# comment

text:
<p>9:13&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, that Elijah came, and they have also done to him whatever they wanted, even as it is written of him</em>- The Lord accused the Jews of rejecting John the Baptist (<em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:32-35'>Luk 7:32-35</a></em>), and on other occasions He commented on the fact that they had accepted his teaching, with the result that spiritually their house was swept and garnished (<em><a href='B:470 12:44'>Mat 12:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>). We can conclude from this that their&nbsp;<em>appearance</em>&nbsp;of accepting John’s message was spoken of by Jesus as if they had accepted it. Likewise Christ called the Jews both children of hell (<em><a href='B:470 23:15'>Mat 23:15</a></em>) and children of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>); the latter was how they perceived themselves. The things “done” to John surely include his death for the Lord goes on to say that He will “likewise suffer of them”, “of this generation” (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>). But it was the despised Herod who had John murdered. And yet Jesus here says that that generation had done that to John- despite the fact that he remained, it seems, immensely popular amongst that generation. Again the Lord is stressing that all the apparent response to John had not been sincere- the Jews who had seemingly responded to him were in fact as bad as apostate Herod and it was effectively&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;who had killed him. Naturally such language begged the response that no, it was Herod and his courtiers who killed John, not the mass of people. But the Lord is saying that effectively, it was that generation who had locked John up and killed him.</p><p>His question (as it is framed in Matthew) was (as so often with Him) in answer and response to their unexpressed question- that surely Elijah is to have a successful ministry and then the Messiah would begin His Kingdom in glory. The Lord was asking them the question about the prophesied sufferings and rejection of Messiah in order to answer the question He could see in their minds. So often “He answered and said…” something, when no question was verbalized. But He perceived the question in the minds of His audience, such was His sensitivity. Only a week or so ago He had told them how messiah must “suffer many things” (<em><a href='B:470 16:21'>Mat 16:21</a></em>) and now he uses the same phrase again- although it seems they had forgotten or not appreciated what He had then told them.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em> adds to Matthew by adding: “As it is written of him”. There seems no specific prophecy stating that the Elijah prophet would be unsuccessful, unless one really reads between the lines of Malachi’s prophecy about the Elijah prophet. More likely is that the “him” refers to the historical Elijah. All that was written of&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;had come true of John the Baptist, in that the alliance between Ahab and the manipulative Jezebel which led to Elijah’s persecution was mirrored in that between Herod and the equally manipulative Herodias, which led to John’s demise.</p>


text:
<p>9:14&nbsp;<em>And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd about them, and scribes arguing with them</em>- This meeting with the crowd occurred the day after the transfiguration (<em><a href='B:490 9:37'>Luk 9:37</a></em>)- presumably they slept up the mountain for the night. The transfiguration record is replete with references to the theophany on Sinai. Moses' return from the mount was to a faithless people of God, and the same is found here, in that the disciples had been unable to perform a healing which they had potentially been given the power to do.</p><h4>Note how the three accounts dovetail so nicely: Jesus and the three with Him moved towards the crowd (Mt:), Jesus having noticed them from a distance (Mk:), and the crowd came towards them (Lk:). And as Jesus came (<em>erchomai</em>) towards the crowd, there came out of the crowd towards Him (<em>pros-erchomai</em>) the man who wanted a healing for his son (Mt:). Mark records that the people ran towards Jesus when they saw Him (<em><a href='B:480 9:15'>Mar 9:15</a></em> - presumably His face was shining after the encounter, after the pattern of Moses), which explains why Luke says that the man had to ‘cry out’ from out of the crowd (<em><a href='B:490 9:38'>Luk 9:38</a></em> - Gk. ‘to holler’, to get attention amidst the rush of all the others towards Jesus) and that Jesus firstly asked the Scribes what they were questioning His disciples about. We really can powerfully reconstruct the scene by putting the three different viewpoints together. Matthew focuses upon the man who came to Jesus wanting healing for his son. The best analogy is to cameramen. Matthew focuses close up upon one man; Mark is taking a broader view of the crowd as a whole, and therefore picks up the brief question to the Scribes first of all- they made no answer that is recorded, and the Lord’s answer to whatever questions they were asking was given in the healing miracle. That there are no actual contradictions of fact or chronology is to me a profound internal evidence of an inspired record, with a common Divine hand behind all the authors. If these were three uninspired men writing their recollections some time after the event, or uninspired people writing down what had been passed down to them as originating with those men, then for sure there would be contradictions. Because misremembering of detail is just part of our human condition, and the supposed lengthy process of oral tradition would inevitably have meant there was further corruption and unclarity added. The lack of contradiction in the accounts and the way they complement each other so perfectly has to me the hallmark of the Divine. Even witnesses who agree together to lie in court and rehearse their stories many times over- still end up contradicting each other. But that is not the case with the Gospels.</h4>


text:
<p>9:15&nbsp;<em>And immediately all the crowd, when they saw him, were greatly amazed; and running to him saluted him</em>- They ran up to Him- and He had Peter, James and John with Him. Perhaps His face was shining with the glory He had been exposed to, as the face of Moses did. It is therefore commendable that the people ran to Him rather than shying away from Him as they did from Moses when His face shone, and as the soldiers did when His face likewise shone at His arrest in Gethsemane. This sentence in Greek is intentionally similar to the account of <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em>, where again “All the people cp. “all the crowd” ran s:w. “running to Him” together unto them… greatly wondering s:w. “greatly amazed”. The response of the crowd to Peter and John in <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em> could not possibly have been contrived by them. Their experience at the return from the transfiguration was to prepare them for their own later witness, when without the physical presence of Jesus, they were Him to the world. And the same kind of carefully, sensitively planned education of us is ongoing now. Not only do situations occur and then repeat in essence later in our lives, but what we go through in this life will only have understood meaning in the Kingdom, when we shall put into eternal practice what we are learning now. But for now, there is an inevitable difficulty in attaching meaning to event, because we cannot foresee the billion situations in our eternities where we will put into practice what we are now learning.</p>


text:
<p>9:16&nbsp;<em>And he asked them: What are you arguing about with them?</em>- The Lord knew, but He wanted to highlight the inappropriacy of any arguments when in the presence of the Father's glory reflected in His Son. And we can take that lesson. The Greek for "arguing" occurs ten times in the New Testament, nearly always in the context of argument with the Jews. All such legalistic argument ought to fade away in the context of the Lord's glory and the certain hope of the Kingdom, of which the transfiguration had spoken- with the intimation of present transformation towards that end right now.</p>


text:
<p>9:17&nbsp;<em>And one of the crowd answered him: Teacher, I brought to you my son, who has a dumb spirit</em>- When the father of the dumb child brought him to&nbsp;<em>the disciples</em>, he tells Jesus that “I brought to&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;my son”, but the disciples couldn’t cure him; he perceived Jesus as His followers, just as folk do today. The Lord had earlier given them power over “unclean spirits” (<em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>)- but still they couldn’t heal him. The power given to them was therefore potential power, but it was no guarantee that they would actually do the works. Alternatively, we could conclude that that power was only given to them temporarily. Or, that there is a difference between the twelve, and the more general “disciples” / followers of Jesus. However it would have been strange indeed if the man had not brought his son to the group of the twelve in the hope of healing. And it is the disciples, presumably the twelve, who then come to the Lord and ask why they could not perform the cure (:28).</p>


text:
<p>9:18&nbsp;<em>And wherever it takes him, it dashes him down and he foams and grinds his teeth and pines away-&nbsp;</em>Descriptions of the rejected as gnashing teeth, cast into fire and water, wallowing helpless::. is all the language of the demoniac (<em><a href='B:480 9:18-22'>Mar 9:18-22</a></em>). The child was obsessed with fear of condemnation, just as we noted Legion had been. His problem was therefore psychologically rooted, and the language of demons is simply the language of the day to describe his actions and their apparent cure. This connection shows at least two things: that there will be a madness in the rejected, the tragic aimlessness of the demented. And secondly, that because the demoniac was cured, it is possible for a man whose behaviour leads to his condemnation&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>to still repent, before it's too late. And yet although the rejected may appear demented, they may well not feel like this. They will gnash their teeth with anger, not least against themselves. Being cast into fire or water (Mt:) were both figures of condemnation. The young man felt he was worthy of condemnation- hence conviction of the Lord's saving mercy would have been enough to cure him of the deep sense of unworthiness which he had.</p><p><em>And I spoke to your disciples that they should cast it out, and they were not able</em>- They had no&nbsp;<em>dunamai&nbsp;</em>(possibility), in Matthew's record; <em><a href='B:480 9:18'>Mar 9:18</a></em> uses a different word- according to Mark, the man said that they “could not” using&nbsp;<em>ischuo&nbsp;</em>(more carrying the sense of physical power). The man therefore bewailed at least twice that the disciples couldn’t help; and he asks the Lord Jesus to help “if You can” (<em><a href='B:480 9:22'>Mar 9:22</a></em> -&nbsp;<em>dunamai</em>). They did have the possibility; but they lacked the faith to actualize it (<em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:19-20'>Luk 10:19-20</a></em> “I give unto you power… over all the power of the enemy… the spirits are subject unto you”). We too have been given potentials which require faith to exploit, and our failures to do so leave people with the impression that the Lord Himself is limited- for, like the disciples, we are His representatives in this world, and people coming to us are effectively coming to Him.</p>


text:
<p>9:19&nbsp;<em>And he answered them saying: O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I tolerate you?-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :17, the "faithless" here were the disciples, not the man; for he had some measure of faith. The disciples were at this point caught up in the faithless spirit of their generation, the world around them; just as we can be. When the Lord returned from the Mount of Transfiguration, He found that the disciples had failed to do a cure because of their lack of faith. He describes them as part of a “faithless generation” again indicating how the disciples were all too influenced by Judaism, the “generation” or world around them. The disciples and Judaism / the Jewish world are paralleled in <em><a href='B:500 7:3-4'>Joh 7:3-4</a></em>: “Let your disciples see your work… show yourself to the world”.</p><p>An example of the Lord’s perhaps unconscious usage of His Father’s words is to be found in this exasperated comment:&nbsp; Of course the Lord would have spoken those words and expressed those ideas in Aramaic- but the similarity is striking with His Father’s Hebrew words of <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation…?”. As a son comes out with phrases and word usages which ‘Could be his father speaking’, so the Lord Jesus did the same thing. What I am saying is that the Lord was not merely quoting or alluding to the Father’s Old Testament words, in the way that, say, Paul or Peter did. As the Father’s Son, He was speaking in the same way as His Father, no doubt saturated with the written record of the Father’s words, but all the same, there were those similarities of wording and underlying thinking which are only seen between fathers and sons. And His words of <em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em> seem to me to be an example of this. It was the disciples who were faithless. In Matthew chapters 12 and 13, the Lord had drawn a clear difference between the disciples, and the unbelieving surrounding generation. It seems that He now despaired of whether that distinction was valid; He sees them, in the heat of that moment of bitter disappointment, as no better than the masses who did not believe. The "faithless" will be condemned (<em><a href='B:490 12:46'>Luk 12:46</a></em> "his portion with the unbelievers", s:w:), and this is the term used about the world generally (<em><a href='B:530 6:6'>1Co 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:12'>1Co 7:12</a></em>); or as the Lord puts it, this "generation". And yet the Lord uses it here about the disciples and again in <em><a href='B:500 20:27'>Joh 20:27</a></em>. The very phrase "perverse generation" is used by Paul about the unbelieving world (<em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>). To use this term about the disciples is therefore significant; the Lord really felt that His faith and hope that they were different from the Jewish world had been misplaced. After His encounter with Elijah and Moses, he doubtless expected more of God's people.</p><p>This fits in with a Biblical theme- of people being confronted with acute spiritual temptation immediately after a highly spiritual experience. And this is true to life- so often, merely hours after a highly intense spiritual experience e:g. at a breaking of bread meeting we find ourselves assailed by temptation and spiritual depression. It's not that we are encountered by a physical person called 'Satan' immediately after our spiritual 'high'; rather it is a feature of human nature that the closer we come to God, the stronger is the tidal backwash of&nbsp;<em>internal</em>&nbsp;temptation immediately afterwards. Consider some examples:</p><p>- Noah walks off the ark, a superb triumph of faith, into a cleansed and pristine world, with the rainbow arch of God's grace above him- and gets dead drunk (<em><a href='B:10 9:21-24'>Gen 9:21-24</a></em>).<br/>- Moses renounced greatness, stood up for God's people and then left Egypt by faith, "not fearing the wrath of the king" (<em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em>); and yet ended up fleeing in fear from Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 2:14-15'>Exo 2:14-15</a></em>).<br/>- Moses returned from the awesome meeting with God on Sinai and gave in to a flash of anger, during which he smashed the tables of the covenant- a covenant which had also been made with him personally.<br/>- Israel were ecstatic with joy and confidence in God as they stood on the other side of the Red Sea- but very soon afterwards they were giving in to temptation in the wilderness, accusing God of intending to kill them and being careless for them.<br/>- Judas went from the spiritual height of being present at the first "breaking of bread" meeting with the Lord Jesus, just prior to His death, directly into temptation from "the Devil" and then went out into the darkness of that night (<em><a href='B:490 22:3'>Luk 22:3</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/>- Soon after his spiritual triumph on Carmel, Elijah is to be found suicidal and bitter with God, and considering that the other faithful in Israel are in fact also apostate (<em><a href='B:110 19:4-11'>1Ki 19:4-11</a></em>).<br/>- Samson's life was full of giving in to spiritual temptation immediately after he had been empowered by God to do some great miracle.<br/>- Immediately after having been saved by God's grace from a huge invasion (2 Samuel 11), David sins with Bathsheba and murders Uriah (2 Samuel 12).<br/>- After the wonder of having a terminal illness delayed by 15 years in response to prayer, Hezekiah gives in to the temptation to be proud and selfish in the events of Isaiah 39.<br/>- Soon after the wonder of the miracles of the loaves and fishes, the disciples hardened their heart to it and accused Jesus of not caring for them (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:52'>Mar 6:52</a></em>).<br/>- Paul straight after his wonderful vision of "the third heaven" finds himself struggling with a "thorn in the flesh", a term I have elsewhere suggested may refer to a spiritual weakness or temptation (<em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>).<br/>- After the wonder of baptism and the confirming voice from Heaven, Jesus was immediately assaulted by major temptation in the wilderness.</p><p>This is surely the most graphic and intense expression of frustration in the entire recorded history of the Lord Jesus. His frustration was with how His disciples were not living up to their potential, and how faithless they were. And we daily exhibit the same terribly disappointing characteristics. But&nbsp;<em>how long</em>&nbsp;may not necessarily be a cry of exasperation- although it could be that. There can also be the sense of 'Until when?', and the time in view was the Lord's death. John's Gospel records the Lord several times speaking of how His hour or time had not yet come, and how He agonized until it did. That end point was clearly the moment when He cried from the cross "It is finished".</p><p><em>Bring him to me</em>- The man had brought s:w. "bring" his son to the disciples, they couldn't heal him, and so the Lord asks for the child to be brought to Him personally. And yet He had taught that in their witness, the disciples were Him to this world. Coming to them was coming to Him. But He despaired that in this case, there was now a difference between them and Him. They were unable to manifest Him as they should because of their lack of faith. And there are times when our status as 'brethren in Christ' likewise fails, and we fail to be Him to this world and He has to intervene and reveal Himself more directly to men.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 9:19'>Mar 9:19</a></em> records how He asked for the son to be brought&nbsp;<em>pros</em>&nbsp;Me, literally, 'here with Me'; but this is the same term used in the Lord's lament: "How long shall I be with&nbsp;<em>pros</em>&nbsp;you?". The Lord's physical presence was required for this miracle- the son must be "here" (Mt:), "with Me" (Mk:). But the Lord was making the point that He would not always be literally with them, and then such cures would have to be done by the disciples without His physical presence. And it seems He despaired as to whether they were ready for this.</p>


text:
<p>9:20&nbsp;<em>And they brought him to him, and when he saw him, immediately the spirit tore at him grievously and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth</em>- As noted on :18, the young man was obsessed with fear of condemnation. When he realized he was in the presence of the Lord, his condition therefore worsened considerably; he felt he really had arrived at judgment day, and wanted to destroy himself. Again we note that the underlying problem with him was psychological and spiritual, rather than being literally attacked by a demon.</p>


text:
<p>9:21&nbsp;<em>And he asked his father: How long has this been happening to him? And he said: From a child</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em>. This question was perhaps to provoke the man to remember back through those difficult and tragic years, in order to elicit stronger faith and desire from him.</p>


text:
<p>9:22<em>&nbsp;And often it has cast him both into the fire and into the waters to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us</em>-Descriptions of the rejected as gnashing teeth, cast into fire and water, wallowing helpless::. is all the language of the demoniac (<em><a href='B:480 9:18-22'>Mar 9:18-22</a></em>). This connection shows at least two things: that there will be a madness in the rejected, the tragic aimlessness of the demented. And secondly, that because the demoniac was cured, it is possible for a man whose behaviour leads to his condemnation&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>to still repent, before it's too late. And yet although the rejected may appear demented, they may well not feel like this. They will gnash their teeth with anger, not least against themselves.</p>


text:
<p>9:23&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to him: Rather, if you can All things are possible to him that believes</em>- The father of the child was asked whether he could believe i:e:, that Jesus could cast out the demon. The man replied that yes, although his faith was weak, he believed that Jesus could cast out the demon. His faith was focused on by Jesus, rather than his wrong beliefs. Faith above all was what the Lord was focusing on&nbsp;<em>in the first instance</em>. We frequently commit the horror of limiting God in our attitude to prayer. All too often we see ourselves in the man who believed and yet still had unbelief: "If thou (Jesus) canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible" (<em><a href='B:480 9:22-23'>Mar 9:22-23</a></em> AV). The man thought that Christ's power to help was limited: 'If you can do anything to help, well, please do'. The Lord Jesus turned things right round: 'If you can believe, anything's possible' - in other words, God can&nbsp;do anything, but His ability to directly respond to some particular need is limited by our faith, not by any intrinsic lack of ability within Himself. The man hadn't thought about this. He saw God as sometimes able to help a bit; Christ turned the man's words round to show that God's power is infinite, limited only by our faith. The same message is taught by putting together the fact that with God nothing is impossible (<em><a href='B:490 1:37'>Luk 1:37</a></em>), and the fact that nothing is impossible&nbsp;<em>unto us</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>). God’s possibility is our possibility; and this is what the Lord was teaching the man who thought that it all depended upon the Lord’s possibility alone. There are other instances where the extent and nature of the Lord's healing seems to have been limited by the faith of the recipient (<em><a href='B:470 8:13'>Mat 8:13</a></em> "as:::so"; <em><a href='B:470 9:29'>Mat 9:29</a></em> "according to”; <em><a href='B:470 12:22'>Mat 12:22</a></em> "inasmuch").</p><p>The word "believe" is omitted from many texts and from the NEV. Thus we could paraphrase: “Regarding that " If you can::." which you said- as regards that, well, all things are possible”. This is&nbsp;the view of F:B. Meyer and Marvin Vincent. The RV reads: “And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst All things are possible to him that believeth”.</p><p>It is clear enough that God at times limits His power. He&nbsp;<em>could</em>&nbsp;save everybody, indeed He wishes to do this, yet He allows human freewill to be genuine and meaningful, to the extent that not all will be saved. Israel in the wilderness “limited the Holy One of Israel". He was left by Israel as a mighty man powerless to save. The Greek word&nbsp;<em>dunatos</em>&nbsp;translated 16 times "mighty" is also 13 times translated "possible". God's might is His possibility. But our freewill can limit that might. All things are possible to God, and therefore all things are possible to the believer- but if the believer has no faith, then, those possibilities of God will not occur (<em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:27'>Mar 10:27</a></em>). And so I have no problem with a God who limits His omniscience.</p>


text:
<h4>9:24<em>&nbsp;Immediately the father of the child cried out, and said: I believe Help my disbelief</em>- See on <em><a href='B:490 1:13'>Luk 1:13</a></em>. It is a feature of our nature that we can believe and yet disbelieve at the same time. The father of the epileptic boy is the clearest example. He had asked: "help us" (:22), i:e. 'cure the child'. But he understood that this "help" depended partly upon his faith; he believed, as we should, that the faith of third parties can radically affect others (see on <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). And yet he realized that his faith was weak, and he asked the Lord to "help" that faith to be stronger than the native "unbelief" which is part of the human condition. Even faith itself can be "helped". We are not left unaided in climbing the mountain of belief. Faith in that sense is partially a gift from the Lord through the gift of His Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 2:8'>Eph 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:2'>2Th 3:2</a></em>). The Lord can succour s:w. "help" (<em><a href='B:650 2:18'>Heb 2:18</a></em>), through the gift of His Spirit.</h4>


text:
<p>9:25<em>&nbsp;And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it: You dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and enter no more into him</em>-There are a number of parallels between the language used of ‘casting out’ demons, and that used about healings. Jesus “rebuked” demons in <em><a href='B:480 9:25'>Mar 9:25</a></em>, and yet He “rebuked” a fever (<em><a href='B:490 4:39'>Luk 4:39</a></em>) and the wind (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). Demons are spoken of as having “departed” (<em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em>), yet we read of leprosy ‘departing’ (<em><a href='B:480 1:42'>Mar 1:42</a></em>) and diseases ‘departing’ after cure (<em><a href='B:510 19:12'>Act 19:12</a></em>). I’d go so far as to say that every case of a person being spoken of as demon possessed has its equivalent in diseases which we can identify today– e:g. epilepsy, schizophrenia.</p><p>The peoples of the first century, and their predecessors, believed that demons and the Satan monster were somehow associated with water- that was why, they figured, the water mysteriously kept moving, and at times blew up into storms. When we read of God 'rebuking' the waters and making them calm or do what He wished (<em><a href='B:230 18:16'>Psa 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:7'>Psa 104:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:9'>Psa 106:9</a></em>), we're effectively being told that Yahweh of Israel is so infinitely superior to those supposed demons and sea monsters that for God's people, they have no effective existence. The Lord Jesus taught the same lesson when He 'rebuked' the sea and wind during the storm on the lake (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>). The same Greek word is used to described how He 'rebuked' demons (<em><a href='B:470 17:18'>Mat 17:18</a></em> etc:). I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus didn't believe there was a Loch Ness-type monster lurking in Galilee which He had to rebuke in order to save the disciples from the storm; and likewise He spoke of 'rebuking' demons as a similar way of teaching others that&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;ideas they had about demons, He was greater and was in a position to 'rebuke' them. Likewise He assured His men that they had the power to tread on snakes, scorpions, and all their enemies (<em><a href='B:490 10:17-20'>Luk 10:17-20</a></em>). The image of a victorious god trampling his foes and snakes underfoot was well established in the surrounding cultures, and had entered Judaism. The Lord is teaching those fearful men that OK, if that's your perception of things, well, in your terms, you have ultimate victory through working 'in My name'. It must be noted that the man had previously described the boy’s condition as being due to how “A spirit seizes him… and it&nbsp;<em>departs</em>&nbsp;from him with great difficulty” (<em><a href='B:490 9:39'>Luk 9:39</a></em>). The condition was intermittent (consistent with viewing the condition as epilepsy rather than actual, literal manipulation by a spirit or demon). Trying various remedies, probably including beating him, the condition ‘departed’. The Lord’s cure is described in the same terms, with the implication that it was total and permanent, rather than partial and temporary, as their ‘healings’ were. The Lord said that the ‘spirit’ would never again enter the boy (<em><a href='B:480 9:25'>Mar 9:25</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:26&nbsp;<em>And having cried out and torn him much, it came out; and the boy became as one dead. So much so that the many said: He is dead</em>- I suggested on :18 and :20 that the young man was obsessed with fear of condemnation at the last day. He now is as it were dead. He goes very still. He feels as if he has died. An then the Lord as it were resurrects him (:27). The whole essence of baptism was being lived out in him at this moment; he was dying to sin, taking its condemnation; and then arising with the Lord Jesus to new life.</p>


text:
<p>9:27&nbsp;<em>But Jesus took him by the hand and raised him up, and he arose</em>- See on :26. This is exactly what He had done to the terrified disciples on the mount of transfiguration (<em><a href='B:470 17:7'>Mat 17:7</a></em> s:w:). By doing so, it was made apparent that the disciples (even the three best of them) needed healing themselves rather than being in a position to perform the miracles, as the Lord had hoped they could; and as indeed they could.</p>


text:
<p>9:28&nbsp;<em>And when he had come into the house, his disciples privately asked him: Why could we not cast it out?</em>- They were surprised at their inability, which suggests they had performed such cures before and had faith that they could do miracles. The Lord's explanation in the next verse (in Matthew's record) that they had no faith ("unbelief",&nbsp;<em>a-pisteo</em>, no faith) would therefore have been hard for them to initially accept. His idea was that we either believe or do not believe, and often what seems to us as faith, even if it is admittedly small faith, is ultimately not faith. John's Gospel even more clearly presents faith as something one either has or doesn't have. And yet in reality there are gradations of faith, and the Bible recognizes this. The Lord's next comment in Matthew that "<em>If&nbsp;</em>you really, as you think have faith as a grain of mustard seed::." was therefore speaking to their assumption that although their faith was small, they did actually believe. Again we see how the Lord sees to the inner, unexpressed thoughts and positions of His audiences, and addresses them. This presentation of faith as an absolute, a black or white position (and John's Gospel stresses this even more), is a huge challenge to examine our faith.</p>


text:
<p>9:29&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: This kind-&nbsp;</em>This kind of demon? In this case, the Lord is again using their wrong ideas (in this case, about some demons being stronger than others) without really believing them, talking to them in terms which they understood.</p><p><em>Can come out by nothing except by prayer and fasting</em>- They tried to do miracles without even praying about it. Only intense prayer could send forth this kind of answer from God; He does not act on emotional grounds, just because He feels sorry for somebody. It needs to be noted that initially the man's child was not cured because the disciples didn't have the faith to do it. This teaches that God's activity for others is partly dependent on the prayers of a third party and the extent of their faith- both that of the man, and of the disciples.</p><p>The Lord wasn’t naive, although He was so positive. He told the disciples quite frankly here that they were full of “unbelief”, and couldn’t do miracles which He expected them to because they didn’t pray and fast (<em><a href='B:470 17:19-21'>Mat 17:19-21</a></em>). And yet when quizzed by the Pharisees as to why His disciples didn’t fast, He said it was because they were so happy to be with Him, the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:470 9:15'>Mat 9:15</a></em>). Here surely He was seeing the best in them. They come over as confused, mixed up men who wanted the Kingdom there and then and were frustrated at the Lord’s inaction in establishing it. But He saw that they recognized Him as the bridegroom, as Messiah, and He exalted in this, and saw their lack of fasting as partly due to the deep-down joy which He knew they had. Perhaps they tried to do this miracle without even praying about it. Or maybe they prayed only on a surface level, and it was not counted as real prayer. Only intense prayer could send forth this kind of answer from God; He does not act on emotional grounds, just because He feels sorry for somebody. It needs to be noted that initially the man's child was not cured because the disciples didn't have the faith to do it. This teaches that God's activity for others is partly dependent on the prayers of a third party. These words are applied to us all in <em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em>, the only other place in the NT where they occur together; we are to give ourselves to prayer and fasting in domestic married life with the passion and intensity required to perform a miracle.</p>


text:
<p>9:30&nbsp;<em>And they went from there and passed through Galilee; and he did not want anyone to know it</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 27:26'>Mat 27:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:44'>Luk 9:44</a></em>. He earnestly wanted time alone with the disciples in order to explain His death to them. This is why when He saw a crowd gathering, He quickly cured the child in order to stop further distraction (:25). We sense throughout the Gospels the Lord's dislike of crowds and His desire to privately teach those who wished to be close to Him; and how the essential burden of His message was of the need to share in His death, rather than getting cures and seeing miracles.</p><p>The note that He reminded them about His passion whilst they were still in Galilee is another hint at the Lord’s structured approach to training the twelve. Before they went back to Jerusalem, He wanted them to be aware well ahead of time that He was going to His death. Mark adds that He didn’t want people to know of His presence because He was teaching the disciples about His death. Once again we encounter the theme of the Lord intensely focusing upon His disciples rather than upon the masses of Israel. It could be argued that He could have healed far more people had He not had this policy; but His long term intention was to create a solid body of followers who would bring His message to the world after His death. And we must likewise achieve a balance between good deeds for the world, and the need for strengthening the body of believers.</p>


text:
<p>9:31&nbsp;<em>For he taught his disciples, and said to them: The Son of Man is delivered up into the hands of men-&nbsp;</em>Matthew uses the present tense- He&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;betrayed / delivered s:w:. The Lord likely said both- He shall be betrayed, in fact He is being betrayed / delivered. His sufferings were ongoing, His crucifixion sufferings were a seamless continuance of His whole way of life and being during His ministry. This is the sense recorded in John, of “the time comes but now is” (<em><a href='B:500 4:23'>Joh 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em>). He knew that the essence of the delivering over to the Jews /&nbsp; Romans was happening right then, although the final delivering / handing over was when in Gethsemane He said that “the hour is come… the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners” (<em><a href='B:480 14:41'>Mar 14:41</a></em>). The word for ‘betrayed’ means literally to be handed over or delivered, and so the Lord’s statement wouldn’t have necessarily implied to them that there was to be a betrayal from amongst their own number.</p><p><em>And they shall kill him, and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again</em>- Clearly the rising again was at a specific moment, “the third day”. This is proof enough that the Bible intends us to see the Lord’s rising again as bodily resurrection and not some spiritual reincarnation over a period of time.</p>


text:
<p>9:32&nbsp;<em>But they did not understand the saying and were afraid to ask him</em>- Luke notes that the saying about the cross was “hidden” from them (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>), in confirmation of their own refusal to understand it because it demanded that they too suffer with their Lord. And yet in prayer to the Father, He rejoices that these things are not hidden from them (<em><a href='B:490 10:21'>Luk 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>). This gives insight into the Lord’s present mediation for us in prayer- speaking of us as far better than we are. The message of Christ crucified was “hid” from them (<em><a href='B:490 9:45'>Luk 9:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>)- and Paul surely alludes to this when he says that this message is hid by the veil of Judaism from those who are lost (<em><a href='B:540 4:3'>2Co 4:3</a></em>). Luke adds that straight afterwards, “there arose a dispute among them, which of them was the greatest” (<em><a href='B:490 9:46'>Luk 9:46</a></em>). Time and again we see this in the Gospels- when the Lord speaks of His upcoming death, the disciples change the subject. This explains our own problem with mind wandering at the breaking of bread or in the study or even reading of the crucifixion accounts. This difficulty on focusing upon Him there is likely because His death requires our death and suffering, and subconsciously we realize that- and would rather not.</p>


text:
<p>9:33&nbsp;<em>And they went to Capernaum, and when he was in the house he asked them: What were you reasoning about on the way here?</em>- The Lord knew already; He had very keen natural perception as well as God's Spirit without measure. <em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em> records another incident where the Lord asked men what they were reasoning about exactly because He "perceived their thoughts". He realized the value of verbalizing things. He wanted them to confess; to admit that in the light of Him explaining His death, they had been arguing about who should be the greatest, and who was the greatest. Perhaps the Lord's obvious interest in Peter led them to discuss whether Peter was in fact the greatest, commenting upon his evident impetuosity and other human weaknesses.</p>


text:
<p>9:34&nbsp;<em>But they kept quiet. For they had disputed one with another on the way about who was the greatest</em>- Whenever the Lord taught them about His death, they always seem to have started arguing amongst themselves; the tremendous significance of what He was saying was evidently lost on them (<em><a href='B:480 9:31-34'>Mar 9:31-34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:34-38'>Mar 10:34-38</a></em>). The power of the cross is likewise lost on the hearts of many because of their obsession with petty argument.</p>


text:
<p>9:35&nbsp;<em>And he sat down and called the twelve; and he said to them: If anyone would be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all</em>- This 'sitting down' may have been some time later than the discussion in :33,34, because at this point Matthew says (<em><a href='B:470 18:1'>Mat 18:1</a></em>) that it was they who came to the Lord with the question about who should be the greatest. The Lord had asked what they had been talking about, knowing this had been the topic. They were silent. And He remained silent. That mutual silence was deafening. They thereby knew that He knew, and that they were wrong. And it was that lack of response from Him which prompted them to finally bring the question out into the open. He was indeed the master psychologist.</p><p>He was the "servant of all" because He&nbsp;<em>desired</em>&nbsp;to be the greatest in the Kingdom:&nbsp;It was this ambition which motivated His endurance of the daily cross of His life: "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;The Lord desired greatness in the Kingdom, and so can we; for the brighter stars only reflect more glory of the Sun (<em><a href='B:530 15:41'>1Co 15:41</a></em>):&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>The Lord Himself on the cross was the ultimate "servant of all", and therefore was the first of all. This may explain the Lord's comment that the last shall be first and the first last (<em><a href='B:470 19:30'>Mat 19:30</a></em>)- He may have intended us to read in an ellipsis to the effect that he who&nbsp;<em>wants to be&nbsp;</em>first shall be last, and he who&nbsp;<em>wants to be&nbsp;</em>last shall be first. There was to be a glorying in being the last, the servant of all- exemplified in the Lord's washing of the disciples' feet.</p>


text:
<p>9:36<em>&nbsp;And he took a little child and set him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them-&nbsp;</em>In&nbsp;<em>Against Celsus&nbsp;</em>3:55, Origen defends Christianity against the allegation that it requires men to leave the world of men and go mix with women and children in “the washerwoman’s shop”- presumably a house church Celsus knew. Lucian of Samosata even mocked Christianity as being largely comprised of children and “old hags called widows”. Marcus Cornelius Fronto likewise mocked the way “children” and by that term he would’ve referred to teenagers too participated in the breaking of bread&nbsp;<em>Octavius&nbsp;</em>8-9. The teaching of the Lord Jesus was attractive to children / young people. They like women were treated as of little worth; the Greco-Roman world considered that children had to be taught, and couldn’t teach a man anything. But the Lord Jesus repeatedly set children up as examples of discipleship (<em><a href='B:480 9:36-37'>Mar 9:36-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:47-48'>Luk 9:47-48</a></em>; as <em><a href='B:650 12:5-9'>Heb 12:5-9</a></em>). So we can understand the appeal of early Christianity to young people, teenagers, especially girls. O:M. Bakke has written a fascinating study entitled&nbsp;<em>When Children Became People</em>. The thesis is that the teaching of Christianity gave disenfranchised people an identity and meaning as persons- women and slaves are obvious examples- but this also applied to children / young people. They too were disregarded as people in Mediterranean society; and yet in Christ they were given their value as people. In the house church setting, we can imagine how this happened. Celsus mocks how teenage boys go to Christian house churches to be taught by women- reflecting how attractive Christianity was for young people.</p><p>The disciples soon afterwards are framed as doing exactly the opposite to what the Lord had done, when they forbad the little children s:w. to come to Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:13'>Mat 19:13</a></em>)- whereas the Lord actually invited them to Him. Again we note how the Gospel writers present the disciples as so often out of step with their Lord.</p><h4>The Greek for "set" means to stand, not to sit- this is how it is usually translated. <em><a href='B:480 9:35-36'>Mar 9:35-36</a></em> says that the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;but He&nbsp;<em>stood</em>&nbsp;the child in their midst. But&nbsp;<em>histemi</em>, often translated "set" in <em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>, has the strong connotation of standing up or setting someone up in a position. "The midst" suggests the disciples were in a closed circle, and the Lord stood the child within the circle. If you call an onlooking child into the midst of a group of unknown adults, they will typically not want to come. We see the powerful attraction of the Lord to children in that this child came, although likely with much nervousness, wanting to come to Jesus, but not into that closed circle of men- just as so many today. Almost certainly the child came to the Lord and He held the child close to Himself; for He goes on to urge the disciples to "receive" such little ones, implying they were reluctant to have the child amongst them. That closeness to the Lord was what was being set up as an example. The scene is portrayed graphically if we put the Gospel records together- the Lord&nbsp;<em>sat</em>&nbsp;with the men in a circle around Him, He calls the child to Him, stands him up "by Him" (<em>para</em>&nbsp;Him means close by Him, <em><a href='B:490 9:47'>Luk 9:47</a></em>) and then 'takes' him, cuddling the child to Himself "in His arms" (<em><a href='B:480 9:36'>Mar 9:36</a></em>)- whilst He is sitting down. The natural response of the child who had been stood would be to want to sit down, holding on to Jesus, and not to stand above those men with their attention focused upon him. This natural desire to come down, to humble self, is what is being memorialized by the Lord as the pattern for all who wish to enter His Kingdom. Perhaps we can imagine the scene even further- the child would've wanted to come to Jesus personally, but the circle of disciples with their apparent superiority and judgmentalism would've been offputting. But still the child came, and the Lord in Luke's record urges the disciples to allow the child to join the circle and "receive" him. This scenario is seen so often in the body of Christ in our days. In the early church, there soon developed a problem about 'receiving' others, not least children, women and Gentiles- and the Gospel records through this incident show how seriously wrong the disciples were not do do so. Luke's record goes on to record the incident with John's disciples where the Lord's disciples didn't want to "receive" them- implying they did not immediately grasp the teaching themselves.</h4><p><em>"</em>In the midst of them" is a phrase used several times about the Lord Jesus Himself standing in the midst of His followers (<em><a href='B:490 24:36'>Luk 24:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:26'>Joh 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:9'>Joh 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:19'>Joh 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:26'>Joh 20:26</a></em>). The supreme "child" was the Lord Jesus. This connection between Him and that child was it seems perceived by Peter later, when he uses the same word to describe the Lord Jesus as God's "holy child" (<em><a href='B:510 4:27'>Act 4:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>). If as suggested the Lord held the child to Himself, the identification would have been visually powerful and the image would've remained with the disciples. The Lord Himself clinches the connection by saying that whoever becomes as that child will be the greatest in the Kingdom- and He clearly was and is the greatest in the Kingdom. <em><a href='B:490 9:48'>Luk 9:48</a></em> makes the connection beyond doubt in recording that the Lord then said that "Whosoever shall receive this child::. receives Me". His subsequent comment there that "For he that is least among you all, the same is great" is surely a reference to Himself, rather than urging them to be the least so that they might be the greatest. The Lord's answer as to who was greatest in the Kingdom was therefore to indirectly point out that He is the greatest, and we should simply seek to be like Him, using the little child as a template to that end. The antidote to division, therefore, is to be focused upon Christ and to seek to simply enter the Kingdom- the things of the Kingdom and of the Name (<em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>).</p><p>So the Lord took a child and set him in the midst of those rough fishermen and tax collectors. He said that they must become like that child; and further, they must receive that child as a representative of Himself, and thereby, of God Himself. In&nbsp;probable allusion to this, Paul teaches that in malice we should be children, but in understanding: men (<em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em>). The child in the midst of men, wide eyed, simple and sincere amidst men full of cynicism and human wisdom and self-righteousness and the gruffness of the flesh::. This was a symbol of every true believer, of the Lord Himself, and of Almighty God, as they were and as they are in the midst of a world and even a brotherhood that, like the disciples, so often stares on uncomprehending. The aptness was not in the child’s humility if indeed a child can be humble, but in the purity of the innocence and sincerity and unassuming directness.</p>


text:
<p>9:37&nbsp;<em>Whoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receives me. And whoever receives me, receives not me but Him that sent me</em>- To not offend others we must “receive” them (<em><a href='B:470 18:5'>Mat 18:5</a></em>). It is written of Jesus that when crowds of materialistic, fascinated people followed Him, “He received them, and spake unto them of the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:490 9:11'>Luk 9:11</a></em>). He didn’t just turn round and read them a lecture about the Kingdom. “He&nbsp;<em>received&nbsp;</em>them”. Presumably Luke means to reflect how he perceived something in the Lord’s body language that was receiving of that crowd of peasants- whom we would likely have written off as just dumb groupies with no more than surface level interest. And we too must receive one another, even as the Lord has received us (<em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>)- and this includes receiving him who is even weak in the faith (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>). We should be looking for every reason to receive and fellowship our brethren, rather than reasons not to.</p><p>The disciples would've had to open their closed circle to allow the child to enter. As the child settled down in the arms of the Lord Jesus, he was effectively added to the circle of disciples. Children were counted as non-persons in first century society, along with women, serious sinners, the mentally ill and lepers. The Lord is powerfully teaching that our attitude to such persons is our attitude to Him and therefore to God (Mk:, Lk:). The challenge comes down to many of us too, who come from closed table communities. The Lord foresaw that to form a tight circle around Him was the natural response of those who followed Him, but He is saying that unless we open that circle, we are in danger of actually not having received Him at all. Our not receiving of such persons is going to make them stumble ("offend them"), and this warrants eternal condemnation. The Lord had bidden the disciples 'humble themselves', and now they are given an opportunity to do so- by 'receiving' amongst themselves, as one of them, into their circle, a little child. Opening our circle and accepting amongst us those who do not share (at least, at this time) our level of faith, understanding or even culture- this is indeed a humbling experience. All that is in us cries out to keep them excluded, and to keep our circle tightly closed against them. But the argument for a closed circle, or a closed table, is ultimately one which originates in pride and a refusal to humble self:&nbsp;<br/><em><br/></em>The little child was to be identified with the Lord Jesus personally. See on <em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>. To not receive the little ones is to not receive Jesus personally. The issue is of eternal importance, as the next verse emphasizes. We cannot simply go along with such rejections and refusal to receive others just because it is the policy of a church or fellowship to which we have belonged or grown up in. Social death and rejection by our brethren is nothing compared to the painful rejection at the last day which the Lord speaks of:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:38<em>&nbsp;John said to him: Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in your name and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us</em>- Mark inserts at this point the question about a man casting out demons although 'not following us' (<em><a href='B:480 9:38-42'>Mar 9:38-42</a></em>). The Lord rebukes them for this and goes on to warn them about not offending little ones. In Matthew, that warning follows straight on from the teaching about the need to receive little ones- as if refusing to receive them is what makes them stumble. The case raised by the disciples, as it were in protest at His teaching about receiving little ones, was presumably one of John's disciples. Although they had a different spiritual culture, history and even doctrinal understanding, the Lord had earlier likened both His and John's disciples to children in the marketplace working in parallel, presenting the same message in different ways. They were admittedly immature in some ways and in parts of their doctrinal understanding, but the Lord is teaching that this is what made John's disciples "little ones", and they must still be accepted. The Lord warns twice in that section in <em><a href='B:480 9:38-42'>Mar 9:38-42</a></em>: "Forbid him not". This is the same as saying 'Receive him, do not forbid him from entering your circle'. It is the same word which the Lord will go on to use in <em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em> about not forbidding another group of "little children". The Jewish world was to be condemned exactly because they hindered or forbad s:w. men to enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em> - see on 18:7&nbsp;<em>Woe to the world</em>). Peter surely alludes to the Lord's teaching when reasoning: "Who can forbid water" that Gentiles be baptized (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). Refusing baptism to those not considered good, ready or mature enough is surely a way of forbidding and not receiving little ones.</p>


text:
<p>9:39&nbsp;<em>But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no one who shall do a mighty work in my name and then be able straight afterwards to immediately speak evil of me</em>- The preceding section has sternly warned against forbidding the little ones, and now we have a worked example. The little ones in view were John's disciples (:38); although seeing "John did no miracle" we wonder whether the miracle claimed was legitimate. But the Lord is not only gentle, He seeks to accept even such misunderstanding and misguided ones. For He alludes without doubt to <em><a href='B:40 11:28-29'>Num 11:28-29</a></em>: "Joshua… answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Are you envious for my sake? Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them". He considered this misguided miracle worker in John's group as all the same one of God's new Israel. As noted on :38, the disciples tended to "forbid" those whom the Lord wished to accept. And that same tension is seen time and again with the way closed, denominational mindsets seek to exclude and "forbid" others who differ and are immature. But the allusion to Numbers 11 seems to be saying that all in whom the Spirit is working should be accepted; and the litmus test is whether they shall "speak evil of me". If they do not, then they are not against Him but for, despite their misunderstanding. An alternative reading however is "Shall not lightly speak evil of me" (as AV). In this case, the Lord is comforting His sceptical disciples that if such a person does is in fact against Him, then this is no light matter and will be dealt with by the Lord's judgment; but not by theirs. This incident is surely alluded to by Paul when he warns against some who claimed to possess the Spirit who 'call Jesus accursed' (<em><a href='B:530 12:3'>1Co 12:3</a></em>). There were such, and it was their attitude to the Lord Jesus personally which proclaimed them against Him. What people think of Christ is the critical issue when it comes to deciding whether a person is for or against Him; and that is obvious really, but the natural tendency to "forbid" those who interpret differently to ourselves is strong:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:40&nbsp;<em>For he that is not against us, is for us</em>- See on :39. If a person is not against the Lord personally (:39), then he is not against "us", the body of Christ. And so even if that person will not mix with us, from God's wider point of view he is "for us", "on our part". Here on earth, sectors of the Lord's body are against each other. But from the Lord's perspective, those who are not against Him are on His part. But speaking evil of the Lord personally (:39) is parallel here with not being against&nbsp;<em>us</em>. And here we have a worrying implication. Attitudes to those in Christ are attitudes to Him. To be "against" any of them is to be against Him.</p><p>And so the Lord's attitude to John’s disciples is very telling. He saw those who “follow not us” as being “on our part”, not losing their reward, as being the little ones who believed in Him; and He saw wisdom as being justified by&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;her children, be they His personal disciples or those of John (<em><a href='B:480 9:38-41'>Mar 9:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:35'>Luk 7:35</a></em>). John’s men had a wrong attitude to fellowship- they should have ‘followed with’ the disciples of Jesus; and it would seem their doctrinal understanding of the Holy Spirit was lacking, although not wrong (<em><a href='B:510 19:1-5'>Act 19:1-5</a></em>). Indeed, they are called there “disciples”, a term synonymous with all believers in Luke’s writing. And the Lord too spoke in such an inclusive way towards them. No wonder His disciples had and have such difficulty grasping His inclusiveness and breadth of desire to fellowship and save.</p>


text:
<p>9:41<em>&nbsp;For whoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because you are Christ's- truly I say to you, he shall in no way lose his reward</em>-Giving a cup of cold water to the little ones doesn’t necessarily refer to sticking banknotes in a collection for charity. The Hebrew writer took it as referring to our love for Christ's little ones, within the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> = <em><a href='B:650 6:10'>Heb 6:10</a></em>). And the context says the same:&nbsp;The Lord was inviting the disciples to see themselves as none less than the likes of Elisha, who were supported in their work by various well-wishers:&nbsp;</p><p>According to <em><a href='B:470 10:41'>Mat 10:41</a></em>, these “little ones” refer to the disciples. But why “<em>these</em>&nbsp;little ones” and not “you”? I suggest that verse 41 could effectively be a soliloquy, perhaps spoken out loud in the presence of the disciples, but all the same, it is Jesus speaking to Himself. Or maybe the Lord is saying that the mistaken disciple of John would be accepted as one of the Lord's followers, and therefore any who supported him in his slightly misplaced ideals as a missionary for John would therefore still be rewarded. I say this because offering a cup of cold water was how travellers were assisted by local people along the road.</p>


text:
<p>9:42&nbsp;<em>And whoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe in me to stumble-&nbsp;</em>The "little ones" of the context could refer to John's disciples, with their limited belief and understanding in the Lord, who perhaps refused to follow after Jesus because they disagreed with the worldly ways of His disciples. And so the Lord urges the twelve not to cause stumbling to those ones little in faith and understanding. See on <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>It would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea</em>- The very language of Babylon's judgments at the last day. The believer who makes another to stumble by not receiving them is therefore no better than Babylon, the archenemy of God and His true people. And <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em> speaks of how&nbsp;<em>Babylon</em>&nbsp;shall be cast into the sea as a millstone- such 'believers' will at the last day face Babylon's judgments, they will be "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>), sent back into it from the judgment seat of Christ to share the world's fate. Even though externally they had been so separate from the world, so separate that the refused to receive the "little ones". But this attitude is in fact a worldly attitude; by having it, we are showing that we are of the world.</p>


text:
<p>9:43&nbsp;<em>And if your hand causes you to stumble-&nbsp;</em>The context has spoken of not offending the little ones, and of the terrible condemnation awaiting those who cause others to stumble. There are two legitimate meanings of the words here. The idea could be ‘If these things cause you to stumble others’; or, ‘If these things cause you yourself to stumble’. But the ambiguity is surely intentional. If we make others to stumble then we have made ourselves stumble, for if we make others stumble out of the way to the Kingdom, then we shall not be there ourselves. The point is clear- we are to go to absolutely any length, paying any personal cost, in order not to cause stumbling to a little one.</p><p><em>Cut it off-</em>&nbsp;I suggest the Lord is parodying the orthodox Jewish idea of cutting off members of the community in order to preserve the rest of the body of believers- an idea equally common today amongst some in the new Israel. The Lord is saying that in order to avoid personal condemnation, we are to cut off our own limbs if necessary- in order to avoid causing a little one to stumble. The cost of not causing the little ones to stumble is therefore very personal; because communities, both secular and religious, tend to cause little ones to stumble by their policies, it follows that individuals will pay a high price for stepping out of line by insisting that we will not cause them to stumble. The preceding verse has explained how “the world”, the Jewish religious system of the Lord’s time, the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia</em>&nbsp;of the day, lead others to stumble, and that individuals must take personal responsibility for this. In the same way as the whole system was destroyed in AD70, so personal condemnation at the last day awaits the individuals who make others stumble:&nbsp;</p><p><em>It is good for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having your two hands and to go into Gehenna- into the unquenched fire</em>- The lame, blind and maimed were those not acceptable for service in God’s tabernacle (<em><a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:21'>Deu 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 5:8'>2Sa 5:8</a></em>). The Lord surely has this in mind. He seems to be saying that to avoid offending little ones, it is better to be unacceptable for priestly service now, and yet therefore enter God's Kingdom. The implication, therefore, is that by&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;being seen as fit for priestly service, we avoid offending little ones. The only interpretation which makes sense of this to me is that the Lord foresaw that by fellowshipping the little ones, we may well be excluded from public priestly service in the house of God in this life, because those running the show generally exclude those who think in terms of an open table. But that is a cheap price to pay for entering the Kingdom. And we will be miserable excluded from His Kingdom if we make others stumble by acting in such a way as merely keeps us in with the religious powers that be, that keeps us fit&nbsp;<em>in their sight&nbsp;</em>for service. And this again is absolutely true to observation in the body of Christ. Those who are inclusive of little ones tend to be sidelined from public service by those who are decision makers within the ecclesia. But that is a cheap price for entrance to the Kingdom:&nbsp;</p><h4>It's better to limp into the Kingdom than be rejected for self-righteousness. Surely there is an invitation here to see the limping Jacob, walking away from the encounter with the Angel, as our role model. The personality we will be in the Kingdom will reflect the struggles we have personally endured in this life. Relationships in the Kingdom of God will reflect these. Thus those who had consciously chosen to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom are comforted that in the Kingdom they will be given a name and place in God's temple better than of children in this life (<em><a href='B:290 56:5'>Isa 56:5</a></em>). All the faithful will be given a name and place in the temple; so what especial consolation was this to those eunuchs? Surely the point is that the name (personality) they will then have will gloriously reflect the self-sacrifice and personal Biblical understanding which they went through in this life. This alone proves that the reward will be individual. The Lord's picture of men entering the Kingdom without limbs is surely making the same point (<em><a href='B:480 9:47'>Mar 9:47</a></em>); the result of our self-sacrifice in this life will be reflected by the personality we have in the Kingdom. And there is evidence that the Man we follow will still bear in His body, throughout eternity, the marks of the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:450 13:6'>Zec 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>). &nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p>9:44&nbsp;<em>Where their worm does not die and the fire is not put out</em>- Gehenna was the ravine south of Jerusalem where ‘little ones’ had been sacrificed to Moloch (<em><a href='B:300 7:31'>Jer 7:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 17:7'>2Ki 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 23:10'>2Ki 23:10</a></em>). So there is an appropriacy in this particular picture of condemnation. Those who stop others entering God’s Kingdom and lead them to condemnation will share the same condemnation; what they did to others will be done to them.</p>


text:
<p>9:45&nbsp;<em>And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is good for you to enter into life lame, rather than having your two feet and to be cast into Gehenna</em>- <em><a href='B:480 9:43-47'>Mar 9:43-47</a></em> spells out the details of the condemnation in laboured detail- if our eye offends, or causes us to offend others, then cut it off, for it is better to be without an eye in this life than to be condemned in Gehenna, where the worm and fire are 'eternal'. And this is repeated concerning the hand and foot. We read of eye, hand and foot together in only one other context- of "eye for eye::. hand for hand, foot for foot" being the punishment for damaging a 'little one' within the womb of a woman (<em><a href='B:20 21:24'>Exo 21:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:21'>Deu 19:21</a></em>). Nowhere else in Scripture do these three words occur together. By not receiving a little one, despising them and thus causing them to stumble, we are doing the equivalent of the Old Covenant sin of beating up a pregnant woman and causing handicap to the 'little one' within her. It could be that the Lord is saying that we can be responsible for damaging those who have not yet come to spiritual birth, to the point that if they are born, then they will be born with serious defects which are our fault. And such defects will have been the result of not receiving them, even in their immature state. Thus the table practice of the Lord was to accept people at His table at whatever stage of their spiritual growth or journey, even those not as yet born again, not yet converted, not yet repentant::. in order to try to bring them to that point:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord Jesus spoke several times of taking up the cross and following Him. This is the life you have committed yourself to by baptism; you have at least tried to take up the cross. The full horror and shock of what He was saying doubtless registered more powerfully with the first century believers than with us. They would have seen men in the agony of approaching death carrying their crosses and then being nailed to them. And the Lord Jesus asked men to do this to themselves. Our takings up of the cross will result in damage- the plucked out eye, the cut off foot. And notice that the Lord says that we will enter lame into the eternal life, or enter the Kingdom with just one eye (<em><a href='B:480 9:45-47'>Mar 9:45-47</a></em>). Surely this means that the effects of our self-sacrifice in this life will in fact be eternally evident in the life which is to come. The idea of&nbsp;<em>taking up&nbsp;</em>the cross suggests a conscious, decided willingness to take on board the life of self-crucifixion. Taking up the cross is therefore not just a passive acceptance of the trials of life.</p>


text:
<p>9:46<em>&nbsp;Where their worm does not die and the fire is not put out-&nbsp;</em>The Jews believed that ‘hell’ had three sections: Gehenna, a place of eternal fire and worms for those Jews who broke the covenant and blasphemed God; ‘the shades’, an intermediate place similar to the Catholic idea of purgatory; and a place of rest where the faithful Jew awaited the resurrection at the last day). This distinction has no basis in the Bible. However, it’s significant that the Lord Jesus uses ‘Gehenna’ and the figure of eternal fire to describe the punishment of people for what the Jews of His day would’ve considered incidental sins, matters which were far from blasphemy and breaking the covenant – glancing at a woman with a lustful eye (<em><a href='B:480 9:47'>Mar 9:47</a></em>), hypocrisy (<em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:5'>Luk 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:27-33'>Mat 23:27-33</a></em>), not giving a cup of water to a “little one”, forbidding a disciple of John the Baptist to follow Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 9:39-43'>Mar 9:39-43</a></em>); not preaching the Gospel fearlessly and boldly (<em><a href='B:470 10:25-28'>Mat 10:25-28</a></em>). These matters were and are shrugged off as of no eternal consequence. But just like the prophets of Israel did, the Lord Jesus seizes upon such issues and purposefully associates them with the most dire possible punishment which His Jewish hearers could conceive – Gehenna. Time and again, the Bible alludes to incorrect ideas and reasons with people from the temporary assumption those ideas might be true. The language of demons, as we will show later, is a classic example. And it’s quite possible the Lord is doing the same here with the concept of Gehenna – the punishment for the Jew who breaks the covenant and blasphemes. The Lord was primarily teaching about behaviour, not giving a lecture about the state of the dead. And so He takes the maximum category of eternal punishment known to His audience, and says that this awaits those who sin in matters which on His agenda are so major, even if in the eyes of the Jewish world and humanity generally they were insignificant.</p>


text:
<p>9:47<em>&nbsp;And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out. It is good for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes and to be cast into Gehenna</em>-The personality we will be in the Kingdom will reflect the struggles we have personally endured in this life. Relationships in the Kingdom of God will reflect these. Thus those who had consciously chosen to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom are comforted that in the Kingdom they will be given a name and place in God's temple better than of children in this life (<em><a href='B:290 56:5'>Isa 56:5</a></em>). All the faithful will be given a name and place in the temple; so what especial consolation was this to those eunuchs? Surely the point is that the name (personality) they will then have will gloriously reflect the self-sacrifice and personal Biblical understanding which they went through in this life. This alone proves that the reward will be individual. The Lord's picture of men entering the Kingdom without limbs is surely making the same point (<em><a href='B:480 9:47'>Mar 9:47</a></em>); the result of our self-sacrifice in this life will be reflected by the personality we have in the Kingdom. And there is evidence that the Man we follow will still bear in His body, throughout eternity, the marks of the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:450 13:6'>Zec 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>There's a radical in each of us, even if the years have mellowed it. The way to express it is surely through radical devotion to the Father's cause. On one hand, Jesus spoke to men as they were able to hear it, not as He was able to expound it. Yet on the other, He gave His radicalism free reign. The Sabbath miracles seem to have purposefully provoked the Jews. When He encouraged His men to rub the corn heads and eat them like peanuts as they walked through a field one Sabbath, He knew full well this was going to provoke confrontation. And he said what was anathema to the Jews: "The Law was made for man and not man for the Law". Where there is human need, the law can bend. This was a startling concept for a Jew. Jesus described the essence of His Kingdom as mustard seed, which was basically a weed. It was like a woman putting leaven both symbols of impurity into flour. Surely the Lord was trying to show that His message was not so Heavenly that it was unrelated to earthly life. It was real and relevant to the ordinary dirty business of life. The woman who have everything she had was noted by the Lord as His ideal devotee. He taught that it was preferable to rid oneself of an eye or a limb and to sacrifice sex if that is for us the price of entry into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:480 9:45-47'>Mar 9:45-47</a></em>). The parable of the man who built bigger barns taught that in some senses we should in His service like there's no tomorrow. He expected His followers to respond immediately, to pay the price today rather than tomorrow, with no delay or procrastination. There is an emphasis in His teaching on immediacy of response, single-mindedness and unrestrained giving. This is radical stuff for 21st century people in the grip of manic materialism. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>9:48&nbsp;<em>Where their worm does not die and the fire is not put out-&nbsp;</em>This threat is repeated several times here. The Lord is emphasizing that condemnation is for real; there is not only an eternal future we may miss, but the experience of condemnation, whilst not eternal, is a significant factor to bear in mind and be influenced by.</p>


text:
<p>9:49<em>&nbsp;For everyone shall be salted with fire</em>-Having spoken of the destruction of the unworthy in Gehenna fire, the Lord went straight on to comment: "For every one shall be salted with (Gk. 'for the') fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted" (<em><a href='B:480 9:48-49'>Mar 9:48-49</a></em> AV). Unless we become a living sacrifice, wholly consumed by God's fire, laying ourselves down upon the altar, then we will be consumed by the figurative fire of Gehenna at the day of judgment. Again, there's no real choice: it's fire, or fire. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:24'>Luk 15:24</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>9:50<em>&nbsp;Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltiness, with what will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another</em>- See on <em><a href='B:520 12:18'>Rom 12:18</a></em>. The need for peace amongst ourselves as a community is brought out in the parable of the salt that lost its saltiness. Straight away, we’re faced with a paradox- for true salt can’t lose its saltiness, seeing that sodium chloride is a stable compound, free of impurities. Salt was a symbol in the Lord’s teaching for having peace with one another. If we don’t have this, we’re not salt. If we’re not any influence upon others, we’re not salt. It’s as simple as that.</p><p>The Lord realized that it was easy to have an apparent love and peace with our brethren, when actually we have nothing of the sort. In the context of His men arguing with John's disciples, the Lord told a small parable, in which He made having salt in ourselves equal to having peace with our brethren (). He warned&nbsp;that salt which has lost its saltness looks just the same as good salt; but salt that has lost its saltiness is&nbsp;<em>nothing</em>, it's just a lump of substance. Surely He's saying: 'You may think you have peace and love for your brethren, when actually you don't; and if you don't have it, you're nothing, just a lump'. Not without relevance He mentioned that every sacrifice had to have good salt added to it. His point was that all our devotion and sacrifice is meaningless if it lacks the&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;salt of true love for our brethren. Which is exactly the teaching of 1 Corinthians 13. Love is a matter of deep attitude as shown in the small things of life, not the occasional heroism of (e:g:) giving our body to be burned. The command to have salt and therefore peace with each other (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>) is specifically fulfilled, Paul saw, by watching our words (= <em><a href='B:580 4:6'>Col 4:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>10:1&nbsp;<em>And he left there and went into the regions of Judea on the other side of the Jordan. Crowds gathered around him again, and as was his custom he taught them</em>- The significance is that this was the beginning of His journey to Jerusalem and death. The emphasis is upon the location of these mass healings- “there”, in Judea “beyond Jordan” (<em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>), a semi-Gentile area. The suggestion grows stronger and stronger that the future of His work is with the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>10:2&nbsp;<em>And there came to him Pharisees, who asked him-&nbsp;</em>Presumably “there”, beyond Jordan. They had maybe heard that He was there because of the rumours of great miracles, and yet they made the effort to go to Him there with their legalistic questions. Their petty legalism contrasts sharply with the wonder of His teaching and extent of His miracles. They tagged along with the crowds, for they “also” came unto Him.</p><p><em>Is it lawful for a man to send away his wife?-&nbsp;</em>The parallel record in Matthew 18 has the material arranged according to a chiasmic structure see note there. Within that structure, this teaching about divorce is parallel with the Lord’s teaching about not despising little ones but rather unconditionally forgiving them (see notes on Matthew 18). It cannot therefore be accidental that there is a word play in the usage of the word&nbsp;<em>apoluo</em>, to “put away”, because the word is also used concerning forgiveness, the sending away of the sin of another, and releasing them from debt to us. The word has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 18:27'>Mat 18:27</a></em>, where the gracious Lord “loosed” the wicked servant from his huge debt without repentance. And so the question here is whether a man could put away / forgive / release his wife “for every cause”. In a sense, the man was indeed to release / forgive his wife for every cause, for everything. But of course the Pharisees had in view the sense of sending away in divorce, and not forgiveness. The Lord surely means them to understand that they should send her away- in forgiveness.</p><p><em>For any cause?</em>- The standard interpretation is that the Pharisees were seeking to draw the Lord into taking a position behind&nbsp;either the school of Hillel (that a man might divorce his wife for any reason) or that of Shammai (divorce was allowable only for unfaithfulness). The Hillel school had justified Herod Antipas recent marriage on this basis, and he was likely to crack down on anyone teaching otherwise- this was obviously one reason they sought to lead the Lord into this whole minefield. But if so, the question arises as to why they should raise this issue with Him so apparently ‘out of the blue’. If the question was simply as to which rabbinic school the Lord supported on this issue, then it would seem that He quite clearly came down on the side of Shammai- ‘for unfaithfulness’. But whenever the Lord was given such questions, He always avoided giving such direct answers but rather elevated the issues to a much higher and yet more essential level. I suggest that what they found so shocking was His teaching about unconditional forgiveness regardless of the sincerity of repentance, and so they came to Him with the case of adultery in marriage- where surely, so they thought, there could be no forgiveness for adultery and in fact Moses commanded that a man divorce his wife in this case. Whichever rabbinic school the Lord supported, He would surely have to admit that there were some sins which could not just be forgiven but must be acted upon in terms of divorce and exclusion from the marriage. Their use of&nbsp;<em>apoluo</em>, to “put away”, was therefore a conscious allusion to the Lord’s usage of the word in 18:27, where the gracious Lord “loosed” s:w. the wicked servant from his huge debt without repentance. So I would read the Pharisees here as implying: ‘You claim a man must forgive his brother anything without checking out his repentance; but OK, can a man really forgive his&nbsp;<em>wife</em>&nbsp;“every cause”? And Moses surely did sanction divorce for some reasons, whether you go with Hillel ‘every or any cause’ or Shammai for adultery”. In terms of connection with the Lord’s previous teaching, the Lord had taught that if someone sins against you, i:e. a personal offence, then you can drag them through the synagogue discipline system “tell it to the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia&nbsp;</em>/ assembled meeting”- although the higher level was unconditional forgiveness. For many listeners and readers, that teaching begs the very same question: “OK, so far so good, Jesus… but really, literally, for every cause, in every case…?”. The Pharisees are asking this question, assuming that they have the Lord trapped because Moses teaches divorce for some things. Of course, Moses doesn’t ‘teach divorce’- there was a higher level. If your wife sinned against you, you could do as Hosea did, and simply forgive her, rather than making use of Mosaic concessions. Hence the Lord’s answer is basically that any verses in the Law which might appear to teach divorce are in fact concessions to human weakness and not the ideal standard.</p><p><em>They asked this to test him</em>- Another hint that the source of ‘testing’ in the wilderness which returned to the Lord later in His ministry was from the Jewish satan / adversary.</p>


text:
<p>10:3&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said to them: What did Moses command you?</em>- As noted on :4, the emphasis may be on "command"; they were citing a concession for human weakness, "for the hardness of your hearts"; but the Lord is perhaps arguing that a concession is not a command in the legalistic sense they wished to interpret it. Their legalism is reflected in how they don’t simply say that Moses ‘commanded’ divorce, but rather than Moses commanded a bill of divorce and then divorce. The legal aspect was all important to them.</p>


text:
<p>10:4&nbsp;<em>And they said: Moses permitted a man to write a bill of divorcement and to send her away</em>- They had missed the point, that a concession "for the hardness of your hearts" is not a command. Their legalism required that if something was in the teaching of Moses, then this must be done. But they missed the point that there were actually levels of response within the Mosaic law. Adultery could be simply forgiven, dealt with through the trial of jealousy in Numbers 5, become the basis for divorce, or result in the woman being killed. Such a position is very hard for legalists to cope with, desiring as they do clear definition for every situation in life. Hence the Lord emphasized twice in this dialogue that divorce was a concession for their hard hearts.</p><p>"A bill of divorcement",&nbsp;Gk:&nbsp;<em>Biblion apostasion</em>, literally this could be understood as ‘A Bible / writing of apostasy’. The ‘lower level’ option of divorce for adultery was all part of a law which was “holy, just and good”, but it could so easily be misused and thus lead people into moral apostasy.</p>


text:
<p>10:5- see on <em><a href='B:50 31:9'>Deu 31:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>But Jesus said to them: For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment</em>- Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of Israel's hearts and yet Moses himself appears to have divorced his wife (<em><a href='B:20 18:2'>Exo 18:2</a></em>)- for the hardness of his heart? See <em><a href='B:50 20:14'>Deu 20:14</a></em>. This appears to be the second time in this discourse that the Lord talks about the way Moses had made a concession to their weakness- see on <em><a href='B:470 19:4'>Mat 19:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Have you not read?</em></p>


text:
<p>10:6&nbsp;<em>But from the beginning of the creation: Male and female made He them</em>- It was Moses who wrote Genesis, under Divine inspiration. So the Lord was saying that actually, Moses within his own writings laid down a principle and yet also recorded a concession to weakness. This idea is so hard for the legalistic mind to accept- that within Divine law there are different levels, all is not black and white:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4>10:7<em>&nbsp;For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cling to his wife-&nbsp;</em>The cleaving or clinging spoken of in Genesis is a process; this is an example of how God can work directly upon the heart and psychology of persons to unite them. To give up on the process is therefore to go against what is potentially possible. And those who seek to interfere in and block that intended process, be they parents or extramarital lovers, are equally guilty. The clinging together is part of how God joins married, believing couples together (:9).</h4>


text:
<p>10:8&nbsp;<em>And the two shall become one flesh; so that they are no more two but one flesh</em>- This appears to be a status, referring to marriage rather than solely to the sexual act. Because it is paralleled with “what God has joined together” and is not to be sundered:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:9&nbsp;<em>What therefore God has joined together-&nbsp;</em>As a couple "cleave" to one another, so they become one flesh (<em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em>). But this becoming one flesh is interpreted by the Lord Jesus as meaning that God actively joins the couple together; as<em>&nbsp;they</em>&nbsp;cleave to each other in the process of their relationship, so&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;joins them together. Clearly the Lord understood <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em> as speaking of the process of marriage, rather than simply the ceremony of a wedding. In passing, note that the Hebrew idea of two becoming one had already been used in Genesis- the morning and evening, the day and night, were fused by God into one day (<em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em> - the same Hebrew phrase is used). Similarly we read of the waters becoming, or being made one, by God (<em><a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a></em>). It's as if the immense power of God in creation is unleashed in His bonding of man and wife together. To put that asunder is to fight against the very creative power of God.</p><p><em>Do not let man-&nbsp;</em>By sundering relationships, we are pitting ourselves against the intentions and processes of God’s Spirit and His actions amongst men. But of course we can indeed put asunder what God joined. He does not force His ways and processes upon people. The parallel see on :1 is with how we can refuse acceptance to the ‘little ones’ by despising and not forgiving them. God’s processes intend to create unity between His people as well as between marriage partners; but we can choose to disallow the effect of His work, both in our own lives and those of others. By rejecting people, the Lord had taught in the previous section of the chiasmus, we make them stumble and damage the “little ones”. And those same principles apply in marriage- the little ones are made to stumble, and the rejection of a marriage partner often leads them into sin, i:e. they are made to stumble. This I think is the sense of <em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>, that divorcing a partner causes her to commit adultery- i:e. we will lead her to a sinful life.</p><p><em>Divide</em>- See on :7. The dividing can be by other parties in addition to the two parties to the marriage. We are not to "let" them do that. The same Greek word is used in <em><a href='B:530 7:10-11'>1Co 7:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:15'>1Co 7:15</a></em> of how Paul allows for a wife to “depart” or ‘sunder’ from her husband. Clearly, therefore, the Lord is presenting here an ideal state. But that presentation doesn’t mean that God will not tolerate lower levels of living before Him. Man can put asunder what God has joined not simply in our own marriage. It can just as much be done by parents seeking to keep their children within the sphere of the family of origin, not letting go; by pressurizing one side of a marriage to adopt a position against their partner, etc. Especially is this true of those who demand that a believing husband or wife not have fellowship with their believing partner because of theological or ‘fellowship’ differences.</p>


text:
<p>10:10&nbsp;<em>And in the house the disciples asked him about this matter</em>- We have recently read how again "in the house" the Lord had explained things further to His disciples (9:28,29, 33-37). This was His style; to provide deeper teaching to those who really wanted it.</p>


text:
<p>10:11&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Whoever shall send away his wife and marry another, commits adultery against her</em>- The parallel in Matthew 19 includes the exception "for<em>&nbsp;porneia</em>", adding that not all can accept His standards here:The Lord here seems to have in view a situation where a man proactively takes the decision to send his wife away. The implication could be that if he has to send her away, then she actually wishes to remain with him. The language of sending away surely implies she was still living with him. Therefore what is in view is a situation of unforgiveness on the part of the husband, and that is the entire context of this section of teaching which began in Matthew 18. The adultery was therefore a temporary situation and didn't involve the wife moving in with another man. In such a case, this whole passage is not directly relevant. The more general idea in Matthew 18 of dealing with personal sins against us is now focused down to the classic personal offence, the sin against us of a partner committing adultery. And let us note that the whole passage beginning in Matthew 18 is speaking of ideal standards, whilst the Lord is prepared to accept lower standards. Let's remember that in 1 Corinthians 7 we are challenged that the single life of devotion to the Lord is the highest level, and marriage in itself is a concession to human weakness which most of us have made use of. And overarching all our thinking about this matter, especially in terms of our response to those who may divorce for not very solid reasons, we have the parable at the end of chapter 18. We are to see ourselves as chief of sinners, with an unpayable and huge debt to the Lord, compared to which all sin against us is of small account. We also need to remember that others' behaviour to each other is not a sin against us. The teaching here is very personal- about how we are to respond to personal sin against us, and here the specific example of adultery within marriage is raised. This teaching is not really about how we should respond to the sins of others (e:g. divorce for the wrong reasons) which we observe from a distance.</p>


text:
<p>10:12<em>&nbsp;And if she herself shall send away her husband and marry another, she commits adultery</em>-The Rabbis in the Lord’s time were split into two schools on the question of divorce. One school taught that divorce was available for any reason, whilst the other said that it was only for sexual impurity. The question was put to Jesus as to when He thought divorce was possible. It seemed that He was going to be forced to take sides with one of the two contemporary attitudes. But He cut clean through the whole thinking of first century Israel by basing his argument on the principles of Eden: God created man and woman, and joined them together; therefore, He reasoned, the ideal standard is that there should be no divorce for any reason, including adultery. This is typical of His teaching; through radical and fundamental recourse to the Old Testament, His teachings cut right through all the conceptions and expectations which were present in the mind of first century Jewry as a result of their cultural conditioning. We too must cut through the cultural conditioning of our era. In the time of Jesus, Roman law allowed women to divorce their husbands; some of the women of Herod’s family got divorces like this. The Lord was aware of this, and commented upon this local social attitude, roundly condemning it: “If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery”. If the Lord was so unafraid to challenge local cultural attitudes towards women, why should we think that He merely went along with those local contemporary attitudes?</p>


text:
<p>10:13&nbsp;<em>And they were bringing to him little children-</em>&nbsp;This continues the connection with the beginning of this section in Matthew 18, which began with a little child being brought to the Lord and Him making the disciples open their closed circle in order to accept the one whom they considered so far beneath them spiritually. He taught then, and teaches again here, that they were to see in the children symbols of themselves, in all their weakness and misunderstanding. In the same way as here the children are “brought” to Jesus, so we often read in the Gospels of people including the disciples being “brought” to Him. Their and our salvation depends partly upon others having brought us to Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>That he should touch them-&nbsp;</em>The Lord agrees to the request, blessing little ones for the sake of the efforts of third parties who bring them to Him (as in <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em> and so often in the work of saving and curing men). As the children ‘received’ this blessing, so the Lord urges the disciples to ‘receive’ the things of the Kingdom- for <em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> records the Lord’s further comment that “whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it”. Those children receiving His grace and blessing, all the more gracious because they received it thanks to others bringing them to it, represent each disciple who receives the grace and blessing of the Kingdom.</p><p><em>And the disciples rebuked them</em>- This is such a theme, of the disciples barring those who wanted to come to the Lord. We think of the Syro-Phoenician woman and other children, and the "little ones" of John's disciples. Such attitudes provoke the Lord's anger with us (:14):&nbsp; And they were doing this yet again despite the Lord’s sober warning that turning away little ones is making them stumble, and will lead to eternal rejection from God’s Kingdom. The disciples in their preaching, of which the Gospels are transcripts, were stressing how they had so failed to grasp this vital teaching:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:14&nbsp;<em>But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said to them: Permit the little children to come to me; forbid them not. For to such belongs the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p>The Lord rebuked the disciples for 'forbidding' John's disciples and the little ones to come to Him (<em><a href='B:480 9:38'>Mar 9:38</a></em>); and yet He uses the same word to describe how the lawyers hindered s:w. 'forbad' people to enter the Kingdom. There's a very clear parallel here between the disciples and their Jewish teachers who had so influenced their thinking. But they finally got there- for Peter insisted that Gentiles should not be forbidden s:w. 'hinder' baptism (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>); and he uses the same word again when he says that now, he will not "withstand s:w. 'hinder' God in hindering people to come to Him (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). The awfulness of the disciples' attitude is brought out by the use of the word in <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>, where Paul says that the way the Jews 'forbad' or hindered the preaching of the Gospel was cause for the wrath of God to come upon them "to the uppermost". And the disciples initially followed their Jewish elders in this kind of behaviour. In passing, there is a sober warning here to those who would likewise 'forbid' baptism to those who sincerely seek it, and who will not allow ‘little ones’ to the Lord’s table.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> adds: “Whoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it”. This is exactly how the whole section began in Matthew (18:3). The Greek for “receive” is often used about people accepting the Gospel. The implication is that one can receive the Gospel of the Kingdom of God- and yet not enter it, because we didn’t receive it as a child. We didn’t accept that we are the ‘little ones’, accepting we know so little, and just marvelling at the special grace being shown us which we accept in awed wonder. The language of ‘entering the Kingdom’ is used both of our final entry into the Kingdom when Christ returns (<em><a href='B:470 25:10'>Mat 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>), and of our current entering the Kingdom. The rich man can enter the Kingdom right now if he sheds the load of his wealth (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>). The Scribes stopped and hindered those who were entering the Kingdom from entering, locking the door through which the Kingdom could now be entered, all because they chose not to enter themselves (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em>). So it’s a case of ‘Now but not yet’. We do&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>enter into God’s rest, and yet we are promised that we&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;enter that rest at Christ’s return (<em><a href='B:650 4:1-11'>Heb 4:1-11</a></em>). The Lord had warned that our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes, or we will likewise not enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>); but that righteousness is in accepting the blessing of righteousness as a little child; for without&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;we shall not enter the kingdom. Those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>)- and that will is to be as little children and accept gifts without seeking to justify ourselves or earn them.</p><p>The value of persons felt by the Lord is made very obvious when we notice His attention to women, children, Gentiles and the mentally ill / deformed. These three groups often occur together in the Rabbis’ teaching. The very people who were not counted as persons, the Lord went out of His way to express value for. And in this He sets us an example. Children were counted as of little value- but the Lord spoke about salvation for children (<em><a href='B:480 10:14'>Mar 10:14</a></em>), and of the need to become like a child if we are to enter His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>). This purposeful recognition of the value of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;human persons was a radical and difficult thing in His surrounding culture. And so it can be in ours too.</p>


text:
<p>10:15&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no way enter into it</em>- The Greek word for "receive" is different to that used in <em><a href='B:470 19:12'>Mat 19:12</a></em>, where the Lord bids those able to "receive" the highest standard concerning remarriage to do so. But the idea is surely the same. How do we 'receive' His high standards and challenges in personal decision making? By receiving them as those children received His blessings, not arguing back, accepting whatever comes from His hand, not considering that we are in any position to do anything other than receive what He gives us. Note that the children&nbsp;<em>receiving</em>&nbsp;His blessings become, therefore, the pattern for our&nbsp;<em>receiving</em>&nbsp;His demands upon our personal living, our forgiveness even of adulterous partners, our rejection of legitimate options of remarriage in some cases in order to follow His higher standards. This is nothing less than profound:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:16&nbsp;<em>And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them</em>- His blessing was and is mediated without physical contact. The need for physical contact in order to receive blessing was embedded in the religious mentality of the time, and is seen to this day in so many rituals and traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The sick woman thought to herself that if she could only&nbsp;<em>touch&nbsp;</em>Jesus, she would be made whole; but He responded that He made her whole because of&nbsp;<em>her faith</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 9:21-22'>Mat 9:21-22</a></em>). He was gently correcting her mistaken understanding of the power of touch. And yet the Lord made a concession to this misunderstanding by indeed touching the children as requested.</p>


text:
<p>10:17<em>&nbsp;And as he was proceeding along the road, a man ran to him and kneeled before him, and asked him: Good Teacher, what shall I do-&nbsp;</em>This young man (<em><a href='B:470 19:20'>Mat 19:20</a></em>) was a "ruler" (<em><a href='B:490 18:18'>Luk 18:18</a></em>). To come to Jesus in a public place "in the way" and running- when rulers were supposed to never run in public but maintain decorum- all positively indicates a genuine belief in Jesus. Kneeling before Him was also a public sign of acceptance of Jesus as Lord. But he failed as so many do with respect to his wealth. He was a yuppie, a high flier, a rich young man who was also a "ruler". And he wasn't going to give that up; his 'sincerity' is shown by his sadness RV "his countenance fell" and his going away "grieved" (:22). This walking away is an anti-climax, not the expected outcome of all the devotion displayed. But the account is structured in this unexpected way to highlight the extraordinary significance of a person's attitude to wealth, and how this can make all their other devotion meaningless.</p><p>The man was clearly influenced by the Jewish idea that one supreme good deed (Mt. "good thing") could assure the doer of salvation. This was particularly popular amongst the zealots, who considered that suicidal attacks on the Romans could assure them of salvation; the same mentality is to be found in Islamic suicide bombers today. But in His typical manner, the Lord doesn’t address the misunderstanding but rather works with it. He ends up telling the man that if he sells all he has and gives to the poor, then he will have “treasure in Heaven”. This, therefore, isn’t a global command to every Christian. It was designed especially for this young man who thought that just one great act of obedience would secure salvation. The Lord went along with this by giving him such an example; but added: “And come and follow Me”, thus gently correcting the idea that one great act is enough for salvation:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em> is Paul’s allusion here, where he laments that like the young man, the good that he would do same Greek words he finds himself unable to do because of the sin that dwells within him. But instead of walking away from the Lord as this man did, Paul threw himself upon the Lord’s grace. This zealous young man was also understood by Peter as representative of us all; for he clearly alludes to him in <em><a href='B:670 3:10-11'>1Pe 3:10-11</a></em>: “He who would love life and see good days cp. the young man wanting to “have eternal life”… let him… do good” (same Greek words):&nbsp;</p><p><em>That I may inherit eternal life?-&nbsp;</em>But Jesus had taught that the Kingdom of God on earth would be 'inherited' by the poor and meek (<em><a href='B:470 5:5'>Mat 5:5</a></em>). If the man had thought that one through, he would've known the answer ahead of time. If he was rich and young, the chances are he had inherited his wealth- and he wanted to know how he could inherit eternity as well. He likely figured that money can buy everything- and in a strange way, the Lord was saying that the giving of wealth and inheriting eternity&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;in fact related, although actually ultimate 'goodness' and acceptance with God can't come from any such work of obedience.</p><p>“Inherit” eternal life suggests he considered eternity a right that he must receive if he does only one great deed. The disciples heard the Lord assuring His people that those who follow Him will “<em>have</em>&nbsp;eternal life”, enter the Kingdom, enter into life, etc. But having heard all that, Peter asked: “We have left all… what shall we&nbsp;<em>have</em>?” (<em><a href='B:470 19:27'>Mat 19:27</a></em>). The irony of it all is tragic. They’d just been promised they would “have” eternal life. But that wasn’t enough. Their focus was very much on this life; what shall we have&nbsp;<em>here and now</em>? They couldn’t see very much beyond the present, past the curvature of their earth:&nbsp; Ruth’s unnamed relative could have been her redeemer; but when he realized he would have to marry her and have children, and split up his fields into more strips so as to give those children an inheritance along with that of his existing children- he pulled out. He wouldn’t ‘mar his inheritance’. He saw ahead to his death, to the next generation. His horizon was 20 years at most. But Boaz who didn’t think like this established his spiritual inheritance eternally, and is therefore mentioned in the Lord’s genealogy. Whilst the short sighted man passed off the page of history anonymously; his name wasn’t preserved.</p>


text:
<h4>10:18<em>&nbsp;And Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? None is good save one- God</em>-The extent to which this man from Nazareth, who sneezed and slept and thirsted as we do, was really God manifest in the flesh::. this needs sustained personal meditation. That from the larynx of a Palestinian Jew really came forth the words of Almighty God; to the extent that it had to be said that never man spake like this man; and He Himself could assure us that heaven and earth would pass, but not His words (note the links with <em><a href='B:230 102:25-27'>Psa 102:25-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 1:10-12'>Heb 1:10-12</a></em>)::. that this man died for us::. rose again, ascended::. and now works His saving work for us, hour by hour. Mark records how a man once in an offhand way addressed the Lord Jesus as “good master". The Lord’s response was to say that if the man&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;accepted Him as ‘good’ he ought to share His cross, and sell what he had and give to the poor. The real extent of Jesus’ goodness will move us to deep personal response, if we truly perceive it:&nbsp;<br/>10:20 "From my youth"- but he was a "young man" (<em><a href='B:470 19:20'>Mat 19:20</a></em>). Note the Lord's grace- instead of being turned away by the man's youthful arrogance, instead the Lord perceives the positive in him and loves him for it (:21). See on <em><a href='B:480 10:40'>Mar 10:40</a></em>.</h4><p>The Greek of the subsequent sentence may not mean that the Lord was implying ‘Only God is good- I am not good’. Translators have added a number of words to try to flesh out the meaning of the words. The sense could just as well be ‘None is as good as the one God’- and therefore, we should keep&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;commandments. In other words, the Lord is not so much saying that He Himself is not ‘good’ but rather refocusing the man’s direction away from Himself towards the Father. For the man had come running to Him asking what he should do in order to inherit or rightfully have eternal life. And the Lord is refocusing the man upon the Father and the Father’s commandments. The Lord may therefore have a rhetorical sense in His question ‘<em>why</em>&nbsp;do you call Me good?’. His sense would have been: ‘Why are you so keen to call me “good”, setting me on a level with God? Instead, focus on obeying God’s commandments and tackle your hardest challenge- to give away your wealth, and then follow Me in the itinerant life towards the cross’. The man’s overly high and unrealistic view of Jesus, as if He were God Himself, was really an excuse for his own refusal to face the challenge of living the Christian life. Every false doctrine has a psychological basis, and the idea that Jesus is God and the Trinity are no different. To accept Jesus as less than God, as totally human, is a far deeper challenge to our living than accepting Jesus as being God Himself. If Jesus was human, sharing our own flesh, in which there dwells no good thing (<em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>), and yet was able to be perfect- this lays down a huge challenge to each of us. It’s far less challenging to accept Jesus as God and therefore good and perfect by nature. This is why I suggest the Lord is probing&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;the man called Him “good”- and redirected him towards the need for keeping the commandments and living the committed life in practice. So we have here a passage of deep significance for discussions about the Trinity. The Lord cites the unity of God as meaning that He alone is ultimately ‘good’, and challenges the man who wanted to treat Him as God as to whether this was not just an excuse for not doing the hard work of following Him in practice.</p>


text:
<p>10:19&nbsp;<em>You know the commandments-</em>&nbsp;The question of course is why the Lord chose to repeat the last six commandments of the ten commandments. Perhaps He perceived that they had special relevance to this rich young ruler. Harry Whittaker makes an interesting but not totally convincing case that the rich young man here was Barnabas and these commands were very relevant to him as a Levite- see&nbsp;<em>Studies in the Gospels&nbsp;</em>chapter 148.</p><p><em>Do not kill. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Do not defraud. Honour your father and mother</em>- Paul's references to the Gospels suggests that he had carefully meditated upon the passages to which he consciously alludes. The fact and way in which he&nbsp;<em>alludes</em>&nbsp;rather than quotes verbatim reflects the fact he had thought through and absorbed the teaching of the passages rather than learning them parrot fashion. Here the Lord Jesus combines two quotations from the Law: <em><a href='B:20 20:12-16'>Exo 20:12-16</a></em> followed by <em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>. Paul, in a different context, to prove a different point, combines those same two passages, although separating them by a brief comment (<em><a href='B:520 13:9'>Rom 13:9</a></em>). This surely indicates that he had meditated upon how his Lord was using the Law, and mastered it so that he could use it himself.</p>


text:
<p>10:20&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth</em>- The record stresses the incongruity and inappropriacy of the young man’s self-righteousness: “The&nbsp;<em>youth</em>&nbsp;answered, all these have I kept from my&nbsp;<em>youth</em>&nbsp;up” (Mt:). He was young- and he says that since a young man he had kept all the commands. Now the Lord doesn’t lecture him about self-righteousness, nor does He point out that the young man is way over rating his own spirituality and obedience. Instead, the Master focuses on the positive- as if to say ‘You are zealous for perfection? Great So, sell what you have and give to the poor. Go on, rise up to the challenge’.</p>


text:
<p>10:21&nbsp;<em>And Jesus observing him, loved him; and said to him: One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have and give it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven. And come AV: "take up the cross and" follow me</em>- "You lack" is s:w. to be destitute of. In response to the man's question "What do I still lack?" (<em><a href='B:470 19:20'>Mat 19:20</a></em>). He lacked nothing materially, but therefore he lacked the important thing- treasure in Heaven. The word play involving 'lacking' suggests that spiritual wealth and material wealth are opposites; likewise to give away treasure on earth is to as it were transfer it to Heaven. All this underscores the point that we can't have both. All our material wealth is to be given away in order to get spiritual treasure (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>). "What you lack" is parallel to the phrase <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em> records: "If you will be perfect / complete". The man could still have had a relationship with the Lord if he hadn't sold all; but he wanted perfection and went away from Jesus because he couldn't face up to the fact that he wasn't perfect, would be saved by grace and now by his own obedience. And so many 'perfectionists' have done likewise. It's perhaps because of the man's tendency to perfectionism that the Lord prefaced His answer to the question by saying that even He wasn't completely "good" as God alone is "good" (10:18). The humanity of Jesus is therefore, in a way, an answer to 'perfectionism'. Not that there is ultimately any such thing as 'perfectionism', for it cannot be in man to be perfect. Perfectionism is merely an arrogant illusion. The record in <em><a href='B:470 19:16-17'>Mat 19:16-17</a></em> brings this out clearer- "<em>Good</em>&nbsp;Master, what&nbsp;<em>good&nbsp;</em>thing shall I do::. why do you call me "<em>good</em>"? There is none "<em>good</em>" but one, that is, God". The man thought that by his "good" deeds he could become as "good" as God, the only "good" One. And He walked away from Jesus because he was unable to accept that this is not in fact the case, and that even Jesus Himself stood as 'not good' compared to God; He stood 'perfect' with God by reason of the relationship He had with God, not solely on the basis of His good works. However, even total generosity and giving away of wealth will not bring total completeness. 'You lack one thing' appears to be an allusion to <em><a href='B:230 23:1'>Psa 23:1</a></em> LXX: "The Lord is my shepherd; not one thing is lacking to me". To take up the cross and follow the Lord Jesus as our shepherd, with the loss of material wealth this implies, is the essence of lacking nothing. For walking with Him is perfection, completeness, our everything.</p><p>The very fact that we want to rise up to the heights commends us to God. When the rich young man, in his zeal for righteousness, claimed: "Master, all these have I observed from my youth", the Lord didn't rebuke him for self-righteousness; instead, He beheld Him (with His head cocked to one side?), He took a long wistful look at Him, and&nbsp;<em>loved him</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>). The Lord had a wave of warmth come over Him for that arrogant young man, simply because He appreciated the evident spiritual ambition which was within him. It was for this reason that the Father so loved the Son. God caused the Lord Jesus to approach unto Him; "for who would dare of himself to approach unto me?" (<em><a href='B:300 30:21'>Jer 30:21</a></em> RSV). The Father confirmed the Son in His spiritual ambition, recognizing that very few men would rise up to the honour of truly approaching unto God.</p><p>The “one thing” lacking was to distribute his wealth, and to follow the crucified Christ. The two things seem therefore related; it was the wealth which was stopping the following of Christ. The man had come to the Lord asking what great deed he must do to obtain eternal life, and so he was aware of his obedience to the commandments. He obviously felt that obedience to Mosaic law was not going to be the basis of eternal life, and he sensed that there was some great deed he must yet achieve. Therefore “What do I still lack?” shouldn’t be read as an arrogant statement that he lacked nothing because he had been legally obedient. Rather is it a genuine question, seeking a concrete, clear and achievable answer:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>We note that the Lord treated each person differently. Jesus approved Zacchaeus' distribution of only half of his possessions- whilst demanding that the rich young man give away literally all. And He never seems to have demanded that those of His followers who owned houses should sell them. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:470 19:16'>Mat 19:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What good thing.</em>&nbsp;The same principle is seen in His preceding teaching about divorce and remarriage- His ideal standard is not ‘given’ to everyone, just as it is not a requirement of everyone that they sell and they have and give to the poor. The Lord taught that we receive the Lord's goods s:w. "what you have" on conversion to Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>). We resign all, but receive all. By giving away our earthly wealth, we directly receive wealth in Heaven. <em><a href='B:490 12:15'>Luk 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:33'>Luk 12:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:44'>Luk 12:44</a></em> make a sustained play on this Greek word: "A man's life doesn't consist in the abundance of the&nbsp;<em>things which he possesses</em>&nbsp;s:w:::. sell&nbsp;<em>what you have</em>&nbsp;s:w. and give alms::. the Lord will make such a man ruler over all&nbsp;<em>that he has</em>&nbsp;s:w.". Whilst the specific command to the young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor was not in one sense universal, i:e. not a command to every believer, yet the spirit of it (according to Luke 12) is indeed to be followed by us all. We must at least "forsake 'to bid farewell to' all that we have s:w." (<em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). The early believers did not 'say' that anything they possessed s:w. was their own (<em><a href='B:510 4:32'>Act 4:32</a></em>)- Luke surely intends us to connect this with his earlier record of how the Lord had taught that our attitude, at very least, must be that we do not really 'own' those things which we apparently 'have':&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The rich young man would fain have followed Jesus. But he was told that he must sell all that he had, give to the poor, and take up the cross to follow Christ (<em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>). Notice how the ideas of following Christ and taking up the cross are linked. The man went away, unable to carry that cross, that sacrifice of those material things that were dearest to him. Peter responds with the strong implication that he&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;done all these things, he was following the Master, and by implication he felt he was carrying the cross. Notice the parallels between the Lord’s demand of the young man, and Peter’s comment (<em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em> cp. 28; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em> cp. 28):&nbsp;</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>“Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor</td><td>“We have left all</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>…and come, take up the cross</td><td>no comment by Peter</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and follow me”</td><td>…and have followed you”</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Peter seems to have subconsciously bypassed the thing about taking up the cross. But he was sure that he was really following the Lord. He blinded himself to the inevitable link between following Christ and self-crucifixion; for the path of the man Jesus lead to Golgotha. We have this same tendency, in that we can break bread week after week, read the records of the crucifixion at several times / year, and yet not let ourselves grasp the most basic message: that we as followers of this man must likewise follow in our self-sacrifice to that same end.</h4><p>"Take up&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;cross, and follow me" is inviting us to carry Christ's cross with Him- He speaks of "<em>the&nbsp;</em>cross" rather than '<em>a</em>&nbsp;cross'. The Greek translated “take up" is that translated 'to take away' in the context of Christ taking away our sins. Strong says that it implies "expiation" (of sins). This connection, between&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;taking away / up the cross, and Christ's taking away our sins, suggests that the efficacy of His cross for us depends upon our daily 'taking up the cross'. It is vital therefore that we “take up the cross" if our sins are to be taken away by Him. Of course we cannot literally take up the Lord's cross. Taking up the cross must therefore refer to an attitude of mind; it is paralleled with forsaking all that we have (<em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>), which is surely a command to be obeyed in our&nbsp;<em>attitudes</em>. "Take up" is translated 'take on' when we read of 'taking on' the yoke of Christ, i:e. learning of Him (<em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em>). To take up the Lord's cross, to take on His yoke, is to learn of Him, to come to know Him. Yet do we sense any&nbsp;<em>pain</em>&nbsp;in our coming to know Christ? We should do, because the cross was the ultimate symbol of pain, and to take it up is to take on the yoke, the knowledge, of Christ. Consider the contexts in which the Lord spoke of taking up His cross:</p><p>(1) In <em><a href='B:490 9:23-26'>Luk 9:23-26</a></em> He tells the crowds that they have come to His meetings because of the intriguing miracles of the loaves and fishes. The Lord is saying: 'Don't follow me because of the loaves and fishes; take up my cross'&nbsp;<br/>(2) The rich young man was willing to be obedient in everything apart from parting with his wealth. In this context, of asking the most difficult thing for him to do, Christ spoke of taking up His cross - in the man's case, giving up his wealth:&nbsp;<br/>(3) The command to take up the cross in <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em> is in the context of Christ's description of the family problems which would be caused by responding to His word. Presumably some were willing to follow Christ if they didn't have to break with their families; but Christ asks them to take up the cross in this sense.</p><p>In all of these cases people were willing to follow Christ- but only insofar as it didn't hurt them. They were unwilling to take on board the idea of consciously deciding to do something against the grain of their natures and immediate surroundings. Yet this is what taking up the cross is all about, and it is vital for our identification with the Lord. It is very easy to serve God in ways which reinforce the lifestyles we choose to have anyway; it is easy to obey Divine principles only insofar as they compound our own personality. By doing so we can deceive ourselves into thinking that we are spiritually active when, in reality, we have never walked out against the wind, never picked up the cross of Christ. Israel were an empty vine, without fruit in God's eyes- because the spiritual fruit they appeared to bring forth was in fact fruit to themselves (<em><a href='B:350 10:1'>Hos 10:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>10:22&nbsp;<em>But this teaching saddened him, and he went away sorrowful</em>- Walking away from Jesus in sorrow is a picture from the scenes of the final judgment. In this case, the man rejected himself, he chose to walk away- just because he couldn't accept that he wasn't perfect. Literally the Greek means that he became overcast, as the sky clouding over. His joy, therefore, was because he had wrongly assumed that he could do some simple dramatic act well within his comfort zone, and thus attain an assurance of salvation. But his face clouded over when he realized that he was being called outside of his comfort zone. This is an exact picture of the disillusion which clouds so many once they perceive that the call of Christ is not to a mere social club or to surface level religion:&nbsp;</p><p>"He went away" is significant because the entire section starting from <em><a href='B:470 18:1'>Mat 18:1</a></em> is purposefully framed so that the incidents connect with each other. The Lord had welcomed the little children to come to Him, and rebuked the disciples for forbidding them. This young man- also a 'little one'- went away from the Lord. The implication is that the little children had more spirituality and devotion to Christ than this man. The exhortation to become like little children therefore meant that whatever stops us coming to Him must be jettisoned- and for this 'young one', it was his wealth:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The man walked away, whereas if he had cast himself upon the Lord's grace, or better still, sold what he had and given to the poor, then he could have right then begun to enter into the Kingdom. We begin entering the Kingdom right now; we are, according to another teaching, walking on the road to the judgment, and must get right with our brother who walks on the way there with us. The parable of the camel (i:e. the rich would-be believer) being unloaded of its wealth before it enters the city (<em><a href='B:470 19:23-24'>Mat 19:23-24</a></em>) represents a rich man entering the Kingdom (the city = the Kingdom, as in <em><a href='B:730 22:14'>Rev 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:14'>Heb 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em>; a city can also represent believers). If he sheds his riches now, it follows he is then able in some sense to enter the Kingdom now. This mini parable is in the context of <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>: "Sell that thou hast::. and thou shalt have (now) treasures in (the Kingdom of) Heaven". This is the same idea as in <em><a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a></em>: "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child (which necessitates parting with riches etc:), the same is (now) greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven". In these few words is our highest challenge:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>For he was one that had great possessions</em>- Again Luke's record of the early church alludes here, speaking of how possessions were sold and the money distributed to the poorer believers (<em><a href='B:510 2:45'>Act 2:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:1'>Act 5:1</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:23&nbsp;<em>And Jesus looked around, and said to his disciples: How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God-&nbsp;</em>"Have wealth" is paralleled, or expanded, in 10:24, with "them that trust in riches". To have wealth is to trust in it. Hence the danger of it- wealth militates against faith. Hence Paul warned "them that are rich in this world that they:::&nbsp;<em>trust not</em>&nbsp;in uncertain riches but in the living God" (<em><a href='B:610 6:9-10'>1Ti 6:9-10</a></em>).</p><p>The sense is not simply that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, but that he shall enter with difficulty. The Lord goes on to say that such shall enter the Kingdom only by God's grace and possibility of saving those who do not rise up to the higher levels that He bids us to (<em><a href='B:470 19:26'>Mat 19:26</a></em>). In what, then, is the hardness or difficulty- if God is willing to accept our living on lower levels? The difficulty is in not walking away from Christ as the young man did, because of our pride; what is hard is to be like a child, the model throughout this entire discourse, and simply accept God's grace in Christ.</p>


text:
<p>10:24&nbsp;<em>And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus continued and said to them: Children How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God</em>- The disciples were so immature that they thought wealth was a sign of Divine blessing. And were astonished to hear that it's really hard for wealthy people to be saved. Hence, in loving pity at their immaturity, the Lord addresses them as "Children::.". See on <em><a href='B:490 18:24'>Luk 18:24</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>10:25&nbsp;<em>It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God</em>- I go with the old explanation that this is an allusion to a loaded camel needing to be unloaded of its 'wealth' so that it could squeeze through the pedestrian gate- a call to become human, to realize we are naked before God, and our wealth adds nothing to us. Mark's record uses a term for "the eye of a needle" which the Septuagint always uses for "the holes of the rocks" (e:g. <em><a href='B:70 6:2'>Jdg 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 15:8'>Jdg 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 13:4'>Jer 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:16'>Jer 16:16</a></em>), from whence we see the idea of a hole in the rocky city walls.</p><p>This is such a powerful lesson. And it's so simple. It doesn't need any great expositional gymnastics to understand it. Like me, you can probably remember a few things very vividly from your very early childhood. I remember my dear dad showing me this as a very young child, with a toy camel and a gate drawn on a piece of paper. And I saw the point, at four, five, maybe six. It is&nbsp;<em>so clear</em>. But what of our bank balances now, now we're old and brave? It's easier for a camel, the Lord said. Why? Surely because someone else unloads the camel, he (or she) has no say in it. But in the story, surely we must be the camel who unloads himself, who shakes it all off his humps, as an act of the will. And as we've seen, the spirit of all this applies to every one of us, including those without bank accounts.</p><p>The camel must shed its load of riches and goods, so that it can pass through the gate into the Kingdom. But we are doing that right now We will pass through the gate into the Kingdom when the Lord returns (<em><a href='B:730 22:14'>Rev 22:14</a></em>), and yet through shedding our materialism, we do it now. John puts it more bluntly and yet more absolutely: now, through the life of faith, we have the eternal life, in that we begin to live now the type of life which we will eternally live. We receive the Kingdom of God here and now, in that we receive the Gospel of the Kingdom; and if we accept it as a little child, we begin to enter it, now- in that the lives we live determine whether or not we will enter it at the Lord’s coming. We are on our way into life We have received the Kingdom, our names were written from the foundation of the world, and only our falling from grace can take that away. This is almost too good news to believe. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>10:26&nbsp;<em>And they were astonished exceedingly, saying to him: Then who can be saved?</em>-</p><p>They were really so shocked that wealth made it hard to enter the Kingdom, implying they were strongly persuaded that wealth was a gift from God and a sign of His approval of a man. This of course was quite foreign to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount and other teaching of the Lord, and Matthew uses this strong term to highlight how far they had been from understanding His most basic teachings.</p><p><em>"</em>Who&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;be saved?" translates the same word the Lord uses in the next verse to say that with God, even the saving of the wealthy who don't quit their wealth is "possible"- on the basis, therefore, of His willingness to accept a lower standard of achievement to that He ideally requires. And this is in the context of His offering a lower standard to unconditional forgiveness in Matthew 18 (you can not do this if your brother sins against you, and instead drag him through the synagogue disciplinary process), and His demand for forgiveness of adultery (although if you fail in this you can take the lower level and divorce your partner- if it is not 'given' to you to accept that standard).</p>


text:
<p>10:27&nbsp;<em>Jesus, observing them, said-&nbsp;</em>The Lord maintained eye-contact with His listeners: <em><a href='B:470 19:26'>Mat 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:5'>Mar 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:34'>Mar 3:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:32'>Mar 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:33'>Mar 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:23'>Mar 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:27'>Mar 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:10'>Luk 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:17'>Luk 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:61'>Luk 22:61</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:42'>Joh 1:42</a></em>. These are all separate occurrences; the fact is really being emphasized. This paying appropriate attention with eye contact is also a good strategy for matching the silences that occur from time to time in any serious conversation:&nbsp; Most of us can tell when another is thinking by&nbsp;observing the eyes, and when they are not their eyes will tell you. The way the Lord Jesus had of lifting up His eyes was something which evidently struck the Gospel writers (<em><a href='B:490 6:20'>Luk 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:5'>Joh 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:41'>Joh 11:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em> cp. the emphasis upon the eyes of the risen Lord in <em><a href='B:730 1:14'>Rev 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:18'>Rev 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:12'>Rev 19:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>With men it is impossible, but not with God-</em>&nbsp;The status of&nbsp;<em>para&nbsp;</em>God is often applied to the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:46'>Joh 6:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:27'>Joh 16:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>). The suggestion could be that because of the status of the Lord Jesus with the Father, such gracious salvation is possible which would be impossible if men simply had to have the steel will to obey the Father’s ideal principles.</p><p><em>For all things are possible with God</em>- Lifted from the Septuagint of the word to Sarah about the birth of Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 18:14'>Gen 18:14</a></em>). Those Old Testament heroes were not merely stained glass figures- our own belief in salvation regardless of wealth is as dramatic as the belief of an old woman that she could have a child. The context here, however, is talking of how those who choose a lower level- in this case,&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;selling their wealth and giving to the poor- can still be saved by God’s gracious possibility. This harmonizes with the whole theme of :12, that to some is ‘given’ the possibility of living on the idea level regarding divorce and remarriage, but if that cannot be attained to, then God will still accept us.</p><p>There are at least two instances in the Gospels where the Lord Jesus is quarrying his language from the book of Job, and shows a certain identification of himself with Job. Here the Lord explains the irrelevance of riches to the spiritual good of entering the Kingdom, saying that "with God all things are possible"- without money. This is almost quoting <em><a href='B:220 42:2'>Job 42:2</a></em>, where Job comes to the conclusion that all human strength is meaningless: "I know that You can do everything". It may be that Jesus is even implying that through the tribulation of his life he had come to the same conclusion as Job:&nbsp;See too <em><a href='B:470 5:27-30'>Mat 5:27-30</a></em>.</p><p>Having said that it is so hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom- as hard as for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle- the Lord comments that ‘what is impossible with man, is possible with God’ (<em><a href='B:480 10:27'>Mar 10:27</a></em>). In first century Palestinian Judaism, this saying was a kind of figure of speech for describing a miracle. If any rich person gets into the Kingdom- it will be a miracle. That’s what the Lord is saying. And He says it to us today. Generosity alone, of course, won’t bring us into the Kingdom. It’s not as if we can buy our way in. But there are major implications that our attitude to wealth is in fact a crucial indicator of whether or not we will be there.<br/>Having explained “how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom”, the Lord went on to comment: “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible” (<em><a href='B:480 10:25'>Mar 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:27'>Mar 10:27</a></em>). It is impossible for a rich man to be saved, He seems to be saying. And as we seek to convert the rich and self-satisfied in the societies in which we live, this does indeed seem the case. But although on one hand it&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;an impossibility, yet not with God: for He desires to seek and save the rich too. And indeed He does, achieving what with men is impossible. And the Father seeks to impress His positive attitude upon us.</p>


text:
<p>10:28&nbsp;<em>Peter began to say to him: We have left all</em>- The family based structure of the first century is hard to fully empathize with from our distance. Family was all. Peter comments that the disciples had “left our own homes” (<em><a href='B:490 18:28'>Luk 18:28</a></em> RVmg:), and the parallel here says “left&nbsp;<em>all</em>”. Your home was your all. To have to leave it for the sake of Christ was the most fundamental thing you could do. Hence the real meaning in the first century of the Lord’s response that such converts would receive families in this life, i:e. in their relationships in the ecclesia. And yet the radical call of Christ is no less demanding and intrusive as men and women meet it today, the only difference being that the starkness of the choices is less pronounced today- but just as essentially real.</p><p>I have repeatedly mentioned that the material here is strongly related to that in Matthew 18. The Greek here for “left / forsook all” is identical to that in <em><a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a></em>: “I&nbsp;<em>forgave&nbsp;</em>you&nbsp;<em>all</em>”. Peter had balked at the idea of ‘forgiving all’. It is easier to ‘forsake’ s:w. ‘forgive’ all material things than to&nbsp;<em>forgive</em>&nbsp;all. This explains why the incident of the rich young man follows the teaching about the need to forgive all. He would not forsake all, just as some would not forgive all. Peter claims to have forsaken all, and yet it’s apparent that he struggled with the idea of&nbsp;<em>forgiving&nbsp;</em>all, thinking that seven times / day was more than generous enough of him. Likewise one wonders whether Peter had really forsaken all materially- he still had a wife, and apparently his fishing boats back in Galilee, to which he returned after the Lord’s resurrection.</p><p>Was Peter really correct to say that he had really “left all”? He evidently had in mind how he had left his nets and walked away, following Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 1:18'>Mar 1:18</a></em>). Then he thought he was following Jesus in the way the Lord demanded. For some time later, the Lord “entered into one of the ships, which was (i:e. still, at that time) Simon’s…” (<em><a href='B:490 5:1'>Luk 5:1</a></em>). Peter had been fishing all night in <em><a href='B:500 21:3'>Joh 21:3</a></em> - strange, for a man who had so dramatically left his nets to respond to the Lord’s call. But after the miraculous catch of fishes, Peter “forsook all, and followed him”. Note that Mark’s Peter’s Gospel omits many incidents, but also uses the device of repetition to stress what the writer considers significant. Thus in <em><a href='B:480 1:16'>Mar 1:16</a></em> Peter tells us twice that he&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;a fisherman cp. 14:68. By the time of Luke 18 and the conversation with the rich young man, Peter was confident he had forsaken all. But “I go a fishing” (<em><a href='B:500 21:3'>Joh 21:3</a></em>) would suggest that even this forsaking of all had not been so dramatic. The boats were still there. Peter still carried his fishing tackle round with him in his pack (<em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em>). The Lord had taught that following Him meant not just leaving behind for a moment, but selling up and giving the money to the poor. This Peter had not done. But he assumed that because he was physically following Jesus, well therefore what the Lord demanded of the rich young man, he had as good as done; for that young man wouldn’t follow Jesus, but Peter would. It is easy to understand how Peter reasoned- for the fact we are&nbsp;apparent followers of the Lord in a world which chooses to reject Him, can lead to an assumption that we must of course be following just as He asks of us.</p><p><em>And have followed You</em>- Just as Peter’s claim to have “left all” was perhaps questionable, likewise Peter seems to have under-estimated what ‘following Christ’ really meant- for the idea of carrying the cross is strongly connected with following Christ (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>). And Peter failed to carry that cross to the end, for he denied the Lord when the going got tough.</p><h4>Peter had the impression that by forsaking all and following the Lord, he would somehow benefit. He still had to learn that the carrying of the cross is not to be motivated by any desire for personal benefit, spiritual or otherwise. We live in a world in which religion, like everything else, is seen as a means toward some personal benefit. If we love the Lord, we will follow Him, wherever the life in Him leads us; purely for love of Him, and recognition that His way is the way to glorifying the Father. Peter had left all, but expected something back. For the excellency of fellowshipping the sufferings of the future Saviour, Moses gave up all the riches of Egypt. The Lord responded by saying that nobody who had left all&nbsp;<em>for His Name's sake</em>&nbsp;would go unrewarded (<em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>). The riches, the surpassing excellence of Christ, all the things tied up in His Name, these were not appreciated at that time by Peter. They are enough, purely of themselves, to make a man count all things as dung. Later, he understood this. He told the lame man that the silver and gold which he had was the salvation possible in the Name of Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em>). Peter rejoiced that he was counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name, and he preached in that Name. There is quite some emphasis on this: <em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:28'>Act 2:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:16'>Act 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:10'>Act 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:41'>Act 5:41</a></em>. Now he had learnt his mistake, or rather he realized the poverty of his understanding of the Lord. He now found the excellency of the Lord's Name an imperative of itself to witness to it. Likewise "for his name's sake they went forth" in obedience to the great preaching commission (<em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:3'>Rev 2:3</a></em>). &nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p>10:29&nbsp;<em>Jesus said: Truly I say to you. Whoever leaves house, or brothers, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands for my sake and for the gospel's sake</em>- This list of things to be forsaken recalls the language of the Levites forsaking these things in order to serve God (<em><a href='B:20 32:26-29'>Exo 32:26-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:8-10'>Deu 33:8-10</a></em>). The secular disciples again are encouraged to see themselves as the Levites of the new Israel the Lord was creating. <em><a href='B:470 19:27-30'>Mat 19:27-30</a></em> has a series of extended allusions to the fact that we are now the priesthood. The Lord speaks of how His followers will each have left mother, brother etc. to serve Him, referring to how Moses blessed Levi for forsaking these very things so as to God's service (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). But He also spoke of how they would forsake houses and lands for His sake and the Gospel's- a reference to the way the Levites resigned their right to physical inheritance in the land for the sake of their relationship with God and the work they were called to. In the same way as Moses predicted that the Levites would be materially blessed even now as a result of their dedication (<em><a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a></em>), so the Lord made the same promise. And there is no Christian who has heart and soul committed themselves to the Gospel's work, either in the world or amongst their brethren, who has not lived to see the truth of this definition of priesthood.</p><p><em>"</em>For My Name’s sake<em>"&nbsp;</em>is parallel with<em>&nbsp;</em>“The kingdom of God’s sake” (<em><a href='B:490 18:29'>Luk 18:29</a></em>). The things of the Name and the things of the Kingdom were therefore not two different things, rather were they different ways of referring to the same realities.</p>


text:
<p>10:30&nbsp;<em>Will receive in return, in this present season, a hundredfold houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, and with them persecutions; but in the age to come, eternal life</em>- The Lord’s prophecy that the believer receives fathers, mothers, houses, lands etc. only has its fulfilment insofar as the ecclesia is willing to share these things and relationships with its members. But the condition of the fulfilment was&nbsp;not explicitly stated. We forsake all human relationships to follow the Lord Jesus. And He promises to compensate for this even in this life. But it depends to what extent we are willing to accept and perceive it. Through meaningful fellowship with our brethren we will find those relationships which we have given up compensated for, even if we aren’t physically close to our brethren. In reference to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt we read: “God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains” (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>). To be set in a new family is paralleled with being brought out from slavery. Part of the process of our redemption is that we are set in a new ecclesial family. This must be a reference to how Israel were brought out on Passover night, where the families and lonely ones had to join together into households big enough to kill a lamb for. The implication of Psalms 68 could be that it was in these family groups that they travelled through the wilderness. The N:C:V. reads: “God is in his holy Temple. He is a father to orphans, and he defends the widows. God gives the lonely a home. He leads prisoners out with joy::.". The very house / family of God becomes the house / family of the lonely. Hence the ecclesia&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the house of God (<em><a href='B:530 3:16'>1Co 3:16</a></em>). We find true family in the new family of God. By baptism we are “added together” with those others who are likewise saved in Christ (<em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em> RVmg:). We will live together eternally with the other members of this new body and community which we enter. The links between us within that new family are even stronger than those with our natural family; and hence any division amongst the family of God is the greatest tragedy. What this means in practice is that we must fellowship each other. Even if we are isolated from other believers, one can always write letters, make phone calls, invite others to visit them, attempt to meet others…</p><p><em>"</em>Inherit eternal life" are the very words of the rich young man (<em><a href='B:480 10:17'>Mar 10:17</a></em>). The answer to that man’s question was that we have to lose now, if we are to win eternally; we must forsake material things if we are to inherit the life eternal. As he was only a young man, it’s likely that his wealth had been inherited. He was being told that the greatest inheritance was of life eternal, but this didn’t come easily nor by good luck or circumstance, but in response to a lifetime of following Jesus. The things which were to be forsaken include putting the records in Mark and Luke together with Matthew: family, brothers, sisters, father, mother, lands, houses etc. These were all the things which the young man had received by inheritance, and to forsake association with his family, on behalf of whom he had received his wealth, would’ve been crazy and social suicide. It was as crazy as trashing a winning lottery ticket and walking away the same you were before you bought it. But this is the radical calling of those who must forsake materialism in order to inherit eternity. Therefore all seeking for material advantage in this life is surely inappropriate if in fact we are to forsake it even if it comes to us without our seeking it.</p>


text:
<p>10:31&nbsp;<em>But many that are first shall be last and the last, first</em>- The context is of the Lord having taught that a rich man&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;shed his wealth in order to enter the Kingdom,&nbsp;<em>but</em>&nbsp;God’s grace is such that He is prepared to save the rich who<em>&nbsp;don’t</em>&nbsp;do that. With God this is “possible”. Chapters 18 and 19 have demonstrated the idea of living on different levels. The Lord had told the rich young man that if he “would be perfect”, then he should sell all he had and give it to the poor. In this amazing comment at the conclusion of the section, we learn that in fact “many” who are first in this life&nbsp;<em>and choose to remain first</em>&nbsp;shall still be saved, although they will be “last” in the Kingdom. The same word for “last” is used in the parable which speaks of believers having to take the “last” or ‘lowest’ place around the Lord’s table (<em><a href='B:490 14:9-10'>Luk 14:9-10</a></em>). There are and will be gradations between the Lord’s people, both now and eternally. Those who are “first” in this brief life, retaining their wealth when they should not, shall be saved by grace but will be the least in the Kingdom. Whereas those who are the least in this life, or make themselves the least, will become the first in God’s Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>10:32&nbsp;<em>And they were on the road heading up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was walking ahead of them-&nbsp;</em>This could refer to the uphill journey, but ‘going up’ was a technical term used for going up to Jerusalem, particularly to keep a feast- Passover, in this case. They were going "up" from Jericho, <em><a href='B:470 19:15'>Mat 19:15</a></em>. Hence they went “up”, uphill to Jerusalem. These small details all support the position that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses and were not created many years later by people who were not present. They were going the opposite direction of man in the parable of the Good Samaritan, who went&nbsp;<em>down</em>&nbsp;from Jerusalem to Jericho. We may be able to infer that the Lord intended us to read that man as one who was not going in the way of the cross, who was going away from Jerusalem rather than towards it- and who was still saved by the grace of the Samaritan / Jesus:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve aside-&nbsp;</em>The implication is that there were others travelling with them, and the Lord wished to explain the reality of the cross to the disciples alone.</p><p><em>He began to tell them what was to happen to him</em>- Tragically He so often sought to explain to the disciples about the cross; and yet always they met His efforts either with silence, or with irrelevant changing of the subject, or even protest, in Peter’s case. The tragic mismatch between the Lord’s cross and the mind of the disciples is brought out in <em><a href='B:480 10:32-40'>Mar 10:32-40</a></em>. Having set His face to go up to Jerusalem, the Lord “went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid". The words imply that He took the lead and walked forcefully a few paces ahead of them in a startling manner. “If anything in the Gospels has the stamp of real and live recollection upon it, it is this". His mind was evidently dwelling in His forthcoming death, in which He may well have foreseen that He would be crucified with sinners on His right and left. But then two of the disciples respond to His prediction of the cross by asking that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;should sit on His right and left hand in glory over the others. Here we see, on the Gospel writers own admission, the paucity of their effort to grasp the real message of the cross. May it not be so with us. May we at least strive to enter into His struggle, and be moved to a true and unpretended humility by it.</p><p>There was something in His body language during His last journey to Jerusalem which was nothing short of terrifying to the disciples: "They were amazed; and as they followed Him, they were afraid" (<em><a href='B:480 10:32-34'>Mar 10:32-34</a></em>). All this came to a climax in His extreme sweating in Gethsemane as the great horror of darkness began to actually descend on Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:33-42'>Mar 14:33-42</a></em>). Contrast this with the calmness of suicide bombers or other religiously persuaded zealots going to their death. The Lord-&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;Lord- was too sensitive to humanity, to&nbsp;<em>us</em>, to His&nbsp;<em>own</em>&nbsp;humanity, to His own sense of the possibility of failure which His humility pressed ever upon Him::. than to be like that. See on <em><a href='B:650 5:7-8'>Heb 5:7-8</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>10:33&nbsp;<em>We will go up to Jerusalem-&nbsp;</em>This was stating the obvious, but He wanted them to perceive their part in the journey to the cross which He was making; for His path to death and resurrection was to be theirs, as it is ours too. Or perhaps we are to conclude that like Abraham, they were following their Lord not knowing where they were going.</p><p><em>And the Son of Man shall be delivered-&nbsp;</em>The Greek means literally ‘to hand over’; the idea of betrayal was maybe implicit, but not as explicit as in the English word ‘betrayed’. The word is very common on the lips of the Lord, as if He saw the moment of ‘handing over’ as the quintessence of all His sufferings- the hand over from God’s Providential protection to the powers of darkness.</p><p><em>To the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death-&nbsp;</em>Exactly fulfilled, using the same Greek words, in <em><a href='B:480 14:64'>Mar 14:64</a></em>:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And shall deliver him to the Gentiles</em>- The Lord foresaw that the Jews would have to deliver Him to the Romans if their death sentence was going to be legally inflicted.</p>


text:
<p>10:34&nbsp;<em>And they shall mock him and shall spit upon him and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again</em>- The Lord's predictions of His sufferings are detailed. The question arises as to whether this knowledge was beamed into Him by Divine revelation, or whether He worked it all out from Old Testament anticipations and prophecies of Messiah's sufferings. All the details could indeed have been understood from the Old Testament. And yet the Lord gave His life, it was not taken from Him; He as the master psychologist and chess player knew the moves which His chosen actions would elicit, and that may have been why He could predict these particular events in such detail.</p>


text:
<p>10:35&nbsp;<em>And there came near to him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying to him: Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we shall ask of you</em>- So often, the Lord’s predictions of the cross are responded to in most unspiritual ways, as if the message really failed to penetrate. As with us today, people turned off at the message of the Lord’s death. Whenever this happens, we must enquire as to&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;we turn off; for it surely has a psychological basis. Why does out attention wander so easily when reading or hearing discussed the crucifixion passages? The psychological, subconscious reason may well be that we realize that whatever is true for the Lord is to be true for us; His death there is the pattern for our death to self today. And we would far rather not be reminded of that.</p><p>Matthew places these words on the lips of their mother, Salome. But effectively the words were those of James and John. Divine inspiration reflects how God understood that completely. They tried to manipulate the Lord through the use of a female. Here is a classic example of where reading the entire Bible gives us a wider and fuller perspective. But a caveat needs to be sounded about such intertextuality, as it is called- the practice of interpreting a text in the light of other Bible texts. Of course, to get the wider and truer picture, this is a quite necessary and legitimate way of studying the Bible. But remember that the vast majority of believers over history have been illiterate. They heard the Gospels read to them. The text as it stands spoke to them- there are no Divinely inspired footnotes which signpost us to one of the parallel Gospels for the fuller picture. The easy use of computer-assisted analysis of the Biblical text is unique to our age, but one downside of this is that it can too easily be assumed that such endless chasing of connections with other Scripture is in fact how the text was originally designed to be read. It clearly was not. The fact the text of the entire Bible stands up to such analysis and indeed glows with glory under it- doesn't mean that this is the only nor even the intended way to receive the text. The ability to perform such detailed intertextuality just wasn't there for the illiterate; they heard the text of the Gospels as it was read, and there was a message within the text as it stands which they were intended to perceive.</p><p>Mark records the brothers asking: "Master, we would that you should do for us whatsoever we shall desire"- presumably trying to tie the Lord to His words in <em><a href='B:470 18:19'>Mat 18:19</a></em> about the successful prayer of “two… who should agree as touching anything they should ask”. But of course the Lord’s context there was quite different. It was about restoring the lost to the way to the Kingdom. So often we likewise can seize hold of the Lord’s words and try to twist them to as it were manipulate God into response. This sort of thing goes on&nbsp;<em>ad nauseam</em>&nbsp;in many Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, taking Bible phrases out of context and aggressively holding God to words He never uttered in the context required of them by the audience. &nbsp;They had the focus all wrong- they wanted to be in the Kingdom "for us". Our motive for wanting to be in the Kingdom needs to be analysed. Is it for God manifestation, or mere human salvation from death that we are interested in to paraphrase a well known quote from John Thomas?</p>


text:
<p>10:36&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: What would you wish that I should do for you?</em>- Matthew has:&nbsp;<em>"</em>What do you desire::.".<em>&nbsp;</em>These are the very words the Lord goes on to use to the blind men in <em><a href='B:470 20:32'>Mat 20:32</a></em> as He left Jericho, and to the blind man He met as He approached Jericho (<em><a href='B:490 18:41'>Luk 18:41</a></em>). The similarity in the stories of the blind men He spoke to is surely for the same reason as His repetition of "What do you want?" both to them and to Salome and again to her sons. It's all to build up the impression that He is asking people to focus upon what their dominant desire really Is. And such an approach is not unknown in depth psychology today. The Lord uses the same word for "want" in asking the crippled man if he 'wanted' to be made whole (<em><a href='B:500 5:6'>Joh 5:6</a></em>). Of course he did, and the Lord knew it. So His question was to elicit in the man a sense of what his dominant desire really was. The Lord raised him up, and went on to comment that as the Father raises up people, so His Son enlivens whom&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;wants s:w:- <em><a href='B:500 5:21'>Joh 5:21</a></em>. The 'want' of the man and the 'want' of God's Son coincided, just as can happen for us all- if our dominant desires are his. Therefore later in <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em> the Lord almost comments on the incident with Salome by saying that if His words abide in us, then we shall ask what we wish s:w. "want" and it shall be done s:w. 'do'. There was no blank cheque promise, as Salome and her sons had wrongly implied. It was often His style to focus people on what they were asking for, encouraging them to verbalize and thus define their deepest desires. This is why He made as if He would go further on the way to Emmaus, why He appeared to be sleeping during the storm, and in another storm appeared to intend to walk past the disciples (<em><a href='B:480 6:48'>Mar 6:48</a></em>). All this was to elicit from His people an awareness of their need for Him. He works the same today, through providential circumstance in our lives, to make us ask ourselves what we really and essentially want. He has just spoken in detail of His sufferings, and so His question was rhetorical. 'If I am going to do all that for you- what else could you ask for?'. The wonder of salvation for us as sinners is such that we should see all our other requests in that context:&nbsp;</p><p>He had just been speaking of how He would die for them. James and John evidently didn't appreciate the wonder, the blessing, the honour of the fact that the Son of God would love them unto the end. All they wanted was the human blessing, in this life, of being able to tell their brethren that they would be&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>greatest in the Kingdom. "What would ye that I should do for you" - in addition to loving you unto the death, of loving you with a love greater than that of&nbsp;<em>anyone</em>&nbsp;else? Their minds were all too set on the present, the petty glory of here and now. But when they actually beheld the cross (<em><a href='B:490 23:49'>Luk 23:49</a></em> suggests James also did), they would have learnt their lesson. And so it was with Job. Throughout the core of the book, he consistently addresses God as 'Shaddai', the fruitful one, the provider of blessing. But in the prologue and epilogue, he calls God 'Yahweh'. It may be that He came to&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;the wonder of God's Name to the extent that he quit his perception of God as only the provider of material blessing.</p>


text:
<h4>10:37&nbsp;<em>And they said to him: Grant to us that we may sit, one on your right hand and one on your left hand, in your glory</em>- This confirms that she had <em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em> in mind, where the Lord had promised a sitting on thrones when He sat "in the throne of His glory". The mother of James and John wanted them to have great reward in the Kingdom. The Lord’s basic answer was: ‘Take up my cross, follow my example, focused as it is on getting&nbsp;others&nbsp;to the Kingdom’ (<em><a href='B:470 20:21'>Mat 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:27-28'>Mat 20:27-28</a></em>). They were to be to others examples of selflessness. In the parable of the labourers, the hard, all day workers came expecting their pay; they were sent away, it could be, in rejection. But those whom the parable appears to commend worked having made no agreement nor mention of the reward they would receive. Thus when James and John clamoured for a reward in the Kingdom, they were told instead to go away and serve; this was what it was all about, being the minister of others, serving for nothing- not badgering the Lord for a reward in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 20:20-26'>Mat 20:20-26</a></em>).</h4><p>When the Lord Jesus promised those who overcome that they would sit down with Him in His throne (<em><a href='B:730 3:21'>Rev 3:21</a></em>), He was surely casting a glance back at the way His men had asked to sit at His right and left hand, in His glory (<em><a href='B:480 10:37'>Mar 10:37</a></em>). He knew He was promising a future glory far above what to them must have been the heights of their spiritual ambition.</p><p>They surely had in mind the Lord's recent assurance that the twelve would sit upon twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel (<em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em>). But even that wasn't enough. She wanted even more. The record leaves us gasping at her: 'What? Even that promise, and the prediction of the Lord's death for you- still not enough for you??'. This is intended to put all our requests and dominant desires in a different context. If we have been promised the Kingdom and the Lord has died for us- then what other dominant desires should we have? Surely none. For those things should be the dominant issues within us.</p>


text:
<p>10:38&nbsp;<em>But Jesus said to them: You do not know what you ask-&nbsp;</em>The statement that men 'know not' is usually and extensively on the Lord's lips in a negative sense. We can therefore read Him here as deeply disappointed in her. Note how the Lord uses the plural 'you'; He clearly saw that the question was being asked by the sons through their mother, and the parallel records show Him asking them directly what&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;really wanted. "We know not what we should pray for as we ought" (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>) seems to be some kind of allusion back to the mother of Zebedee's children asking Christ to get her two sons the best places in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 20:22'>Mat 20:22</a></em>). He basically replied 'You know not what you pray for', in the sense of 'you don't appreciate'. It may be that Paul in Romans 8 is saying that in our desire for the Kingdom, in our groaning for it, we don't appreciate what we ask for as we ought, yet Christ nonetheless makes powerful intercession for us to this end.</p><p><em>Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's death was therefore His cup, and also His 'baptism'. He asks us to be baptized with His baptism and to regularly drink His cup in the memorial meeting. These things are easily performed, and yet they are an agreement to die His death. We too can far too easily say "I am able::.", when like the disciples, we fail to perceive the horror of the cross and what is being asked of us. We therefore participate in these symbols, these metaphors, with bowed head, deeply aware of our likely failure to carry the cross to the end, but grateful for our participation in&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;cup and baptism, the One who did in fact die the death of the cross.</p><p><em>Or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?</em>- Note the present tense compared to the future tense of "the cup that I shall drink of". And yet in <em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em> He speaks of the baptism that He must still be baptized with in crucifixion. His death on the cross was in essence lived and died by Him throughout His life. This is why the prophecy of His death in Isaiah 53 is also quoted about experiences during His life. And there is an ongoing element to baptism, just as Israel were baptized "in the cloud and in the sea" as they passed through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>), and yet lived beneath the cloud throughout their wilderness journey- as if their baptism was ongoing. We likewise die and resurrect with Christ in an ongoing sense as we die to the flesh and progressively experience His new life breaking through into our mortal experience (<em><a href='B:540 4:11'>2Co 4:11</a></em>). Note too how Paul speaks of baptism in the present tense in <em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em> - we&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;buried with Him by baptism, although Paul has just said in <em><a href='B:520 6:3'>Rom 6:3</a></em> that we&nbsp;<em>were</em>&nbsp;baptized as a one-time past even. If Paul were simply referencing the point of their baptism in <em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>, he would have said 'We&nbsp;<em>were</em>&nbsp;buried with Him'. The sense of <em><a href='B:580 2:12'>Col 2:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em> may be similar- "By one Spirit we are all present tense baptized into one body". The whole language of baptism by the Spirit surely suggests a process rather than a one time event of immersion in water.</p><p>In Gethsemane He spoke of drinking the cup of His final death and suffering. But earlier He had spoken in the present tense: “the cup that I drink of::. the baptism that I am baptized with" (<em><a href='B:480 10:38'>Mar 10:38</a></em>). The drinking of the cup of death was ongoing. Likewise there are several verses in Psalms 22, 69 which are evidently relevant to both the Lord's life and also His final hours on the cross. "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up" is in the context of the cross, but is applied to an earlier period of the Lord's life (<em><a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 2:17'>Joh 2:17</a></em>). "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children" is another example (<em><a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a></em>); it is a prophecy about the final sufferings of the Lord in crucifixion, and yet it is elsewhere quoted about the experiences of His ministry.<br/>James and John pestered the Lord to give them glory in His Kingdom. He didn't refuse their request; He simply turned the question round to them: 'Can you really carry my cross? Don't be so obsessed with getting salvation out of me. Concentrate instead on carrying my cross, being baptized with my baptism, and then the corollary of that- sharing my resurrection- will follow in its own time'.</p>


text:
<p>10:39- see on <em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>And they said to him: We are able And Jesus said to them: The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized</em>-</p><p>The Lord surely remembered their childlike over confidence when He Himself prayed for that cup to be "able" (AV "may" s:w:) to pass from Him so that He didn't have to drink it (<em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>). Yet the Lord is so generous spirited to them. He says that they will indeed be "able" to drink His cup (:23)- but the places of honour in the Kingdom were solely for the Father to give. He alludes to this in telling Peter that he was not "able" (s:w:) to follow Him to death on the cross at that time, "but you shall follow Me afterwards" (<em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>). We would likely have told them to take more seriously the Lord's predictions of His death by crucifixion which He had just uttered, and be more realistic about their own failure to suffer and die like that. But He is so more positive and gracious.</p><p>The Lord Jesus Christ's sensitivity to our thinking that we really have borne His cross comes out here. Those men, with all their unspirituality, could quite coolly state that they wanted the highest place in the Kingdom, and could say with confidence that they could shoulder the cross of Christ. The Lord's reply was gracious and generous spirited indeed: "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup" - 'when you're a lot more spiritually mature', He could have added. We&nbsp;<em>sense</em>&nbsp;rather than are explicitly told His sensitivity to men thinking they can shoulder His cross; for He alone knows what the cross of Christ entailed and entails. And in speaking of our own sufferings, we too need to learn these lessons, and compare our sufferings against Christ's with the utmost caution, with the sensitivity to&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;feelings, recognizing that we must act as men and women who have been&nbsp;<em>counted as if</em>&nbsp;we shared His death, and not as those who have actually "resisted unto blood (in our) striving against sin". To confidently identify some of our brethren as tares is only one example of the way in which we can hurt our Lord's feelings, by acting and thinking in ways which are only appropriate for He who did actually carry the cross.</p><p>Seeing even the Lord baulked at drinking that cup in Gethsemane, saying that they would drink His cup 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>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>


text:
<p>10:40&nbsp;<em>But to sit on my right hand or 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-&nbsp;</em>A profound rebuttal of the primitive and mistaken equation of Jesus with God which is found in Trinitarian theology.</p><p><em>But it will be given to them for whom it has been prepared</em>-</p><p>A specific future is being prepared for each of us in God's Kingdom (22:4; 25:34; <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 lives the 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>).</p><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><p>The altogether lovely manner of the Lord is shown in how He dealt with immature understanding and ambition amongst others. James and John wanted to sit on either side of the Lord in His Kingdom glory. Instead of telling them to be more humble, the Lord gently went along with them- so far. He said that this great honour would be given to “them for whom it is prepared” (<em><a href='B:480 10:40'>Mar 10:40</a></em>). And whom is this?&nbsp;<em>All</em>&nbsp;those redeemed in Christ have that place “prepared” (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>). The immediate context speaks of the cross (<em><a href='B:480 10:33'>Mar 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:45'>Mar 10:45</a></em>), and it is this which prepared the places in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:500 14:1-2'>Joh 14:1-2</a></em>). Thus the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and the Kingdom was prepared from the foundation of the world (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>). Actually, all those redeemed in Christ will sit down with Him in His very throne- not just on the right and left side of Him (<em><a href='B:730 3:21'>Rev 3:21</a></em>). Indeed, the Lord’s subsequent parable about the places prepared in the Kingdom, and people being on the right&nbsp;<em>and left</em>&nbsp;hand of Him at judgment, with the rejected on the left hand, was perhaps His gentle corrective to James and John. But my point is that He was so gentle about the way He corrected their error. Actually twice before in Mark 10, the Lord had shown this spirit. The arrogant young man told Him that he’d kept all the commandments from his youth and, get it, he was only a young guy anyway…. And yet “Jesus beholding him, loved him” (<em><a href='B:480 10:20'>Mar 10:20</a></em>). And then moments later in the record, Peter starts on about “Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee”- and the Lord so gently doesn’t disagree, even though Peter’s fishing business and family were still there for him to return to it seems, but promises reward for all who truly do leave all (<em><a href='B:480 10:28-30'>Mar 10:28-30</a></em>). So just three times in one chapter, we see the gentle patience of the Lord with arrogant, small minded people, who thought they understood so much and were so righteous. They were nothing compared to Him. But the way He deals with them is indeed “altogether lovely”.</p>


text:
<p>10:41&nbsp;<em>And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John</em>- This suggests that the favour asked was asked secretly. The Lord sensed or overheard their anger, and called the group to Him (:42). 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>10:42&nbsp;<em>And Jesus called them to him, and said to them: You know-&nbsp;</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:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That they who are considered rulers of the Gentiles-&nbsp;</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><h4>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. 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.</h4><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>10:43&nbsp;<em>But it is not to be so among you; but whoever would become great among you-</em>&nbsp;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 <em><a href='B:470 20:25'>Mat 20:25</a></em>). And the path to that was through servanthood, and He invited His men to likewise participate in that servanthood:&nbsp;</p><p>When the disciples argued about who should be the greatest, the Lord replied in the present tense that "it&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;not so among you: whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister" (<em><a href='B:480 10:43'>Mar 10:43</a></em> R. V:). He expected them to live up to the righteousness which He imputed to them.</p><p><em>Shall 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.</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>10:44&nbsp;<em>And whoever would be first among you-&nbsp;</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 20:8,10,16. 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 servant of all</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><p>See on <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>. It is a great NT theme that we are the bond slaves of the Lord Jesus. And yet we are also to be slaves to all His people (<em><a href='B:480 10:44'>Mar 10:44</a></em>), for the Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;His people: they are His body. To serve our brethren is to serve the Lord Himself. The Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>expects</em>&nbsp;us to relate to Him as bond slaves. He speaks of how a bond slave can be working in the field all day, come home tired, and then be immediately commanded by the master to prepare his meal and only then get his own meal- and the master won't thank him, but just expects it of him. And the Lord Jesus applies this to His relationship with us. The Lord of all grace is, by absolute rights, a demanding Lord. He commented that we call Him Lord and Master, and we say well, for so He is (<em><a href='B:500 13:13'>Joh 13:13</a></em>). If we are truly the bond-slaves of the Lord Jesus, we have no 'free time' for ourselves. Neither will we expect to have time for ultimately our 'own thing'. The craze for personal and social freedom which sweeps the modern world will leave us untouched. Ultimate freedom and total independence is not for us.</p>


text:
<p>10:45&nbsp;<em>For 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 this 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 served by others-&nbsp;</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 serve-&nbsp;</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;&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><p>In all ways, the Lord is our pattern. He was a servant of all, and so should we be. His servanthood dominated His consciousness. He said that He came not so much as to be ministered unto, but so as to minister, with the end that He gave His life for others (<em><a href='B:480 10:45'>Mar 10:45</a></em>). In His death for Israel, He was “a minister lowly servant of the circumcision”, i:e. the Jews (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>). Yet we&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;His ministers, His slave / servants. The same word is used for how the women and Angels ministered unto Him (<em><a href='B:480 1:13'>Mar 1:13</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>), and how He anticipated men would minister to Him (<em><a href='B:500 12:26'>Joh 12:26</a></em> Gk. cp. <em><a href='B:540 11:23'>2Co 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:7'>Col 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 4:6'>1Ti 4:6</a></em>). But both then and now, He came and has come in order to minister / serve us, rather than to be served by us; even though this is what we give our lives to doing. Yet He is still all taken up with ministering to us. He came more to serve than to be served. We are slaves, all of us, of the lowest sort. It’s hard for us to realise the lowliness of being a Roman slave; and the sheer wonder of being made a free man, purely by grace. This is what&nbsp;<em>each and every one of us</em>&nbsp;has experienced. Servanthood / slavery should be the concept that dominates our lives; for we cannot be a servant of two masters (<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em>). We are to be wholly dedicated to the service of the Lord Jesus and those in Him. See on <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>10:46&nbsp;<em>And they arrived in Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho-&nbsp;</em>Matthew's account of 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.</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><h4><em>With his disciples and a great crowd-&nbsp;</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" (<em><a href='B:470 20:34'>Mat 20:34</a></em>), 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.</h4><p><em>Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside</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".</p>


text:
<p>10:47&nbsp;<em>And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and say: Jesus You Son of David, have mercy on me</em>- These were exactly the words of the two blind men of <em><a href='B:470 9:27'>Mat 9:27</a></em>, who were likewise cured 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,</em>&nbsp;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>10:48&nbsp;<em>And many rebuked him-&nbsp;</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 19:13 for how the disciples rebuked the little ones from coming to the Lord- and were in turn rebuked. The impression is that in the disciples' exclusivity, they weren't being as they supposed more spiritual than the world around them, but rather were they being simply as that world. Soon afterwards, the Pharisees told the Lord to "rebuke" His disciples, and He replied that it was impossible for them to "hold their peace" (<em><a href='B:490 19:39-40'>Luk 19:39-40</a></em>). These are all words and phrases taken from this incident. Now it is the disciples who refuse to be quiet, and it is the Pharisees who want them to be quiet. Again the point is made that the desire to silence and exclude others is from the world, and not of Christ. The Lord's acceptance of people is consistently painted by the Gospels as being far more inclusive and extensive than that of men. The human tendency to reject and erect barriers is simply not there in Christ.</p><p><em>Saying that he should hold his peace. But he cried out more zealously: You, Son of David, have mercy on me</em>- This could be seen as the result of the Lord's piquing their sense of urgency for Christ by not responding immediately. This is also a factor in some of His delayed responses to our own&nbsp;needs.</p>


text:
<p>10:49&nbsp;<em>And Jesus stood still and said: Call him. And they called to the blind man, saying to him: Be of good courage Rise, he calls for you</em>- The Lord could have walked up to the man as He did to others when curing them. But on this occasion He wished to teach that His calling of men to Him for healing often uses a human mechanism. The "call" comes through people. Through us. Their obedience to the command to go call the man is emphasized. The Lord "calls" just as the people "called" the man. The Lord's calling and our calling of men are thereby paralleled. The experience of being called by the Lord is not to be seen as an onerous call to responsibility before Him; rather is it the source of "courage". His calling is because He wants to do something good for us, rather than saddle us with the weight of responsibility to judgment.</p>


text:
<p>10:50&nbsp;<em>And he, casting away his garment, sprang up and came to Jesus</em>- His garment was likely all he owned. And he is therefore presented as being willing to forsake all in response to the call of Jesus, just as the disciples immediately forsake all and followed Him. 'Coming to Jesus' is the phrase just used of how the little children came to Him (10:14); and again, there was a desire to forbid them. This native tendency we have to forbid others to come to the Lord must be watched carefully; and never allowed to be given formal expression in church policies which exclude some from ever coming to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>10:51&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said: What will you have me do for you? And the blind man said to him: Rabbi- that I may receive my sight</em>- The Lord had a way of focusing men upon their need. Thus He would have passed by the desperate disciples as they struggled in the storm, He would have gone further on the road to Emmaus, and He 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><p>The one thing&nbsp;he wanted was to see. The healed blind man is a type of us. True understanding (seeing) should be the one thing we want. "Wisdom is the&nbsp;<em>principal&nbsp;</em>thing; therefore get wisdom" <em><a href='B:240 4:7'>Pro 4:7</a></em>). This was obviously a rhetorical question, and it succeeded in the intention of making the men verbalize their dominant desire. Likewise the Lord works with us to make us focus and understand what is our dominant desire- and then seeks to reposition that focus. In this section He has done that by placing all human desires and requests in the shadow of His death for us. For how could we want anything 'extra' after He has done that for us, with all it enabled.</p>


text:
<p>10:52&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to him: Go your way. Your faith has made you whole. And immediately he received his sight and followed him in the way</em>- He "Followed Him&nbsp;<em>in the way</em>". But He told the man "Go&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;way". 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 <em><a href='B:470 20:17-18'>Mat 20:17-18</a></em> 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>11:1- see on <em><a href='B:480 7:32-35'>Mar 7:32-35</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when they drew near to Jerusalem-&nbsp;</em>This might suggest that the gospel author 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>To Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives-&nbsp;</em>'The house of figs'. There is likely a connection to the incident later in this section when the Lord curses the fig tree. Perhaps we are to assume that He hoped for figs in Bethphage too, and was likewise disappointed. Bethphage has even been given the meaning 'House of unripe figs', which would confirm this impression (See Marcus Jastrow,&nbsp;<em>Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature</em>&nbsp;(Jerusalem: Horeb, 1903, reprint) p. 1132).</p><p><em>He sent two of his 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>11:2&nbsp;<em>Instructing them: Go into the village in front of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it here</em>- The Greek words translated "tied" and "loose" occur together several times, usually rendered 'bind' and 'loose'. Earlier, the idea of binding and loosing has been used about the way that the decisions and actions of believers can have eternal consequence upon others, and our bind and loosing is to some extent reflected in and confirmed by Heaven (<em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:18'>Mat 18:18</a></em>). This conception of binding and loosing was surely intended by the Lord. Verse 4 makes clear that all this was done in order to fulfil the prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em> that Messiah would come to Zion riding on a donkey and her foal. But that prophecy had to be consciously fulfilled. Whether or not the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled was therefore left to the initiative of the Lord and His followers. And it's the same in our last days- if, e:g:, we choose to fulfil the prophecy that the Gospel must go into all the world before the end comes, then in that sense the actual time of Christ's coming is left in our hands. There are other Messianic associations with a donkey- Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed on a donkey (<em><a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:5'>Gen 22:5</a></em>); Solomon rode to his coronation on David's donkey (<em><a href='B:110 1:33-44'>1Ki 1:33-44</a></em>).</p><p>The question arises as to why both a donkey and foal were required, according to Matthew. 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>


text:
<p>11:3&nbsp;<em>And if anyone says to you: Why are you doing this? You are to say: The Lord has need of him; and immediately he will send him back here</em>-&nbsp; God in a sense is in need of man, just as Jesus was, or allowed Himself to be:&nbsp;"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>11:4&nbsp;<em>And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untied it</em>- Gk. "a place where two ways met<em>":&nbsp;</em>This translates the word&nbsp;<em>amphedon&nbsp;</em>which in the LXX (e:g. <em><a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a></em>) is used for a palace. Herod had a palace on the Mount of Olives and maybe this is what is being referenced. It could be that the donkey and foal were provided by Herod's servants, because Joanna was a disciple of Jesus who provided for Jesus from her "substance"- and she was the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (<em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>). In this case, the Lord was further parodying a King's triumphant entry by riding upon Herod's donkey.</p>


text:
<p>11:5&nbsp;<em>And those that stood there said to them: What are you doing, untying the colt?</em>- This may have been part of a pre-arranged plan by the Lord. If indeed as suggested on :4 this was Herod's palace and colt, we can understand why the Lord wished to shield the participants in the plan. Perhaps He was seeking to irritate Herod by appearing to have stolen his colt, and appearing to usurp Herod's authority by entering Jerusalem upon it. For He gave His life, of His own device, so that He died at the time and place He did, and by crucifixion. His life was not taken from Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>), nor was He overtaken by events; He was the master of the scene.</p>


text:
<p>11:6&nbsp;<em>And they said to them just as Jesus had said, and they let them go</em>- See on :5. For them to respond so immediately is unusual and unrealistic until we perceive that this was all part of a prearranged plan.</p>


text:
<h4>11:7&nbsp;<em>And they brought the colt to Jesus, and put on it their garments; and he sat upon it</em>- Using their garments as saddles. The fact both animals were saddled (according to Matthew) was to make the point that one rider was missing. For according to the other Gospels, the Lord sat upon the colt. The mother donkey was saddled, but without a rider. This added to the strangeness of the spectacle. The missing rider was perhaps a reference to how Israel had not as a whole responded in bringing Messiah to Zion. Maybe it referred to the Gentiles who had yet to be converted. Or perhaps to the fact that Israel had rejected John the Baptist and he had been killed- and therefore there was no Elijah prophet bringing Messiah into Zion. Elijah was the great horseman of the Divine chariot (<em><a href='B:120 2:12'>2Ki 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 13:14'>2Ki 13:14</a></em>; he is called the “horsemen” plural, but this is an intensive plural for ‘the one great horseman’). Elijah was the chariot horseman, the one who was to ride on the horse which pulled the chariot in which there was Messiah this was a Rabbinic understanding of the Elijah prophet. But he was strangely absent in this acted parable. The saddle was there for him, provided by the few disciples who had responded to John / Elijah; but he wasn’t there. This absence of the Elijah prophet was surely indicative of the fact that John had not been the Elijah prophet for most of Israel- they hadn’t responded properly to his message. Therefore the true triumphant entry of Messiah was yet future. This is why the phrase “bringing salvation” is excluded from the quotation of <em><a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a></em>. It was not so much a ‘triumphant entry’, but a&nbsp;<em>parody</em>&nbsp;of a triumphant entry.</h4>


text:
<p>11:8&nbsp;<em>And many spread their garments upon the road, and others spread branches which they had cut from the fields</em>-</p><p>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>11:9&nbsp;<em>And they that went ahead and they that followed, cried, Hosanna Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord</em>-</p><p>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>


text:
<p>11:10&nbsp;<em>Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David Hosanna in the highest</em>- They liked to believe that the Messianic Kingdom was now coming. But the Lord's parables and teaching about the Kingdom had repeatedly emphasized that the full establishment of that Kingdom was some way off, and the message of the Kingdom was to be lived in our attitudes whilst this secular life continues. 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>


text:
<p>11:11&nbsp;<em>And he entered into Jerusalem and went into the temple, and when he had looked at everything, it being now evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve</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>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. Going to Bethany 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>11:12&nbsp;<em>And the next day, when they left Bethany, he felt 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>11:13&nbsp;<em>And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves- for it was not the season for figs</em>- God is in search of man, and so is His Son. We surely all at times get depressed, feeling we are nothing and nobody, just used rather than needed. But just as we have our need to be needed, so does God, seeing we are made in His image and likeness. We see it all worked out visually when the Lord Jesus was starving hungry (Gk:), and saw a fig tree far away. He walked towards it, fixing His mind upon the tree. It wasn't the time for figs, but the tree had leaves, and He was so hungry, He'd have been prepared to eat the most immature, unripe figs (<em><a href='B:480 11:12-13'>Mar 11:12-13</a></em>). This is an acted parable, of His search for man, for fruit upon us. The same imagery of a fig tree bearing fruit is used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 13:6'>Luk 13:6</a></em> to speak of His hope of spiritual fruit from Israel. But when the Lord finally arrived at the leafy fig tree, He found no fruit at all, and so He cursed it, and it withered. The same word is used about the withering of those rejected at the last day by the Lord Jesus- they will be withered, and then gathered up and burnt (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). So as the Lord Jesus strode the long way towards the fig tree, focused upon it with all the focus and hope of a hungry man, so eager and hopeful to find fruit::. so He is striding towards us with the same hope in us, of finding at least something, however immature, however unripe. But at least something. The shortening of the days for the sake of a remnant is predicted in <em><a href='B:290 65:8-9'>Isa 65:8-9</a></em>: “As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants’ sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed Jesus out of Jacob… and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there”. The “elect” are paralleled with “my servants”. Because of them, the minority of faithful fruit, the whole tree is not destroyed. This is exactly the image of the fig tree parable; because of the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the tree of Israel, the whole nation will not be cut off and they will be saved by the coming of the Kingdom.</p><p>The fig tree was 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. 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. "Leaves only" recalls the inadequate covering for sin with which human history began in Eden.<br/>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:14&nbsp;<em>Jesus addressed it: Henceforth, no one will eat fruit from you again. And his disciples heard it</em>- <em><a href='B:480 11:14'>Mar 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:21-22'>Mar 11:21-22</a></em> imply that Peter was amazed that something the Lord had predicted about the fig tree had actually come true.<br/>Sometimes God speaks as if He has rejected Israel, and other times as if they will eternally be His people. Such is the extent of His passionate feelings for them. And the Son of God entered into this- He said that no man would eat fruit of the tree of Israel for ever (<em><a href='B:480 11:14'>Mar 11:14</a></em>), when in fact Israel one day will fill the face of the earth with fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). We too, in the spirit of the prophets, are to enter into these feelings of God. God’s threats to punish His people and His desire to forgive them don’t somehow cancel each other out as in an equation. They exist within the mind of God in a terrible tension. He cries out through Hosea of how His many ‘repentings’ are “kindled together” as He struggles within Himself to give up His people as He has threatened (<em><a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a></em>). The fig tree would never bear fruit (<em><a href='B:480 11:14'>Mar 11:14</a></em>). But Israel will blossom and bud and fill the earth with fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>); hence the fig tree bearing fruit when it has been condemned never to bear fruit is such a dramatic sign (<em><a href='B:490 21:29-30'>Luk 21:29-30</a></em>:). The Lord spoke His words about Israel's future budding with full knowledge that He (and several OT passages) had condemned her to eternal barrenness. He knew, however, the paradox of grace.</p><p>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;&nbsp;</p><p>Matthew says there would be no fruit from the fig tree "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>


text:
<p>11:15&nbsp;<em>And they came to Jerusalem, and he entered into the temple and began to throw out those that sold and those that bought in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money exchangers and the seats of those that sold the doves</em>-</p><p>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>Throwing out or Mt. 'casting out' is 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>Those who sold and bought in the temple refers to <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/></em>The overthrowing of the tables 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;</h4><p>The traders were the sons of Annas, the High Priest. This deepened the anti-climax- 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:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:16&nbsp;<em>And he would not permit anyone to carry any merchandise through the temple</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. For all their claims that God's temple was holy, they were treating it like a public street by allowing porters to carry their goods through it rather than around it. It could be that the Jews permitted the carrying of goods through the court of the Gentiles, but not elsewhere. It's as if the Lord is saying that that court was to be treated as being as holy as the rest of the structure.</p>


text:
<p>11:17&nbsp;<em>And he taught and 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>Is it not written-&nbsp;</em>The Lord quotes from <em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>, but the surrounding context of the quotation is relevant to the Jewish leadership who were present and deeply critical of the Lord's actions. <em><a href='B:290 56:10-11'>Isa 56:10-11</a></em> condemns Israel's elders as "blind watchmen::. dumb dogs::. greedy dogs which can never have enough, shepherds that cannot understand, every one looking for gain". "Dogs" was understood as a reference to the Gentiles- and the Lord is saying that they are effectively Gentiles. Significantly, <em><a href='B:290 56:6'>Isa 56:6</a></em> has spoken of "the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord::. taking hold of His covenant". This is often how God works- for those who are sensitive to His word, the quotations given speak far more deeply. The potential for greater understanding is thereby given to those familiar with His word. This is one reason why I encourage perseverance in reading the Bible even if at the point of reading we feel we are not understanding much and simply building up a familiarity with the text. That familiarity can be a basis for later revelation to us.</p><p><em>My house shall be called-</em>&nbsp;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;</p><p><em>A house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves</em>- The Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a></em> that there will no longer be a trafficker in the Lord's house was fulfilled by the Lord's casting out the traders from the temple. Many of the Kingdom prophecies of healing were it seems consciously fulfilled in the Lord’s healings: <em><a href='B:290 35:6'>Isa 35:6</a></em> LXX the stammerer healed = <em><a href='B:480 7:32-35'>Mar 7:32-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 2:3-12'>Mar 2:3-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:1-6'>Mar 3:1-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:8'>Isa 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 11:1'>Mar 11:1</a></em> Bartimaeus following on the Jerusalem road. This doesn’t mean that these passages will not have a glorious future fulfilment. But in the person of Jesus and in the record of His life we see the “Kingdom come nigh”, as He Himself said it did. We can so focus on the future fulfilment that we can forget that He was the Kingdom in the midst of men; the essence of our eternal future, of the coming political Kingdom of God, was and is to seen in Him. Satan fell from Heaven during His ministry (<em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em>), as it will at the second coming (Revelation 12).</p><p>This invites us to see the thieves who robbed the man in the Samaritan parable as the Jewish leadership, whose priests and Levites refused to help people after the damage they themselves had caused (<em><a href='B:490 10:30'>Luk 10:30</a></em>). The thieves "stripped him of His clothing" just as they later did to the Lord Jesus. The Lord uses the same figure of thieves for the Jewish leadership in <em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:8'>Joh 10:8</a></em>. The Lord quotes here from <em><a href='B:300 7:11'>Jer 7:11</a></em>, which speaks of the temple being profaned by adultery and Baal worship, resulting in the Babylonian invasion. He is saying that Israel's hypocritical piety in His day was none less than Baal worship, and therefore the Gentiles would come and destroy that place.</p><p>Some of the Bible’s ‘prophecies’ are command more than prediction. The Lord Jesus criticized the Jews for trading in the temple because “Is it not written, My house&nbsp;<em>shall be</em>&nbsp;called of all nations the house of prayer” (<em><a href='B:480 11:17'>Mar 11:17</a></em>). We can easily read this as meaning that one day, a ‘house of prayer for all nations’ was to be built in Jerusalem. But in that case, why should not the Jews trade in the temple there and then, well before this was to happen, say, 2000 years later? The Lord surely means that the prophecy that the temple “shall be called…” a house of&nbsp;<em>prayer</em>&nbsp;was a command more than a prediction. It “shall be” a place for&nbsp;<em>prayer</em>&nbsp;and not&nbsp;<em>trading</em>. The ‘fulfilment’ of this statement was dependent upon them praying there and encouraging all nations to pray there; yet they could limit the fulfilment of the ‘prophecy’ by stopping Gentiles praying there, and by discouraging prayer there because of their trading policies. Thus the Lord saw the prophecy as more of a command than mere prediction. ‘Prophecy’ really means the speaking forth of God’s word, rather than the foretelling of the future. The closer one looks, the more conditional prophecies and Divine statements there are. “My house shall be called a house of prayer” had the extent of its possible fulfilment limited by the Jews turning the temple into a trading centre (<em><a href='B:480 11:17'>Mar 11:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:18&nbsp;<em>And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought a way to destroy him. For they feared him, for all the crowd were astonished at his teaching</em>- Despite all this, they would very soon be screaming for His blood. Their increased passion to destroy the Lord was, I suggest, exactly the response He had intended to elicit by parodying a triumphal entry.</p>


text:
<p>11:19&nbsp;<em>And every evening he left 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. He repeatedly did so to try to get the perceptive minority to realize what was really happening.</p>


text:
<p>11:20&nbsp;<em>And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots</em>- 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><p>This incident of the withered fig tree is an example of where Jesus didn’t want us to perceive Him as too different from us. The disciples are amazed at the faith of Jesus in God’s power. He had commanded the fig tree to be withered- but this had required Him to pray to God to make this happen. As the disciples looked at Him, wide eyed with amazement at His faith, very much into the “Wow” experience, the Lord immediately urged&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to “have faith in God:::&nbsp;<em>whosoever</em>&nbsp;and this was surely His emphasis shall ask a mountain to move in faith, it will happen::. therefore I say unto&nbsp;<em>you</em>, Whatsoever things&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;desire just as Jesus had desired the withering of the fig tree, when&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;pray as Jesus had done about the fig tree, believe that&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;receive them, and&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;shall have them”. I suggest His emphasis was upon the word&nbsp;<em>you</em>. He so desired them to see His pattern of faith in prayer as a realistic image for them to copy. How sad He must be at the way He has been turned into an other-worldly figure, some wonderful, kindly God who saves us from the weakness and lack of faith which we are so full of. Yes, He&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;our Saviour, and the “Wow” factor leads us to have a burning and undying sense of gratitude to Him. But He isn’t&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;that; He is an inspiration. It is in this sense that the spirit of Christ can and does so radically transform human life in practice. Of course, we have sinned, and we continue to do so. For whatever reason, we are not Jesus. But our painful awareness of this and it ought to be painful, not merely a theoretical acceptance that we are sinners::. shouldn’t lead us to think that His example isn’t a realistic pattern for us.</p>


text:
<p>11:21&nbsp;<em>And Peter, remembering, said to him: Rabbi, look at the fig tree which you cursed. It is withered away</em>- See on <em><a href='B:480 8:29'>Mar 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>. After the denials, Peter again "remembered the word of the Lord". And it seems that Mark is Peter's gospel. This has the ring of truth to it, in that Peter is portrayed, for all his impetuosity, as one who meditated upon the Lord's words. Perhaps the Lord had in mind His parable of the seed which sprung up and "withered" (<em><a href='B:490 8:6'>Luk 8:6</a></em> s:w:); Israel's initial response to John's preaching had withered. They were the withered branches which were now cast out of the tree (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> s:w:). Peter is presenting himself as being somewhat foolish and unspiritual, in being surprised that the Lord's word had come true. He implies that he ought not to have been surprised at all.</p>


text:
<p>11:22&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answering said to them: Have faith in God</em>- We are asked to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>); to have the faith of God (<em><a href='B:480 11:22'>Mar 11:22</a></em> AVmg:). By faith in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, we can attain these heights; but not in our own strength. In our every spiritual struggle and victory against the flesh throughout the day, we are playing out the finest and highest heroism that any playwright could conceive:&nbsp; the absolute underdog, the outsider without a chance, winning, at the end, the ultimate victory against impossible odds. Dear Peter exemplified how we so often behave, when he gasped at how deep was Jesus’ faith, as he saw the fig tree withered in exact accord with the Lord’s earlier words. But the Lord turns on Him immediately: “<em>You</em>&nbsp;have faith in God…&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;must believe, and whatever&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;ask in faith will happen, if you like me, see it as if it has happened at the point of asking for it”.</p>


text:
<p>11:23<em>&nbsp;Truly I say to you, Whoever shall say to this mountain: Be removed and thrown into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart but shall believe that what he said will happen- he shall have it&nbsp;</em>- See on <em><a href='B:730 8:8'>Rev 8:8</a></em>. It was the Lord's radical usage of language which led to the huge, seething anger which He provoked, culminating in the demand for His death. He seems to have purposefully reinterpreted and reapplied symbols and ideas which spoke of Jewish national pride, and applied them to something quite different. His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on an ass, not a war horse, and in order to die::. led to so much anger exactly because He had subverted such a familiar and longed for hope and symbol. We have to remember the huge value of symbols in the first century, living as we do in an age when the written word has become paramount. For the illiterate, symbols and acted parables were of far greater importance than the written word. We may think of 'Jesus' in terms of His teachings recorded at a specific chapter and verse of our Bibles. To the illiterate first century Jew, they thought of Him in terms of what He&nbsp;<em>did</em>- His cleansing of the temple, His image of the temple mount being plucked up and cast into the sea. The Lord's teaching about the temple was especially subversive- for the temple played a "decisive role::. in resistance toward Rome". It was "the focal point of the hope of national liberation, and hence was regarded as a guarantee of security against the pagans". But what does Jesus teach about the temple? It will be destroyed, His body shall be greater than the temple, it was to be a place of blessing for pagan Gentiles, because of Israel's wickedness the abomination would be set there, every place was hallowed ground, He was the true priest, etc. According to the&nbsp;<em>Mishnah Berakoth</em>&nbsp;9:5, the faithful were to wash the dust from their feet before entering it- and Jesus washed His disciples feet in likely allusion to this before they say down in a private room and broke bread with Him (<em><a href='B:500 13:1-20'>Joh 13:1-20</a></em>). As the Lithuanian Jewish Rabbi Jacob Neusner commented about Jesus' institution of the 'breaking of bread': "The holy place has shifted, now being formed by the circle made up of the master and his disciples". The Lord Jesus used the term "the blood of the covenant" at the last Supper, with reference to how <em><a href='B:450 9:9-11'>Zec 9:9-11</a></em> prophesied that the restoration of Israel's fortunes would be because of this "blood of my covenant". Yet the restoration / redemption which the Lord had in mind was not politically from Rome, but from sin and death through His blood. The temple had no great role in the Lord's teaching. By driving out traders from the temple, the Lord was effectively suggesting that the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a></em>, of how in the restoration there would be no Gentile traders there, was coming true in Him. And the elders of the Jews are thus paralleled by Him with the Gentiles. He speaks of how "this mountain"- and He must've been referring to Zion, the temple mount- was to be plucked up and cast into the sea of Gentiles (<em><a href='B:480 11:23'>Mar 11:23</a></em>). And He was alluding to <em><a href='B:450 4:6-7'>Zec 4:6-7</a></em>, which spoke of how the mountain of Babylon would be cast into the sea at the restoration- with the 'splash' expressed in the words "Grace, grace". This was to associate the Jewish temple system with Babylon- just as Revelation 17 likewise does. The Lord opened up a new universe of symbols; in an almost kaleidoscopic way, He twisted all the well loved symbols around. And when you mess with symbols, people get angry. Having lived in the Baltic States many years, I observed how inflammatory is the issue of messing with war memorials. Russians and Balts can slag each other off verbally all they wish, and people shrug. But mess with symbols, remove or rededicate a war memorial- and the crowds are on the streets. And this was, partially, what led to the fury with Jesus which led to His lynching. He who proclaimed non-violent revolution, the radical transformation of the inner mind into God's temple, Israel's true Messiah, was seen as the ultimate threat to all that it meant to be Jewish- all because His language and actions subverted the beloved symbols of the social club. When we experience this::. we are sharing something of His sufferings.</p><p>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 Mark'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><h4>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;</h4><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>The Lord's utter confidence in the power of prayer is reflected in the way He speaks to lepers, to waves of the sea, to blind eyes and deaf ears, commanding them to do things. Yet clearly this was a result of His own prayer to the Father. Yet He was so confident that what He had requested would really come true. And in <em><a href='B:480 11:23'>Mar 11:23</a></em> He challenges us to tell mountains to be removed. He doesn’t tell us to ask God to move a mountain; rather does He teach us to talk directly to the mountain. It’s been observed that Biblical Hebrew has no word for ‘yes’; instead, in order to show agreement, the preceding words of the speaker are repeated. Examples are in <em><a href='B:190 5:7'>Est 5:7</a></em> Heb. and <em><a href='B:10 18:15'>Gen 18:15</a></em>. Seeing that Biblical Hebrew reflects to us something of the mind of God, it seems to me that we’re being taught by this to believe that what we ask for from God, we will receive; our request is the nature of the answer. Hence the need for care in formulating&nbsp;<em>what</em>&nbsp;we ask for, believing that God’s ‘yes’ will be effectively a repeating back of our words to us.</p><p>Consider how the Lord taught ambition in prayer- He put before His men the real possibility of moving a mountain into the sea, if that was what was required (<em><a href='B:480 11:23'>Mar 11:23</a></em>). This example wasn't off the top of His head; He was consciously alluding to <em><a href='B:220 9:5'>Job 9:5</a></em>, where Job says that God alone, but not man, can do something like moving a mountain into the sea. And the Lord is saying: 'Yes, God alone can do it; but such is the potential power of prayer, that He will hearken to your requests to do such things- and do them'. The whole process of Nazariteship was to encourage the normal Israelite to have the ambition to rise up to the spirit of the High Priest himself; the restrictions governing Nazariteship were a purposeful echo of those regarding the High Priest. The way God describes Himself as depriving Israel of "wine or strong drink" (<em><a href='B:50 29:6'>Deu 29:6</a></em>) throughout the wilderness journey is Nazarite language: as if in all their weakness and profligacy, God still sought to inspire them to rise up to the heights.</p><p>The Christian must "believe that what he says comes to pass" - present tense. He is to visualize the immediate fulfilment of what he asks for in the court of Heaven. Compare the RV and AV of <em><a href='B:230 92:11'>Psa 92:11</a></em> in this connection: "Mine eye also shall see RV 'hath seen' my desire… and mine ears shall hear RV 'have heard' my desire". The confusion in the tenses is surely intentional- David really felt he had already received that which he prayed for. He shows this again by the way in which he uses tense moods perhaps purposefully ambiguously in <em><a href='B:230 56:13'>Psa 56:13</a></em>. The AV has: “Wilt not thou deliver my feet from falling…?”, whereas the RV renders it: “Hast thou not delivered my feet from falling?”. Another example is in <em><a href='B:230 18:44'>Psa 18:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 18:47'>Psa 18:47</a></em>: “The strangers&nbsp;<em>shall&nbsp;</em>submit themselves… God right now, by faith in prayer subdueth the peoples”. David perhaps perceived that the requests of prayer must also be some sort of statement that the prayer was answered already.<br/>The Lord taught that we should believe that "what we say in prayer shall come to pass" (<em><a href='B:480 11:23'>Mar 11:23</a></em> RV). This is very much the language of God's word- what&nbsp;<em>He&nbsp;</em>says, comes to pass for sure. And so we're being invited to see&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;words in prayer as effectively like God's words; for if we pray according to His word, surely we will be heard. See on <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>11:24<em>&nbsp;Therefore I say to you: All things, whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you will receive them- and you shall have them-&nbsp;</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><p>The experience of answered prayer inspires us to pray yet more. "What things soever ye desire, believe that ye did receive them, and ye shall have them" (<em><a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a></em> Gk:) can be read as meaning that we should remember how we received things in the past, and therefore we should have faith that the things we now desire really will be likewise granted. It is for this reason that the prayers recorded in the Psalms constantly look back to previous experiences of answered prayer as a motivation for faith and Hope: <em><a href='B:230 3:4-5'>Psa 3:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 44:1-4'>Psa 44:1-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 61:5'>Psa 61:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 63:7'>Psa 63:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 66:18-20'>Psa 66:18-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 77:4-16'>Psa 77:4-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 86:13'>Psa 86:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 94:5'>Psa 94:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 94:7-19'>Psa 94:7-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:1'>Psa 116:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 120:1-2'>Psa 120:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 126:1'>Psa 126:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 126:4'>Psa 126:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 140:6-7'>Psa 140:6-7</a></em>. Jeremiah likewise (<em><a href='B:310 3:55-56'>Lam 3:55-56</a></em>). And even the fact other believers had received answers to prayer inspired David's faith in prayer (<em><a href='B:230 74:11-15'>Psa 74:11-15</a></em>; Psalms 106).<br/>The close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in <em><a href='B:480 11:23-24'>Mar 11:23-24</a></em>: “Truly I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he says comes to pass; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them”. Our self-talk is to be fantasy about the fulfilment of our prayers. Yet how often do we hit ‘send’ on our requests to God, like scribbling off a postcard, and hardly think again about them?</p><p>Even in His mortal life, the Lord was eager to as it were close the gap between Himself and His followers, so that they didn't feel He was an unattainable, distant icon to admire, but rather a true friend, leader, King and example to realistically follow. Thus when He cursed the fig tree, having prayed about it and firmly believing that what He had asked would surely come about, Peter marvelled: "Master, behold, the fig tree you cursed is withered". The Lord replies by urging Peter to "Have faith in God. For truly I tell you,&nbsp;<em>whosoever</em>&nbsp;(and this is the stress, surely) shall say unto this mountain (far bigger than a fig tree) , Be removed be cast into the sea (a far greater miracle than withering a fig tree overnight), and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he says will come to pass (referring to how the words of Jesus to the fig tree were effectively His prayer to God about it); he shall&nbsp;<em>whatever</em>&nbsp;he says. Therefore I say unto&nbsp;<em>you</em>, Whatever&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;desire (just as I desired the withering of the fig tree), when&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;pray, believe that you receive them, and&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;shall have them (just as I did regarding the fig tree)" (<em><a href='B:480 11:21-24'>Mar 11:21-24</a></em>). Peter's amazement at the power of the Lord's prayers was therefore turned back on him- '<em>You too</em>&nbsp;can do what I just did, and actually greater things are possible for you than what I just did'. That was the message here- and He repeated it in the upper room, in encouraging them that "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do" (<em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:25<em>&nbsp;And whenever you stand praying, forgive those you have something against; so that your Father who is in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses-&nbsp;</em>The Lord assumed that whenever we pray, we will include a request for forgiveness. Not only is this one of the few requests in His model prayer, but <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em> reflects the same assumption: "<em>Whensoever&nbsp;</em>ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any one; that your Father… may forgive you" (RV):&nbsp;<em>Whenever</em>&nbsp;we pray we should be seeking forgiveness. And the Lord also implies that whenever we pray, we will almost always have something against someone else. For He knew well that human society is inevitably filled with misunderstandings and bad feelings against each other.</p>


text:
<p>11:26<em>&nbsp;But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses-&nbsp;</em>The conditions on which God's love and forgiveness operate was likewise stressed by Christ: "When ye stand praying, forgive::. that&nbsp;your Father::. may&nbsp;forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses" (<em><a href='B:480 11:25-26'>Mar 11:25-26</a></em>). God's eagerness to forgive us is therefore reflected in His eagerness&nbsp;to see us forgive others. His desire to make all grace abound towards us is something beautiful, something wondrous.</p>


text:
<p>11:27&nbsp;<em>And they arrived in Jerusalem. And as he was walking into the temple, there came to him the chief priests and the scribes and the elders</em>- Matthew notes he "entered" the temple. "Entered" is&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>, 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>


text:
<p>11:28&nbsp;<em>They said to him: By what authority do you do these things? Who gave you authority to 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 21:14- 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;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>11:29&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things</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. The sense of the Greek is not "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 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).</p>


text:
<p>11:30<em>&nbsp;The baptism of John-&nbsp;</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;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Was it from Heaven, or from men? Answer me-&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;&nbsp;</p><p>The 'naturalness' of Jesus becomes all the more powerful when we grasp Biblically that Jesus is our representative; exactly because He was really, genuinely human, He is such a natural and powerful imperative to us in our behaviour. Take, for example, His perception of His own baptism. Surely why He went through with it was to show His solidarity with us, who would later be baptized. He lined up along the banks along with big time sinners, nobodies, dear old grannies, weirdos, starry-eyed youngsters, village people stuck in the monotony of a hand-to-mouth existence, all of them standing there probably half-naked::. and took His turn to be baptized. When asked later to account for His authority, Jesus asked whether His questioners accepted John's baptism as from Heaven or from men (<em><a href='B:480 11:30'>Mar 11:30</a></em>). This wasn't merely a diversionary question; it was dead relevant. His authority was partly because He had been baptized by John. This was how much John's baptism inspired Him. It meant so much to Him, to have been thus identified with us. And it was that very identification with humanity, as the "son of Man", that gave Him His authority.</p>


text:
<p>11:31&nbsp;<em>And they reasoned among themselves, saying: If we shall say: From Heaven- he will say: 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 :33 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>11:32&nbsp;<em>But if we say: From men- they were in fear of the people. For all truly held John to be a prophet</em>- Although we would all agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it is quite possible that we fail to&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;this as we might when we read it. The people "verily held John to be a prophet" (<em><a href='B:480 11:32'>Mar 11:32</a></em> RV) but they rejoiced only for a short time in the light of his words. They rejected his most essential message- whilst still believing he was an inspired prophet. Or, thinking they believed he was.</p>


text:
<p>11:33&nbsp;<em>And they answered Jesus, saying: We do not know. And Jesus said to them: Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things</em>- See on :31. They knew in their hearts the answer to both their question and the Lord's question. Their sin in having Him crucified was therefore the greater; for they recognized His Divine authority, and perceived that "This is the heir::.". Likewise the Lord rarely stated that He was the Christ or God's Son; He left that to be worked out by inference from His words and works. And this is why God's revelation to us in His word the Bible is as it Is. There is no set of 20 bullet points to be grasped, no statement of faith preserved. We are to work things out by inference, for thereby our personal conviction of them will be the more powerful and personal.</p>


text:
<p>12:1&nbsp;<em>And he began to speak to them in parables-</em>&nbsp;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><h4>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>".</h4><p><em>A man planted a vineyard-</em>&nbsp;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. 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-&nbsp;</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).</p><p><em>And dug a pit for the winepress-&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;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. And He likewise provides us with an optimal environment for spirituality, much as we are tempted to think He has it wrong on some points.</p><p><em>And rented it to husbandmen. Then he 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:
<p>12:2&nbsp;<em>And at the season-&nbsp;</em>Matthew: "And when the harvest season drew near", a phrase used by Matthew about the drawing near of the Kingdom at Christ's time (3:2; 4:17). 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.</p><p><em>He sent-</em>&nbsp;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>To the husbandmen a servant, so he might receive from the husbandmen the fruits of the vineyard</em>- The prophets are God's servants (<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. But we wonder whether there was one initial prophet in view here? Matthew says there were two groups of servants, and this is perhaps an allusion to the Jewish distinction between the “former prophets” and the “latter prophets”.</p>


text:
<p>12:3<em>&nbsp;And they took him and beat him, and sent him away empty handed</em>- Paul several times uses the word to express his fear that his preaching and pastoral labour had been "in vain" s:w. "empty", e:g. <em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>. His aim, as our aim, was spiritual fruit in people, to see the fruits of the Spirit revealed in a convert. Where this is lacking we come away empty handed as it were, just like the Old Testament prophets. The parable suggests that the more Israel were asked for spiritual fruit, the more angry and abusive they progressively became towards the servants who required that fruit from them. And so often, those who call others on their real spirituality are hated and finally destroyed by them.</p>


text:
<p>12:4&nbsp;<em>And again he sent to them another servant- and him they wounded in the head and handled shamefully</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. "Handled shamefully" is s:w. <em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em> LXX "despised". The Old Testament prophets suffered aspects of what the Lord suffered at their hands.</p>


text:
<p>12:5&nbsp;<em>And he sent another- and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some</em>- Matthew adds stoning to these insults. 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>12:6<em>&nbsp;He had one other, a beloved son. He sent him last to them, saying: They will reverence my son</em>-It is noteworthy that the parable of <em><a href='B:480 12:6'>Mar 12:6</a></em> has Jesus describing Himself as both a servant- the last servant- and the only beloved son of the vineyard owner.</p><p><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, between 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. 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><p>“Surely they will reverence my Son” is the thought imputed to Almighty God in the parable, as He sends His only Son to seek for spiritual response in Israel. The parable frames God as almost naive in believing that although Israel had killed the prophets, they would reverence the Word made flesh, and the speaking of God to them in Him. Yet of course God knew what would happen; but in order to express the extraordinary, unenterable extent of His hopefulness, He is framed in this way. Just as the Father thought that His people “surely” would reverence His Son, so He was ‘certain’ that if His people went to Babylon in captivity, “surely then shalt you be ashamed… for all your wickedness” (<em><a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a></em>). But the reality was that they grew to like the soft life of Babylon and refused to obey the command to return to God’s land. Such was and is the hopefulness of God. The Father had the same attitude to Israel in Old Testament times: “I thought that after she had done all this, she would return to me, but she did not” (<em><a href='B:300 3:7'>Jer 3:7</a></em> NIV). The Lord Jesus reflected the Father’s positive spirit in the way He framed the parable of the prodigal son to feature the Heavenly Father as running out to meet the returning son, falling on his neck and kissing him… in&nbsp;<em>exactly</em>&nbsp;the language of <em><a href='B:10 33:4'>Gen 33:4</a></em> about Esau doing this to Jacob. The connection can’t be denied; but what was the Lord’s point? Surely He was willing to see something positive in the otherwise fleshly Esau at that time, He as it were took a snapshot of Esau at that moment… and applied it to God Himself, in His extravagant grace towards an unworthy Jacob. This was how positive minded the Lord was in His reading of even the darkest characters.</p>


text:
<p>12:7&nbsp;<em>But those husbandmen said among themselves-&nbsp;</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" (<em><a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a></em>)</p><p><em>This is the heir-</em>&nbsp;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><h4><em>Come, let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours</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.</h4>


text:
<p>12:8&nbsp;<em>And they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard</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 to Matthew: 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 (:10). 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 (<em><a href='B:470 21:43'>Mat 21:43</a></em>) will themselves be cast out of the Kingdom at the last day.</p>


text:
<p>12:9- see on <em><a href='B:480 8:34-37'>Mar 8:34-37</a></em>.</p><p><em>What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do?-&nbsp;</em>The Lord’s parable of the vineyard is shot through with allusions to the vineyard parable of Isaiah 5. When the Lord asks “What will the lord of the vineyard do?”, those who picked up the Isaiah 5 allusions would have found the answer in <em><a href='B:290 5:4-5'>Isa 5:4-5</a></em>: “What… to do… what I will do”.</p><p><em>He will come-&nbsp;</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" (<em><a href='B:470 21:9'>Mat 21:9</a></em>). 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><p><em>And destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others</em>- 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>


text:
<p>12:10&nbsp;<em>Have you not read in the scripture-&nbsp;</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-&nbsp;</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>). In the metaphor, the builders were supposed to use the stone, to manipulate it and use it as important material; and build a temple upon it. But they rejected the cornerstone, and so they didn't build a temple. That is what the metaphor implies. The Jews considered that the building of a temple was the work of Messiah; but they refused to build it, because they rejected Jesus as Christ. And so the Messianic Kingdom didn't come; there was no Messianic temple built by them, because they rejected the cornerstone.</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>


text:
<p>12:11&nbsp;<em>This was from the Lord 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 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>12:12&nbsp;<em>And they sought to arrest him; but they feared the crowd. For they perceived that he had spoken that parable against them; and they left him and went away</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. Their "seeking" to arrest Him is 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;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;We see the fickleness of the crowd. They were soon crying for the Lord's blood:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:13&nbsp;<em>And they sent to him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him out in his teaching</em>- The same word used of how&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to be entangled or caught up in condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 21:35'>Luk 21:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:9'>Rom 11:9</a></em>). As they treated the Lord, so they were treated. Our attitude to Him is in a way our attitude to ourselves and our eternal destiny. 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>


text:
<p>12:14&nbsp;<em>And when they arrived, they said to him: Teacher, we know you are truthful and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God-</em>&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:500 10:13'>Joh 10:13</a></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;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>Not caring about others' opinion 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><p><em>Is it lawful-</em>&nbsp;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>12:15&nbsp;<em>Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them: Why do you test me?-&nbsp;</em>Matthew has "their wickedness". 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;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<em>:&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><p><em>Bring me a denarius, that I may look at it</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 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><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>12:16&nbsp;<em>And they brought it. And he said to them: Whose is this image and inscription? And they said to him: Caesar's-&nbsp;</em>He was setting them up for His point that whatever bears God's image and superscription is to be given to Him; 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>12:17&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled greatly at him</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>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><h4>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. 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.</h4>


text:
<p>12:18&nbsp;<em>And there came to him Sadducees (these say that there is no resurrection)-</em>&nbsp;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>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>12:19&nbsp;<em>Teacher, Moses wrote to us-&nbsp;</em>The Lord picks this up in His answer in <em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>: “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>If a man's brother dies and leaves a wife behind him and leaves no children, then his brother should take 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>12:20&nbsp;<em>There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died leaving no seed</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>12:21&nbsp;<em>And the second took her, and died leaving no seed behind him, and the third likewise</em>- As noted on :20, this was clearly not a true story.</p>


text:
<p>12:22&nbsp;<em>And the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died</em>- She would have been judged to be a most unfortunate woman, likely under God’s judgment (see on :20). 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>12:23&nbsp;<em>In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be? For the seven had her as wife</em>- 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>12:24&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to them: Is not the reason you err that you do not know the scriptures, nor the power of God?</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. The scriptures and God's power 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” (<em><a href='B:470 22:43'>Mat 22:43</a></em>)- the Psalms were inspired as much as the Torah.</p>


text:
<p>12:25&nbsp;<em>For when they shall rise from the dead-&nbsp;</em>Why does the Lord speak of the Kingdom of God as “the resurrection” (Mt:)? 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>&nbsp;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 as the angels in heaven</em>-</p><p>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>12:26&nbsp;<em>But concerning the dead, that they are raised, have you not read in the book of Moses-&nbsp;</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>In the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him-&nbsp;</em>Comparing with Matthew's record, 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><em>Saying: 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.</p>


text:
<p>12:27&nbsp;<em>He is not the God of the dead but of the living-&nbsp;</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><p><em>You do err greatly</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>


text:
<p>12:28&nbsp;<em>And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing; and knowing that he had answered them well, he asked him: What commandment is the first of all?</em>- 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 <em><a href='B:470 22:37'>Mat 22:37</a></em>).</p>


text:
<h4>12:29&nbsp;<em>Jesus answered: The first is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one</em>- The Lord Jesus taught that the command that God was one and therefore we must love God&nbsp;<em>included&nbsp;</em>the second command: to love our neighbour as ourselves. The first and second commands were in fact one command; they were inseparably part of the first commandment (<em><a href='B:480 12:29-31'>Mar 12:29-31</a></em>). This is why the 'two' commandments, to love God and neighbour, are spoken of in the singular in <em><a href='B:490 10:28'>Luk 10:28</a></em>: "<em>this</em>&nbsp;do…". See on <em><a href='B:470 22:40'>Mat 22:40</a></em>:&nbsp;<br/>The Lord was asked which was the first (i:e. the most important) commandment; we would expect Him to just recite one of them, and to say 'Well, there you are, that's my answer; that's the first one, either numerically, or in terms of importance'. But in reply to this request to name just one of the ten commandments, He actually quotes two of them. There is no greater command (singular) than these&nbsp;<em>two</em>. So the Lord saw those two commands as one, the greatest, most important principle of our life before God. Yet He begins by speaking of the unity of God as expressed in His memorial Name, Yahweh your elohim, and says that&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;is what will lead to us loving God with all we have, and also to our loving our neighbour as ourselves. The Lord is saying that if we really appreciate this idea of the unity of God, that Yahweh is our God, then we will&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;love God, and also our neighbour. So what does it mean, to love our neighbour as ourselves? In the context of the Decalogue, the neighbour of the Israelite would have been his fellow Israelite, not the Gentile who lived next door to him. The command to love our neighbour as ourselves is elsewhere given an equivalent under the new Covenant: to love our brother or sister in the ecclesia as ourselves. <em><a href='B:550 5:14'>Gal 5:14</a></em> and <em><a href='B:660 2:8'>Jas 2:8</a></em> quote this command in the context of ecclesial life.</h4><p>The Lord said that the first, the most important, of the commandments was that God is one Yahweh. He didn't see this as an abstract doctrine. He saw the doctrine of the unity of God as a command, it demands behaviour in response to it. He saw the unity of God as part and parcel of the command to love our neighbour as ourselves. Why? Surely He saw that the facts that God's Name is one, and all His people are in some way&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;His Name, mean that we must love others in that Name as much as we love ourselves and as much as we love God. Now apply this to the phenomena of Christian disillusion with the church. We are&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;God, and God is one. So we are all one with each other. Loving our neighbour in Christ as ourselves is placed parallel with loving God with all our heart, strength etc. This means that the main drive of our service to God should be devoted to loving our brother, our neighbour. All those who are baptized into the Name must be loved as we love ourselves. This in itself sinks the possibility of a 'desert island' existence. We just can't live alone. We can't quit on the brotherhood if we want to love God. And this tough, far reaching conclusion comes from knowing that God is one, and all in Him are therefore one. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:30&nbsp;<em>And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength</em>- See on <em><a href='B:590 1:2'>1Th 1:2</a></em>. 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, you shall 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>12:31&nbsp;<em>The second is this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself-&nbsp;</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><p><em>There is no other commandment greater than these</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>


text:
<p>12:32&nbsp;<em>And the scribe said to him: Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, that He is one and there is no other but He-&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;In the same way as we cannot choose to live in isolation from the Father and Son, so we cannot separate ourselves from others who bear the same Name. The Scribe well understood all this: "There is one God::. and to love him::. and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:480 12:32-33'>Mar 12:32-33</a></em>). Those whole offerings represented the whole body of Israel (<em><a href='B:30 4:7-15'>Lev 4:7-15</a></em>). The Scribe understood that those offerings taught that all Israel were unified together on account of their bearing the same Name of Yahweh. We must love others who bear that Name "as ourselves", so intense is the unity between us. In some ways, we should lose the sense of our own self interest; we should somehow be able to have the same spiritual interest in others (for this is true love) as we do for ourselves. So this sense of true selflessness which we would dearly desire is connected with an appreciation of the doctrine of the intense unity of God and of His Name, and of the glorious principle of God manifestation. By sharing the one Name, we are one together. See on <em><a href='B:500 5:23'>Joh 5:23</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>12:33&nbsp;<em>And to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices</em>- The Scribe said that the most important commandment to love God “with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly (Gk. ‘in an intellect-having way’), He said unto him, Thou art not far from the Kingdom”. Notice how ‘understanding’ with the intellect is put higher in the list than loving one’s neighbour. The fundamental thing is to correctly understand, and this will naturally lead to a life of practical love. Our surrounding ‘Christian’ world has inverted this order; love of neighbour has been placed above correct understanding of God. Because the Scribe answered in an intellect-having way, the Saviour said that He was near to the Kingdom. To reach the Kingdom therefore involves correct understanding. The words of <em><a href='B:480 12:33'>Mar 12:33</a></em> allude to a number of OT passages which likewise show the superiority of knowledge and practical service over sacrifices (<em><a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 6:6-8'>Mic 6:6-8</a></em>). Putting them together we find the following parallels:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>To obey God’s word</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To listen to God’s word&nbsp;</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To show mercy</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To know God&nbsp;</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To be humble and just</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To understand God&nbsp;</td><td>is better than sacrifice</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Understanding God, hearing His word, knowing God (all acts of the intellect) are therefore paralleled with practical things like loving out neighbour, showing mercy, justice etc. These practical things are an outcome of our correct knowledge of God:&nbsp;&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p>12:34&nbsp;<em>And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him: You are not far from the kingdom of God. And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions</em>- A correct&nbsp;<em>understanding</em>&nbsp;of the Law and the sacrifices meant that a man was near the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:480 12:34'>Mar 12:34</a></em>). The principles of the Lord's Kingdom, His rulership over men, were taught throughout the Old Testament. These very words about asking no more questions 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>12:35&nbsp;<em>And Jesus asked, as he taught in the temple: Why do the scribes say that the Christ is 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. <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?”. But Matthew says He asked the Pharisees. 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. <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>12:36&nbsp;<em>David himself said in the Holy Spirit: The Lord said-&nbsp;</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 on My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet</em>- The Lord’s enemies stood around Him as He applied this Psalm to Himself:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:37&nbsp;<em>David himself calls him Lord; and how is he therefore his son? And the common people heard him gladly</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>). 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? The Lord reinforced the question by asking “<em>From whence</em>&nbsp;is He his son?” (AV). 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</p>


text:
<p>12:38&nbsp;<em>And in his teaching he said: Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes and to have 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>


text:
<p>12:39&nbsp;<em>And the chief seats in the synagogues and chief places at feasts</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;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>12:40&nbsp;<em>They that devour widows' houses-&nbsp;</em>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>And for a pretence make long prayers-&nbsp;</em>They were hypocrites. 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 Mark 12. 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;&nbsp;</p><p><em>These shall receive greater condemnation</em>- There will be degrees of punishment, although it will be self-inflicted.</p>


text:
<p>12:41&nbsp;<em>And he sat down over against the treasury, and watched how the crowd threw money into the treasury; and many that were rich threw in a lot</em>- The many small coins they threw in make a loud clanging noise in the collection trumpets. They were literally trumpeting their good deeds before men in God's house. The widow threw in the same kind of coins which they threw in in abundance. What she threw in was scarcely audible to men; but the Lord noticed. The only other references to the Lord sitting are to Him sitting in judgment. And that judgment was ongoing even then; it does and will finally take into account the things not audible to men.</p>


text:
<p>12:42&nbsp;<em>And there came a poor widow, and she threw in two small copper coins, which make a penny</em>- The Lord taught that one must forsake all that he has in order to truly be His disciple (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). But at the end of His ministry, He as it were chose to exemplify this aspect of discipleship by drawing attention to a woman who gave to God “all the living that she had” (<em><a href='B:490 21:3'>Luk 21:3</a></em>). Putting the passages together, the Lord is saying that she is to be the model for us all in this aspect of devotion. She could have kept one of the coins; but she threw both of them in.</p>


text:
<p>12:43&nbsp;<em>And he gathered his disciples, and said to them: Truly I say to you, this poor widow threw in more than all they that are throwing money into the treasury</em>- See on <em><a href='B:540 8:11-12'>2Co 8:11-12</a></em>. They were needed to be gathered together to hear this teaching; they had not noticed it, or not been impressed by what the woman did. So clearly, God accounts not as man does. We are judged according to our possibilities and not according to volume of achievement. She threw in "more", literally she 'exceeded', that the others had thrown in. The same word is used of how our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>). She is again presented as the model disciple. The word has just been used&nbsp;in :33 of how love of God and neighbour is "more" than all sacrifices. She achieved that love not by volume of achievement but in her attitude.</p>


text:
<p>12:44<em>&nbsp;For they threw in money they didn't need, but she though needy threw in all that she had- all her livelihood</em>-The Lord condemned the Pharisees for devouring widow’s houses (<em><a href='B:480 12:40'>Mar 12:40</a></em>), but then goes on to show how the widow who threw in all her wealth to the treasuries of the corrupt Pharisees had actually gained great approval in God’s eyes by doing so (<em><a href='B:480 12:44'>Mar 12:44</a></em>). Out of evil, good came. The Lord didn’t just lament the cruel selfishness of the Jewish leadership. He pointed out how God worked through even this to enable a poor woman to please Him immensely. There is a wondrous ecology in all this; nothing is lost. Nothing, in the final end, can be done against the Truth, only for the Truth.</p><p>The Lord pointed out to the disciples how the extreme generosity of the widow, giving the two pennies of her business capital, her "living", to the Lord, was worth far more than the ostentatious giving of the wealthy Jewish leadership (<em><a href='B:480 12:44'>Mar 12:44</a></em>); but the next incident recorded by Mark is the disciples marvelling at the ostentatious buildings of the temple, and the Lord explaining that all this needed to be thrown down (<em><a href='B:480 13:1-2'>Mar 13:1-2</a></em>). Their slowness to perceive is such a theme of the gospel records.</p>


text:
<p>13:1&nbsp;<em>And as he left the temple-</em>&nbsp;This was a visual depiction of the Lord's previous statement that the house of the temple was now left desolate (<em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>). The Lord surely had in mind how the glory of God, which was Him (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:27'>Col 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>), progressively left the temple in Ezekiel's time, until the Babylonians came and destroyed the temple (<em><a href='B:330 10:18'>Eze 10:18</a></em>), and how the loss of the ark (another symbol of the Lord Jesus) was the glory departing from Israel (<em><a href='B:90 4:21-22'>1Sa 4:21-22</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>One of his disciples said to him: Teacher, look what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings</em>- These words are taken over in the later New Testament to describe the building up often translated 'edifying' of a new temple, comprised of the believers in Christ. The temple buildings were thrown down&nbsp;<em>in order that</em>&nbsp;a new and spiritual building comprised of believers could be built up through the Lord's work in the hearts of His people. The group of believers are "All the building which grows into a holy temple in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:560 2:21'>Eph 2:21</a></em>). Paul, writing before AD70, may have had this contrast indirectly in mind when he wrote that when the earthly house is destroyed, we should remember that we have a "house not made with hands" built by God (<em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>). The same struggle and angst at the loss of physical structures of our religion can be seen today; some find it hard to believe that relationship with God is ultimately personal, and that relationship continues even when surrounding, much loved traditional structures are removed.</p>


text:
<p>13:2&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to him: Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another. All will be thrown down</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>The judgment of the leprous house was to be thrown down, stone by stone (<em><a href='B:30 14:41'>Lev 14:41</a></em>). At the time of the final assault on Jerusalem in AD69, Titus commanded that the temple was to be spared. But the Lord's words came true, just as all prophetic words will, despite every human effort to deny their power. Josephus claims that the gold of the temple melted and therefore each stone was prized apart to remove the gold.</p><p>There was a strong belief in Judaism that the temple would last eternally. Hence the disciples’ question about “the end of the age” was because for them, any talk about the end of the temple meant the end of the world. 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. 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, a 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>13:3&nbsp;<em>And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately</em>- The private enquiry was because the Lord had just stated something dangerously illegal. 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.</p>


text:
<p>13:4&nbsp;<em>Tell us, when will these things occur, and what shall be the sign when these things are about to happen?</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>). The disciples (in their childish way) showed the Lord the greatness of the temple, and he commented that soon it would be destroyed. They asked the obvious question: When? Usually, the Lord didn't reply directly to questions; 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 they 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. The Lord answered their question by speaking of how there would be the destruction of the temple, but his real coming and the main 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/>13:5 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>.<br/>13:9 When the Lord said that His people would preach before rulers ‘for a witness / testimony against them’ (<em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>), we are left wondering when and how exactly this will be. It’s hard to come to any other conclusion than that this refers to how our words of preaching will be quoted back to the hearers at the judgment. It’s an incidental proof that it is hearing the word of the Gospel that makes a person responsible to the last judgment. But in our context, my point is that our words of preaching in this life will be quoted back to those who heard them, at the day of judgment. The simple point is, our words aren’t forgotten. They will be quoted back, in some form, at the day of judgment. And yet it appears we can speak and think how we like in this life. Indeed we can; but all these things will ultimately surface again in the last day.</p>


text:
<h4>13:5&nbsp;<em>And Jesus began to say to them-&nbsp;</em>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>.</h4><p><em>Take heed that no one lead you astray</em>- “Be not deceived" 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: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 the Lord 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>13:6&nbsp;<em>Many shall come in my name, saying, I am he-&nbsp;</em>Coming in the name of the Lord, the "I am", 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>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><p><em>And shall lead many astray</em>- Warnings against being deceived are a major theme in the Lord's message here (<em><a href='B:470 24:5'>Mat 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:11'>Mat 24:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>13:7&nbsp;<em>And when you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be disturbed. These things must take place, but the end is not yet</em>- 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 to the other records "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>They were not to be terrified / disturbed. 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>). 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>). 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>). 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;&nbsp;</p><p>These things were necessary (Mt:), they must happen (Lk:), must take place (Mk:). 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 (5:18). 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" (10:22; 24:13). 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.</p>


