flash of Divine insight, or it could be that His supreme sensitivity to people led Him to imagine correctly the kind of stuff going on in their secret lives:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You hypocrites</em>- In what were they hypocritical in this matter? Perhaps they quietly paid the tribute money? Or perhaps it was because in order to answer the question, the Lord made them bring the coin through the temple courts, thus breaking their own laws- see on <em><a href='B:470 22:19'>Mat 22:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Shew me::. they brought:&nbsp;</em>They should've been more concerned about the huge gap between their professions and their practice, rather than focusing upon finding error in another. And so it is to this day- fault finding in others over religious matters typically hides serious hypocrisy, the concern with personal sin is transferred into concern about others' sin. Our sense we ought to be self-examining is converted into an examination of others.</p>


text:
<p>22:19&nbsp;<em>Show me the tribute money. And they brought to him a denarius</em>- The Pharisees claimed that pagan coinage should not be brought into the temple courts. This is why the coin had to be brought to the Lord. By so doing, the Lord was purposefully provoking the Pharisees; likely the Herodians (:16) brought it, not the Pharisees. In any case, we see yet another powerful evidence that the historical records of the Gospels are true to the very smallest detail.</p><p>The tribute money had the inscription&nbsp;<em>Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus Pontifex Maximus</em>- “Tiberius Caesar, august son of the divine Augustus, High Priest”. Pedants would’ve quickly assumed that such blasphemous language and appropriation of titles appropriate to the Lord Jesus would mean that such coinage should not be used, nor should such tribute be paid to any man on this basis. But the Lord saw a bigger picture. He was quite OK with such token behaviours, but the far bigger issue was giving to God our own bodies and lives which bear His image.</p><h4>&nbsp;The coin bore an image which strict Jews considered blasphemous, denoting Tiberius as son of God, the divine Augustus. The Lord doesn’t react to this as they expected – He makes no comment upon the blasphemy. He lets it go, but insists upon a higher principle. ‘If this is what Caesar demands, well give it to him; but give what has the image of God, i:e. yourself, to God’. He didn’t say ‘Don’t touch the coins, they bear false doctrine, to pay the tax could make it appear you are going along with a blasphemous claim’. Yet some would say that we must avoid touching anything that might appear to be false or lead to a false implication our endless arguments over Bible versions and words of hymns are all proof of this. The Lord wasn’t like that. He lived life as it is and as it was, and re-focused the attention of men upon that which is essential, and away from the minutiae. Staring each of us in the face is our own body, fashioned in God’s image – and thereby the most powerful imperative, to give it over to God. Yet instead God’s people preferred to ignore this and argue over the possible implication of giving a coin to Caesar because there was a false message on it. Morally and dialectically the Lord had defeated His questioners; and yet still they would not see the bigger and altogether more vital picture which He presented them with.</h4>


text:
<p>22:20&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Whose is this image and superscription?</em>- He was setting them up for His point that whatever bears God's image and superscription is to be given to Him (:21); and that refers to our body and whole lives. We have His signature on us; perhaps the Lord had in mind by this the idea that Israel were God's covenant people, His servants bearing His marks.</p>


text:
<p>22:21&nbsp;<em>They said to him: Caesar's. He then said to them: Therefore give to Caesar</em>- The Jews were looking for immediate deliverance from Caesar. The Lord's parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was designed to show that He was not bringing that kind of a Kingdom, that sort of salvation. By saying that tribute must indeed be rendered to Caesar, He was further dashing their Messianic hopes concerning Him, and further demonstrating that He was not the Messiah they were looking for. Thus He was consciously bringing about a situation whereby His popularity was turned into hatred, because of the whole psychology of dashed expectations making love turn to hate. The accusation that "We found this fellow::. forbidding to give tribute to Caesar" (<em><a href='B:490 23:2'>Luk 23:2</a></em>) was so utterly untrue.</p><p><em>The things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's</em>- What bears God's image, which is our whole body and mind (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>), is to be given to God. We have God's superscription written upon us, moreso if we are in Christ (<em><a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:1'>Rev 14:1</a></em>). "It is he that hath made us, and therefore we are his" (Psalms 100 RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p><p>The things which are God's are to be 'rendered' to Him. The Greek word means to pay back, to return; even giving our very bodies only giving back what He has given us:&nbsp; The same word had been used recently by the Lord in teaching that we have a huge debt to God which must be 'rendered' or paid back to Him (<em><a href='B:470 18:25-26'>Mat 18:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>). We can read the Lord's words here as meaning that concerns about pedantic issues relating to coinage are irrelevant compared to the paramount issue- that we owe God everything. This would explain why the Lord says this after having accused them of being hypocrites, having perceived the sin they were involved with (see on :18). Because we are created in God's image, the structure of our very bodies is an imperative to give ourselves totally to His cause (<em><a href='B:470 22:19-21'>Mat 22:19-21</a></em>). Whatever bears God's image- i:e. our very bodies- must be given to Him. "It is he that hath made us, and therefore we are his" (<em><a href='B:230 100:3'>Psa 100:3</a></em> RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p>


text:
<p>22:22&nbsp;<em>And when they heard it, they marvelled and left him and went away</em>- The record is making a clear connection back to the use of the same word in the preceding parable, where the Jews "went their way" (:5) having been invited to the banquet, off to their immediate concerns. The Lord had challenged them to give themselves to God, seeing they were made in His image, and stop worrying about petty issues such as the writing on a coin. This challenge was another form of the invitation to the banquet. They perceived what He was saying- for they "marvelled". Just as the Jews heard the invitation to the banquet. But they went their way- and that way was the way to crucifying the Lord, killing the messenger of God. Going that evil way is thus paralleled with going the way of petty materialism.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 20:26'>Luk 20:26</a></em> concludes that “They could not take hold of His words before the people”. The Greek for “take hold” is elsewhere used about the Jews finally taking hold of the Lord in arrest and crucifixion. The Jews are also recorded as not being able to do this physically to Him in public, “before the people”. But Luke speaks of the Jews doing these things in relation to “His words”. This is Luke’s way of saying what John says in so many words- that the Lord Jesus was so identified with His words, which were God’s words, that He was “the word made flesh”, the living personification of His own words, in whom there was perfect congruence between His essential self and His words.</p>


text:
<p>22:23&nbsp;<em>The same day Sadducees</em>- Surely added to give the impression of intensity. The Lord came to His death at the point of mental as well as physical exhaustion.</p><p><em>That say that there is no resurrection</em>- The obvious response to a question from such people about the resurrection would be ‘But you don’t believe in a resurrection’. <em><a href='B:490 20:27'>Luk 20:27</a></em> says that they&nbsp;<em>antilego,</em>&nbsp;spoke against publicly, the resurrection. Mark’s record adds that they also said that “In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise…” (<em><a href='B:480 12:23'>Mar 12:23</a></em>). But the Lord was not so primitive as to point out their obvious untruth. He took their position as they stated it, and worked to demonstrate that even given that position, they were woefully ignorant of Divine truth. Long term, His approach stood a chance of working. If He had simply denounced them as liars and self-contradictory, there was no chance He would’ve ever contributed towards their possible repentance and change of heart. This approach needs to be take to heart by us. For there are large numbers of believers who seem to think that their service to God involves cruising internet forums or endlessly arguing with their neighbours in order to prove them wrong and self-contradictory about doctrinal matters. This may give a slight ego rush for a moment, but it is not in fact any real victory. For the victory we seek is not to tie another up in mental knots, but to lead them to repentance, to the Lord Jesus, and to His Kingdom. We also need to note that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn’t happen. The Lord could’ve called many witnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus, but instead He takes their argument and works from it.</p><p>It has been observed that the Sadducees were generally hedonistic- and this surely was a result of their denial of the future resurrection and judgment. Their belief was that only the Torah was inspired, and it was Israel’s duty to live according to it in this life. They were a parade example of the effect of doctrine in practice.</p><p><em>Came to him, and they asked him</em>- Over 100 times we read in the Gospels of various people coming to Jesus- His enemies, the crowds, His disciples, people in need. Each came with their various motivations, agendas and pre-understandings of Him. His invitation to ‘come to Him’ was to come&nbsp;<em>in faith</em>. The repeated repetition of the phrase ‘came to Him’ is perhaps to invite us to see ourselves likewise as amongst those who ‘come to Him’ as we read or hear the Gospel record, ensuring that we are truly coming to Him and not merely on a surface level as so many did.</p>


text:
<p>22:24&nbsp;<em>Teacher. Moses said</em>- Luke: “<em>Moses wrote</em>&nbsp;unto us”. The Lord picks this up in His answer in :31: “Have you not read that which was&nbsp;<em>spoken</em>&nbsp;unto you by&nbsp;<em>God</em>”. He is telling them that God and not Moses was the ultimate speaker to them; and that the word was not merely&nbsp;<em>written</em>&nbsp;but is a living word, actively&nbsp;<em>speaking</em>&nbsp;unto them. For all their much vaunted belief in Divine inspiration of the Scriptures, these men had failed to perceive that God was speaking to them personally through the human authors. And that criticism needs to be remembered today by those equally wedded to a declared belief in Divine inspiration of the Bible. It is to be to us a word&nbsp;<em>spoken</em>&nbsp;and not a dead letter written on paper.</p><p><em>That if a man dies having had no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up seed to his brother</em>- The Lord could have replied that if they read the entire passage in <em><a href='B:50 25:5-7'>Deu 25:5-7</a></em>, they would see that God actually made a concession in this matter; and the whole principle only applied to “brethren dwelling together”. A man did not&nbsp;<em>have to</em>&nbsp;marry his brother’s wife. In any case, as most adult men were married, it would have usually been a case of polygamy. But again, the Lord didn’t point out that expositional error, but goes on to develop a far greater and higher principle concerning the nature of His Kingdom, in which such casuistry about marriage will be simply irrelevant. And again, He sets an example to those who have spent their religious lives arguing about divorce and remarriage and fellowship issues. Their arguments could be demonstrated to be expositionally faulty. But the higher principle is that such issues shall be irrelevant in God’s Kingdom; and we are to live the essence of the Kingdom life now as far as we can, in spirit at least. The Sadducees made a big deal of the fact that the word translated “raise up seed” is that used generally in the Septuagint for resurrection. Their idea was that resurrection is not of the body but through family life. To die childless was therefore tragic indeed. The same error is made by many today who effectively believe that family life is the ultimate form of spirituality. It is not, and God seeks to build a personal relationship with each of us, He is the personal God of Abraham, Isaac etc:, and we shall experience a personal bodily resurrection at which we shall appear before God stripped of our family, and relate to Him as a single individual.</p>


text:
<p>22:25&nbsp;<em>Now there were with us seven brothers; and the first married and died having no seed, and thus left his wife to his brother</em>- This must have been a most unfortunate family. The Old Testament speaks of the failure to build up a house / family and the death of men in youth as being a curse from God for disobedience (<em><a href='B:220 18:19'>Job 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 107:38-39'>Psa 107:38-39</a></em>). Again, the Lord could have made capital of this- but He didn’t. There was no element of personal attack, but rather an appeal to higher principle.</p>


text:
<p>22:26&nbsp;<em>In like manner the second also and the third, to the seventh</em>- As noted on :25, this was clearly not a true story.</p>


text:
<p>22:27&nbsp;<em>And after them all, the woman died</em>- She would have been judged to be a most unfortunate woman, likely under God’s judgment (see on :25). But the Lord doesn’t question the very unlikely story nor the contradictions within it- instead He works from what was presented to Him.</p>


text:
<p>22:28&nbsp;<em>In the resurrection therefore, whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they all had her</em>- The other records add “When they shall rise from the dead”. The Lord could’ve pointed out that they were well known for denying / speaking against the resurrection. But He doesn’t make that obvious point, instead focusing on the higher principles rather than point scoring.</p>


text:
<p>22:29&nbsp;<em>But Jesus answered and said to them: You are mistaken</em>- The same word used by the Lord in describing how He as the good shepherd was searching for the sheep of Israel who had “gone astray” (<em><a href='B:470 18:12-13'>Mat 18:12-13</a></em>). Exactly because He was searching for them with a view to saving them, He did not indulge in point scoring or exposing the numerous errors in their claims. The fact the Lord even tried with these types is a huge inspiration to us all to never give up with any group of people.</p><p><em>As you neither know</em>- Time and again the Lord assaults their pride in knowing the text of Scripture. “Have you&nbsp;<em>never</em>&nbsp;read” is commonly on His lips. We can read, and yet never really read; know, but never know. Familiarity with Bible phrases is simply not the same as understanding them correctly.</p><p><em>The Scriptures, nor the power of God</em>- The two are paralleled, with every relevance for the Sadducees who denied the Old Testament’s inspiration apart from the Torah. Likewise in their audience the Lord pointed out that David in the Psalms spoke “in Spirit” (:43)- the Psalms were inspired as much as the Torah.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:30'>Mat 22:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For in the resurrection</em>- Why does the Lord speak of the Kingdom of God as “the resurrection”? Perhaps it is to pave the way for His teaching that “all live unto Him”, in the sense that here He is likewise raising the idea that time will have a different dimension then. The joy and freshness of resurrection will last eternally. The Kingdom will be as it were an eternal moment of resurrection, an eternal now, with no fading thrill but an “everlasting joy upon our heads” that will not fade and morph with familiarity and the passage of time.</p><p><em>They neither marry nor are given in marriage</em>- Note the present tenses. They are more striking in <em><a href='B:490 20:36'>Luk 20:36</a></em>: “Neither&nbsp;<em>can they die</em>… they&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;equal unto the Angels: and&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;the children of God, being the children of the resurrection”. Greek tenses, unlike Hebrew tenses, are precise. We would expect ‘They shall not die… shall be equal… shall be…’. But the present tenses are striking. The Lord is building up to His point that the question about marriage is inappropriate because God is outside of our kind of time; He sees the believers in Him as even now immortal, a point made more strongly in John’s Gospel. This is not the same as having an immortal soul, nor does it imply conscious survival of death. Rather is it a reflection of how God from His perspective outside of time sees His children. <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> makes the same point, that we are born again of water and spirit even in this life, and thereby are living the life eternal. But that is from God’s standpoint outside of time as we experience it. <em><a href='B:490 20:37'>Luk 20:37</a></em> says that Moses “calls” present tense God “the God of Abraham…”. Not only does this imply a living word which speaks to us today, but again the point is made throughout the passage that God is outside of time. This choice of tenses in this passage is purposeful, for elsewhere we read of how Moses said or commanded things in the past tense (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em> “things which Moses commanded”, “Moses wrote”, <em><a href='B:490 20:28'>Luk 20:28</a></em>; “Moses gave you…”, <em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>).</p><p><em>But are like the angels in heaven</em>- The Sadducees denied their existence (<em><a href='B:510 23:8'>Act 23:8</a></em>). The Lord’s teaching that Angels do not marry was surely additionally an attack on the Jewish myths becoming popular at the time concerning the supposed marriage of Heavenly Angels with the daughters of men in Genesis 6. These myths are deconstructed in Jude and 2 Peter, but the Lord here is also correcting them. We marvel at how apparently ‘off the cuff’ He could speak in such a multi-faceted and profound way, addressing various issues simultaneously. Although His intellectual and spiritual ability was doubtless capable of such instant responses, I prefer to imagine the Lord reflecting deeply upon God’s word and preparing His ideas throughout the years of spiritual mindedness that preceded His ministry.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 20:36'>Luk 20:36</a></em> adds that we shall be as “the children of God”, thereby answering the Sadducees idea that it is a human duty to have children and thereby continue the race, for therein do we have our ‘resurrection’. Again the Lord is lifting the whole question to a far higher level. Luke adds that the Lord first said that “the children of this world marry…”. The Sadducees were assuming that the Kingdom of God would be a kind of continuation of this present life, just with eternity of nature. Whilst there are similarities and aspects of continuity between who we are and who we shall eternally be, we are mistaken in imagining the future Kingdom of God as some kind of ideal earthly situation, a tropical paradise holiday, which shall last eternally. This is the same mistake as thinking that we shall eternally be doing what “the children of&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;world” currently do. Instead of criticizing and exposing the faults in the argument presented, the Lord makes the point that the Kingdom of God will not be about marriage nor about casuistic arguments about the definition of marriage- the very arguments which have occupied the minds of far too many of His children. Paul uses the same logic in reasoning that arguments about food are irrelevant because the Kingdom of God will not be about such behaviour, but about love, peace and joy (<em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>). Paul, like the Lord here, could have exposed the fallacies of exposition being engaged with, but instead reasons on a higher level- that seeing we shall not be arguing about such things eternally, let us not do it now.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read</em>- Of course they had, but the Lord is yet again making the point that we can read Scripture many times but not really read it as intended.</p><p><em>What was spoken to you by God, saying</em>- <em><a href='B:480 12:26'>Mar 12:26</a></em> records the Lord saying: “…God spoke unto Moses, saying”. Surely the Lord said something like ‘He spoke unto Moses, unto you, saying…’. What was spoken to Moses was spoken to them personally, just as the living word speaks to every generation. The Lord was equating each secular Jew with none less than Moses himself. This was unthinkable blasphemy in Judaistic thought, to see oneself as receiving God’s words, having God reveal Himself directly to us, just as He did to Moses. God of course had wanted to reveal Himself like this to Israel, but they asked not to hear His voice directly, wanting Moses as a mediator. But the Lord says that now, through the medium of God’s word, the voice of God comes directly to us too. In the new Israel and the new Judaism of the new covenant, in this sense we are each as Moses.</p><p>Luke adds: “That the dead are raised even Moses showed…”. Sadducees believed only in Moses’ writings, and denied the resurrection. The Lord takes that position and runs with it, instead of trying to assert the inspiration of the rest of the Old Testament.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:470 22:32'>Mat 22:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?</em>- If the Lord was looking merely for a reference to God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He had many places He could have quoted from. I suggest He chose <em><a href='B:20 3:6'>Exo 3:6</a></em> partly to show that the supremely intimate, personal revelation of God to Moses was just the same now to all individuals within Israel. It was a living word spoken to them personally. But also because the Lord wants to make the point that God is outside of time- and that passage goes on to climax in the revelation of that same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the “I am that I am” (<em><a href='B:20 3:14'>Exo 3:14</a></em>). The God outside of time, witnessed by the way the tetragrammaton somehow straddles past, present and future tenses, therefore sees the dead as alive “unto Him”. The question put to the Lord was very much rooted in the assumption that time as we now know it is going to continue in the Kingdom of God, and the Lord is making the point that this is an immature way of looking at it; and therefore the question was irrelevant. The Exodus 3 passage also contains repeated assurance that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will receive what God has promised- which requires bodily resurrection for them. We need to ever remember that the Lord was not merely demonstrating intellectual prowess in all this reasoning and allusion. He considered them as the sheep who erred / were astray, and through all His teaching here He was merely seeking to steer them to Him and ultimate salvation.</h4><p><em>He is not the God of the dead but of the living</em>- This Greek construction could mean ‘Not only the God of the dead, but also of the living’. But the context is the Lord demonstrating that the understanding of the Sadducees was very much a dead religion and their God was effectively dead. They denied the resurrection and considered that we have reward only in this life. In this case, God was the God of Abraham only in the past. The Greek phrase could literally mean ‘Not the God the dead, but the living God’, alluding to the well known phrase “the living God”. If God only acted for Abraham etc. in the past, then the God Abraham knew effectively died when Abraham died. But the living God seeks to impart life to the faithful.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 20:38'>Luk 20:38</a></em> adds: “For all live unto Him”. The Lord is critiquing their division between this life and the life to come- by saying that the faithful live on now in God’s memory as they will eternally; He speaks of things which are not as though they are (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>), and in this sense whether we live or die we are the Lord’s (<em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em>). Although the soul is mortal, the spirit returns to God and will be eternally “saved” at the last day. And the spirit refers to who a man essentially is, his thinking and character. This is preserved by God in His memory, and in that sense the faithful dead “live” before Him now. John’s Gospel puts this in so many words by saying that we can live the eternal life right now. Whilst bodily resurrection is so significant from our point of view, the God who is outside of our kind of time sees the dead as effectively living as He extends forwards into eternity from the present- in a way we cannot now do. I made the point above that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn’t happen. The Lord at that time had emphasized that the resurrection of Lazarus was a visual reminder of the new life which those who believed in Him could experience right now: “Whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” (<em><a href='B:500 11:26'>Joh 11:26</a></em>). Luke’s comment that “all live unto Him” is saying roughly the same thing. If our spirit is focused upon living and thinking the Kingdom life now, then this spirit is preserved by God upon death. And it is this which God sees after our death, and the sense in which we live unto Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:33'>Mat 22:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when the crowds heard it</em>- Our debates with others are often not so much in order to convert them, but the listening audience and onlookers. And the Lord was ever aware of this. See on :42.</p><p><em>They were astonished at his teaching</em>- Yet for all this, it was “the multitude” who were soon shouting for His blood. Mere intellectual persuasion of the truth of theology is no guarantee that a person is truly with the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:34'>Mat 22:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when the Pharisees heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they gathered together</em>- The idea could be that the Pharisees and Sadducees, traditionally opposed to each other, were united together in their desire to again try to entangle the Lord. This unity of opposed persons and groups against Christ is a theme of the records. Just as He unites people together around Him, so He unites people against Him- thus creating the Biblical picture of how we are either in God’s people or in the group actively against them. This division will come to its final term in the latter day tribulation before the Lord’s return.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:35'>Mat 22:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him</em>- Again we see the Lord’s temptations being at the hand of the Jewish religious leaders, strengthening the case for thinking that the ‘adversary’ of the wilderness temptations was likewise somehow connected to the same group or thinking:&nbsp;<em>Peirazo</em>&nbsp;can mean both to test, and also to tempt to sin in a moral sense. If in the latter sense, we must ask in what the Lord was tempted to sin? Perhaps in exasperation, inappropriate anger, or to a giving up of effort with the Israel for whom He was dying.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:36'>Mat 22:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?-</em>&nbsp;It is often claimed that this means ‘Which type of commandment?’. But the Lord’s answer suggests that He saw it as meaning ‘Which specific commandment’:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 12:28'>Mar 12:28</a></em> records them asking which is the greatest commandment “of all”, which requires that they wanted Him to name one specific one. Again, the Lord lifted the question to a higher level, quoting two commandments and speaking of them as one single commandment; and demonstrating that the unity of God is a command rather than a mere piece of fundamental but dead theology (see on :37).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:37'>Mat 22:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind</em>- <em><a href='B:480 12:29'>Mar 12:29</a></em> adds: “The Lord our God is one”. That God is one is a command, an imperative to action. It underlies the whole law and prophets (<em><a href='B:470 22:40'>Mat 22:40</a></em>)- it's that fundamental. If there were two Gods, Yahweh would only demand half our energies. Nothing can be given to anything else; for there is nothing else to give to. There's only one God. There can be no idolatry in our lives, because there is only one God (<em><a href='B:120 19:18-19'>2Ki 19:18-19</a></em>). Because "there is none else, thou shalt keep&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;his statutes" (<em><a href='B:50 4:39-40'>Deu 4:39-40</a></em>). The Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a></em> suggests: "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one", thereby linking Yahweh's unity with His being our God, the sole Lord and unrivalled Master of His people. It also links the first principle of the unity of God with that of the covenant to Abraham; for “I will be their God" was one of the features of the covenant. The one God has only one people; not all religious systems can lead to the one Hope of Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:38'>Mat 22:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This is the great and first commandment</em>- They had asked which was the greatest commandment, but the Lord adds that this commandment is not only “great” but also “first”, and we can understand that as meaning first in importance in our lives. He earlier had talked about seeking&nbsp;<em>first</em>&nbsp;s:w. God’s Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:39'>Mat 22:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the second is like it</em>- The Lord is thus putting two commandments together to form one. Hence <em><a href='B:480 12:31'>Mar 12:31</a></em> records Him concluding, having quoted the two commandments: “There is none other commandment singular greater than these plural”.</p><p><em>You shall love your neighbour as yourself</em>- This is indeed a challenge; not only to love ourselves, but to relate to our neighbour as to ourselves. It suggests a unique unity between us and our neighbour within the Israel of God. That humanly impossible unity is only achievable by loving the one God. To love God and our brother is all part of the same thing. It is indivisible; the two commandments are in fact one commandment in practice. To claim to love God but not love or even be involved with our brother means, therefore, that we don’t actually love God. John makes this explicit in <em><a href='B:690 4:1'>1Jn 4:1</a></em>, and much of the Lord’s teaching does likewise. Yet our tendency is to isolate them, claiming to love God whilst ignoring our brother, and maintaining a strong sense of separation from him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:40'>Mat 22:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>On these two commandments</em>- Again, the Lord makes the point. They wanted&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;commandment isolated as the greatest, and He gave them two, with the further comment that “all the law”, all the others, hung equally upon those two. The spiritual way of life is not a case of isolating one or two commandments and keeping them, but rather living a spirit of life and thinking. Loving God and our neighbour are seamlessly united, although so many try to do one without the other. On the one extreme is the person who sits at home in splendid isolation with their love for God, on the other is the person who thinks that love for neighbour- some neighbours, anyway- is quite enough, and needs no underpinning in a love for God, which involves keeping His commandments.</p><p><em>Hang the whole law and the prophets</em>- The Lord surely had the Sadducees in view, with the differentiation they made between law and prophets. This would support the suggestion on :34 that they were somehow involved in this ongoing questioning. The achievement of love in practice between brethren, on the basis of their unity with each other elicited by their common connection to the one God, is what the entire Law was aiming at. The 613 commandments of Moses were not, therefore, to be seen as mere tests of obedience. They were designed to produce love and unity in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:41'>Mat 22:41</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying</em>- The Lord had clearly done well in answering the questions, and it’s easy to misinterpret this as Him now going onto the thrust of an offensive, having successfully parried the attacks. But remember His opening comment, that they ‘erred’ or were as sheep ‘astray’. He was trying to steer them to Him, to repentance and salvation, and not to merely win an intellectual battle for its own sake. All the same, He capitalized upon their continued presence to seek to correct another major misunderstanding. His desire to save them is breathtaking. The fact there were Pharisees who later converted to Christ is proof enough that His strategy worked, at least for some (<em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>). And remember that Saul the Pharisee was living in Jerusalem at the time, and may well have been listening carefully.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:42'>Mat 22:42</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What do you think of the Christ</em>- The use of&nbsp;<em>dokeo</em>, to seem or think, may be a hint that Matthew is here combating at least the incipient beginnings of Docetism, the idea that Christ only appeared to be whoever He was, a kind of Divine image cast upon the earth. This came to full term in the theology of the Trinity some time later.</p><p><em>Whose son is he? They said to him: The son of David</em>- They were surely aware that Jesus was a son of David, on both the sides of Mary and Joseph. For they would’ve done their homework as to His apparent family of origin. See on <em><a href='B:470 22:45'>Mat 22:45</a></em>&nbsp;<em>How is He his son.</em></p><p><em><a href='B:490 20:41'>Luk 20:41</a></em> records that the Lord addressed a question to the wider audience: “How say they that Christ is David’s son?”. Having let the Pharisees give the answer, He then asks others how this can be the case. Again, the Lord’s dialogues with the Pharisees was not simply to try to convert them, but in order that the audience would learn. See on <em><a href='B:470 22:33'>Mat 22:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When the multitude heard this:&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:480 12:37'>Mar 12:37</a></em> concludes the section by observing that “the common people heard Him gladly”, so again we see how the records seamlessly complement each other.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:43'>Mat 22:43</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to them: How then does David in the Spirit</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 22:29'>Mat 22:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Scriptures…</em></p><p><em>Call him Lord</em>- Judaism’s concept of Messiah has always been vague and not commonly agreed, but there was and is the idea that the likes of Abraham, Moses and David are greater than Messiah. The Lord is pointing out that David considered Messiah to be his “Lord”, just as Messiah was greater than Abraham (<em><a href='B:500 8:58'>Joh 8:58</a></em>).</p><p><em>Saying</em>- Another present tense, continuing the Lord’s theme of God’s word being a living word speaking to us today as if in an eternal present.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:44'>Mat 22:44</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The Lord said</em>- Clearly Yahweh. If the Divine Name was to be used in the New Testament, surely this would be the place for it. The fact it is not, when some Hebrew words are used (e:g. ‘Sabaoth’), shows clearly enough that the literal usage of the tetragrammaton is not something God sees as important or even required.</p><p><em>To my Lord-</em>&nbsp;Biblically and historically, David’s immediate ‘Lord’ was Saul. Psalms 110 was originally a revelation to David of the potential possible for Saul, who was an anointed ‘Messiah’ figure. But Saul failed, and so the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies underneath your feet</em>- The Lord’s enemies stood around Him as He applied this Psalm to Himself:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:45'>Mat 22:45</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?<br/></em>- The “how” doesn’t imply that David’s Lord is not his son, but rather is a rhetorical question. How is the Messianic son of David, David’s “Lord”, to be his son or descendant? <em><a href='B:480 12:37'>Mar 12:37</a></em> says the Lord reinforced the question by asking “<em>From whence</em>&nbsp;is He his son?”. The answer had to be: ‘Through a woman in David’s direct line giving birth to Him’. And the questioners were fully aware that Jesus was in the direct line of Mary (see on :42&nbsp;<em>The Son of David</em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 22:46'>Mat 22:46</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And no one could say a word in reply. From that day nobody dared to ask him any other questions</em>- These very words are used of how the disciples after the resurrection dared not ask who Jesus was (<em><a href='B:500 21:12'>Joh 21:12</a></em>), which is the very context here. The connection is clearly to show that they too through their being too influenced by Jewish thinking found themselves in the same category as the unbelieving Jews- the difference being that they repented of it. Matthew was appealing to Jews to accept Jesus and repent of their wilful misunderstanding, and he and John are holding themselves up as a role model, just as we should in our appeals for repentance. The Greek for “questions” isn’t in the original; they dared not ask Him again. The implication from the context could be that they dared not ask Him ‘Who are You?’, for the answer was clear in their consciences. They knew, on one level, that He was Messiah, that He was the heir to the vineyard, whom they knowingly sought to murder.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:1'>Mat 23:1</a></em><em>&nbsp;Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying-&nbsp;</em>The chapter is clearly in three parts. Verses 1-12 are spoken to the disciples and the crowds; then there are the seven woes against the Pharisees (:13-33), and finally a statement of the Lord’s love toward Israel and the inevitable judgment of Jerusalem. The Lord's interchanges with the Sadducees and Pharisees in chapter 22 had been in the presence of the crowds, and He had thrown at least one question to them. Clearly He was seeking to use those dialogues to appeal to the watching audience. So often this is what happens in preaching work. It is those who are observing who are persuaded, rather than the protagonists of the discussion. The Lord realized this, and now consciously appeals to those onlookers:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:2'>Mat 23:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat</em>- This appears to some to be a past tense: They sat themselves in Moses' seat, the place from where Moses taught Jewish teachers sat to teach, i:e. they had in the past appropriated to themselves the authority or seat of Moses. This retranslation avoids the apparent difficulty of the Lord otherwise claiming that they had equal authority to Moses. In this case, His command "That observe and do" (:3) would need to be rendered as His observation rather than His command- 'Whatever they tell you to do, that you observe and do'. But it is also possible to understand the Lord to be teaching submission, for the moment, to the religious leaders- rather than rank revolution against them. For the time to rise up in literal protest was still not yet, rather does the Lord's teaching urge that the revolt He has in mind is purely internal, deep within the human heart and psyche. By bidding obedience to those men, He would have been appealing to <em><a href='B:50 17:11'>Deu 17:11</a></em>: "And you shall observe to do according to all that they (the religious leaders) shall teach you":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:3'>Mat 23:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore</em>- Because they were in the place of Moses, the Lord advised obedience to them rather than quitting the synagogue system. He told His disciples that the time would come when they would be cast out of the synagogues (<em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>). He clearly had no conception of guilt by association, acquired through religious association with those who taught and lived wrongly. For He goes on to roundly condemn the whole system of Judaism. Perhaps He hoped that the presence of His people amongst that system would be an influence for good upon at least some and a witness to the leadership. Or perhaps He knew that until the more public founding of the Christian church, those people had no realistic alternative but to continue attendance. For outside of the religious system they would spiritually flounder. Whatever, we never hear Him making a direct command to come out from the system until in Revelation we hear His call to come out of the latter day Babylon, which was likely an extension of His teaching in the Olivet prophecy to leave Jerusalem when she was besieged in the very last days. But this was therefore more of a call to self preservation rather than of religious separation because of differing principles. If He had intended separation for religious reasons, He surely would have called for it earlier. But He doesn't. The essential witness is made from our position embedded, at least externally, in this world.</p><p>Put together two scriptures in your mind: “You must obey the Pharisees and do everything they tell you”; and, “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees” (<em><a href='B:470 23:3'>Mat 23:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:6'>Mat 16:6</a></em>). Surely the Lord is teaching that we should respect elders but never cease personally analysing what they teach for ourselves. Once we stop doing this, we start resigning our own personality and will be unable to follow our Lord personally, i:e. with our own persons. And then we will be ripe for being caused to stumble, if those elders we are listening to then offend us. For ‘we’, with all that we are, will have been dominated by them.</p><p><em>All things whatever they tell you, do and observe</em>- But soon the Lord would be sending the disciples out with the commission to teach the world “to observe s:w. all things that I have commanded you” (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>). And this command became programmatic for the early church, whose integrity was to be judged on the degree to which they had kept / observed s:w. the Lord’s commands (<em><a href='B:690 2:3-5'>1Jn 2:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:22'>1Jn 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:24'>1Jn 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:2-3'>1Jn 5:2-3</a></em>; there are other allusions to the great commission in John’s letters, e:g. <em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>). So clearly enough&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;commands and the need for loyalty to&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;soon replaced His word here in <em><a href='B:470 23:3'>Mat 23:3</a></em> about observing / keeping the commands of the Scribes. He may be employing an element of sarcasm, as if to say ‘It’s OK, you don’t have to put up with this much longer; in a day’s time, I shall be dead, the Law of Moses will be completed, you will be free. But for just another 24 hours, endure their tyranny’. Only afterwards would the disciples have appreciated what the Lord meant.</p><h4><em>But do not you copy their works, for they say and do not</em>- The Lord is making a purposeful paradox. Their ‘works’ were a not doing or working. Their sins of omission were counted by Him as a work. They, of course, prided themselves upon their works. But the Lord is saying that they actually did nothing- in His book. In this lies the tragedy of Christianity as mere religion. The works can be done, and yet in the Lord’s eyes, the essential works are not done. The Lord continues His play on this idea by going on to say that the works they do are done to be seen of men (:5). They did the works but because they were done towards men and not to God, they were not really done. If we have our reward of men, then we have no reward of God. Our works s:w. must be made manifest / revealed by the light of Christ, specifically in the cross, as to whether they are worked “in God” or not (<em><a href='B:500 3:21'>Joh 3:21</a></em>). The mere doing of the work is not the basis of acceptability.</h4><p>The Pharisees did all the works, but in their hearts they never knew God, and finally went and did His Son to death. The Lord plays on the fact that ultimately, in God's eyes, they did no works at all: "Do not ye after their works; for they say, and&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;not" (<em><a href='B:470 23:3'>Mat 23:3</a></em>). We are left to imagine the anger of those zealous men. They&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;do works, as the Lord observed. But to Him, ultimately they did nothing at all. They had no genuine motives.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 23:25'>Mat 23:25</a></em>.<br/><em>Yes, they bind heavy burdens</em>- John appears to allude to this in saying that the true commandments are “not grievous” (<em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em>, s:w. “heavy”). The fences created by men around God’s law are in fact higher than the actual Divine law. God’s laws have a creative intention, whereas human fences around them are totally negative in their intention. The Lord uses the same word later in the discourse, in stating that the ‘heavier’ matters of the law are justice, mercy and faith (:23). Yet even those things are not “heavy” (<em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em>) in the sense that the regulations of the Pharisees were. The Lord’s burden is light compared with the weight of carrying unforgiven sin (<em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>). The parallel between sin and heavy burdens is also found in David’s comment about carrying the weight of his unforgiven sin with Bathsheba (<em><a href='B:230 38:4'>Psa 38:4</a></em>). The burden of sin was thus tied upon people by giving them religious rules which they were unable to keep due to human weakness, and because sin is partly a matter of conscience, it was still counted to the people as sin if they broke it. Therefore to enforce such rules upon people was effectively lading them with sin. This principle needs to be considered by those who ‘bind’ isolation from other brethren upon believers, or who ‘bind’ them to a single life after divorce.</p><p><em>Hard to be carried</em>- AV. The Lord sensitively commented that He had many things to command His disciples, “but you cannot bear / carry s:w. them at this time” (<em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>). In teaching others God’s requirements, we must be sensitive to human weakness, rather than present them with a whole set of Divine standards as a package and demand their immediate acceptance of it. The Lord still accepted the disciples, even though He had not asked them to do all the things He would like to have asked them to do. And there are likewise levels of discipleship for us too. The same word is also used about carrying the cross of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:17'>Joh 19:17</a></em>). This is the ultimately hard to be carried burden. If people have signed up to carry this, who are we to seek to add to it by our demands upon them. James surely had the Lord’s teaching here in mind when he reasoned that neither the disciples nor the Jewish fathers had been able to carry the yoke of the Mosaic law (<em><a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a></em>). Any teaching that the Mosaic law must be obeyed and there are plenty of Christians teaching this, sadly is therefore seeking to bind a heavy burden upon men which will lead to their spiritual collapse and thereby to our own condemnation.</p><p><em>And lay them</em>- The same word used about the cross being laid upon the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 23:26'>Luk 23:26</a></em>), and the laying of the lost sheep on the shoulders of the shepherd (<em><a href='B:490 15:5'>Luk 15:5</a></em>). As this is the Lord’s only other reference to anything being laid upon the shoulders, we may be intended to understand that carrying the weight of the lost, seeking to save them, can be replaced by carrying the weight of worrying about obeying human regulations. So many spiritual lives and so much endeavour goes into keeping in with a social club based around the laws of men, when that energy could be far better used carrying the lost to salvation.</p><p><em>On men’s shoulders</em>- The laying of an unbearable weight upon the shoulders recalls exactly the language of the cross of Christ being laid upon Him. Instead of men carrying&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;burden, they can instead end up carrying the burden of obedience to human regulations. The focus changes to obeying human expectation rather than the effort involved in engaging with the crucified Christ. All such human laws, regarding fellowship practice, dress codes etc:, are therefore likely to make men stumble and thereby bring condemnation to those who demand them. Legalism and human religion are a burden laid on men's shoulders. But the cross of Jesus is also a burden laid upon our shoulders (<em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em>). The greatness of the demands of the cross free us from the burdens of man's legalism. But it's still a choice, between a cross and a cross. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>. As Moses "looked on their burdens" at age 40 (<em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em>), so at the start of His ministry, our Lord assessed the weight of ours. His concern for our burdens in <em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em> is perhaps a conscious allusion back to Moses' awareness of Israel's burdens, and his desire to deliver them, even though it cost him all that he had in this world.</p><p><em>But they will not move them</em>- Gk. 'remove' them. In His earlier teaching about this in <em><a href='B:490 11:46'>Luk 11:46</a></em>, the Lord said they would not “touch” the burdens. The Lord by contrast used touch frequently in order to connect with sinful people and their conditions, and to thereby heal them. The Pharisees would not touch them for fear of contamination; they would not associate or engage with sinful people and the results of their sins. The Lord used His fingers to enter the ears of the deaf and touch the eyes of the blind, secreting unclean body fluid. This is the way to remove burdens- to engage with them. And yet closed table policies effectively do the same, by refusing association with those judged by latter day Pharisees to be too serious sinners. The fear of guilt by association is utterly selfish, and results in the burdens never being removed or made lighter for the person struggling to carry them.</p><p><em>With their finger</em>- The contrast is between the weight of the burdens on the shoulders of men, so great it crushed them; and the ease with which the law-makers could remove them with their fingers, perhaps referring to their ability to write things with a few strokes of the fingers which would remove those burdens. This is ever more true today- a few taps with a finger on a keyboard to change traditional demands on fellow believers, and burdens can be removed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:5'>Mat 23:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But they do all their works</em>- See on :3&nbsp;<em>Their works… they do not</em>.</p><p><em>To be seen by men</em>- The same Greek word and teaching as in <em><a href='B:470 6:1'>Mat 6:1</a></em>; the Pharisees did good deeds “to be seen of men” and therefore have no reward. But the warning of <em><a href='B:470 6:1'>Mat 6:1</a></em> is to us all. Too easily we can feel that these woes against the Pharisees are not relevant to us, but they were merely giving in to the same tendencies as are common to us all. John’s Gospel uses the same word for ‘seeing’ with regard to our ‘seeing’ Jesus in the sense of believing in Him. So the contrast is between those who look to Jesus, and those who want others to look to them. Widening and enlarging the religious symbols on their clothing was exactly in order to be seen by men. Our focus upon looking toward Jesus will make us less interested in how men look upon us.</p><p><em>For they make their phylacteries wide</em>- Nearly all the descriptions here of what the Pharisees did are couched in language which is elsewhere used about spiritual things. The point being made is that they were living a religious life which was an inversion of what true spirituality, and especially the example of the Lord Jesus, are all about. The reason why so much attention is given to the Pharisees in the Gospel records is surely because their mentality is so typically human, and their failure is preserved as a warning to all who claim to be committed to the same God of Israel. The Greek word translated “enlarge” is elsewhere nearly always used about the need to “magnify”&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;rather than ourselves (<em><a href='B:490 1:46'>Luk 1:46</a></em> “My soul&nbsp;<em>magnifies</em>&nbsp;the Lord”; <em><a href='B:510 10:46'>Act 10:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:17'>Act 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:20'>Phi 1:20</a></em>).</p><p><em>And the tassels on their garments long</em>- The same word translated “hem” is used elsewhere only about the hem of the Lord’s garment which gave blessing and healing to others (<em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:36'>Mat 14:36</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:6'>Mat 23:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they love the chief place at feasts</em>- The Lord had earlier used the very same words to describe how the attitude to places at feasts was directly relevant to placing at the Messianic banquet of the Kingdom. Those who now take the lowest places around the Lord’s table will be exalted, and those who took the high places will be demoted in “shame”, a term usually associated with rejection and condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 14:7-8'>Luk 14:7-8</a></em>). Those who consider themselves as spiritually superior in the ecclesia will be demoted and that demotion may well be in terms of condemnation. Our attitude around the Lord’s table now will be directly relevant to our placement at the Lord’s table when He returns. Those who have taken for themselves the more glorious places will be rejected- that is the clear message.</p><p><em>And the chief seats in the synagogues</em>- They wanted to be publicly seen as spiritually superior. The whole structure of church life, whereby some must have public roles, is such that people can fall so easily into a love of publicity. The Lord realizes this, and often removes His beloved from such temptations. This explains the otherwise inexplicable way in which the Lord allows some of His most talented and capable servants to be removed from the public eye to serve Him in human obscurity:&nbsp;</p><p>Note that the Lord here is repeating almost word for word what He has previously said about the Pharisees in Luke 11. To repeat so much text twice in the Gospel records, and for the Lord to give identical word-for-word teaching on two occasions, shows how important these warnings are for all readers. This consideration alone suggests that we each have the same tendency as the Pharisees; they are but epitomes of our own deepest tendencies and desires.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:7'>Mat 23:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the salutations in the marketplaces</em>- The Lord’s reason for going to the market was to invite men to work in the vineyard and receive the penny of salvation (<em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>); and His people sitting in the markets sought to persuade others of the need to respond to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 11:16'>Mat 11:16</a></em>). The Pharisees went to the markets to simply flaunt their external spirituality. Again, note how their behaviour was the very inversion of true spirituality.</p><p><em>And to be called of men, Rabbi</em>- This uses&nbsp;<em>kaleo,&nbsp;</em>the standard word translated ‘call’. The Lord and His followers&nbsp;<em>call men</em>&nbsp;to the Kingdom from the markets (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:16'>Luk 14:16</a></em>); rather than going to the markets to be&nbsp;<em>called something by men</em>. Again we see how the Pharisees’ behaviour was a parody of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>23:8&nbsp;<em>But you are not to be called Rabbi</em>- The Lord was looking ahead to when those immature disciples would be the leaders of the new community He believed He was creating. He foresaw the day would come when their converts would naturally want to show them respect, and He warns against the use of titles as a sign of respect. But in this kind of thinking ahead, we have an insight into the great faith and hope the Lord had in His men; for they were so immature, and so far away from such positions of authority and leadership. But He has the same hopes for us too. His positivity is and was extraordinary. The whole vision was a huge challenge for the disciples- to learn that they would one day be the equivalent of the Rabbis in the new Israel the Lord was creating.</p><p><em>For one is your teacher-&nbsp;</em>AV "Master". ‘Rabbi’ means ‘master’ and is from the Hebrew word&nbsp;<em>ab</em>, ‘father’. This explains why having taught against using the title ‘Rabbi’, the Lord now speaks specifically about ‘master’ and ‘father’. The greatness of Christ means that once it is perceived, then we will naturally perceive that in the light of His excellence, we have no pre-eminence over each other; we are brethren, in Christ.</p><p><em>And all you are brothers- Just because</em>&nbsp;we are all brothers, actually something&nbsp;<em>more than physical brothers and sisters</em>, we are not to call any of us ‘Master’, because if we do, it will distract us from our personal looking to Jesus as Lord and Master. This is why anything that even suggests a personality cult built around leading brethren, no matter how wonderful they are or were, really must be avoided. For it takes us away from the one and only Lord and Master. Whatever leaders or organisers we have, we are to call nobody our ‘father’ in a spiritual sense. The wonder of our relationship with&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;Father ought to mean that we never do this. Above all, we are all brethren in Christ. John refers to himself as the brother of the congregation (<em><a href='B:730 1:9'>Rev 1:9</a></em>), and the leading apostles were addressed as ‘brother’ just as much as anyone else in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 21:20'>Act 21:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:15'>2Pe 3:15</a></em>). There may be leaders among brothers (<em><a href='B:510 15:22'>Act 15:22</a></em>), but we are still essentially brethren. The intimate inter-connectedness of the family must ever remain; which explains why Paul is called ‘Paul’ and not a longer form of address. Likewise I’d suggest that the practice of calling each other by our first names, with the prefix ‘brother’ or ‘sister’, is healthy; and, indeed, a privilege. Reference to a brother as ‘Dr:’ or ‘Mr:’ seems to me to be quite at variance with the family nature of our relationship. If the Lordship of Jesus is fully felt as it should be, then even those who become leaders in the congregation the disciples, in the first instance are to feel themselves as brethren with those they are leading. This brotherhood between leaders and followers is essential for true functioning of the body of Christ.</p>


text:
<p>23:9&nbsp;<em>And call no one on the earth your father-&nbsp;</em>Although the twelve called Jesus ‘Rabbi’, they perhaps didn’t respect Him initially as the&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;Rabbi -because the disciples were too influenced by Judaism. The Lord has to remind the disciples to call no man their rabbi or 'father' on earth, i:e. in the land, of Israel. 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 (<em><a href='B:480 9:11'>Mar 9:11</a></em>), 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>. 'Father' was a common title for the rabbis, who referred to their disciples as their 'sons'. The disciples clearly respected the apostate rabbis far more than He wanted them to:&nbsp;We can easily overlook the deep and awesome significance of calling our fellow believers “brother” and “sister”. As Paul so strongly stresses, the Lord Jesus created a new sense of family, of “social identity”. We can easily miss how radical this was in first century Palestine; just as we can miss it in our own context. In the Mediterranean world of the first century, families were supremely important. The head of the family exercised total control. For the Lord to teach that His followers should call no man on earth their father was extreme; and yet He said it and expected it (<em><a href='B:470 23:9'>Mat 23:9</a></em>).</p><p><em>For one is your Father</em>- This appeal to the unity of God would've sat well with the Jewish audience. But like many who profess faith in the One God, they hadn't thought through the implications. If God alone and uniquely is our Father, then we are not to call men 'Rabbi', rooted as the word was in the Hebrew word&nbsp;<em>ab</em>, 'father'.</p><p><em>He who is in Heaven-</em>&nbsp;If there is a Father in Heaven, we don't need a spiritual father upon earth. The implication is that they considered that although indeed there was one Father in Heaven, Heaven is distant and we need a father on earth. The Lord is implying that the King-dom, the rulership and essence of God in Heaven, is to be seen and felt on earth in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>23:10&nbsp;<em>Neither be called</em>- The Lord has warned His people not to call their spiritual leaders by titles such as father or master, and now He addresses those who would become leaders, the nervous and wavering disciples, and urges them not to allow others to call them by these titles. Again, He foresaw how those weak men would soon be in a position where others would wish to give them these titles, and in so doing we have a window upon His hopefulness and vision, at a time when the material in His hands seemed so weak and immature.</p><p><em>Masters</em>- The root word is used about leaders in the church: "Them which&nbsp;<em>have the rule over</em>&nbsp;you" (<em><a href='B:650 13:7'>Heb 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:24'>Heb 13:24</a></em>); "He&nbsp;<em>that is chief</em>" amongst the believers should be as the servant (<em><a href='B:490 22:26'>Luk 22:26</a></em>); Paul was "the<em>&nbsp;chief</em>&nbsp;speaker" (<em><a href='B:510 14:17'>Act 14:17</a></em>), Barnabas and Silas were "<em>chief men</em>&nbsp;amongst the brethren" (<em><a href='B:510 15:22'>Act 15:22</a></em>). So the Lord is not teaching that there are not to be leaders; it is practically impossible in any case to have any community wherein all are identical and without leadership. But the Lord's point is that those in such positions should not be named as such, and should stop others calling them by such names. All in the community of faith should perceive Christ as the one ultimate Lord and Master, and in the light of that deep sense, all should see themselves as brethren on the same ultimate level with each other. One of the key factors in the apostasy of the early church was a failure to give due weight to the Lord's teaching here.</p><p><em>For one is your master, the Christ</em>- Perhaps this was added by Matthew in brackets, as it were, seeing that the Lord never baldly calls Himself "the Christ" in so many words.</p>


text:
<p>23:11&nbsp;<em>But he that is greatest</em>- The Lord spoke distinctly in the singular. Not 'Those who are the great ones', but the specific individual who is the greatest. Surely He had Himself in view.</p><p><em>Among you</em>- Again, this is distinctly relevant to the Lord Jesus personally. He was soon to repeat these words with specific reference to Himself: "He that is greatest among you::. He that is chief, as He that serves::. I am&nbsp;<em>among you</em>&nbsp;as He that serves" (<em><a href='B:490 22:26-27'>Luk 22:26-27</a></em>). The idea of "among you" is an oblique reference to His humanity, as one of us.</p><p><em>Shall be your servant</em>- The servant of Israel was the subject of Isaiah's servant songs, which came to their climax in the Lord's death upon the cross, prefigured by His washing the disciples' feet half naked as a servant, dressed as He would be at the time of His final death on the cross.</p>


text:
<h4>23:12&nbsp;<em>And whosoever</em>- The singular “greatest” person in view in :11 was the Lord Jesus; He was speaking of Himself, and in a sense speaking obliquely to Himself as well as to His immediate audience. But He now teaches that all in Him must pass through the same path of humiliation and exaltation. The same words for ‘abase’ and ‘exalt’ are used about all believers, e:g. “Humble yourselves s:w. ‘abase’ in the sight of the Lord, and He shall lift you up s:w. “exalt”” (<em><a href='B:660 4:10'>Jas 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>). The Lord gave a parabolic example of what He meant when He also used the same words together about how the proud Pharisee would be “abased” and the convicted sinner ‘humbled himself’ and would later be ‘exalted’ (<em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em>). The Lord’s path of humiliation and exaltation is therefore to be that of us all; and <em><a href='B:570 2:4-12'>Phi 2:4-12</a></em> clearly applies this to His whole life and supremely to His death on the cross and exaltation subsequently. “He&nbsp;<em>humbled Himself&nbsp;</em>(s:w. ‘humble’ and ‘abase’ here in <em><a href='B:470 23:12'>Mat 23:12</a></em>)… unto death” (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>). He there is therefore no longer a mere historical event, but rather a living pattern with which we engage throughout the progressive humiliation which the Lord’s hand brings upon us, so that we might be exalted in due time. This, in one sense, is what the paths of our lives are all about- progressive humiliation under His mighty hand, both pushing ourselves down and being pushed down.</h4><p><em>Shall exalt himself</em>- Again relevant to the Lord Jesus, who was highly exalted because of His servanthood. But He was exalted by God, not Himself (<em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em> s:w:). And the very same word is used of the Lord's lifting up on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:34'>Joh 12:34</a></em>). This was the true exaltation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Shall be humbled</em>- This is the very same word used in the next clause: “He that shall humble s:w. ‘abase’ himself…”. In the end, we are brought down. We are humbled by our own humanity and weakness. We either bring ourselves down, or God will bring us down. So we may as well humble ourselves so that we shall be exalted by God, rather than exalting ourselves so that God will eternally bring us down in condemnation at the last day. It’s humility, bringing down, either way. So certain is the connection between humility and exaltation that <em><a href='B:660 1:9'>Jas 1:9</a></em> can say that the brother who is ‘abased’ (AV “of low degree”)&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;exalted- in the eyes of the God who sees outside of our time, for whom all live unto Him even now.</p><p><em>And whoever shall humble himself shall be exalted-&nbsp;</em>God recognized Mary’s “low estate” humility and exalted her above all women (<em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em>), just as He would exalt His Son among men. The same Greek word is used in <em><a href='B:510 8:33'>Act 8:33</a></em>: “In his humiliation ‘low estate’ his judgment was taken away”. It occurs too in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>: “He&nbsp;<em>humbled himself</em>”. In the cross, indeed throughout the seven stage self-humiliation of the Lord which Philippians 2 speaks of, He was living out the spirit of his mother. She taught him the life and the way of the cross. Hence the way she insisted on being there at the end, and the comfort she would have given Him, and the love He showed by asking for the only one who really understood Him to be taken away, for her sake as well as His own. The Lord directly alluded to His mother’s pattern of humiliation and exaltation by using the same word again here in <em><a href='B:470 23:12'>Mat 23:12</a></em>: “Whosever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself s:w. be abased- we must either humble ourselves or be humbled, it’s such a powerful logic shall be exalted”. Thus Jesus alludes to His mother's words in order to set her up as our pattern “whosoever”. And yet He Himself showed the ultimate obedience to her pattern in the death of the cross. For this and many other reasons,&nbsp;the Lord’s mind was upon His mother in His time of dying. And according to the Messianic Psalms, He even asks God to have mercy upon Him&nbsp;<em>for Mary’s sake</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:230 86:16'>Psa 86:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:16'>Psa 116:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>23:13&nbsp;<em>But woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites-</em>&nbsp;The Lord now utters seven woes, just as Isaiah had uttered seven woes after telling Judah the parable of the vineyard (<em><a href='B:290 5:8'>Isa 5:8</a></em> to <em><a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a></em>)- which the Lord had also recently done. Isaiah's woes were likewise uttered as a reflection of genuine Divine anger, but they were also a last ditch appeal to the Judah of Hezekiah's time to repent, lest the Assyrian invasion come and destroy them. Isaiah’s woes largely concerned the extremely fleshly behaviour of Judah at his time; the Lord’s woes concern religious hypocrisy of the apparently zealous, Torah-obedient Jews. The point is that religious hypocrisy, even if it involves careful obedience to some Divine principles, is just as wanton and fleshly as drunkenness and theft, the kinds of things criticized in Isaiah’s seven woes.<br/><em>You lock up</em>- The same figure of the door of the Kingdom being shut but by the Lord, not men is found in 25:10. The similarity is such that we may be intended to understand the foolish virgins are those who were locked out of the Kingdom because of the Pharisees. Their lack of oil, of personal spirituality, was because their religious leaders had not inculcated this in them, nor any sense of their own fallibility and frailty- in that the reason they ended up locked out of the Kingdom was because they had not considered that their oil would likely fail. The Pharisees had "the key of knowledge" (<em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em>) in a spiritually ignorant and illiterate society which depended upon them for knowledge of God's word. Likewise if the elders / judges of Israel had been wise, the entire people would have entered the land (<em><a href='B:50 16:20'>Deu 16:20</a></em>). The whole of Israel would’ve stayed in the wilderness and not entered the Kingdom / land if Gad and Reuben hadn’t initially gone over Jordan (<em><a href='B:40 32:15'>Num 32:15</a></em>). Wrath would come upon all Israel if the Levites weren’t encamped around the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:40 1:53'>Num 1:53</a></em>). We really can cause others to not enter God’s Kingdom by limiting their access to God’s word a sin of omission, or by making demands on them in the name of His Kingdom which are too heavy for them to bear a sin of commission. This imparts an urgency and eternal importance to all our interactions with others. No longer can we see the community of believers as a mere social club, nor the world around us as simply the dead furniture of our lives. We have their salvation or stumbling away from it within our power. This fact also denies us from assuming that whether we fail or not in our interactions with others, God will somehow make good our failures and save others anyway. He has delegated His work into our hands, and to some extent the degree to which it prospers or fails is our responsibility. Otherwise the whole language of delegation of His wealth into our hands is somehow meaningless:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves</em>- As if they slammed the door in the face of ones eager to enter the Kingdom:&nbsp;If we believe that we ourselves will be there, we will spark off an upward spiral of positive thinking in the community of believers with whom we are associated. Think carefully on the Lord’s words to the Pharisees: “For ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). If we don’t believe we will be there, we end up discouraging others.</p><p><em>Nor allow those who would enter to go in</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>&nbsp;translated “allow” more commonly carries the idea of loosing, setting free, and is translated ‘forgive’. There may be a hint here at what the Lord also taught in chapter 18- that unforgiveness of others makes them stumble from entering the Kingdom. And the Pharisees with their endless demands upon men were indeed unforgiving. There is a sense in which we will enter the Kingdom at the last day (5:20; “Not every one that says Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom”, <em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em> s:w:), and yet in another sense we are entering now through the gates (“enter in at the narrow gate”, <em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:17'>Mat 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a></em>). Our lives now are on a path, a journey, which is entering the Kingdom. The significance of life and living could not be more intense.</p><p>Earlier when speaking these words, the Lord had said that the lawyers were ‘hindering’ those who were in the process of entering the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em>). The same word is used about how the disciples ‘forbad’ children to come to Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em>) and about ‘forbidding’ baptism (<em><a href='B:510 8:36'>Act 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). This is exactly how people can be hindered or not ‘allowed’ to enter the Kingdom today- by refusing them baptism because of some inadequacy of knowledge or behaviour, or because they are simply felt to be in a category like “children” were by the disciples who are inappropriate for the Kingdom. These reflections make us realize that the Pharisees were not a mere phenomenon in history, but have their direct equivalents today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:14'>Mat 23:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites</em>- They were totally fleshly people on the inside, but their acting involved the “pretence”, the&nbsp;<em>prophasis</em>&nbsp;or actor’s cloak, of making long prayers, appearing righteous on the outside. The Lord homes in upon such behaviour in the Sermon on the Mount- appearing to be spiritual when we are not is deeply angering to the Lord.</p><p><em>For you devour widow’s houses</em>- I mentioned earlier that the language used here about the behaviour of the Scribes and Pharisees is elsewhere used about the righteous behaviour of the Lord and His followers; the Jewish leaders were living a religious life, but it was but a parody of true spirituality. The same words for “devour” and “house” are used of how the Lord Jesus was ‘eaten up’ or ‘devoured’ with zeal for His Father’s “house”. But by contrast the Scribes thought only of how they could devour the houses of widows, scheming how to get the house of a vulnerable single old woman left to them, and how they could devour that wealth upon themselves. We note that Mark and Luke conclude this section with the account of the widow who gave her entire wealth to the temple coffers (<em><a href='B:480 12:42'>Mar 12:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:1'>Luk 21:1</a></em>). This was surely to add assurance that although her donation was misused, it was carefully noted by God to her eternal credit.</p><p><em>While for a pretence you make long prayers</em>- See on&nbsp;<em>Hypocrites</em>. The word was used about an actor’s cloak, and thus connects with the theatrical term ‘hypocrites’, play-actors. The Lord uses the same word in <em><a href='B:500 15:22'>Joh 15:22</a></em>: “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no&nbsp;<em>cloak</em>&nbsp;for their sin”. When did He come and speak unto the Jews about their hypocrisy? Surely here in Matthew 22. Although they did have a cloak for their sin before men, the Lord is saying in John 15 that they have no such cloak before Him:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Therefore you shall receive greater condemnation</em>- There will be degrees of punishment, although it will be self-inflicted.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:15'>Mat 23:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>:&nbsp;<br/><em>Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites For you compass sea and land to make one proselyte- Periago</em>&nbsp;("compass") is only elsewhere used in the Gospels of the Lord ‘walking around’ the villages around the sea of Galilee (<em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:35'>Mat 9:35</a></em>). Again, their behaviour was a conscious inversion of his.</p><p><em>And when he has become so, you make him twofold more a son of Gehenna than yourselves</em>- The condemnation of anyone is partly their fault, and partly the fault of others. They stopped people entering the Kingdom (:13) and thus made them inherit condemnation. This is the danger of legalism. Despite such huge missionary efforts and apparent devotion, imposing legalism upon others leads to their condemnation and the worse woe, therefore, upon the missionary. They made the person be condemned in that they had made him a proselyte. The same Greek word is used both times for “made”. By becoming a proselyte, the person became responsible to judgment and would be condemned. Here is proof enough that knowledge makes responsible to judgment. The Jews didn’t give men the good news of Christ and God’s grace; rather they gave only partial knowledge of the whole picture, of God’s demands upon men. They persuaded men to enter covenant relationship with Him, undertaking to keep His commandments, whilst not explaining grace and the love of God. And thereby they made those people condemned. This is just as easily done today in the preaching of a one-sided message which lacks any real Gospel, or good news of salvation by faith and grace.</p><p>In "twofold more" we again see the idea of degrees of punishment. The Lord has just said that the Pharisees would have greater condemnation than others (:14), and now He says that their converts would have double even that. Perhaps the implication of that is that these proselytes were not mere passive converts, but were inspired by the example of their teachers to be even more extreme in their legalism and lack of true faith. A case could be made that the Hellenistic Jews who persecuted Paul so fiercely were in fact Gentile proselytes. Reflect too how Saul was more obsessed against Christians than his teacher, the Pharisee Gamaliel. This is all so true to human observation, that the converts of legalists become typically even more fanatic than their spiritual fathers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:16'>Mat 23:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Woe to you, you blind guides, who say: Whoever swears by the temple</em>- Their blindness was a major source of criticism (:16,17,24,26). Paul uses the language of blind guides of the blind to the Jewish Christian believers in <em><a href='B:520 2:19'>Rom 2:19</a></em> - showing again that the mentality of the Pharisees is likely to be a problem for us all; we are failing to get the point if we read these woes upon them and feel somehow isolated from those men by time and culture. Their blindness was self-inflicted, otherwise it would not have been cause for rebuke. If someone doesn't want to see God's ways, then they never can see them, because the darkness in which they have chosen to mentally move has blinded them. </p><p><em>It is nothing</em>- They were saying that an oath could be taken but breaking it was no problem if one ‘only’ swore by the temple. Jews swore by the temple because of their belief at the time that the temple was eternal. Because they broke their oaths and considered the temple to effectively be dispensable, therefore the Lord goes on in chapter 24 to predict the destruction of the temple:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But whoever swears by the gold of the temple</em>- On the basis that that men swore by the greatest thing they could (<em><a href='B:650 6:13'>Heb 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:16'>Heb 6:16</a></em>), we have here an insight into their mind. For them, gold was paramount, for they were materialistic (<em><a href='B:490 16:14'>Luk 16:14</a></em>). And it was even more important than the temple and the God who dwelt there.</p><p><em>He is bound by his oath</em>- This suggests that some oaths were binding and others were not. And thus a scale of honesty was created, whereby human words themselves were not significant, but were only given value according to how much they were underpinned by oaths. The Lord therefore taught that all such swearing was to be outlawed for His people (<em><a href='B:470 5:34-36'>Mat 5:34-36</a></em>). The word&nbsp;<em>opheilo</em>&nbsp;is used often in the Gospels but always in the context of the debt owed to God for human sin (<em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:34'>Mat 18:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:41'>Luk 7:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:7'>Luk 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em>), and the debt of others to us for their sin against us (<em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>). Instead of judging to what degree others are bound / obligated to us for their sins, we are to frankly forgive, just as God frankly forgives our debts:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:17'>Mat 23:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You blind fools For which is greater, the gold, or the temple</em>- The idea was that men swore by the greatest thing they could, which means that if they are going to swear at all, they should swear by God (<em><a href='B:650 6:13'>Heb 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:16'>Heb 6:16</a></em>). However, Jews didn’t like to swear by God, and so they had a whole range of things by which they swore- despite the fact that <em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em> clearly stated “You shall fear Yahweh… and shall swear by His Name”. An oath by the temple was “nothing”, but by the gold of the temple was even more. They were thereby effectively introducing a whole range of possible levels of honesty. Which the Lord had cut right through by insisting that our yes must be yes, without any oaths (<em><a href='B:470 5:34-36'>Mat 5:34-36</a></em>). James alludes to this by saying that “Above all&nbsp;things… swear not” (<em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>). The importance of absolute truthfulness and not grading the honesty of our words is so important that James urges us to this “above all things”. Truthfulness with God, with others and within ourselves, is paramount. It is a reflection of our experience of God’s total and genuine forgiveness of us. In the forgiveness context, this spirit of truthfulness is what allows us to genuinely, from the heart forgive others not in word only but in feeling and reality.</p><p><em>That has made the gold sacred?</em>- By so saying, the Lord reduced ‘gold’ to a mere metal of no intrinsic holiness outside the context of God’s service. The Pharisees, as many believers today, had isolated aspects of their religion and glorified them in themselves, forgetting the wider context. Thus it may be that a sister focuses on one particular aspect of service until it is out of all context, a brother may obsess about a specific Bible teaching out of all perspective with the rest of God’s revelation and intentions. But it’s doubtful that the temple of itself sanctified the gold within it- that isn’t a Biblical idea. See on :19&nbsp;<em>The altar that sanctifies the gift</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:18'>Mat 23:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And, Whoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing</em>- Their desire to define everything led them to downplay the significance of the altar because they were so concerned with the value of the sacrifice placed upon it. And yet <em><a href='B:20 29:37'>Exo 29:37</a></em> pronounced the altar to also be holy. Their penchant for definition led them to ignore the clearest statements in the Law they claimed to read, study and love to obey. Having spoken three times in the same section about “the altar” and “the temple”, it cannot be incidental that the Lord goes on to say that they had effectively slain Zacharias “between the temple and the altar” (:35). He is demonstrating that despite their hypersensitive interpretation of these things, they had committed sacrilege in those very places.</p><p><em>But whoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, he is bound by his oath</em>- Again we have an insight into how the Pharisees thought. Gifts to the temple were all important to them, because those gifts were effectively their income:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:19'>Mat 23:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You blind men For which is greater: the gift</em>- The fact the Lord rebukes them for their blindness shows that blindness is in this sense their choice. I would suggest that much erroneous understanding is a result of people choosing not to understand, rather than having some genuinely excusable intellectual blockage.</p><h4><em>Or the altar that makes the gift sacred?</em>- The Lord had earlier taught that a gift brought to the altar was unacceptable if the offerer was not first reconciled to his brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:23-24'>Mat 5:23-24</a></em>). But as so often, He uses their reasoning and for a moment, argues as if it were true. If they considered that the altar sanctified the gift, then effectively there was a unity between the sacrifice and the altar. To draw a distinction between oaths made by the altar and those made by the sacrifice upon it was therefore utterly a false distinction. The Lord could have argued that oaths should only be made by God, in line with <em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em>. Or He could have reiterated His position that our yes should mean yes, and therefore there was no need for any swearing by anything (<em><a href='B:470 5:34-36'>Mat 5:34-36</a></em>). But we note&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;He argues here- He uses their wrong ideas and works with them to demonstrate ultimately how they were misplaced and wrong. He does the same in using the language of demons. Instead of a bald declaration of truth, He worked with people from where they were. Far too often, bald declarations of truth are presented in a way which can only alienate, and is more for the benefit of the speaker than the audience. It all comes down to whether we genuinely wish to lead a person onwards, for their benefit; or whether we are involved in the whole interchange for our own self-justification and benefit.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:20'>Mat 23:20</a></em><em>&nbsp;He therefore that swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it-&nbsp;</em>The Lord is criticizing the distinction made by the Jews between swearing by the altar, and swearing by the sacrifice; or swearing by the temple, and swearing by the gold placed in the temple treasury. If a man swore by the temple or by the altar, those things could not be taken up if he was found to be telling untruth. But if he swore by the sacrifice or donation of gold he had made, those things could be seized.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:21'>Mat 23:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he that swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him</em>- The Lord's point here and in :22 was that effectively, the Pharisees were doing what they were trying hard not to do, i:e. swearing by God. And yet <em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em> had commanded that oaths should be sworn by God, and <em><a href='B:30 19:12'>Lev 19:12</a></em> implies that too, in warning against swearing falsely by God. There is no suggestion that oaths were to be sworn by anything else. This was the point of the commandment not to take the Name of God in vain (<em><a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a></em>). Abraham swore by God (<em><a href='B:10 14:22-23'>Gen 14:22-23</a></em>); the formula was typically "as Yahweh lives" (<em><a href='B:70 8:19'>Jdg 8:19</a></em>). The Jews tried to avoid this, placing the sacrifice, gold, temple and altar in some kind of varied scale of solemnity. But the Lord's point is that effectively, they were swearing by God. The lesson is that all such careful, legalistic attempts to place a respectable distance between God and ourselves in the matter of honesty are foolish and irrelevant. In reality, the Jews were breaking one of the ten commandments, by taking God's Name in vain. And this was the very commandment they were so careful to apparently obey by not even mentioning or pronouncing the tetragrammaton. The Lord's earlier command in <em><a href='B:470 5:34'>Mat 5:34</a></em> not to swear could be read as meaning that people were not to swear by the things they were swearing by at the time (heaven, earth, Jerusalem, your head), but only by God. But seeing God knows all things, the Lord is saying that our yes should be yes, for effectively all that we say is said before God:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That dwells in it</em>- The Lord goes on to say that the house of the Lord was no longer God's house but "your house", and it was 'left desolate' (:38). The glory had departed from it, just as God's shekinah presence is depicted in Ezekiel as progressively departing from the temple. And yet again the Lord is using their own beliefs against themselves. If they believed that God still dwelt in the temple, then the gold in its treasury, the altar and sacrifices were all equally connected with Him. Note that “Him that dwells” in the sanctuary / Most Holy (<em><a href='B:470 23:21'>Mat 23:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:35'>Mat 23:35</a></em> RVmg:) could be a reference to an Angel who dwelt there- see <em><a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:22'>Mat 23:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he that swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by</em>- To draw a distinction between swearing by Heaven and swearing by God personally was purely academic. Earlier the Lord had clearly stated that there is practically no difference between Heaven and God: "Heaven::. is God's throne" (<em><a href='B:470 5:34'>Mat 5:34</a></em>). We note, however, that Matthew often uses "Heaven" as a synonym for God, using language in a way which makes concession to Jewish sensitivities, even though they were mistaken. The use of the language of demons for unexplained illnesses is another example. The Lord could have simply quoted from the Old Testament, as Stephen did: "Heaven is My throne" (<em><a href='B:510 7:49'>Act 7:49</a></em>). But instead He works with the false distinction they were making to show it to be false, instead of head on confronting them with the error of their thinking by Biblical quotation. And in that He sets us an example. The Lord's point is that all oaths are before God because He sees all things. The distinctions being drawn by the Pharisees were pathetic efforts to distance man from God in terms of personal responsibility to Him. Whilst we may shake our heads at their intellectual vanity and desperation, we practically do the same within the deepest levels of human psychology. For we too can assume that somehow God is not present, we are not held to be utterly truthful, because of some get out clause of our own creation and imagination. But His omnipresence means that there are no such separations to be made, nor distances to be placed, between God and man. We are directly responsible to Him, in His presence. See on :26.</p><p><em>Him that sits on it</em>- A clear invitation to conceive of God as a personal corporeal being having specific location.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:23'>Mat 23:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites For you tithe</em>- The Greek can equally mean to both take or receive tithes. They demanded and perhaps paid themselves tithes on absolutely everything:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Mint and anise and cumin</em>- These plants grew on windowsills, and a tenth of their 'crop' would've been very light in weight. The lightness of the 'crop' is contrasted with the 'heavier' things which were required of believers. Again, the Lord could've deployed convincing Biblical arguments that the tithe was to be paid from harvested crops, and given to the Levites / priests- not the Pharisees. For they were not the same as the priests. There is no hint in the Mosaic legislation that a tenth of such things was to be given to support the livelihood of the priests. But the Lord goes along with their position- and doesn't say they should not do this. Rather He lifts the issue to a higher and 'heavier' level. In engagement with those who wilfully misunderstand Scripture, it's easy to present a strictly Biblical case which demolishes their position. And the Lord could so easily have done this in the matter of tithing kitchen herbs. But He doesn't. He simply raises weightier issues and principles:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Yet have left undone</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>&nbsp;occurs three times in this verse; clearly a word play is intended. For the Lord concludes the sentence by saying: "::. and not to leave&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>&nbsp;the other undone&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>". And He uses it again at the end of His speech: "Your house is left&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>&nbsp;unto you desolate" (:38), and there would therefore not be left&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>&nbsp;one stone upon another in that temple / house (<em><a href='B:470 24:2'>Mat 24:2</a></em>); not one part of the masonry would be omitted or overlooked, every stone would be thrown down. They had omitted the weightier matters of justice etc:, thinking they were justified in this because they did not omit to tithe kitchen herbs. But the Lord is saying that effectively they&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;omitted "the other", the tithing of kitchen herbs; they had omitted what they had omitted. The double use of&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>&nbsp;in the last clause is to give the sense of how totally they had omitted&nbsp;<em>aphiemi</em>&nbsp;"the other", the tithing of kitchen herbs. So although they did tithe them, effectively they had not done so. Because they had omitted the weightier matters of justice, mercy and faith. So they tithed, but they did not tithe. Just as we can pray, but not pray; think we believe, when we do not; forgive, when we do not really; read God's word, when we do not really do so as the Lord often pointed out to them in saying "Have you never read:::?", when clearly on one level they had read. Omitting justice, mercy and faith meant that their tithing of the small stuff was also omitted, in God's final view of them. The spiritual life is intended to be all encompassing, it's not a case of a series of specific obediences to a long list of specific commandments, whereby our omission of the heavier issues is compensated for by our commission of the lighter issues. And this again is a challenge to us all; for surveying God's expectations of us, we can so easily cut ourselves slack in some areas because we feel we are being obedient in others. Thus the failure of the Pharisees in this becomes not something to merely shake our heads at, but a challenge to our deepest internal reasonings in our own walk before God:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The weightier matters of the law</em>- The heavy burdens tied on men by the Pharisees were in fact relating to the lighter matters s:w. :4 "heavy burdens". Clearly the Lord saw there was a variation in God's requirements, ranging from light to heavy. This of course was and is anathema to any legalistic mind, who sees obedience to specific statements as paramount. The Lord is trying to show that life before God is lived in a spirit of life in which omitting the weightier matters means that specific obedience to the lighter matters is thereby rendered void:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Justice, mercy</em>- These were "matters of the Law", these were what the various specific commandments of the Mosaic Law sought to inculcate. Why these three matters? Mercy is part of justice, in that justice must be shown with mercy if we have any awareness of our own moral frailty (<em><a href='B:660 2:13'>Jas 2:13</a></em>); just as God integrates mercy with justice in His judgment of men. Mercy and justice are what David praises God for (<em><a href='B:230 89:14'>Psa 89:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 101:1'>Psa 101:1</a></em>). God's judgment of men is connected with His mercy (<em><a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a></em>), and human judgment of situations must likewise be a mixture of justice and mercy (<em><a href='B:350 12:6'>Hos 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 7:9'>Zec 7:9</a></em>). But to exercise these things requires faith- faith that God's judgment of us and others is mixed with mercy. For those like the Pharisees with no sense of their own sins and experience of God's judgment-mercy, this was all a foreign language, just as it is for the many self-righteous legalists of today. Our calling is to reflect God's mixture of justice and mercy on the basis of our own experience of it, and this was the intention of the entire legal apparatus of the Mosaic law.</p><p><em>And faith. These you ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone-&nbsp;</em>Faith is something which ought to be 'done', the Lord is teaching. Faith never exists alone. James argues that there is no essential difference between faith and works. 'Faith' is not just credulity or a vague feeling of hope, but an active, driving force. There is "the work of faith" (<em><a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 1:11'>2Th 1:11</a></em>). Knowledge and faith are paralleled in John's thought (<em><a href='B:500 8:32'>Joh 8:32</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 14:1'>Mat 14:1</a></em>; cp. <em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em>)- 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>); and the Lord's parallel of 'little faith' with little understanding (<em><a href='B:470 16:7-8'>Mat 16:7-8</a></em>):&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>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:24'>Mat 23:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You blind guides</em>- That they were “guides” is a repeated reason why the Lord condemns them. This is because they were leading others to condemnation. We play a larger part than we currently can ever imagine in either the salvation or stumbling of others, and this fact of itself should impart to all our interactions a seriousness and intensity. On one hand, deeply sensitive to whether a course of action will cause another to stumble, and on the other, ever reaching out to others with the possibilities of the Kingdom and forgiveness.</p><p><em>That strain out the gnat and swallow the camel</em>- Gnats lived on camels, so this is a picture of how extremely these highly religious men had utterly missed the point. And remember that they were members of the ecclesia of their day, the people of God. <em><a href='B:370 6:6'>Amo 6:6</a></em> (LXX) condemns a similar Israel as those "which drink strained wine". The Pharisees would’ve been shocked by this direct association made between them and apostate Israel of Old Testament times. The context of Amos 6 is about the forthcoming destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple for the sake of the materialism of Israel’s leaders.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:25'>Mat 23:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites For you cleanse</em>- The Lord Jesus is described using the same word as making others clean (<em><a href='B:470 8:2-3'>Mat 8:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:5'>Mat 11:5</a></em>). The Pharisees were concerned with making&nbsp;<em>themselves&nbsp;</em>look clean externally. Again, they are a parody of the Lord. He was concerned with making&nbsp;<em>others</em>&nbsp;clean, and really clean. This tension, between making ourselves look clean and making others clean, is highly relevant to us all. For there is such a thing as being spiritually selfish.</p><p><em>The outside</em>- The tension between outside and inside, along with the idea of cleanliness, is to be found in the Lord’s earlier teaching in <em><a href='B:480 7:15'>Mar 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 7:18'>Mar 7:18</a></em>. Nothing on the&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;can defile a man, it is the&nbsp;<em>inside</em>&nbsp;, the thoughts, which must be cleansed. If we ask&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;there is a desire for good appearances externally, the answer may not simply be ‘so as to look good to others’. It can also partly be a recognition of our own inner defilement and our sense that we ought to be doing something about it. Peter explores the same tension in <em><a href='B:670 3:3'>1Pe 3:3</a></em>, teaching that a woman should not focus on&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;s:w. adorning, but not on&nbsp;<em>internal</em>&nbsp;attitudes. He’s not saying that ‘outward adornment’ is wrong of itself, but rather that her focus should be on&nbsp;<em>inner</em>&nbsp;spirituality rather than focusing on the&nbsp;<em>external</em>&nbsp;to the exclusion of the&nbsp;<em>internal</em>. Thus obsession with external cosmetic issues, and literal cosmetics, can likely be a running away from internal issues which need serious addressing. So often pedantic attitudes to externalities conceal insecurity, and in spiritual terms, that insecurity is a reflection of disbelief that the inner conscience has been cleansed of sin in Christ.</p><p><em>Of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion-&nbsp;</em>The plate and cup refer to the Pharisees personally. The picture is of silverware being cleansed and shining outwardly, whilst it contains unclean things within. “Even so&nbsp;<em>you also</em>&nbsp;outwardly appear righteous” (:28). And <em><a href='B:490 11:39'>Luk 11:39</a></em> is clearer: “<em>Your&nbsp;</em>inward part is full of ravening Gk. ‘extortion’ and wickedness Gk. ‘plots’”. They were ever scheming how to get money out of people. But why choose these two items as examples? The presence of the article both times,&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;cup and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>plate, suggest they have specific relevance. The Gospels were written as the handbook for the early Christian converts and ecclesias. They would largely have been recited or read at the breaking of bread meetings. It’s hard therefore to avoid the reference to the memorial cup and plate of the communion meetings. And again, the warning comes so close to home. The memorial meeting is the time to look within, at the likely wickedness within us, rather than appearing in our Sunday best and making ourselves shine externally.</p><p><em>And excess</em>- The Greek suggests complete lack of restraint. And here is the paradox. The most rule-governed people were actually without any sense of restraint. Obedience to rules, and elevating rules, does not of itself mean we are restrained. It can mean the very opposite.</p><p>Time and again Paul warns his brethren not to behave like the Pharisees did in various incidents in the Gospels (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:25'>Mat 23:25</a></em> Gk. = <em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em>, where Paul is saying 'If you lust inwardly but outwardly appear to have rejected marriage for the sake of the Gospel, you're like those condemned Pharisees). Let it be noted that the danger of Pharisaism, of spiritual hypocrisy, of adopting a hard line on issues which in essence we too fail in, was a great theme with Paul.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:26'>Mat 23:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You blind Pharisee Cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the plate</em>- What was within them was a ravening (<em><a href='B:470 7:15'>Mat 7:15</a></em>) for material gain and plotting to obtain it (<em><a href='B:490 11:39'>Luk 11:39</a></em>), extortion and lack of self-restraint (:25). There was of course no prescription in the Mosaic legislation for cleansing internal attitudes. But the Lord’s command for them to cleanse these things surely suggests they were to think harder about what the sacrificial blood of cleansing might represent. The argument of <em><a href='B:650 9:9-14'>Heb 9:9-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:2'>Heb 10:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em> is that the blood of Mosaic sacrifices could not cleanse from such internal conscience of sin- but the blood of Christ can. The Lord’s command for them to “cleanse” their inner parts could therefore find no opportunity for fulfilment within their legal framework. But the language would’ve recalled David’s need to be cleansed in the inward parts after his sins relating to Bathsheba (<em><a href='B:230 51:2'>Psa 51:2</a></em>). His request for cleansing was met by God’s direct operation on his heart, because as he was aware, there was no prescribed sacrifice which could address his need. The scribes and Pharisees were surely intended to realize that they must ask God for special cleansing; and yet they knew that blood played some role in cleansing. Therefore they were intended to come to the conclusion that God could indeed cleanse them, but through some special sacrifice. The priests and Pharisees who later converted to Christ perhaps followed this path of logic to where the Lord intended it to lead (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>). His hopefulness in people finally paid off- setting us a great example.</p><p><em>That the outside of it of it may become clean also</em>- There is a jarring element of unreality here. Cleaning the inside of a cup doesn’t make the outside clean. But that is the jump of faith required. The inside is the outside- in God’s eyes. This reasoning continues the theme that ‘God sees all things’ which the Lord has developed in :22; see on <em><a href='B:470 23:22'>Mat 23:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>By Heaven</em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>23:27&nbsp;<em>Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites For you are like whitewashed tombs</em>- A month before Passover, the graves were painted white so that the pilgrims coming to keep the feast would not be defiled. This was therefore something fresh in everyone’s minds, for the Lord was speaking at Passover time. Earlier the Lord had used the opposite figure about them: "You are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them" (<em><a href='B:490 11:44'>Luk 11:44</a></em>). It was as if they had not whitened / cleansed themselves before Passover as was required. And so again we see the idea that they led men into defilement.</p><p><em>Which outwardly appear</em>- S:w. 6:16 “That they may&nbsp;<em>appear</em>&nbsp;unto men to be fasting”:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>But inwardly are full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness-&nbsp;</em>The idea of being inwardly ‘full’ of unclean thinking is found likewise in :25: “<em>Full</em>&nbsp;of extortion and excess”. Only from God’s perspective is this apparent. We tend to perceive elements of spirituality and also of unspirituality co-existing within a person. But ultimately, in God’s judgment, the inner heart is either fully for Him or against Him, dead or alive in spiritual terms. They are full of “<em>all</em>&nbsp;uncleanness”. The language is in absolute, total terms:&nbsp;<br/><em>Bones</em>- Perhaps a reference to the spiritually dead house of Israel being likened to dead bones in <em><a href='B:330 37:1-11'>Eze 37:1-11</a></em>, awaiting the coming of the spirit of the new covenant.</h4>


text:
<p>23:28&nbsp;<em>Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men</em>- This is the language of <em><a href='B:90 16:7'>1Sa 16:7</a></em>. Man looks on the outside, but God looks within. And within the Pharisees was not a pretty sight.</p><p><em>But inwardly you are full of hypocrisy</em>- We would imagine that the language of hypocrisy was more relevant to their outward appearance than to their internal state. But they were hypocrites&nbsp;<em>within</em>, meaning that they deceived their own selves within, wearing masks within their own hearts to deceive themselves that they were actually righteous. The Lord Jesus perceptively commented that hypocrisy is something which is&nbsp;<em>within</em>- it's about acting out a role&nbsp;<em>inside</em>&nbsp;ourselves, a split personality&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;a person, whereby they kid themselves they are someone whom they are not. Their real self and their shadow self are in conflict deep within their minds, in their own self-perceptions they act one way when their real self is something different. And this all goes on&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;the human mind. Hence Paul speaks of hypocrisy being essentially a lie which is told within the mind, and parallels it with a conscience which no longer functions properly (<em><a href='B:610 4:2'>1Ti 4:2</a></em>). The Lord's definition of hypocrisy therefore concerned an internal state of mind- and He warned that this is a yeast which inevitably spreads to others (<em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>). Thus Barnabas was carried away into hypocrisy by the hypocrisy of others (<em><a href='B:550 2:13'>Gal 2:13</a></em>). Although it's so deeply internal, the dissonance between the real self and the portrayed self that goes on&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;human minds somehow becomes a spirit which influences others. And that's how society has become so desperately hypocritical. <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em> gives some good practical advice in all this- our yes should mean yes and our no should be no, or else we will fall into hypocrisy (Gk:- AV "condemnation" is a terribly misleading translation). James seems to be saying that we can guard against falling into the hypocritical life and mindset by ensuring that our words, feeling and intentions are directly and simply stated, with meaning to the words, with congruence between our real self and the words we speak.</p><p><em>And iniquity</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>anomia</em>&nbsp;means literally ‘not law’, without law. These religious scrupulous legalists were in fact moral anarchists, with no law. This is the great paradox of legalism, to the point that it could be argued that legalism is in fact a cover for internal moral lawlessness. This would explain the otherwise staggering moral hypocrisy, double standards and depth of moral failure observed in the lives of so many legalists. Their external legalism is a cover for their own internal moral anarchy and lack of law and self-restraint.</p>


text:
<p>23:29&nbsp;<em>Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites For you build the tombs of the prophets</em>-&nbsp;<em>Oikodomeo</em>&nbsp;means not only to build but carries the sense of ‘to confirm’, and is also translated in the NT in this sense. On one hand, building the tombs of the prophets was a sign of respect, but the Lord read it negatively, as if by doing so they were confirming the decision to murder them made by their forefathers. We have here an example of where the same action can be judged positively or negatively by the Lord; and this of itself disproves the mentality of salvation by works. Because it depends with what motive or background attitude the works are done, and this decides whether the work was an act of righteousness or a sin. And this is a further warning against the impossibility of judging another’s works. For we fail to see those background, internal attitudes behind the work. See on 23:30&nbsp;<em>Our fathers</em>.</p><p><em>And garnish</em>- The same word is soon to be used of how the temple was ‘garnished’ (<em><a href='B:490 21:5'>Luk 21:5</a></em>), and the Lord predicted its utter destruction. In the Lord’s teaching, it is the inner mind which must be “garnished” (12:44), the lamp of our own spirituality must likewise be “trimmed” (s:w:; 25:7). Again we see a tension between the Lord’s focus upon the internal, and their attention to the external.</p><p><em>The tombs of the righteous</em>- The same word has just been used in :28, where the Lord observes that the Pharisees tried to “appear righteous unto men”. And they accordingly made a great show of tending the graves of “the righteous”. The implication is therefore that they saw righteousness in terms of imitating ‘the righteous’ who had gone before them. The whole thrust of the New Testament is concerning imputed righteousness, not attaining righteousness in the eyes of others by our own imitations of men. The idea that righteousness involves modelling some past religious leader of our denomination is not at all dead in these days.</p>


text:
<p>23:30&nbsp;<em>And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers</em>- The Lord takes their use of this phrase and reasons that they were thereby calling themselves the descendants of those who had killed the prophets, and were therefore guilty. That may seem a very harsh analysis and judgment. But the Lord has the power to see meaning in words for good or for bad. All&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;hear are the words, and we cannot judge words alone, because we cannot see the background motivation behind them. See on 23:29&nbsp;<em>You build</em>.</p><p><em>We would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets</em>- Blood is here put by metonymy for ‘death’, and this explains how the term “The blood of Christ” refers not so much to the red liquid of His blood, but to His death.</p>


text:
<p>23:31- see on 15:2.<br/><em>Therefore you witness to yourselves-&nbsp;</em>AV "Witnesses against yourselves<em>":&nbsp;</em>The rejected are witnesses against themselves (<em><a href='B:290 44:9'>Isa 44:9</a></em>). Herein lies the crass folly and illogicality of sin. Jeremiah pleaded with Israel: "Wherefore commit ye this great evil against your souls i:e. yourselves, to cut off from you man and woman::. that ye might cut yourselves off" (<em><a href='B:300 44:7-8'>Jer 44:7-8</a></em>, cp. how Jerusalem cut her own hair off in <em><a href='B:300 7:29'>Jer 7:29</a></em>). In the same passage, Yahweh is the one who does the cutting off (<em><a href='B:300 44:11'>Jer 44:11</a></em>); but they had cut themselves off. Likewise as they had kindled fire on their roofs in offering sacrifices to Baal, so Yahweh through the Babylonians would set fire to those same houses (<em><a href='B:300 32:29'>Jer 32:29</a></em>). And note the present tense of the Lord’s words here. In that the judgment process is now ongoing, we&nbsp;<em>are right now&nbsp;</em>witnesses against ourselves when we sin. And we are not only witnesses, but also the judge who pronounces the verdict of condemnation: for the sinner is condemned&nbsp;<em>of himself&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:630 3:11'>Tit 3:11</a></em>). In this lies the illogicality of sin and the utter blindness of man to the implications of his actions before God. They right now fulfil or live out the judgment of the wicked (<em><a href='B:220 36:17'>Job 36:17</a></em>).</p><p><em>You are the sons of them that slew the prophets</em>-&nbsp;The idea of being a ‘son of’ someone or something meant to be in agreement with them, or to be a disciple of them. Again, this seems an example of imputing iniquity. Their usage of the term “our fathers” was taken by the Lord to mean that they ‘allowed’ or Gk. ‘had pleasure in’ the murder of the prophets (<em><a href='B:490 11:48'>Luk 11:48</a></em>). But the same words “our fathers” are used by Paul to describe his faithless Israelite forbears- and he is not condemned for it (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:25'>Act 28:25</a></em>). Clearly, the same words can be used by men with different background meanings, and this is seen by God and His Son. But all we hear are the words- we cannot therefore judge them.</p>


text:
<p>23:32&nbsp;<em>Fill up</em>- The language of the iniquity of the Amorites filling up to a point where they would be cast out of Canaan (<em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em>). The Lord is saying that the Jewish legalists were no better than the Gentile inhabitants of the land, and they would be cast out of the same land, to make way for a new Israel, largely comprised of Gentiles. God is not insensitive to sin; the account builds up to a point where He will openly act. The question is whether the Lord was commanding / encouraging them to ‘fill up’ this measure of sin by going ahead and crucifying Him, or whether He was merely commenting that they were filling up that measure of sin which would bring Divine judgment. If He is encouraging them to go ahead and fill up the measure of sin required of them, then we have here another insight into how the Lord as it were provoked His own final arrest and death, in the sense that He consciously gave His life rather than having it taken from Him. His parody of a triumphant entry into Jerusalem so broke and disappointed Jewish expectations of Him that it could be argued that He was purposefully moving the crowds to turn their misplaced love for Him into hatred, and join forces with the Jewish leadership in killing Him.</p><p>The comparison between them and the Gentile Amorites is part of a wider theme, in which those among God's people who break their covenant with Him, He sees as the world. Thus Moses prophesied of an apostate Israel: "They have dealt corruptly with God, they are no longer his children because of their blemish; they are a perverse and crooked generation" (<em><a href='B:50 32:5'>Deu 32:5</a></em> RSV). These very words are used by Paul regarding the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>). Likewise <em><a href='B:290 42:1-2'>Isa 42:1-2</a></em> concerning Christ's witness to the&nbsp;<em>Gentiles</em>&nbsp;is quoted in <em><a href='B:470 12:19'>Mat 12:19</a></em> regarding His witness to an apostate Israel. Israel were to be made like “the top of a rock” just as Gentile Tyre would be (<em><a href='B:330 24:7'>Eze 24:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 26:4'>Eze 26:4</a></em>). Pharaoh's heart was hardened to bring about God's glory, but Paul uses the very same language, in the same context, to describe what was happening to an apostate, Egypt-like Israel (<em><a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a></em>). Korah and his company were swallowed by the earth, using the very language which Moses so recently had applied to how the Egyptians were swallowed by the earth at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 15:12'>Exo 15:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>Then the measure of your fathers' iniquity</em>- The Lord elsewhere uses the figure of a measure to describe final judgment. With the measure we measure, it will be measured to us in that day (<em><a href='B:470 7:2'>Mat 7:2</a></em>). So the Lord could be urging them to go ahead and fill up the required level of sin to bring about on&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;the judgment due to their fathers. For this is His teaching in :35- that judgment for all the righteous blood shed by Israel’s leaders was to come upon that generation. This may appear to contradict the principle that the sons shall not suffer for the fathers’ sins. But the Lord seems to be saying that there is also another dimension to the picture, and that is the principle of imputed sin to those who repeat the sins of their fathers:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You serpents, you offspring of vipers</em>- A clear reference to them as the seed of the serpent (<em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>How shall you escape the judgment of Gehenna?</em>- The Lord's whole attitude to Israel showed that they could be saved from condemnation, even at the very last minute. And this was clearly His will. So rather than seeing this as spoken in anger as the final invective against a deeply wayward nation, I am inclined to see this as spoken with a voice cracking under the passion of wanting to save the beloved who hates their Saviour. And surely there was a rhetorical element to it. How they could escape it was to ditch their plans to crucify Him. And the Lord goes straight on in <em><a href='B:470 24:16'>Mat 24:16</a></em> to say that even when judgment started to come upon Jerusalem and the temple, they could “escape to the mountains” (s:w:). This was how they could literally escape the coming condemnation; which suggests that surely the Lord did have an appealing, rhetorical sense to His question here. The similarity with that clause in the Olivet prophecy is really a marvel of grace. They who deserved instant death were being given grace upon grace, every chance to change the outcome of their wicked ways. Further, the Lord is quoting here from the words of John the Baptist: “O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee s:w. “escape” from the wrath to come?” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). “All Jerusalem”, including the Scribes and Pharisees, had initially heard John approvingly. The Lord is surely saying that the way to escapee the coming condemnation was by doing what John had taught- to repent and accept Jesus as Messiah and Saviour from sin. Again, the Lord’s quotation of John’s words confirms that He is speaking rhetorically and seeking their repentance and salvation, even at that late hour.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:34'>Mat 23:34</a></em><em>&nbsp;Therefore, look, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you shall kill and crucify, and some of them you shall scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city-&nbsp;</em>This certainly sounds like a quotation from extant literature; <em><a href='B:490 11:49'>Luk 11:49</a></em> introduces it with: “Therefore also said the wisdom of God”. The Lord Jesus was indeed “the wisdom of God” (<em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>), and so it could be that the Gospel writers were pointing out that these words of Jesus were a proof text amongst their persecuted converts. Certainly the Lord’s words here would’ve been a good mission statement for the early church. Or it could be that the Lord is quoting some now unknown text with approval. There can be no doubt that every part of the verse has direct relevance to the first century witness to the Jews. The source of the quotation is therefore of secondary importance; the Lord places it in His own mouth, at any rate, in predicting the outcome of the great commission. And yet clearly enough, at the time He spoke these words, that bunch of mixed up, largely secular men, who misunderstood so much, who knew so little, and whose ideals were so misplaced, were far from being the preaching machine which the Lord’s words imply here. We can take one simple lesson from this- He had a profound hopefulness in people, a hopefulness which against all odds so often paid off. We, by contrast, tend to be highly cynical of people because we fail to see what they might turn into in spiritual terms.</p><p><em>"</em>I send unto you" is a reference to the sending of the great commission. The Lord’s desire was that the worldwide witness began at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>), and Paul’s interpretation of the commission was clearly that it involved being sent&nbsp;<em>firstly</em>&nbsp;to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. The secular disciples were the equivalent of the prophets in the old Israel. There may be particular reference to the New Testament prophets, those who had the Spirit gift of prophecy. <em><a href='B:490 11:49'>Luk 11:49</a></em> adds: “Prophets and apostles”. Clearly the witness of the early Christians is in view.</p><p>The Lord was talking to the scribes (:29), telling them that He was sending “scribes” to them. And those scribes were men amongst whom were the illiterate and who therefore didn’t know the text of Scripture that well. Their qualification was that they had known God’s Son. The Lord is here comparing and contrasting the old and new in the starkest possible terms.<br/><em>You shall kill</em>- As Stephen and James (<em><a href='B:510 7:59'>Act 7:59</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:1-2'>Act 12:1-2</a></em>).<br/><em>And crucify</em>- The Lord implied this would be Peter’s fate.<br/><em>Scourge</em>- Fulfilled <em><a href='B:510 22:19-24'>Act 22:19-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:24-25'>2Co 11:24-25</a></em>:&nbsp;<br/><em>In your synagogues</em>- The punishment of synagogue scourging could only be applied by the Jews to official synagogue members. The fact Paul experienced synagogue discipline by beating with rods shows that he too chose to be a member (<em><a href='B:540 11:24'>2Co 11:24</a></em>). The Lord spoke as if His followers would remain within the synagogue system until they were forcibly expelled (<em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>). In all this we see a distinct lack of any ‘guilt by association’ mentality with the Lord. He did not ask His followers to break religious association with those who were both morally and doctrinally astray, but rather to remain in those associations until they were cast out. Notice again how the Lord refers to&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;synagogues, just as&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;house became “<em>your</em>&nbsp;house”.<br/><em>Persecute them-&nbsp;</em>By Paul, who was himself later “persecuted” by the Jews (s:w. <em><a href='B:540 4:9'>2Co 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:11'>Gal 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:12'>Gal 6:12</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/><em>From city to city</em>- Fulfilled in <em><a href='B:510 14:19'>Act 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:13'>Act 17:13</a></em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:35'>Mat 23:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That upon you</em>- One would’ve expected God to be so hurt by the death of His Son that judgment came immediately upon those responsible. But instead, the Lord predicted that the judgment would come only after the Jews had further persecuted the apostles as they went out to fulfil the great preaching commission to the Jews. This apparent delay was not because God was not hurt or not angry. He was. But His patient love and desire for human repentance, to give them yet more chances, was simply greater. The delay was so that the Lord could send out the apostles of :34 to appeal to Israel for repentance. But they had been given final appeal after final appeal. And still God waited for their repentance. With what eagerness must He have watched for response to the preaching to them, and with what generous provision He would’ve provided for all those who wished to make that appeal to the Jews. And nothing has changed to this day. The idea of blood coming upon,&nbsp;<em>epi</em>, a person clearly meant ‘guilt for their death’. Soon the Jews were to be using this very term in asking for the blood of Jesus to be ‘upon’ them (<em><a href='B:470 27:25'>Mat 27:25</a></em>). Because Jesus was the personification of God’s prophetic word and thereby the summary of all the prophets, their desire for&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;blood to be upon them was effectively taking upon themselves the blood of the prophets.</p><p><em>May fall the guilt for all the righteous blood shed on the land</em>- This stands for ‘<em>judgment for</em>&nbsp;all the righteous blood shed’. Note how language is being used here. The sin is put by metonymy for&nbsp;<em>the judgment for</em>&nbsp;the sin. Sin is its own judgment. To sin is to ask for judgment / condemnation. In this lies the utter lack of logic in any sin. And iniquity was added to their iniquity (<em><a href='B:230 69:27'>Psa 69:27</a></em> - a specific prophecy of the Jews who killed Jesus), just as righteousness can be imputed:&nbsp;</p><p><em>From the blood of Abel the righteous</em>- If that generation were guilty of Abel’s murder, this associates them with Cain. The Jewish false teachers are likened to Cain (<em><a href='B:690 3:12'>1Jn 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>); and the Lord says that the Jews seeking to kill Him are the sons of the one who was a “murderer from the beginning” (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>). Cain was the first murderer:&nbsp;</p><p><em>To the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah</em>- Or, Baruk. The prophet Zechariah would fit this description, but there’s no record of him being murdered. Josephus in&nbsp;<em>The Jewish War</em>&nbsp;4:5:4 speaks of a Zacharias ben Baruch who was assassinated by the Zealots in the Sanhedrin. But he was not a prophet, and this event was still future. And he wasn’t killed in the temple. However, there was a prophet Zechariah who was stoned to death in the temple (<em><a href='B:140 24:19-22'>2Ch 24:19-22</a></em>). He was the son or grandson of Jehoiada, so it’s feasible he was the son of a Baruk. The Hebrew Bible ended with 2 Chronicles, and so the mention of this murder would form an appropriate inclusio with the first murder, of Abel. All the murders of the faithful, from the first to the last as recorded in the Hebrew Bible, were going to have their judgment exacted from the generation who crucified God’s Son:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Whom you slew between the sanctuary and the altar</em>- See on :18&nbsp;<em>The altar.</em>&nbsp;The mention of this detail would perhaps be because the Lord has just spoken of their wrong attitude to both temple and altar (:20,21). He is saying that effectively they had desecrated temple and altar- when they claimed such deep reverence for them. Their mercenary focus upon the gold of the temple and the gifts placed upon the altar was to such an extent that they had robbed the actual temple and altar of their holiness. This was no better than killing a righteous prophet in the holy place:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>"</em>Whom&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;slew" shows that the murder was counted to them, in the sense that the blood of those martyrs was “required of this generation” (<em><a href='B:490 11:51'>Luk 11:51</a></em>). Sin, like righteousness, can be imputed as part of the downward spiral which operates as the opposite of the upward spiral in spiritual life.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:36'>Mat 23:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation</em>- Even in this prediction of terrible judgment there is grace. Because the AD70 judgments didn’t come until nearly 40 years afterwards. Male lifespans in first century Palestine were estimated at an average of 29 years by J:D. Crossan, basing his research on tomb inscriptions and analysis of bones from graves. So the actual ‘elders’ who were responsible for the Lord’s death likely died in their beds rather than in the Jewish-Roman war or the final holocaust in Jerusalem. I can only explain this on the basis of God’s grace prolonging that final coming of judgment, in the earnest hope that Israel would yet repent. In the context of AD70, this would appear to be the teaching of 2 Peter 3. We would expect those men to have fairly soon received their judgment in this life. They will be judged- at the last day. But it would seem that God’s desire to judge them was in tension with His desire to give Israel the maximum opportunity for repentance. We can only draw a sharp breath at God’s grace. Another approach would be to understand that the threatened judgment upon that generation simply didn’t happen- in their lifetimes. The entire Divine program was delayed until the last days, when that generation shall be resurrected and receive their judgment. The events of AD70 were simply a foretaste and prefigurement of the final judgment at the Lord’s second coming.</p><p>"This generation" is a phrase often used by the Lord in Matthew concerning those who heard and dealt with Him. It is surely the same generation in view in <em><a href='B:470 24:34'>Mat 24:34</a></em>: “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”:&nbsp;<em>This</em>&nbsp;generation is used elsewhere by the Lord concerning those right in front of Him. It is the same “this generation” in <em><a href='B:470 23:36'>Mat 23:36</a></em> as in <em><a href='B:470 24:34'>Mat 24:34</a></em>. The Lord doesn’t, therefore, mean ‘The future generation which shall exist and see these things will not pass until all is fulfilled’. He is saying that the generation,&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;generation, would not pass until all was fulfilled. The fact all wasn’t fulfilled simply in that generation shows that there was a major delay or change in the Divine program. And the reason for the delay was not simply that Israel hadn’t repented, but because God’s loving patience was still awaiting their repentance- and He so wished them to repent.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>O Jerusalem, Jerusalem</em>- It was “this generation” which killed the prophets (:35), so why does the Lord specifically talk here about the children of Jerusalem? “Daughter of Zion” was an Old Testament term used for the faithful remnant in Jerusalem. But the way the Lord talks of gathering Jerusalem’s residents under His wings is surely because He had a clear vision before Him of how the city would be burnt. For a hen typically gathers her brood under her wings to protect them from a barnyard fire; or perhaps with the intention of being burnt first to preserve the life of her brood as long as possible. And these were the Lord’s feelings to the “Jerusalem” which rejected Him and sought His life; He wanted to save them, to buy them some more time at least (as reflected in the parable of the worker who doesn’t want to cut the tree down immediately). But they didn’t want to know. It was and is all so tragic.</p><p><em>Which kills the prophets</em>- The allusion is to the parable of the husbandmen, who killed and stoned the servants / prophets sent to them (<em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And stones those sent to her</em>- The punishment for apostasy (<em><a href='B:50 13:10'>Deu 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:59'>Act 7:59</a></em>). It was their wilful religious misunderstandings which led them to such violence in practice:&nbsp;</p><p><em>How often would I have&nbsp;gathered</em>&nbsp;<em>your children together</em>&nbsp;- He lamented over a Zion that sought only to hurt and murder Him. Yet not so many verses later in our Bibles we hear the Lord using the same word in saying that at His coming, the elect would be "<em>gathered together</em>" unto Him (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>). He so often had earnestly desired the coming of His Kingdom there and then; to gather His people unto Him. But they would not. It must have been unbearable to be such a sensitive person in such a hard and insensitive, dehumanizing world. “How often…” suggests that there were specific times in His ministry when it would have been potentially possible to gather together Zion’s children in one and begin the Kingdom. But they refused.</p><p><em>Even as a hen gathers her chickens-&nbsp;</em>We see the Lord’s humility here in comparing Himself to a female, humble, farmyard animal- and not a proud lion. Many of the descriptions of Christ in the parables are taken from Old Testament passages describing the feelings of&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;towards Israel, showing the truth of this in the first century context when Israel were still God's people. Thus the Lord's description of Himself as a hen wishing to gather the chicks of Jerusalem is based on <em><a href='B:290 31:5'>Isa 31:5</a></em>: "As mother-birds flying, so will the Lord defend Jerusalem" (Heb:):&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 13:8'>Luk 13:8</a></em> could suggest that Christ's attitude to Israel was even more patient than that of God Himself; yet because their feelings to Israel are identical, the implication is perhaps that the Son enables and thereby persuades the Father to be even more patient with us than He would naturally be See on <em><a href='B:470 15:13'>Mat 15:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>Under her wings- but you were not willing</em>- This is a classic Old Testament figure, of the faithful taking refuge under the wings of God’s cherubic care. The gracious desire of the Lord to save even those who crucified Him is the essence of God’s saving care in the Old Testament.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Behold, your house</em>- The temple had always been called "The house of Yahweh". But now it is was theirs, as the "feasts of the Lord" become the "feast of the Jews". The Lord's table became&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;table (<em><a href='B:230 69:25'>Psa 69:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:22'>Psa 69:22</a></em>). They had hijacked God's institutions, just as men today have hijacked the Lord's table and imposed their own guest list and rejection policy upon it. Likewise the Lord called the law of God through Moses as now being “<em>their</em>&nbsp;law" (<em><a href='B:500 15:25'>Joh 15:25</a></em>). The breaking of bread ritual practiced by the Corinthians was eating their&nbsp;<em>own&nbsp;</em>supper and therefore their gatherings were “<em>not</em>&nbsp;to eat the&nbsp;<em>Lord's</em>&nbsp;supper" (<em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Is left unto you desolate</em>- The Greek word is used many times and always in the sense of a wilderness. This is the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:350 2:3'>Hos 2:3</a></em>, where God through Hosea had threatened to make His beloved "a wilderness". This is the link with the Olivet Prophecy in chapter 24, which develops this theme of the desolation of the temple and a desolating abomination which was to be placed there. Clearly, therefore, the primary intention of the Olivet prophecy was to the Jewish generation and temple in which immediate context the Lord was speaking. The fact the prophecy clearly has latter day applications and did not completely fulfil in AD70 shows that there was a change of plan, as has often happened in the Divine program, with prophecies being delayed and reapplied in their fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I say to you, you shall not see me from this time forward, until</em>- The same words are used in <em><a href='B:470 13:14'>Mat 13:14</a></em>, "You shall not perceive / see" Christ. Previously, they had 'seen' Christ as Messiah, realizing that this was the heir, and desiring therefore to kill Him. But now the Lord was giving them over to the blindness of their hatred. They would not knowingly crucify God's Son. But He was saying that He now was going to stop them 'seeing' / perceiving Him for who He was, so that they would crucify Him. And they would only again perceive Him as God's Son all too late, when at the day of judgment they uttered the words of Messianic welcome "Blessed is He that comes::.". And yet even in this terrible judgment there was interwoven a possibility of hope. They would only perceive Him again as God's Son&nbsp;<em>when</em>, or,&nbsp;<em>until the time that</em>, they recognized Him as Messiah in the Messianic words "Blessed is He that comes::.". Once they made that repentance, they would again perceive / see Him. However, it could be argued that that is axiomatic. The thrust of the Lord's words is surely that in the day of judgment, all too late, they would perceive Him again as He is in truth. But all too late.</p><p><em>You shall say-&nbsp;</em>When they are appointed their portion with the hypocrites and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth,&nbsp;<em>then&nbsp;</em>shall the Kingdom be likened unto the five wise and five foolish virgins:&nbsp;<em>Then</em>&nbsp;the rejected will understand the principles of that parable, crystal clearly. Members of the ecclesia of Israel will say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"- but be rejected. Likewise the Egyptians, fleeing in the mud from Yahweh as they vainly hoped against hope that the returning waters wouldn't somehow reach them::. they came to know Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:18'>Exo 14:18</a></em>). It could well be that this knowing of Yahweh involves a desperate recounting of their sins, seeing that one of the purposes of condemnation is to make men aware of their sinfulness and the depth of God's grace.</p><p><em>Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord-&nbsp;</em>When Jerusalem sees Jesus again, they will be saying: “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”. This would suggest they are waiting for Him. And these words being taken from the Passover hallel, it could be that the Lord returns to them at Passover time, when they traditionally expect Him. Indeed, Jerusalem will not see the Lord&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;they say “Blessed is he…”- as if the time of His return depends upon their ‘seeing’ / perceiving Him beforehand.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 24:1'>Mat 24:1</a></em></p><p>Matthew 24 : Introduction<br/>Old Testament prophecy was conditional. There can be no doubt about that. Take these words: "Thus saith the Lord God unto the land of Israel: an end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land. Now the end is come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee" (<em><a href='B:330 7:2-3'>Eze 7:2-3</a></em>). But the ultimate end did not come then in Ezekiel's time and the Babylonian destruction of the temple. God's program delayed that ultimate end. Perhaps because of His mercy, the repentance of a remnant, or for other reasons as yet unknown to us and unseen from our earthly viewpoint. My approach to the Olivet prophecy is that it was intended to be fulfilled in the first century- because this was the intended time or one of the intended times for the Lord’s second coming and the establishment of the Kingdom. Therefore those aspects of the predictions which depended upon God to fulfil, He did e:g. earthquakes, famines. But the essential preconditions of Israel’s repentance and the spread of the Gospel worldwide were not fulfilled. And so the prophecy has been rescheduled and reapplied to some later time- and it would appear that time is now upon us. This approach may be new to some, for it involves understanding God as ‘open’, and more responsive to human behaviour than we might have thought. If this is something you feel the need to still get your mind around, then the digression about the nature of prophecy may be helpful. If you have no problem with the idea of God’s prophetic word being delayed or rescheduled in its fulfilment, then the digression doesn’t need to be read.</p><p>We need not get overly worried about the supposed discrepancies between prophecy and its historical fulfilment. Such differences don't negate the Divine inspiration of the original prophecy- rather do they show how God's intentions can be worked out in different ways because of the open-ended approach He takes to human response. Thus it's been observed that the siege of Jerusalem in AD66-70 doesn't exactly follow the descriptions in <em><a href='B:490 19:41-44'>Luk 19:41-44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:20-24'>Luk 21:20-24</a></em>. This would be because there were within the Olivet prophecy a number of possible scenarios of what could happen&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;the believers fled the city as commanded; and of course,&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;Israel repented and accepted Christ at His AD70 'coming' in judgment. Additionally we must remember that this prophecy was only having its initial fulfilment in AD70- the final fulfilment will be in our last days.</p><p>Martin Hengel concludes that the early Gospel records were so radical that they would’ve been part of an “underground literature”. He suggests that the Roman law forbidding oral or written prophecies about the fall of the Roman empire- on pain of death- was enough to make the Olivet prophecy alone a highly illegal document (Martin Hengel,&nbsp;<em>Studies In The Gospel Of Mark</em>&nbsp;(London: SCM, 1985) p. 28).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 24:2'>Mat 24:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said to them: Do you not see all these things?</em>- AV "See ye not all these things?". Read this carefully. He doesn't say 'Do you see all these things?'. He uses the negative- 'Do you&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;see all these things?'. This isn't mere style or literary convention. To not see something means you do not see it. Let's not assume that "all these things" refers to the temple building. The Lord has just used the term in <em><a href='B:470 23:36'>Mat 23:36</a></em>: "All these things shall come upon this generation". And&nbsp;<em>pas tauta</em>, "all things", runs as a triple refrain throughout the Olivet prophecy, concerning the 'all things' of the predicted time of crisis coming upon Israel (<em><a href='B:470 24:8'>Mat 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:33-34'>Mat 24:33-34</a></em>). If reading in context means anything, the "all things" must refer not to the temple buildings, but to the "all things" of Jerusalem's coming judgment. The Lord is asking them: 'Do you not see / perceive that all these judgments "all things" must come upon these wonderful buildings you're showing Me? No? Then OK, I will spell out those "all things" in gruesome detail. Don't look at the world as it stands before you at this moment, but remember the "all things" of judgment to come which are spoken about them". The Lord has previously condemned the Jewish world for 'not seeing' and He is warning the disciples that again they may be so influenced by Judaism that they don't 'see' the judgments to come with the eye of faith in His word. See later in this verse on&nbsp;<em>Left here</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Truly I say to you. There shall not be left here</em>- This again expands upon His previous use of this word in <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>: "Your house is&nbsp;<em>left</em>&nbsp;unto you desolate". He is asking the disciples to see with the eye of faith- that effectively, the great stones of the temple were already thrown down, the temple was already "desolate" (Gk. 'a deserted place').</p><p><em>One stone upon another</em>- The judgment of the leprous house (<em><a href='B:30 14:41'>Lev 14:41</a></em>). At the time of the final assault on Jerusalem in AD69, Titus commanded that the temple was to be spared. But the Lord's words came true, just as all prophetic words will, despite every human effort to deny their power. Josephus claims that the gold of the temple melted and therefore each stone was prized apart to remove the gold.</p><p><em>Which shall not be thrown down</em>- There was a strong belief in Judaism that the temple would last eternally. Hence the disciples’ question about “the end of the age” was because for them, any talk about the end of the temple meant the end of the world. They are not therefore asking about different chronological events when they ask when this shall be, and what sign would indicate the end of the age (:3). This prophecy of the destruction of the temple implied an ending of the Mosaic law. Hence the same word translated "thrown down" is ascribed to Stephen when he was accused of preaching that the Lord Jesus would "<em>destroy</em>&nbsp;this place and therefore change the customs which Moses delivered us" (<em><a href='B:510 6:14'>Act 6:14</a></em>). Paul uses the same word about his 'destruction' of the things of legalistic dependence on the law for salvation, by preaching salvation by grace in Jesus (<em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>). It is also the word used in <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>, a passage which seems to have some reference to the impending destruction of the temple and its replacement with the spiritual house of God's building: "Our earthly house of this tabernacle be&nbsp;<em>destroyed</em>&nbsp;s:w. "thrown down", we have a building of God, an house not made with hands::.". All this would suggest that there was a changeover period envisaged between the Lord's death and the final ending of the jurisdiction of the Mosaic law. Seeing the end Lord ended the Law on the cross, this again is to be seen as a concession to the conservatism of the Jews.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And as He sat on the mount of Olives</em>- The word picture is painted of the Lord sitting alone, and then the disciples come to Him. Again we sense the separation between the Lord and His followers. Matthew gives much attention to the Lord sitting (<em><a href='B:470 13:1-2'>Mat 13:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:29'>Mat 15:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:44'>Mat 22:44</a></em>). This is what we would expect of a genuine eyewitness who recalled the Lord's body language and movements.</p><p><em>The disciples</em>- <em><a href='B:480 13:3'>Mar 13:3</a></em> defines them as strictly Peter, James, John and Andrew. Hence they came “privately”.</p><p><em>Came to Him privately</em>- See on :1&nbsp;<em>Came to Him</em>.</p><h4><em>Saying: Tell us, when shall these things be? And what is the sign</em>- They clearly expected one particular sign, and&nbsp;<em>semeion</em>&nbsp;is typically used of a miraculous wonder. Instead, the Lord gave them a series of signs which they were to discern. The fulfilment of these signs in our times is no less than a miracle- that such detailed predictions could start to come true before our eyes. Such fulfilment of prophecy is therefore itself a miracle. The disciples repeat the Pharisees' question about when the end will come- in almost the same words. They were clearly influenced by them (<em><a href='B:490 17:20'>Luk 17:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em>). &nbsp;</h4><p><em>Of your coming</em>- Without doubt,&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;is used in the NT and contemporary literature to refer to a literal and not an invisible presence (e:g. <em><a href='B:530 16:17'>1Co 16:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:6'>2Co 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:26'>Phi 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:12'>Phi 2:12</a></em>). Any 'coming' of the Lord in Jerusalem's judgment of AD70 was only at best a foretaste of His final coming. It's simply not good enough to claim that He 'came' invisibly or spiritually. The word&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;simply doesn't mean this. And yet the destruction of the temple and His 'coming' are linked together; hence my conclusion that His&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;was delayed and the prophetic program delayed and rescheduled.</p><p><em>And of the end of the age</em>- See on :2&nbsp;<em>Thrown down</em>. They saw this as parallel with His 'coming' and the destruction of the temple. There is no suggestion that they saw these as three different chronological events, and the Lord's answers give no hint that He saw them as distinct events. Quite simply, the Lord's second coming and the destruction of the temple were understood by them all, the Lord included, as simultaneous. The fact the Lord's coming didn't occur when the temple was destroyed can only therefore mean that the Divine program was rearranged. For preterism notwithstanding, the Lord has clearly not returned in glory yet, neither did He do so in AD70. "The end of the age" had been use by the Lord to describe the last day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:39-40'>Mat 13:39-40</a></em>, as also <em><a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:7'>Dan 12:7</a></em> LXX). The very same phrase used in <em><a href='B:470 13:39-40'>Mat 13:39-40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:49'>Mat 13:49</a></em> with clear reference to the Lord's second coming. In no way was the separation between true and false believers, and the punishment of all the latter class, achieved in AD70. The phrase is also used in <em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>, where the Lord sends out the disciples on their great preaching mission with the assurance that He will be with them "unto the end of the age". The implication could be that the end of the age is dependent upon the fulfilment of the great commission. The disciples failed in this, both in performing it because of their initial hang up about preaching to Gentiles and because of the paucity of response to their work. And so the end of the age, the second coming, is yet to come- when the Gospel really does go into all the world, then the end shall come (:14). <em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em> uses the phrase with reference to the situation in the first century- "now once in the end of the age has Christ appeared". It could have come then- but it did not. <em><a href='B:520 9:28'>Rom 9:28</a></em> speaks of how God will have to finally intervene in speeding things up- and Paul writes here in the context of Israel's final response to the Gospel: "He will end s:w. the work, and cut it short". And the word for "end" is also used to describe how God will end or finally execute the new covenant with Israel (<em><a href='B:650 8:8'>Heb 8:8</a></em>)- when they accept that new covenant in responding to the Gospel. Clearly the global preaching of the Gospel and Israel's response to it are crucial requirements for the "end of the age" to come. And there is no lack of evidence that these signs are on the cusp of fulfilment.</p><p>Usually, the Lord didn't reply directly to questions (in this case, “When…?”); He gave answers which branched out into something altogether more comprehensive than the original question (Consider <em><a href='B:470 13:10-11'>Mat 13:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:2-3'>Mat 15:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:4-5'>Mar 10:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:20'>Luk 17:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:4-5'>Joh 3:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:9-10'>Joh 4:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:28-29'>Joh 6:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:53-54'>Joh 8:53-54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:8-9'>Joh 11:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:22-23'>Joh 14:22-23</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Nearly every example of the Lord Jesus answering a question includes this feature.</em>&nbsp;To the disciples, the destruction of the temple meant the end of the age- it was a calamity. They assumed that if the temple was destroyed, it must be replaced immediately by their Jesus coming again with his Messianic Kingdom. Their minds were still not suitably distanced from their Judaist background. They asked&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;question: "When shall these things (the destruction of the temple) be? And what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" (<em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em> can make it seem that they asked two questions: "When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?". But the parallel record in <em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em> makes it clear that actually these were parts of the same question concerning the temple's destruction. To the disciples, the coming of Christ, the end of the world and the temple's destruction were all the same event. It could be that the Lord answered their question by speaking of how there would be the destruction of the temple, but His real coming and the final ending of this world would be at a future date. His answer was therefore fundamentally relevant to his second coming, although built into it was some reference to the destruction of the temple in AD70. As He so often does, the Lord turned round the terms of the question. They thought his "coming" would be at the temple's destruction, and so they asked for signs of His "coming". But Christ shows that this wasn't a correct view: His real "coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>) would not be then, but after all the various signs he described were fulfilled. He was surely saying: 'OK the temple will be destroyed, and many of the signs I'm giving will have some application to that period; but the destruction of the temple isn't the sign of my coming. Note the signs I give you, and watch for their fulfilment: and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;you'll know when to expect my coming':&nbsp;<br/>When the disciples asked "When shall these things be, and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" (<em><a href='B:490 21:7'>Luk 21:7</a></em>), the Lord didn't cut short the conversation by saying 'Well actually you can't know, so your question isn't appropriate'. He gave them just what they asked for: signs whereby the faithful would know "when these things shall come to pass". The primary application of all this was that the faithful knew exactly the approaching end of the Jewish age in AD70- everything went according to plan, for those who correctly understood the prophecies. Therefore James, Peter and Paul could assuredly teach that "the judge standeth before the door" (<em><a href='B:660 5:9'>Jas 5:9</a></em>) etc. And it is apparent that the situation in the run up to AD70 was typical of that in our last days. Likewise, the position of the faithful remnant in Babylon at the time of the restoration is another type of latter day events. And they too had an opening of their eyes to the prophetic word, resulting in an ability to clearly see where they were, and that the time of restoration of Israel's Kingdom was imminent. 'What will be the signs of the last days?' was indeed answered quite directly, but building up to a personal, incisive appeal to pray constantly that we will be preserved from those horrors and be accepted before the final judgment seat of God's Son (<em><a href='B:490 21:7'>Luk 21:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>). It was as if the Lord was adding a powerful caveat- as if to say 'Now don't go and get obsessed and distracted trying to match these signs to current events- worry about how&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;will survive the last days, and whether, when you stand before Me in the very end, you will stand or fall before Me'. And 'Are you really the Messiah? Do you really fulfil all the Old Testament prophecies?' was met by an appeal to not stumble in faith (<em><a href='B:490 7:21-23'>Luk 7:21-23</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answered and said to them: Take heed that no one lead you astray</em>- Warnings against being deceived are a major theme in the Lord's message here (:5,11,24). Paul read the prophecy of deceivers arising in the last days as referring to deceivers arising within the ecclesia, i:e. people who were already baptized, consciously deceiving the majority of the ecclesia. He repeats this conviction at least three times (<em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:560 5:6'>Eph 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:8'>Col 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:3'>2Th 2:3</a></em>). The later NT writers make the same appeal using the same Greek words, with reference to not being deceived by the allurements of the fleshly life (<em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:33'>1Co 15:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:7'>Gal 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:16'>Jas 1:16</a></em>). And warnings against "them that deceive you" are common, along with lament that many believers in the first century had indeed been deceived (s:w. <em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:19'>Jas 5:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:26'>1Jn 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:7'>1Jn 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:20'>Rev 2:20</a></em>). Indeed, Revelation is full of warnings and judgment against "the devil" who deceives God's people (s:w. <em><a href='B:730 12:9'>Rev 12:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 13:14'>Rev 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:23'>Rev 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:3'>Rev 20:3</a></em>). Perhaps this is one reason why the Olivet prophecy was not fulfilled in AD70- the warning with which the Lord opened the prophecy was not heeded by the majority. “Be not deceived" (<em><a href='B:490 21:8'>Luk 21:8</a></em>) is extensively quoted later in the NT concerning the need not be deceived by false teachers&nbsp;<em>within the ecclesia</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>, <em><a href='B:530 15:33'>1Co 15:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:17'>Gal 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>, as <em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:690 3:7'>1Jn 3:7</a></em>). The deceivers Christ spoke of were not just bogus Messiahs out in the world, but apparently Spirit-gifted brethren who will arise within the ecclesia.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 24:5'>Mat 24:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For many shall come in my name</em>- Coming in the name of the Lord was the formula used in Judaism to describe Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:9'>Mat 21:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>). The false claims to be Jesus the Christ are hardly persuasive nor vaguely credible. That they should be a source of mass falling away amongst the Lord's people seems hardly likely. We must assume, therefore, that such persons will have a credibility or a surrounding context which makes them far more attractive than they currently are. Revelation speaks of false miracles being done in the last days. Perhaps views of prophetic fulfilment will become so dogmatically held, suggesting that Christ&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;come once certain things happen in the world, that the believers will be open to easy deception. This scenario would be the more likely if a doctrine of&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>, the "coming" of Christ", is adopted which postulates that His coming will be somehow secret, invisible to the world and perceived only by the faithful.</p><p><em>Saying: I am the Christ, and shall lead many astray-&nbsp;</em>The reader who pays attention to detail will note a significant use of pronouns in the Olivet prophecy: “ye" seems to refer to the faithful minority, who would (e:g:) understand, be persecuted, perish, lift up their heads, and finally endure to the end. "The many" (Gk. the majority) in the ecclesia would fall away. No fewer than four times does the Lord stress that "the majority" would be deceived by false prophets, be offended, and have their love wax cold (<em><a href='B:470 24:5'>Mat 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:10-12'>Mat 24:10-12</a></em>). Probably he connected this, at least in his own mind, with his earlier statement that "the many" &nbsp; would be called to his truth, but not chosen (<em><a href='B:470 22:14'>Mat 22:14</a></em>). This difference between " the many / majority" in the ecclesia and the minority of suffering faithful is a theme in the parables which are an appendix to the Olivet prophecy.</p><p>The persecution of God's people was spoken of by the Lord as being one of the clearest signs. And he also emphasized that apostasy within the ecclesia would be the other major sign. When they asked him for the signs, <em><a href='B:480 13:5'>Mar 13:5</a></em> says that Jesus&nbsp;<em>began</em>&nbsp;by warning them of deception from false teachers. The way the NT writers allude to this passage indicates that they saw this deception as not coming from the crazy bogus-Messiahs of the world, but from false teachers&nbsp;<em>within the ecclesia</em>, sometimes supported by apparent possession of the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 5:6'>Eph 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:3'>2Th 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:10'>Tit 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:700 1:7'>2Jn 1:7</a></em>). A state of total ecclesial apostasy was the sign which Jesus&nbsp;<em>began</em>&nbsp;with, according to <em><a href='B:480 13:5'>Mar 13:5</a></em>.</p><p>Josephus describes the period before AD70 as being when “The country was full of robbers, magicians, false prophets, false Messiahs and impostors, who deluded the people with promises of great events”&nbsp;<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;20:10:13 5,6.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:470 24:6'>Mat 24:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars</em>- Gk. 'to come to the ears'. The dramatic growth of the media and communication will mean that everyone 'hears' of such things. And our generation as none before is in this situation. We can likewise understand the related word (in the Greek): "<em>rumours</em>&nbsp;of wars". <em><a href='B:490 21:9'>Luk 21:9</a></em> adds "and commotions", disquiet, mental upset and confusion. Hence the appeal not to be "troubled" within our hearts. <em><a href='B:490 21:26'>Luk 21:26</a></em> speaks of human hearts failing them for fear in worry and expectation (AV "looking after") about the world's future. This sign, therefore, is not so much concerning the proliferation of war, but of human worry about the geopolitical situation. And our generation has been the only one capable of fulfilling this situation. Note, however, that&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;shall hear these things- and the "you" was initially the listening disciples. Clearly the prophecy was intended to have fulfilment in the lifetime of the disciples, but this didn't happen. Because the Divine program was rescheduled.</p><p><em>Ensure you are not alarmed</em>- The word is only used outside the Olivet prophecy in <em><a href='B:600 2:2'>2Th 2:2</a></em>, where Paul warns that believers should not be "troubled" by any idea that "the day of Christ is at hand", because the prophecy concerning the great falling away and the man of sin sitting in the temple of God must be fulfilled first. This connection shows that the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2 must have a specific latter day fulfilment on the very eve of the Lord's visible return in glory when "the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to nothing by the powerful glory of His coming" (<em><a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a></em>). The "day of Christ" is therefore the visible return of the Lord, and this, therefore, is the burden of the Olivet prophecy too. For Paul is taking that language and applying it to the second coming of Christ. And that did not happen in AD70. In <em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em> the Lord spoke of "fearful sights" being seen in latter-day Israel. During their tribulation, Israel will experience intense "terror" (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>), which would be enough to kill them (<em><a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This extraordinary level of fear will be modelled upon that of Jacob as he faced Esau- representing Israel's confrontation with the Arabs in the last days (<em><a href='B:300 30:5'>Jer 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This state of fear will result in many Jews going to live in Jerusalem, as happened during the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions (<em><a href='B:300 35:11'>Jer 35:11</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp; Ezekiel had prophesied of this time:&nbsp;"Terrors (perhaps an intensive plural - i:e. 'the one great terror') by reason of the sword shall be upon My people" (<em><a href='B:330 21:12'>Eze 21:12</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>For this must happen- but the end is not yet</em>- Quoting <em><a href='B:340 2:28'>Dan 2:28</a></em> LXX, as if the prophecy of Daniel 2 could have had its fulfilment at the time of the destruction of the temple in AD70. Again we encounter the idea of potential fulfilments of prophecy which in fact didn't happen when they could have done. The AV inserts in italics "all these things", but the Lord has only given the sign of worry about wars at this stage in the discourse. He used the identical phrase in predicting that the "all things" of the Mosaic system were to be fulfilled in His death on the cross (<em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em>). The same term is used in <em><a href='B:500 1:3'>Joh 1:3</a></em>: "All things were fulfilled AV "made" in Him"- surely a reference to the fulfilment of the Mosaic law in Christ. The "old things" of the Mosaic system passed away, and in Christ "all things are fulfilled AV "made" new" (<em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em> - same Greek words). There was a changeover period permitted between the Mosaic system and that of Christ, which finished when the temple was destroyed in AD70 and obedience to the Mosaic law thereby became impossible. If this line of interpretation is correct, then we have the Lord hinting that the Mosaic system would be ended, the temple destroyed, but the end was still not to be then. This would again indicate that the events of AD70 were not the "end" which the Lord had in view. "The end" (s:w:) would only come when the Gospel was preached in the entire habitable world (:14) and the believers had been persecuted of all men (<em><a href='B:480 13:13'>Mar 13:13</a></em>). But again, the Lord had in mind the possibility that the disciples themselves would endure "unto the end" (<em><a href='B:470 10:22'>Mat 10:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:13'>Mat 24:13</a></em>). It could have come in their lifetime; but it didn't. John's Gospel replaces the Olivet prophecy with the upper room discourse, in which the Lord spoke of His spiritual presence in the hearts of believers through the Comforter. And John's equivalent of "the end" in that discourse is the comment that the Lord Jesus loved His people "unto the end" through dying on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em> s:w:). This is not to downplay the reality of the second coming, but it is a foil against a mindset that thinks solely in terms of fulfilling prophecy and the literal coming of the Lord. True and wonderful as that is, the essence of the Lord's presence is in His abiding presence in the hearts of spiritually minded believers in Him, and the "end" is His death for us, which in one sense is enough for us all regardless of when He will literally return. But again, Paul, like his Lord, felt that "the end" could have come in the first century; for he writes of how the believers then were living at "the end s:w. of the age" (<em><a href='B:530 10:11'>1Co 10:11</a></em>), when God's wrath against Israel was about to burst "unto the end (AV "to the uttermost"; <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>):&nbsp; Likewise Peter: "The end s:w. of all things is at hand" (<em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>). Likewise <em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em> could then have had its fulfilment:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:470 24:7'>Mat 24:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For nation shall rise against nation</em>- Any first century fulfilment is unlikely because the&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;meant that the Roman empire was firmly in power and such a situation did not therefore occur.<em>&nbsp;Ethnos</em>&nbsp;is the word commonly translated "Gentiles". The picture of nations and kingdoms rising up against each other was simply not fulfilled in the run up to AD70- the Roman empire with their&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;did not permit such a situation. And the system of world empires which disintegrated in the 20th Century likewise didn't permit much of this in recent times, especially in the area around Israel, or in the land promised to Abraham, which is the focus of all Bible prophecy. Only in our times has this become a reality, especially in the Arab world and amongst the nations located in the territory promised to Abraham. The language of 'rising up' in revolt is now common amongst them. The picture, however, is of the Gospel going into all those "nations" at this time (:14), all those nations persecuting the believers (:9), and the nations AV "Gentiles" taking Jerusalem and treading it down (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>); despite their internal struggles, these same "all nations" will be confederated under a latter Babylon (<em><a href='B:730 17:15'>Rev 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:23'>Rev 18:23</a></em>). The overall picture is of Gospel preaching going on at a time when the nations are rising up against each other, and at the same time persecuting the believers. This scenario is developing- but is as yet unfulfilled on a global scale. But it is daily fulfilling in the nations surrounding Israel, who are persecuting Christians, rising up against each other, and to whom the Gospel is being powerfully preached. Never before has my own mission organization received such major expression of serious interest from the Moslem nations surrounding Israel, thanks largely to the growth of the internet and the growing disillusion with the existing social and religious situation. People from all nations will be gathered before the Lord for judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>) and people from every nation will be saved (<em><a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>)- confirming that the Gospel will indeed spread to all nations before the Lord's return; it must at least be "proclaimed" to them all, thereby making people amongst them responsible to judgment (:14); the "fullness of the Gentiles" must "come in" to Christ before the end comes and Israel repent (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). The Lord sent the disciples out to "all nations" (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> s:w:); the implication is that they failed to take the Gospel to them all, and therefore the intended scenario didn't fulfil as initially intended in the first century. <em><a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a></em> speaks of how there will be "upon the earth land- that promised to Abraham distress of nations", suggesting that the situation amongst the Gentile nations living within the land promised to Abraham is the particular focus of the prophecy. The same language is used of how there were devout Jews in "every nation under Heaven" (<em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em>)- and the list of nations in Acts 2 corresponds with the Middle Eastern Moslem world of today. We note that the promise that Abraham should be father of "many nations" was fulfilled in a literal sense in that Abraham is the ancestor of the Arab nations living in the land promised to him (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). And it is those nations particularly who have stated their desire to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jews, as required in <em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>.</h4><p><em>And kingdom against kingdom</em>- It seems likely that ‘Babylon’ of the last days will rise to political and military dominance in the Arab world:&nbsp;The 10 nations / horns / leaders which exist in the land promised to Abraham- the “kings of the earth / land”- will give their power to Babylon, by force and by political manoeuvre, and this system will then invade Israel. The horns hating the whore implies there will be inter-Arab friction apparent in the beast system throughout its existence. "Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 24:7'>Mat 24:7</a></em>) will be a sign of the last days. In the AD70 context, this referred to friction between the Semitic peoples living around Israel; and the Lord's words are clearly an allusion to <em><a href='B:140 15:6'>2Ch 15:6</a></em>, which specifically uses the phrase about inter-Arab friction. The fragile alliance between them will then be broken by the Lord’s return, the horns will hate the whore and destroy her. They give their power to the beast for but “one hour”. Daniel seems to associate a covenant which is then broken with the latter day Antichrist. <em><a href='B:290 30:27-31'>Isa 30:27-31</a></em> speaks of the latter day Assyrian as placing “a bridle in the jaw of the people causing them to err”, referring to some kind of covenant / agreement which forces others to follow their direction. The Lord’s especial fury will be against the individual latter day Nebuchadnezzar who leads the invasion. The future leader of Babylon, after the example of Saddam Hussein, will see themselves as Nebuchadnezzar. Isaiah and Micah describe the latter day invader of the land as “the Assyrian” (<em><a href='B:290 10:5'>Isa 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:25'>Isa 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 30:31'>Isa 30:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 5:1-6'>Mic 5:1-6</a></em>). This itself suggests we are to see the individual who heads up the invasion, the rosh / chief prince of <em><a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a></em>, as an ethnic Assyrian / Iraqi. <em><a href='B:340 8:24-25'>Dan 8:24-25</a></em> invites us to see the same- the “king of fierce countenance” stands up out of the area of northern Iraq / northern Iran:&nbsp;<br/><em>Famines</em>- There was an acute famine in Israel during Elijah's ministry of three and a half years, as part of God's appeal for Israel to repent and respond to Elijah's message (<em><a href='B:490 4:25'>Luk 4:25</a></em>). And so it will be in the final three and a half year tribulation. Likewise it was famine which led the prodigal to repent and return to the Father (<em><a href='B:490 15:14'>Luk 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:17'>Luk 15:17</a></em>), a clear prototype of Israel's repentance. And perhaps the greatest prototype of their repentance is in the coming of Joseph's brothers to bow before Him; and this too was provoked by famine throughout the region around Israel (<em><a href='B:510 7:11'>Act 7:11</a></em>). There will be a purpose in all the sufferings which precede the Lord's return- and that purpose is to bring about Israel's repentance, which is the key condition required for His second coming. There were indeed major famines in the lead up to AD70 (<em><a href='B:510 11:28'>Act 11:28</a></em> "a great famine throughout all the world"); again, the signs which depended upon Divine intervention were fulfilled in the first century, but those which depended upon Israel and the believers did not, because they chose not to. And thus the second coming was delayed. “In the reign of the Emperor Claudius (AD41-54) there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign, the famine in Judea was so severe that the price of food became enormous and great numbers perished. Earthquakes occurred in each of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius” (R. C. Sproul,&nbsp;<em>The Last Days According to Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids, MI, 2000: Baker Books), p. 36). Paul encourages his first century readers that famine and other elements of the Olivet predictions would not separate believers from the love of God- as if he expected those signs to be fulfilled in their lifetimes (<em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>). The seals of Revelation 6 are full of reference to the Olivet predictions, as if they could all have been fulfilled in the first century (<em><a href='B:730 6:8'>Rev 6:8</a></em> speaks specifically of "famine"). Famine can come quicker than ever in our modern world, where most countries depend upon imported food; and this is especially the case in the area around Israel, where the climate doesn't enable the support of the relatively large population living in the area without food being imported. This explains how Babylon's famine comes in one day (<em><a href='B:730 18:8'>Rev 18:8</a></em>). This could never have been possible in the ancient world, where famine required a period of time to develop. Just as Israel initially experienced the early plagues upon Egypt, so it may be that the judgments poured out upon the Arab? world at the very end do initially affect Israel too, and lead them to repentance:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And there shall be famines and earthquakes</em>- Just as there was at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em>), yet another reason for thinking that the tribulation of the last days will enable Israel to identify with the sufferings of their crucified Messiah. Again, earthquakes feature in the seals of <em><a href='B:730 6:12'>Rev 6:12</a></em>; and in the judgments upon Israel's enemies in <em><a href='B:730 11:13'>Rev 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:19'>Rev 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:18'>Rev 16:18</a></em>. Again, it seems that Israel will initially experience the judgments upon their enemies, just as they did in the lead up to their Passover deliverance in Egypt which also prefigures their final salvation. The fig tree nation- Israel- is to be shaken of a mighty wind (<em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>), and the word "shaken" is a form of that translated "earthquake". The forcing of fruit from the fig tree will be brought about by the experience of the earthquake:&nbsp;</p><p><em>In various places</em>- The word "various" (AV "divers") is added by the translators to try to make sense of the otherwise obvious statement that earthquakes will occur in "places". There is no suggestion in the Greek text that earthquakes will occur in various places worldwide where they have not been known to occur. But maybe we have here an intensive plural- the one great place. The same word is used in :15 about "the holy<em>&nbsp;place</em>". There are rumours that an earthquake hit the temple area around AD70. But seeing that the temple mount is the bone of contention between Israel and her Arab neighbours, an earthquake splitting the mount would be appropriate. And of course this would link directly with the prediction of Zechariah 14, that when Christ returns there will be an earthquake which splits it. And yet this is used by the Lord as a sign of His coming, rather than a statement about what will happen at His return. It could be that this is an example of how the meaning of time will be somehow collapsed around the second coming; a sign of His return is in effect His return. Or it could be that the events described in the Olivet prophecy will all happen in a very short period of time, a matter of days rather than years or decades as is assumed by those who seek to connect the predictions with current world events. <em><a href='B:480 13:8'>Mar 13:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em> speak of the earthquakes in&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;places, but this doesn't necessarily mean 'various' places, but could equally mean 'around'- earthquakes around the holy place would then be signs and portents of the earthquake under the Holy Place which will happen when Christ returns. In <em><a href='B:510 6:13-14'>Act 6:13-14</a></em> Stephen's enemies appear to have twisted his quotations of the Lord's Olivet prophecy to mean that Christ would destroy the "holy place" s:w. "places" here in Matthew 24.</p>


