# comment

text:
<p>Notes</p><p>(1) F:F. Bruce, <em>Paul: Apostle&nbsp; Of The Free Spirit</em> (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), p. 96</p><p>(2) It is quite possible that Paul heard most of the speeches recorded in the Gospels, and saw many of the miracles. The reason is as follows. Every faithful Jew would have been in Jerusalem to keep the feasts three times per year. Jesus and Paul were therefore together in Jerusalem three times / year, throughout Christ's ministry. It can be demonstrated that many of the miracles and speeches of Jesus occurred around the feast times, in Jerusalem. Therefore I estimate that at least 70% of the content of the Gospels (including John) Paul actually saw and heard 'live'. Another indirect reason for believing that Paul had met and heard Jesus preaching is from the fact that Paul describes himself as having been brought up as a Pharisee, because his father had been one (<em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>). Martin Hengel has shown extensive evidence to believe that the Pharisees only really operated in Palestine, centred in Jerusalem, where Paul was “brought up” at the feet of Gamaliel (<em><a href='B:510 22:3'>Act 22:3</a></em>). Hengel also shows that “brought up” refers to training from a young child. So whilst Paul was born in Tarsus, he was really a Jerusalem boy. Almost certainly he would have heard and known much about Jesus; his father may even have been amongst those who persecuted the Lord. See Martin Hengel, <em>The Pre-Christian Paul</em> (London: SCM, 1991).</p><p>(3) There are other hints of this. Consider <em><a href='B:530 9:14'>1Co 9:14</a></em>, where Paul says that Christ ordained that preachers should be paid by the congregation. Or <em><a href='B:480 14:58'>Mar 14:58</a></em> records people quoting Jesus as saying that he would build another temple "made without hands" . Yet those words are not recorded in the Gospels. However, Paul seems to allude to the idea of Christ as a temple "made without hands" in <em><a href='B:650 9:11'>Heb 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>. Perhaps he knew Christ had said those words and was alluding to them.</p><p>(4) F:F. Bruce, <em>The Books And The Parchments</em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) p. 107.</p><p>(5) C:H. Dodd, <em>The Interpretation Of The Fourth Gospel</em> (Cambridge: C:U:P:, 1960) p. 9. </p><p>(6) See the discussion of Mary Magdalene in <em>Gospel News</em>, Vol. 9 No. 5, May / June 1996.</p><p>(7) Richard Bauckham, <em>Jesus And The Eyewitnesses: The Gospels As Eyewitness Testimony </em>(Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006). </p><p>(8) Bauckham, <em>ibid. </em>p. 406. </p><p>(9) Detailed analysis of each case in Gerd Theissen, <em>The Gospels In Context</em> (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) pp. 171-174. </p><h4>Memorizing Scripture</h4><h4>To learn a Gospel <em>is</em> a possibility. I knew two English Christians who could recite all four of them. One, admittedly, was an intellectual of above average ability. The other: a school caretaker who read his Gospels in a council flat on a rough South London estate, with an unbelieving wife. After our Sunday School lesson, we'd always put Jimmy to the test. "Go on Uncle Jimmy, Luke 10". And out it came. "John 2". Word perfect, as we followed in our Bibles. Jimmy, beloved Sunday School teacher, I salute you, for your unfeigned love of our Lord Jesus, and for your inspiration:&nbsp; Between them, those two brethren answer all the excuses. Got too much in your mind already because of your job and profession? Harry did it, in the twentieth century; and Paul did it in the first. Too much of a simple soul, not your kind of scene? Jimmy did it, Cockney accent and all. And so did Peter. Yet my sense is that none of them set out to do it. They ended&nbsp;up like that because they loved their Lord, and therefore the word of His grace. It was sweet, truly sweet, to their taste. My point is, quite simply: it <em>is</em> possible, if you want to, here and now in this life, amidst the hustle and bustle of London, Toronto, Moscow, Jo'burg, Nairobi, Manila, Hong Kong::. amidst the slow, steady life of a Devon village, the petty gossip and small talk of a small town in the Baltics, or in rural Ontario, or an isolated Siberian village. It <em>is</em> possible, for every one of you. And for me too:&nbsp; </h4><p>As a digression, there is evidence within the text of the NT, in addition to church tradition, which would suggest that memorizing Scripture was a common feature of the early believers:</p><p>- "Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah:::?" (<em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em>) suggests that Paul expected them to know this passage. "What the Scripture <em>says</em>" rather than "what is written" might suggest that they learnt these passages by heart and spoke them out loud, probably because the majority of the early believers were either illiterate or had no access to the manuscripts. </p><p>- A passage in Psalms 118 is referred to in <em><a href='B:490 20:18'>Luk 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:6-8'>1Pe 2:6-8</a></em>. One wonders if this was a proof text which the early believers would have known by heart. And one wonders likewise about Psalms 2 - it is referred to so often.</p><p>- The early believers remained devoted to the instruction (lit. 'doctrinizing') given by the apostles. This might suggest rote learning. </p><p>- The twelve gave themselves continually to "the ministry of the word" (<em><a href='B:510 6:4'>Act 6:4</a></em>); using a phrase used in contemporary literature to describe how the synagogue minister made pupils memorize Scripture texts. Hence Paul reminds the Ephesians to "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He said::."; not, 'how it is written' (for the Gospels were in circulation by this time). He jogged their memory of one of the texts they ought to have memorized (<em><a href='B:510 20:35'>Act 20:35</a></em>).</p><p>- The letters of Peter and John are likewise shot through with allusion to the Gospels, conscious and unconscious. Peter uses Scriptures like Psalms 110, 118 in exactly the same way as he heard the Lord use them (<em><a href='B:510 6:4'>Act 6:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 22:44'>Mat 22:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>). A list could be compiled for Peter's allusions to the Lord as I have for Paul's. It may be that Peter's difficult reference to the spirits in prison (<em><a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a></em>) is a reference to Isaiah 61 in the same way as Christ used it in <em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>. This point is meaningless without an appreciation of the extent to which Christ's words featured in the writing and thought of Peter. </p><p>- The Old Testament as well as the New is written in such a way as to encourage memorization, although this is often masked by the translation. There are several devices commonly used to assist in this. Not least is alliteration, i:e. similarly sounding syllables: <em>Pantote Peri Panton</em> (<em><a href='B:590 1:2'>1Th 1:2</a></em>); <em>&nbsp;</em>Pol<em>ymer</em>os <em>kai </em>pol<em>ytrop</em>os(<em><a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a></em>); <em>hautee protee entolee</em> (<em><a href='B:480 12:30'>Mar 12:30</a></em>); <em>aphthar</em>ton am<em>ian</em>ton am<em>ara</em>nton (<em><a href='B:670 1:3-4'>1Pe 1:3-4</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:620 3:2-3'>2Ti 3:2-3</a></em> nearly all words end in (-oi), the masculine plural case termination- when it would surely have been possible to construct the sentence in another way. "We have piped unto you, and you have not danced (<em>orcheesasthe</em>); we have mourned unto you and you have not lamented (<em>ekopsasthe</em>)" (<em><a href='B:470 11:17'>Mat 11:17</a></em>) could be dynamically rendered: 'We piped for you, and you never stept; we dirged for you, and you never wept". It has been pointed out that if some NT passages are translated into Aramaic, the common language of the day in first century Israel, there would have been ample encouragement for memorization. Thus: We preach Christ crucified (<em>mishkal</em>), unto the Jews a stumblingblock (<em>mikshol</em>), and unto the Greeks foolishness (<em>sekel</em>), but unto them that are called::. the power (<em>hishkeel</em>) of God and the wisdom (<em>sekel</em>) of God" (<em><a href='B:530 1:23-24'>1Co 1:23-24</a></em>). The device of acrostic Psalms 9, 10, 25, 34, 37, 119, 145 (<em><a href='B:230 9:1'>Psa 9:1</a></em>, <em><a href='B:230 10:1'>Psa 10:1</a></em>, <em><a href='B:230 25:1'>Psa 25:1</a></em>, <em><a href='B:230 34:1'>Psa 34:1</a></em>, <em><a href='B:230 37:1'>Psa 37:1</a></em>, <em><a href='B:230 119:1'>Psa 119:1</a></em>, <em><a href='B:230 145:1'>Psa 145:1</a></em>) and the use of acrostics in Lamentations and Esther would likewise enable the reciting of them. The repetition of the same word at the beginning of successive sentences is yet another such feature (<em><a href='B:50 28:3-6'>Deu 28:3-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 1:18'>Jer 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 3:4'>Hos 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:4'>1Co 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:11'>2Co 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:12'>Eph 6:12</a></em>). The same phrase is also sometimes repeated at the beginning and end of a sentence with the same effect (<em><a href='B:20 32:16'>Exo 32:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 23:25'>2Ki 23:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 122:7-8'>Psa 122:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 7:14-16'>Mar 7:14-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:5'>Luk 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:8'>Joh 3:8</a></em> <em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em> Gk:). &nbsp; </p><p>It was expected that the disciples of rabbis memorized their teaching (1), and there's no reason to doubt that the Lord's disciples, both those who immediately heard Him and those who subsequently became disciples of their invisible Heavenly rabbi, would likewise have memorized the gospel records of His words. This would account for the way they are arranged [Mark especially] as series of 'pericopes', small bite-sized sections which lend themselves to memorization. This would explain how Paul can use technical terms for handing on a tradition (<em>paradidomi</em>, <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:23'>1Co 11:23</a></em>) and receiving it (<em>paralambano</em>, <em><a href='B:530 15:1'>1Co 15:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:3'>1Co 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:19'>Gal 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:6'>Col 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:13'>1Th 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:1'>1Th 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:6'>2Th 3:6</a></em>); and of faithfully retaining the tradition (<em>katecho</em>, <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:2'>1Co 15:2</a></em>; <em>krateo</em>, <em><a href='B:600 2:15'>2Th 2:15</a></em>); matched perhaps by John's insistence in his letters that the converts retain that teaching which they received "from the beginning". And so it wouldn't at all be unreasonable to expect that the early Christians memorized a Gospel, perhaps the one they had been taught by the initial preacher of Christ whom they had encountered- be it the account of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Jesus was a wandering rabbi, and "a rabbi was usually someone who had ordered his own teaching into a <em>mishnah</em> (a memorized "repetition") for his disciples to commit to memory and repeat" (2).</p><p>Notes<br/>(1) Alfred Edersheim (<em>The Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah</em>) and J:W. Wenham (<em>Christ And The Bible</em>, Tyndale, 1972) give examples of how even quite ordinary Jews in first century times could quote large sections of the Old Testament verbatim.</p><p>(2) Bruce Chilton, <em>Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography</em> (New York: Random House, 2005) p. 82. </p><p><em><a href='B:470 1:1'>Mat 1:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The book of the generation</em>- “Book”, Gk:&nbsp;<em>biblos</em>, suggests a formal volume. It could be that Matthew refers only to the genealogy- but in this case,&nbsp;<em>biblos</em>&nbsp;hardly seems the appropriate word. The Gospels were transcripts of the Gospel message preached by e:g. Matthew, and as time went on and the Lord didn’t return, under inspiration they wrote down their standard accounts of the good news. The Greek&nbsp;<em>genesis</em>&nbsp;translated “generation” is also translated “nature” in its’ other two occurrences (<em><a href='B:660 1:23'>Jas 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:6'>Jas 3:6</a></em>). If the “book” refers to the book of the Gospel of Matthew, the idea could be that this is a Gospel which focuses upon the nature of Jesus. Related words occur often in the genealogies- people “begat” [Gk:&nbsp;<em>gennao</em>] their descendants, until Jesus was&nbsp;<em>gennao</em>&nbsp;of Mary (<em><a href='B:470 1:16'>Mat 1:16</a></em>). Jesus as a person had a ‘genesis’, He was ‘generated’ by Mary as His ancestors had been ‘generated’ by the ‘generations’ of their ancestors- the whole chapter is a huge blow to the idea that Jesus pre-existed as a person before His birth. His ‘generation’ is presented as being of the same nature as the ‘generation’ of His human ancestors.</p><p><em>The son of David, the son of Abraham</em>- The Roman emperors and Greek heroes sometimes traced their pedigree back to a god- and therefore the genealogy of Jesus, whom the Gospels present as the ultimate Emperor, is quite radical in this regard. For it traces the pedigree of Jesus back to a man, Abraham. The greatness of Jesus was in his humanity.</p>


text:
<p>1:2&nbsp;<em>Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah and his brothers</em>- The fact Isaac and Jacob had brothers is carefully omitted- because the descendants of Ishmael and Esau were not counted as the people of God.</p>


text:
<p>1:3&nbsp;<em>Judah begot Perez and Zerah of Tamar and Perez begot Hezron, Hezron begot Ram</em>- Since the Lord was descended through the line of Phares, why mention the birth of Zara- seeing that so many details are omitted in this genealogy, even whole generations, why take space to record this? Perhaps it was because Zara was the first born, but Phares got the birthright. And the genealogies teach us how God delights to work through the underling, the rejected, the humanly weak.</p><p>Tamar was a prostitute and adulteress, just like Rahab. See on 1:5.</p>


text:
<p>1:4&nbsp;<em>Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, Nahshon begot Salmon-&nbsp;</em>Salmon was of the tribe of Judah, because this is the genealogy through Judah (<em><a href='B:470 1:2'>Mat 1:2</a></em>). The two spies who had been faithful the first time when spies were sent out were Joshua and Caleb- of the tribes of Ephraim and Judah (<em><a href='B:40 13:6'>Num 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:9'>Jdg 2:9</a></em>). It seems a fair guess that when the two spies were sent out, they were from these same two tribes. Salmon was a prince of the tribe of Judah- it’s a fair guess that he was one of the two spies who went to Rahab, and he subsequently married her.</p>


text:
<p>1:5<em>&nbsp;Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab and Boaz begot Obed of Ruth and Obed begot Jesse-&nbsp;</em>Rahab was a Gentile and a sinner. Jesus was morally perfect, and yet the genealogy shows how He had much against Him spiritually. We can’t blame our lack of spirituality upon our bad background. Note that there was so much intermarriage with Gentiles like Rahab and Ruth throughout Israel’s history; their standing with God was therefore never on the basis of ethnic purity, but rather by cultural identity and God’s grace:&nbsp;Matthew’s genealogy features [unusually, for Jewish genealogies] several women, who had become the ancestors of Messiah through unusual relationships. It’s almost as if the genealogy is there in the form that it is to pave the way for the account of Mary’s conception of Jesus without a man.</p>


text:
<p>1:6&nbsp;<em>Jesse begot David the king</em>- Literally “<em>the&nbsp;</em>David&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;king”. The others aren’t mentioned as being kings. The implication may be that Jesus was the promised descendant of David and the promises of eternal Kingship made to David’s descendant are therefore applicable to Jesus.</p><p><em>And David begot Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah-&nbsp;</em>Literally “she of Uriah”. “She that had been the wife of” is added by some translators in explanation, but isn’t in the original. Whilst God ‘forgets’ sin in the sense that He no longer holds it against us, the memory of those sins isn’t obliterated, and His word is full of such allusions to sin which although He has forgiven it and symbolically “blotted it out”, it still remains within Divine history. We too can forgive but ‘forgetting’ isn’t always possible, and is no sign that we have failed to forgive.</p>


text:
<p>1:7&nbsp;<em>And Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, Abijah begot Asa&nbsp;</em>- Wicked Roboam begat wicked Abia; wicked Abia begat good Asa; good Asa begat good Josaphat; good Josaphat begat wicked Joram. Perhaps the emphasis is that spirituality isn’t genetic, and neither is sinfulness. Jesus was perfect despite being from such “bad blood”; and we likewise can’t blame our failures on bad background. Neither can we assume that the children of the faithful will be righteous.</p>


text:
<h4>1:8&nbsp;<em>Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, Joram begot Uzziah</em>- Three generations are skipped here. See on <em><a href='B:470 1:17'>Mat 1:17</a></em>. Perhaps the omission was because Joram married Athaliah, daughter of Jezebel the wife of Ahab, and those generations were idolaters. As we note on <em><a href='B:470 1:12'>Mat 1:12</a></em>, children who don’t worship the true God are forgotten in the ultimate course of Divine history. In this case, his iniquity was indeed visited upon the third generation (<em><a href='B:20 20:3-6'>Exo 20:3-6</a></em>). We also see here a fulfilment of the prophecy that Ahab’s house would be eradicated (<em><a href='B:120 9:8'>2Ki 9:8</a></em>).</h4>


text:
<p>1:9&nbsp;<em>Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, Ahaz begot Hezekiah</em>- The record here and in :10 seems to stress that the good beget the bad who beget the good; as if to establish the point that natural pedigree is no guarantee of spirituality. This was something the Jews needed to appreciate.</p>


text:
<p>1:10&nbsp;<em>Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, Amon begot Josiah</em>- See on :9.</p>


text:
<p>1:11&nbsp;<em>Josiah begot Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the captivity in Babylon</em>- The apparent contradiction with <em><a href='B:130 3:5-6'>1Ch 3:5-6</a></em> is solved if we understand this to be a reference to Joachin:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>1:12&nbsp;<em>And after the captivity in Babylon, Jechoniah begot Shealtiel, Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel</em>- Therefore the reference to Jechoniah being written “childless” (<em><a href='B:300 22:30'>Jer 22:30</a></em>) perhaps means that as Jeremiah goes on to comment “No man of his seed shall prosper”. If our children aren’t spiritually prosperous, it is as if we were childless. Thus we see that the whole purpose of having children is to “raise a Godly seed”.</p>


text:
<p>1:13&nbsp;<em>Zerubbabel begot Abiud-&nbsp;</em>Other children of Zerubbabel are recorded in <em><a href='B:130 3:19'>1Ch 3:19</a></em>. But it was through one who was not otherwise of note or fame that the Lord was descended. Or perhaps Abiud was another name for one of the sons listed there. The apparent contradiction with <em><a href='B:490 3:27'>Luk 3:27</a></em> is solved if we read that as "which was the son of Rhesa Zerubbabel". See on :16.</p><p><em>Abiud begot Eliakim, Eliakim begot Azor</em>- This part of the genealogy is not found in the Old Testament. We wonder whether God as it were beamed this information into Matthew, or whether he did his own research through public registers and was Divinely guided and inspired in his findings and how he recorded it.</p>


text:
<p>1:14&nbsp;<em>Azor begot Sadoc, Sadoc begot Achim, Achim begot Eliud</em>- Matthew is presenting the line through Judah. But there was a Levite at this time also called “Zadok” (<em><a href='B:160 10:21'>Neh 10:21</a></em>). It could be that this person was descended from both Judah and Levi through an inter-tribal marriage of his parents. In this case he would’ve been a potential king-priest, preparing the way for us to understand Jesus as a king-priest.</p>


text:
<p>1:15&nbsp;<em>Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, Matthan begot Jacob</em>- The genealogies prove that Joseph was a descendant of David, indeed the rightful king of Israel had there been a monarchy at the time of Jesus. Jesus was his adopted son; he was "as was supposed", or 'as was reckoned by law', the son of Joseph (<em><a href='B:490 3:23'>Luk 3:23</a></em>). The record in Luke appears to be that of Mary; Joseph being "the son of Heli" was probably by reason of marrying Mary, the daughter of Heli (<em><a href='B:490 3:23'>Luk 3:23</a></em>); the Talmud speaks with gross vitriolic about Mary the daughter of Heli going to hell for her blasphemy, referring to Mary the mother of Jesus. This shows that the Jews accept that Mary was the daughter of Heli. Heli's father was Matthat, who can be equated with Matthan the grandfather of Joseph. Thus Mary and Joseph were cousins (hinting at an arranged marriage?), and therefore Jesus was a son of David through both his mother and father by adoption. In the light of this it is evident that the question mark over the validity of a genealogy through Joseph is an irrelevancy, seeing that Joseph and Mary had a common grandfather. The point has to be made that a humanly fabricated genealogy would be sure to make some glaring errors, especially if it was produced by simple, uneducated men as the Jews claim the New Testament was. The wonder of the New Testament genealogies is that closer study reveals ever more intricate internal evidence for their truth and reliability, rather than exposing more problems.</p>


text:
<p>1:16&nbsp;<em>Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ</em>- <em><a href='B:490 3:27'>Luk 3:27</a></em> describes Zerubbabel as the head / chief / leader. The term Rhesa is incorrectly rendered in many versions as a name. Perhaps Luke’s point was that the Lord Jesus was the final Messiah, after the failure of so many potential ones beforehand. ‘Zerubbabel the chief’ would then be a similar rubric to “David the king” in Matthew’s genealogy (:6):&nbsp;</p><p>Joseph was actually the rightful king of Israel, according to this genealogy. Yet he was living in poverty and without recognition for who he was- exactly the kind of person God would use for the great task of raising His only begotten Son.</p>


text:
<p>1:17&nbsp;<em>So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations and from David to the captivity in Babylon fourteen generations and from the captivity in Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations-&nbsp;</em>This must have some connection with the 42 stopping places before Israel reached Canaan, as described in <em><a href='B:40 33:2'>Num 33:2</a></em>. Thus the birth of Christ would be like God's people entering the promised land of the Kingdom in some way. It could be argued from this (and other evidence) that it was God’s intention for the Kingdom to be entered by Israel at the time of Jesus- it was after all, His intention that Israel accepted their Messiah. But they crucified Him, and therefore the potential didn’t come true. This open ended nature of God’s prophetic program means that it’s impossible to fit together all latter day prophecies into some chronological framework.</p><p>The genealogy presented by Matthew doesn’t include every generation, there are some gaps (see on <em><a href='B:470 1:8'>Mat 1:8</a></em>; and Zorababel was Salathiel’s grandson, <em><a href='B:130 3:19'>1Ch 3:19</a></em>, yet <em><a href='B:470 1:12'>Mat 1:12</a></em> says be “begat” him). Thus some “begat” their grandson or great grandson. Clearly Matthew had a purpose in presenting the material like this- but expositors have failed to come up with anything convincing. It could simply be that the Gospels were designed to be memorized, as most Christians were illiterate; and the 3 x 14 structure was to aid memorization. One interesting observation is that the last 14 generations from the captivity to the time of Christ amount to the 490 years prophesied for this same period by <em><a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a></em> - if we take a generation to be 35 years, which it is in <em><a href='B:220 42:16'>Job 42:16</a></em>. The numerical value of the Hebrew word “David” is 14, so it could also be that Matthew is eloquently demonstrating that Jesus was indeed the promised seed of David. If indeed six is the number of man and seven represents perfection, then 6 x 7 = 42- the generations culminated in the perfect man, Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>1:18&nbsp;<em>Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit</em>- The Greek seems to imply she was understood [“found”] to be with a child which had come&nbsp;<em>ek</em>, out of, from, the Holy Spirit. This could be implying that Joseph himself believed or perceived that the child was from the Holy Spirit. This would explain why he sought not to humiliate her publicly about the matter (<em><a href='B:470 1:19'>Mat 1:19</a></em>).</p><p>The descriptions of Mary as keeping things in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>), and the way it seems she didn’t tell Joseph about the Angel’s visit, but instead immediately went down to Elisabeth for three months… all these are indications that Mary, like many sensitive people, was a very closed woman. Only when Mary was “found” pregnant by Joseph (<em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em> - s:w. to see, perceive, be obvious) was the situation explained to him by an Angel. It seems His move to divorce her was based on his noticing she was pregnant, and she hadn’t given any explanation to him. She “arose” after perhaps being face down on the ground as the Angel spoke with her, and went immediately off to Elisabeth. And then, after three months she returns evidently pregnant (<em><a href='B:490 1:39'>Luk 1:39</a></em>). Mary is portrayed as somehow separate from the other ministering women. It would have been psychologically impossible, or at best very hard, for the mother of the Lord to hang around with them. The group dynamics would have been impossible. Likewise in <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em> we have “the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus”, as if she is separate from them. She followed Him to Cana, uninvited, and also to Capernaum. Next she is at the cross risking her life, but she isn't among the women who went to the grave. Why not? It was surely natural that she would go there, and that the other women would go with her to comfort her. But she was a loner; either she went alone, as I think I would have tried to, or she just couldn’t face contact with the others and simply hid away. And could it be that Jesus, in recognition of her unique perception of Him, appeared to her first privately, in a rightfully unrecorded meeting? But by <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>, she was in the upper room, as if His death led her to be more reconciled to her brethren, to seek to get along with them::. although by nature, in her heart and soul, she was a loner, maybe almost reclusive. A struggler to understand. A meditator, a reflector, who just wanted to be alone, one of those who take their energy from themselves rather than from other people. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>1:19&nbsp;<em>And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not willing to make her a public example, decided to send her away secretly</em>- The very same phrase is used by Matthew to describe Christ as the ultimately just or righteous man as He hung upon the cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:19'>Mat 27:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:24'>Mat 27:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:47'>Luk 23:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>); the implication is surely that Joseph’s just or righteousness played a role in the final perfection of Jesus as the ultimately “just man”. For it was he who would’ve first taught Jesus the&nbsp;<em>shema</em>, emphasizing the word “one” as Jewish fathers did, correcting the young Jesus as He stutteringly repeated it. The same term is used about Jesus now in His heavenly glory (<em><a href='B:510 22:14'>Act 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:1'>1Jn 2:1</a></em>) and as He will be at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>); the influence of parents upon their children is in some sense eternal. For Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever; we too, as the sum of all the influences upon us, will really be saved and immortalized as persons. And the same was true of Jesus; hence the words and style of Mary’s hymn of praise can be found repeated in the later words of Jesus, and also in the words He spoke from Heaven to the churches in Revelation. Joseph had various alternatives open to him; the trial of jealousy of Numbers 5, divorce, seeking compensation from the father, public shaming of the wife, or to stone her. But his justice was such that he sought to show grace and quietly divorce her (see on 1:20&nbsp;<em>Take unto you</em>). Love protects from shame, not as it were covering up sin which needs to be exposed, but seeking to cover over in the sense that God’s atonement covers over our sins, as 1 Corinthians 13 defines at length:&nbsp;</p><p>It was normal that the father of the crucified disposed of the body. But another Joseph, also described as a “just man” as Joseph was (<em><a href='B:490 23:50'>Luk 23:50</a></em>), was the one who took this responsibility; remember that Joseph was alive and known as the apparent father of Jesus during His ministry (<em><a href='B:500 6:42'>Joh 6:42</a></em>). Likewise one would think it appropriate that the first person to whom the risen Lord revealed Himself would’ve been to His mother, for she after all was the channel of the whole marvellous thing, the only one who for sure believed in a virgin birth. But by an apparently cruel twist of circumstance, it was to another Mary, Magdalene, that the Lord first revealed Himself, and it is she and not His mother Mary who takes the message to others. In this context we recall how in His last mortal moments, Christ motioned to His mother that John and not He was now her son (<em><a href='B:500 19:26'>Joh 19:26</a></em>), addressing her as “woman” rather than “mother”- an unusual and even rude form of address to use to ones’ mother in public. In all this we see a conscious diminishing of the human significance of the Lord’s earthly family, in order to underline that now a new family of Jesus had been brought into existence by the cross. This must have been so hard for Joseph and Mary, as it is for us- to realize that we are but channels, used by God in certain ways at certain times, to the development of His glory according to His program and not our own.</p>


text:
<p>1:20&nbsp;<em>But as he thought on these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying: Joseph you son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit</em>- The descriptions of Jesus as a "man", a human being, have little meaning if in fact He pre-existed as God for millions of years before. The descriptions of Him as "begotten" (passive of&nbsp;<em>gennan</em>&nbsp;in <em><a href='B:470 1:16'>Mat 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 1:20'>Mat 1:20</a></em>) make no suggestion of pre-existence at all. And the words of the Lord Jesus and His general behaviour would have to be read as all being purposefully deceptive, if in fact He was really a pre-existent god. There is no hint of any belief in a pre-existent Jesus until the writings of Justin Martyr in the second century- and he only develops the idea in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew. The Biblical accounts of the Lord's conception and birth just flatly contradict the idea of pre-existence.</p><p><em>He thought</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>en-thumeomai</em>&nbsp;could mean to be angry or indignant, for that is how&nbsp;<em>thumeomai&nbsp;</em>is usually translated in the NT. His anger and frustration would still be possible even if he correctly perceived that the child was from God (see on <em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>"Do not be afraid" was a feature of Joseph's life at this time. The three Angelic appearances to him which are recorded show him immediately responding. Such immediacy of response is typical of God’s faithful servants; delay in these cases is so often an excuse for inaction and disbelief:&nbsp;The Greek&nbsp;<em>phobeo</em>&nbsp;is also used of reverence and awe before God. Perhaps he understandably thought that he could in no way marry and sleep with a woman who had been the channel of God’s Spirit to produce His only begotten son. Those thoughts surely did cross his mind, whatever view we take of&nbsp;<em>phobeo</em>&nbsp;here. We see here the sensitivity of God to human fears and feelings; He knows our thoughts and fears perfectly, and gives the needed assurance. The message that “that which is conceived of her&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;of the Holy Spirit” would therefore have had the emphasis upon the word “is”, confirming Joseph in his perception (see on <em><a href='B:470 1:18'>Mat 1:18</a></em> - he had perceived [AV “found] that the child was of the Holy Spirit).</p><p>The implication of "take Mary as your wife" could be that they were about to marry, when it became apparent Mary was pregnant. He immediately married her (:24), seeking to protect her from the shame of the situation, thereby giving the impression that the child was his.</p>


text:
<p>1:21&nbsp;<em>And she shall give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins</em>- But the mission of Jesus was to save “the world” (<em><a href='B:500 3:17'>Joh 3:17</a></em>), to save those enter into Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:13'>Rom 10:13</a></em>). The “world” is ultimately the people of Christ whose sins have been forgiven. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>1:22&nbsp;<em>Now all this happened so what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying</em>- The present tense reflects the ongoing, living nature of God’s word. Otherwise, a past tense would be required. What was spoken is still being spoken to each individual Bible reader / listener.</p>


text:
<p>1:23<em>&nbsp;The virgin shall be with child and shall give birth to a son; and they shall call his name Immanuel, which means God with us</em>- God&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>us means somewhat more than simply “God with us”. The idea is also “among”. God is now among humanity through we who are the body of Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>1:24&nbsp;<em>And Joseph woke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife</em>- Such immediate obedience is highly commendable, especially as marrying an already pregnant woman was bound to make the rest of his life very difficult. We think of Rebekah and others who were immediately obedient; it is the flesh that always wishes to delay our response.</p>


text:
<p>1:25&nbsp;<em>But he did not have sexual intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus</em>- The obedience of Joseph (in this case, to :21) is emphasized. Likewise 2:20,21 “Arise::. and he arose”:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:1&nbsp;<em>Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea in the days of Herod the king, astrologers from the east came to Jerusalem, saying</em>- Probably Jews from Babylon who had seen the similarity between the 'star' and the Messianic star out of Jacob whom Balaam had prophesied (<em><a href='B:40 24:17'>Num 24:17</a></em>). Perhaps they are called here&nbsp;<em>magos</em>, sorcerers, magic men, because this is the image they presented to Herod, rather than stating they were Jews in search of Judah's Messianic King. Daniel had once been counted amongst the 'wise men' of Babylon (<em><a href='B:340 2:48'>Dan 2:48</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:2&nbsp;<em>Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east and have come to worship him</em>- The star did not take them directly to Bethlehem. It may have disappeared for a while, so they went to Jerusalem, assuming the king was to be born there. This would indicate they were ignorant of <em><a href='B:400 5:2'>Mic 5:2</a></em>, the prophecy of Messiah's birth in Bethlehem, or had at least failed to interpret the prophecy properly. Seeing that stars do not move across the sky over time in a way which can be followed on earth over a period of days or weeks, it's clear that again (see on :1), things are being described as they appeared to an observer on earth. It could be that they first saw the 'star' two years previously (see on <em><a href='B:470 2:16'>Mat 2:16</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><br/><p>Some kings become kings by revolution or war, others are born into a kingly line. They clearly understood that this king was in the kingly line of Judah- a direct descendant of David.</p>


text:
<p>2:3&nbsp;<em>And when Herod the king heard it, he was disturbed and all Jerusalem with him-&nbsp;</em>"All Jerusalem" were "troubled", whereas the birth of Messiah was to be a time of joy for Israel and "to all people" (<em><a href='B:490 2:10'>Luk 2:10</a></em>). The despised and lowly shepherds rejoiced, but "Jerusalem", perhaps referring to the Jewish ruling class, were "troubled". They rejected the good news of the Gospel because it threatened their little power structure. "All Jerusalem" cannot be taken literally because there were some in the city awaiting the birth of Messiah and joyful at the news of His birth (<em><a href='B:490 2:38'>Luk 2:38</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>2:4&nbsp;<em>And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born</em>- The priests are repeatedly described in the OT as the priests&nbsp;<em>of Yahweh</em>. Now they are merely the priests of the people, just as the OT "the feasts of Yahweh" become 'feasts of the Jews' in the Gospels. They hijacked Yahweh's religion and turned it into their own religion, meeting the basic religious needs of humans, rather than accepting His Truth for what it was. Biblically there was to only be one chief priest- but Israel now had several, hence the plural&nbsp;<em>chief priests</em>:&nbsp;</p><p>"Be born" is Gk:&nbsp;<em>gennao</em>. Messiah was procreated, gendered, beginning within the womb of Mary- a concept incompatible with theories of a literal pre-existence of Christ.</p><p>Herod understood that the wise men were seeking the Messiah. This indicates that they were Jews who understood Messiah to be the King of Judah in David's line.</p>


text:
<h4>2:5&nbsp;<em>And they said to him: In Bethlehem of Judea. For thus it is written through the prophet</em>- We get the impression that the reply was immediate, and that it was expected that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. When Angels appeared in praise of a baby born to a poor woman in a stable, people were not so quick to accept that God acted not according to their expectations of Him. And Judaism within the next 30 years moved away from this expectation towards a position whereby they taught that nobody could know where Messiah was from (see on <em><a href='B:500 7:27'>Joh 7:27</a></em>).</h4>


text:
<p>2:6&nbsp;<em>And you Bethlehem, land of Judah, are in no way least among the princes of Judah. For out of you shall come forth a Ruler, who shall be shepherd of My people Israel</em>- The emphasis is on the word "not". She was perceived as the least, but she was not in God's sight. This is so typically His style- to use the most despised and lowly in order to do His work:&nbsp;The same was His style with Mary</p>


text:
<p>2:7 <em>Then Herod secretly called the Magi and learned from them exactly what time the star appeared</em>- Herod was already making his plan. He wanted to know when the star had appeared because he felt the need to destroy any possible competitors to him. Already the desperate plan of mass genocide was forming within him. And there is a psychological consistency and ring of truth in the record. For "learned from them exactly" is the same word used in <em><a href='B:470 2:8'>Mat 2:8</a></em> of how he urges the wise men to "search carefully". If we are passionate about something, we wish others to have that passion; we urge them to the same feelings and attitudes which we have. And Herod does this to the wise men. The Scriptures time and again have this ring of psychological credibility to them; and when they then invite us to believe in the supernatural, the flow of credibility continues naturally.</p>


text:
<p>2:8&nbsp;<em>And he sent them to Bethlehem</em>- They followed this providential leading, and then the star re-appeared and confirmed them in the path (:9). Divine guidance is rarely constant, there are times when it appears to leave us and we are left to work and order our path on our own initiative, and then guidance reappears to confirm us.</p><p><em>And said: Go and search carefully for the young child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I may also come and worship him</em>- "Search" is the same Greek word as in 2:7 concerning how Herod enquired diligently about Jesus. The impression is given that Herod wanted the wise men to as it were be his agents; his diligence was to be theirs. It could be that he was simply lazy to himself go to Bethlehem to see the child when it was far from confirmed that the child was in fact there.</p>


text:
<p>2:9&nbsp;<em>And they, having heard the king, went their way; and the star which they saw in the east went before them until it came and stood over where the young child was</em>- The star gave varying degrees of guidance- it led them to Palestine, and then to Jerusalem in general. Then it disappeared. Now it specifically pinpointed the building in Bethlehem. Divine guidance is rather similar in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>2:10&nbsp;<em>And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy</em>- Because the star had disappeared but had now reappeared:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:11&nbsp;<em>And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him, and opening their treasures they offered to him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh</em>- These three gifts are typically what was offered to kings and there are several references to kings being presented with these three things. The extent of the wise men's conviction was therefore very great. This is how much it can cost us to accept that Jesus really is Lord and King of our lives- financial expense, risk, long travel::.</p><p>Note the absence of any reference to Joseph. His amazing obedience and immediacy of response to God’s word wasn’t rewarded by any permanent recognition. He played his role without recognition, and this is the lesson to us in our largely unrecognized and humanly unappreciated lives.</p>


text:
<p>2:12&nbsp;<em>And being warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod</em>- The Greek for "warned" implies 'to be answered', so it seems they had prayed to God for guidance- and now received it.</p><p><em>They departed for their own country by another route</em>- As Joseph the next night likewise had an Angelic message, immediately responded and 'departed' to another country. Their obedience was an example for Joseph and Mary to follow <em><a href='B:470 2:13-14'>Mat 2:13-14</a></em> Joseph was told to arise and take Jesus to Egypt; and he arose from sleep and did it. And the same double ‘arising’ occurred when he left Egypt to return to Israel (<em><a href='B:470 2:13-14'>Mat 2:13-14</a></em> cp. 20,21).</p>


text:
<p>2:13&nbsp;<em>Now when they had departed, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying: Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt and stay there until I tell you, for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him</em>- The Hebrew idea of 'seeking' includes the idea of worship- which was exactly Herod's pretext for wanting to locate Jesus:&nbsp;If Joseph hadn't been obedient, would God's whole plan in the Lord Jesus have been destroyed? Presumably so, or else the whole impression given of command and obedience would be meaningless, for Joseph would've just been acting out as a puppet:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:14&nbsp;<em>And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night and departed into Egypt-&nbsp;</em>That same hour of the night (assuming dreams happen at night), Joseph obeyed the strange call. The observation has been made that Matthew’s record has much to say about Joseph, and Mary is presented as passive; whereas in Luke, far more attention is given to Mary herself. The suggestion has been made by Tom Gaston that Joseph gave eyewitness testimony which was used by Matthew, and Mary gave such testimony to Luke. "Arose and took" was in exact obedience to <em><a href='B:470 2:13'>Mat 2:13</a></em> "arise and take". See on <em><a href='B:470 1:25'>Mat 1:25</a></em>:&nbsp;For&nbsp;<em>Departed</em>- See on 2:12:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:15&nbsp;<em>And stayed there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt did I call My son</em>- One of many NT statements of the nature of inspiration of the OT writers. God spoke&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;the prophets, they were a channel&nbsp;<em>for His word</em>, they were not speaking merely for and of themselves.</p><p>The emphasis is that&nbsp;<em>Joseph</em>&nbsp;fulfilled this prophecy- the grammar states that&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;was in Egypt until he was told to return. <em><a href='B:350 11:1-2'>Hos 11:1-2</a></em> speaks of how Israel were disobedient to this call: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt<em>:::&nbsp;</em>But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me”. The implication again is that Joseph had the freewill to obey this call or not- and he was obedient. For the call to leave Egypt had not been answered by Israel and it was no foregone conclusion that it would have to be by Joseph:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:16&nbsp;<em>Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the astrologers</em>- The record doesn't give the impression that the wise men did what they did because they were mocking Herod. Rather did they fear him and obeyed God's desire to foil his evil plot. But Herod perceived what they did as mocking him, and the record states things from the perspective of how he perceived things [as with the language of demons]- see on <em><a href='B:470 2:1'>Mat 2:1</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Was furious</em>- An example of where the Bible teaches us basic human psychology. He felt mocked by the wise men, although actually they hadn't mocked him, he just perceived it that way- and so he took out his anger against them on the babies of Bethlehem. He transferred his anger from one to another. And that explains why the woman behind the till was so angry with you for no reason this morning- because she was transferring onto you the anger she felt against her mother / partner / neighbour arising from an incident [probably a misunderstanding and wrong imputation of motives] which happened last night:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And sent out soldiers and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem and in all the borders of it aged two years and under, according to the time which he had determined from the Magi</em>- This would suggest that when he asked them when the star had first appeared, they replied 'about two years ago'. It would seem they had been planning their journey, or perhaps even making it, for two years:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:17&nbsp;<em>Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying</em>- Be aware that when it comes to&nbsp;<em>prophecy</em>, in the sense of foretelling future events, the New Testament sometimes seems to quote the Old Testament&nbsp;<em>without&nbsp;</em>attention to the context- at least, so far as human Bible scholarship can discern. The early chapters of Matthew contain at least three examples of&nbsp;quotations whose context just cannot fit the application given: <em><a href='B:470 2:14-15'>Mat 2:14-15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:17-18'>Mat 2:17-18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:300 31:15'>Jer 31:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 1:23'>Mat 1:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a></em>. Much Christian material about Israel shows how they have returned to the land, rebuilt the ruined cities, made the desert blossom etc:, as fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies in Jeremiah etc. The context of these prophecies often doesn’t fit a return to the land by Jews in the 20th century; but on the other hand, the correspondence between these prophecies and recent history is so remarkable that it can’t be just coincidence. So again we are led to conclude that a few words here and there within a prophecy can sometimes have a fulfilment outside that which the context seems to require.</p>


text:
<p>2:18&nbsp;<em>A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children</em>- But the focus of the massacre was Bethlehem. Clearly a reference to one event is being applied to another, and this is how Matthew understood the 'fulfilment' of prophecy. &nbsp;</p><p><em>And she would not be comforted, because they are not</em>- The words are used about Rachel's husband Jacob weeping for Joseph, a clear type of the Lord, and refusing to be comforted because he 'was not' [<em><a href='B:10 37:35'>Gen 37:35</a></em> - cp. the brothers' explanation about Joseph's supposed death, that "one is not", <em><a href='B:10 42:13'>Gen 42:13</a></em>]. This again is rather out of strict context because Rachel died before Joseph's supposed death (<em><a href='B:10 35:19'>Gen 35:19</a></em>). The literary argument seems to be that&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;she had then been alive,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;she would have wept as Jacob wept for her son Joseph. Jacob's weeping [on behalf of Rachel] for the death of Joseph / Jesus was ultimately misplaced because Joseph was safe in Egypt. And so the weeping of 'Rachel' for the Bethlehem babies was done whilst Jesus was in fact safe in Egypt. This could explain the semantic link between the quotation of 'Out of Egypt have I called My Son' and then this quotation about Rachel weeping as Jacob wept for Joseph, when in fact he was safe in Egypt. <em><a href='B:300 31:15-16'>Jer 31:15-16</a></em> reports Rachel weeping for her children who had been lost, and then being told to stop crying because they would come again from the Gentile land where they had been taken. In other words, she was being told that the children she thought were dead and gone were actually alive- in a Gentile land. Which was exactly the case with Jacob's mourning for Joseph which is clearly the basis for the mourning of 'Rachel' here. But then the problem is that the women this verse is applied to in Matthew 2 had lost actual children by real physical death. It's all a very complicated argument, and very forced and unsatisfactory to Western eyes and ears because the context appears to always be so inappropriate and the facts don't quite fit. Only parts of the picture fit. But this is very much the style of Jewish&nbsp;<em>midrash</em>&nbsp;[commentary] on the Old Testament. It probably would've been more persuasive, interesting and intriguing to first century Jewish ears than it is to ours in the 21st Century.</p>


text:
<p>2:19&nbsp;<em>But when Herod was dead, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying</em>- Literally, "appears", not 'appeared'. The inconsistent use of tenses isn't the grammatical mistake of an uneducated, uninspired writer. This device is common in the Gospels. It focuses attention upon the Angel appearing, and encourages us to re-live the moment, as if to say, 'And wow, lo and behold- an Angel appears!'. The Gospels were initially intended for public reading, even performance on street corners, as the majority of people in the first century world were illiterate. So this kind of device is just what we would expect:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:20&nbsp;<em>Arise and take the young child and his mother and go into the land of Israel, for they are dead that sought the young child's life</em>- Herod was not alone in wanting Jesus dead. The "they" presumably referred to the Jerusalem leadership of <em><a href='B:470 2:3'>Mat 2:3</a></em> [see note there].</p>


text:
<p>2:21&nbsp;<em>And he arose and took the young child and his mother and came into the land of Israel</em>- Again we note his immediate obedience. International migration was a major thing in those days, when people rarely travelled more than 50 km. from their birthplace let alone moved that far:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>2:22<em>&nbsp;But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he withdrew into the region of Galilee</em>- The implication could be that Joseph had no other information apart that from Herod had died, but on crossing the border, he learnt that Herod's son was reigning- and Joseph feared to go further. Therefore, so I read the record, God made a concession to Joseph's weakness and told him to go to the backwater of Galilee. He "turned aside" into Galilee suggests in the Greek that he 'withdrew himself', as if pulling back into obscurity. The same Greek word is found in <em><a href='B:470 12:15'>Mat 12:15</a></em>: "Jesus withdrew himself from there". He likewise "withdrew into a desert place" (<em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em>), "withdrew [from the crowds]" (<em><a href='B:480 3:7'>Mar 3:7</a></em>), "withdrew" when the crowds wanted to crown Him King (<em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>), judges "withdrew" and talked privately amongst themselves (<em><a href='B:510 26:31'>Act 26:31</a></em>). So the picture seems to be that God intended Joseph to raise Jesus somewhere other than Galilee, perhaps in Bethlehem or Jerusalem. But Joseph feared Archelaus, and therefore he was given a 'plan B', to withdraw and fade away into the obscurity of Nazareth. But in God's perfect way, the upbringing in Nazareth could also fulfil His plans and this explains the otherwise rather forced interpretation that Jesus lived in Nazareth so that He would be a 'Nazarene' (see on 2:23). God works oftentimes with us in the same way. He makes concessions to our weaknesses, and whilst the plan Bs, Cs and Ds don't fit as snugly into His prophetic intentions as plan A might have done- they still fit. Because He makes them fit. And that in my opinion explains the slight sense we get in some parts of the record here that events are being 'made to fit' Bible prophecies. And we see it in our own lives. We may take a plan C or D, e:g. a sister may marry an unbeliever, and this doesn't mean that God's purpose with her finishes, but rather that [e:g:] Bible teaching about marriage just doesn't fit as snugly to her experience as it might have done otherwise.</p>


text:
<p>2:23&nbsp;<em>And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets-</em>&nbsp;It was not specifically spoken by plural prophets that Messiah was to be called "a Nazarene" because He would grow up in despised Nazareth, but that was the implication of the prophecies that Messiah was to be despised of men. See on <em><a href='B:470 2:22'>Mat 2:22</a></em> for some thoughts about this apparent 'forcing' of the prophetic fulfilment here:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That he should be called a Nazarene</em>&nbsp;- The town was despised spiritually as incapable of producing a prophet (<em><a href='B:500 1:46'>Joh 1:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:52'>Joh 7:52</a></em>), and yet in Hebrew it meant 'town of the shoot', and the shoot was a title of Messiah (<em><a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a></em>). Again this is typical of God's style- to invest the most spiritually despised with the highest spiritual calling.</p>


text:
<p>3:1&nbsp;<em>And in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying</em>- Presumably this connects with 2:23, meaning that whilst the Lord was still living in Nazareth, John began preaching. One wonders whether John maybe began his ministry up to three and a half years before the baptism of Jesus, seeing his work was typical of the three and a half year Elijah ministry preparing for the&nbsp;<em>second</em>&nbsp;coming of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:2&nbsp;<em>Repent! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand</em>- There has always been the rulership of God over the individuals whose hearts accept His Kingship. But through the work of the Lord Jesus, this rulership was made so much greater, and His example, teaching and spirit enabled believers to come more totally within that rulership. But clearly the Kingdom was "at hand" not in the sense of its literal establishment on earth physically, but in that as King of the Kingdom, the Lord Jesus could rightly have "the Kingdom of Heaven" as a title:&nbsp;</p><p>It appears that Matthew under inspiration expressed the Gospel in terms which were attractive and not unduly provocative to his hearers, hence he uses 'Heaven' for 'God' as was common Jewish practice. We too should present the Gospel with the same kind of forethought to the sensitivities and nature of our audience, rather than baldly present 'truth' to them considering that we have thereby done our duty. We are not seeking to merely fulfil a duty, but to actually "so speak" that we convert men and women.</p><p>A possibility is that the Kingdom of God / Heaven could have come soon at that time ["at hand"]&nbsp;<em>if&nbsp;</em>Israel had repented. Then they would not have killed their Messiah and King but rather accepted Him. Whilst God's purpose was not ultimately thwarted by Israel's rejection of the Lord Jesus and their impenitence, the Divine project would have taken a different form if they had repented and accepted Him. We note that those who responded to John’s call to repentance were again asked to “Repent” by the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 4:17'>Mat 4:17</a></em>). Their repentance was therefore only surface level. The Lord cursed the fig tree (cp. Israel) because they had only leaves, an appearance of repentance and spiritual fruit in responding to John’s message, but actually there was not even the first sign of real fruit on that tree when it was really analysed. The Lord describes John as mourning to his audience, and them&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>mourning in sympathy and response (<em><a href='B:490 7:32'>Luk 7:32</a></em>). They rejoiced in the idea of repentance, but never really got down to it.</p>


text:
<p>3:3&nbsp;<em>For this is he</em>- Is this part of John's message about&nbsp;<em>Jesus</em>? Or is this a note from Matthew about&nbsp;<em>John</em>&nbsp;being the voice in the wilderness? The other Gospel writers use the Isaiah quotation as if it is their comment on John (<em><a href='B:480 1:3'>Mar 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>). The present tense 'this is he' can be understood as part of the dramatic present tense style of some parts of the Gospels [see on <em><a href='B:470 2:19'>Mat 2:19</a></em>]. The way <em><a href='B:470 3:4'>Mat 3:4</a></em> continues "And this same John::." might suggest that "This is he" is also Matthew's comment about John. &nbsp;</p><h4><em>The voice of one crying</em>- When asked who he was, John’s reply was simply: “a voice” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). He was nothing; his message about Jesus was everything. In all this there is a far cry from the self-confident, self-projecting speaking off the podium which characterizes so much of our ‘preaching’ today. So John’s appeal to repentance was shot through with a recognition of his own humanity. It wasn’t mere moralizing. We likely don’t preach as John did because we fear that confronting people with their sins is inappropriate for us to do, because we too are sinners. But with recognition of our own humanity, we build a bridge between our audience and ourselves. In this context it's worth reconsidering <em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>: "Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?". John said these words to those who were coming to him wishing to be baptized by him- exactly because he had warned them of the wrath to come. It's possible that John meant this as a rhetorical reflection, thus enabling us to paraphrase him something like this: 'And what kind of man am I, who am I, just another sinful guy like you, who has warned you to flee? I'm nothing- don't get baptized because of me, but because you repent and are committed to bringing forth the fruits of repentance". And it’s worth meditating that if Israel had responded to his preaching, then the glorious salvation of God might have even then been revealed in the form of the Kingdom coming on earth, even then. But instead of heeding John’s message, Israel in the end crucified their King, necessitating a latter day John the Baptist mission (<em><a href='B:470 11:13-14'>Mat 11:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:11-12'>Mat 17:11-12</a></em>). And it’s not going too far to suggest that our latter day witness to Israel and indeed to the world is to conducted in the spirit of John’s preaching; hence the crucial importance of understanding the spirit and content of his witness.</h4><p><em>In the wilderness</em>- John the Baptist prepared a highway in the desert through baptizing repentant people (<em><a href='B:480 1:3-4'>Mar 1:3-4</a></em>). This highway was to be a path&nbsp;<em>to&nbsp;</em>Christ as well as the one He would travel. Those converted became a path to Christ for others. One purpose of our calling to the Gospel is to assist others onto that same way. And it's worth reflecting that Christ can only come once the way for Him is prepared- as if His coming depends upon a certain level of response to our preaching, especially to the Jews of the very last days.</p><p><em>Make ready the way of the Lord</em>- The quotation from Isaiah suggests that if the way was prepared by human repentance, then this would be the path over which the Lord's glory would return to Zion in the establishment of the Kingdom. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>repent</em>. The strong suggestion is that the Lord's coming in glory was a possibility if Israel had repented at John's preaching and accepted Jesus as their Messiah. <em><a href='B:490 3:6'>Luk 3:6</a></em> goes on to say that if they had repented, then the prophecy that "all flesh shall see the salvation of God" would come true- and that is clearly language of the future Kingdom of God on earth. For not even all Israel saw / perceived the Jesus / salvation of God, let alone "all flesh". The term "all flesh" is used frequently in the OT about mankind generally rather than just Israel; indeed it is used in contradistinction to Israel (<em><a href='B:50 5:26'>Deu 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 34:15'>Job 34:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:16'>Isa 66:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:23-24'>Isa 66:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 25:31'>Jer 25:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 4:12'>Dan 4:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>Make His paths straight</em>- The implication is that the repentance of people in Judah would make straight the Lord's path over which He would travel. Repentant people are therefore His way to Jerusalem. This of itself suggests that the Lord shall only come to Zion once there is repentance in Israel, seeing repentant people are the way or road which enables Him to travel. The allusion is clearly to the practice of preparing the road for an important person to travel upon. The whole metaphor suggests that Christ will only come to Zion once His people are spiritually ready, once there is repentance, perhaps specifically in Israel. John the Baptist was to prepare the Lord's way (<em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em> same Greek words). But it was repentant people who were to prepare the Lord's way. John's appeal was for others to prepare the Lord's way by repentance. But his preaching meant that he was the one preparing the way; the change of life in his hearers would therefore as it were be counted to John. The work of preparing the Lord's way is mentioned in <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em> as being the work of "the messenger"; and the context appears to be the restoration from Babylon. Perhaps because those addressed in <em><a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a></em> ("Prepare&nbsp;<em>ye</em>") failed in their task and God sought to see it fulfilled through a specific messenger.</p><p>The ideas of fleeing wrath (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>) and preparing a way are surely based upon the Law’s command in <em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em> that a way or road should be prepared to the city of refuge (symbolic of Christ- <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>), along which the person under the death sentence for manslaughter could flee for refuge. John was preparing that way or road to Christ, and urging ordinary people to flee along it. They didn’t like to think they were under a death sentence for murder. They were just ordinary folk like the soldiers who grumbled about their wages, and the publicans who were a bit less than honest at work. But they had to flee. But they wouldn’t be alone in that. If a man prepares his way after God’s principles (<em><a href='B:140 27:6'>2Ch 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 4:26'>Pro 4:26</a></em>), then God will ‘prepare’ that man’s way too (<em><a href='B:230 37:23'>Psa 37:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:5'>Psa 119:5</a></em>), confirming him in the way of escape:&nbsp;<br/><em>His paths straight</em>- There is a definite allusion to the language here in <em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>, where a man is accused by Paul of perverting "the right [s:w. 'straight'] ways of the Lord". Paul clearly saw&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;mission as likewise to prepare straight paths for the Lord Jesus by preaching the Gospel of transformation. The implication could be that John's mission ultimately failed, in that the Lord Jesus did not come to Zion in glory. Paul seems to imply that therefore that work is now placed upon all Christian preachers; we are to prepare the way so that the Lord can come to Zion and establish God's Kingdom. When we read that Paul instructed men "in the way of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:510 18:25'>Act 18:25</a></em>) we have the same idea- we are preparing the way of the Lord Jesus. Each person who is truly converted is part of the Lord's highway, and once there is sufficient transformation of human life, the way will be ready enough for the Lord to return upon it:&nbsp;</p><p>Just as the preaching of the Gospel was to make straight paths for the Messiah to come (<em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>), so we are to make&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;paths straight (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>)- as if somehow we are the Lord Jesus; His revelation to this world at the second coming will in a sense be our revelation. Hence the final visions of Revelation speak of the Lord's second coming in terms which are applicable to the community of those in Him [e:g. a city of people coming down from Heaven to earth]. John’s preaching was in order to make [s:w. ‘to bring forth fruit’] His [the Lord’s] paths straight- but the ways of the Lord are “right” [s:w. “straight”] anyway (<em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>). So how could John’s preaching make the Lord’s ways straight / right, when they already are? God is so associated with His people that their straightness or crookedness reflects upon Him; for they are His witnesses in this world. His ways are their ways. This is the N:T. equivalent of the O:T. concept of keeping / walking in the way of the Lord (<em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 21:22'>2Ki 21:22</a></em>). Perhaps this is the thought behind the exhortation of <em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em> to make straight paths for our own feet. We are to bring our ways into harmony with the Lord’s ways; for He is to be us, His ways our ways. Thus <em><a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a></em>, which is being quoted in <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>, speaks of “Prepare ye the way&nbsp;<em>of the Lord</em>”, whereas <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em> speaks of “Prepare ye the way&nbsp;<em>of the people</em>”. Yet tragically, the way / path of Israel was not the way / path of the Lord (<em><a href='B:330 18:25'>Eze 18:25</a></em>).</p><p>There was an intensity and critical urgency about John and his message. John urged people to make their path “straight”- using a Greek word elsewhere translated “immediately”, “forthwith” (<em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em> s:w. <em><a href='B:480 1:12'>Mar 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:28'>Mar 1:28</a></em> and often). Getting things straight in our lives is a question of immediate response. He warns people to “flee from the wrath to come” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). This was what their changed lives and baptisms were to be about- a fleeing from the wrath to come. He speaks as if that “wrath to come” is just about to come, it’s staring them in the face like a wall of forest fire, and they are to flee away from it. And yet Paul (in one of his many allusions to John’s message, which perhaps he had heard himself ‘live’) speaks of “the wrath to come” as being the wrath of the final judgment (<em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>), or possibly that of AD70 (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>). But both those events would not have come upon the majority of John’s audience. And the day of ‘wrath to come’ is clearly ultimately to be at the Lord’s return (<em><a href='B:730 6:17'>Rev 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>). Yet John zooms his hearers forward in time, to perceive that they face condemnation and judgment day right now, as they hear the call of the Gospel. This was a feature of John; he had the faith which sees things which are not as though they already are. Thus he looked at Jesus walking towards him and commented that here was the “Lamb of God”, a phrase the Jews would’ve understood as referring to the lamb which was about to be sacrificed on Passover (<em><a href='B:500 1:29'>Joh 1:29</a></em>). John presumably was referencing the description of the crucified Jesus in <em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em>; for John, he foresaw it all, it was as if he saw Jesus as already being led out to die, even though that event was over three years distant. And so he could appeal to his audience to face judgment day as if they were standing there already. We need to have the same perspective.</p><p>John the Baptist's ministry was so that the 'crooked' nation of Israel should be 'made straight' and ready to accept Jesus as Messiah (<em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>). God's enabling power was present so that this might have happened; but the same word is used in <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em> and <em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em> to describe Israel as still being a 'crooked' nation. John's preaching, like ours, was potentially able to bring about the conversion of an entire nation. So instead of being discouraged by the lack of response to our witness, let's remember the enormous potential power which there is behind it. Every word, witness of any kind, tract left lying on a seat::. has such huge potential conversion power lodged within it, a power from God Himself. John’s mission was to prepare Israel for Christ, to figuratively '<em>bring low'&nbsp;</em>the hills and mountains, the proud Jews of first century Israel, and raise the valleys, i:e. inspire the humble with the real possibility of salvation in Christ (<em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>). Paul uses the same Greek word for "bring low" no fewer than three times, concerning how the Gospel has humbled him (<em><a href='B:510 20:19'>Act 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:12'>Phi 4:12</a></em>). It's as if he's saying: 'John's preaching did finally have its’ effect upon me; it did finally make me humble enough for the Lord Jesus'. And as John made straight paths for men's feet that they might come unto Christ (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>), so did Paul (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>):&nbsp;There was another reason behind John’s appeal for repentance. It was that he perceived how eager God is to forgive, and how our acceptance of that forgiveness is His glory and His salvation. John says, quoting <em><a href='B:290 40:5'>Isa 40:5</a></em>, that if men repent and ready themselves for the Lord’s coming, then “all flesh shall see the salvation of God”. But he is changing the quotation- Isaiah said that all flesh shall see the glory of God. But saving men and women is the thing God glories in:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:4&nbsp;<em>Now John wore a garment-&nbsp;</em>Lit. 'Had his clothing<em>':&nbsp;</em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>ekho&nbsp;</em>translated "had" is also translated 'conceive', 'count' and 'take for'. He took himself as Elijah. Clearly John was consciously presenting himself as the Elijah prophet by the way he dressed. He had to make some personal effort to fulfil the prophecies about him. Even if a calling is intended for us by God, we still have to make conscious effort to fulfil it. We can easily overestimate the amount and frequency of Divine contact with Bible characters. It was not so much that John was told 'You are to be the Elijah prophet, now you must dress, act and speak like him!'. The choice of dress, appearance and even location in the wilderness were all probably John's own conscious attempts to be like Elijah, without being specifically asked. We too are set up with Bible characters whom we are asked to follow in essence- for this is why so much of God's word is really history. And there are ways in which the initiative is left with us as to how and how far we follow them.</p><p><em>Of camel's hair and a leather girdle about his loins</em>- This was not the clothing of the poor- their garments were typically made of goat's hair. Indeed, camel's hair coats were a luxury. We therefore conclude that John was consciously modelling himself on Elijah, who had dressed like this (<em><a href='B:120 1:8'>2Ki 1:8</a></em>).</p><p><em>And his food was locusts and wild honey</em>- Not necessarily from bees, but perhaps tree gum e:g. from the tamarisk tree.</p>


text:
<p>3:5<em>&nbsp;Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him-&nbsp;</em>These global terms such as 'all Judaea' clearly aren't literal- people from all Judaea went out to John. Perhaps John set up his place of witness as he did so that those interested had to make some effort to come out to him for baptism, considering that candidates had to make some effort and show some commitment. On the other hand, if he wanted to reach as many people as possible, surely he could've set up his place of preaching and baptism in the city and thereby attracted and saved more people. For not everyone was able to make the long journey down to Jordan and back. One wonders whether he made the same mistake as the historical Elijah, in having too low a view of others. Whatever, his hard hitting message attracted people, so much so that the city dwellers streamed out to him, motivated by the testimony of the others who had been there and returned to share the good news of sin confessed and forgiven and of the coming of the Christ.</p>


text:
<p>3:6&nbsp;<em>And they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins</em>- As if they confessed their sins whilst in the water and the baptism process was ongoing:&nbsp;<em>Exomologeho&nbsp;</em>essentially means to agree with, hence the same word is used about 'confessing' in the sense of praising (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>, <em><a href='B:520 15:9'>Rom 15:9</a></em>). To repent, to confess sin, is essentially to agree with God's perspective on our sins. They agreed that they were sinners. Elsewhere, what they did is described as 'the baptism of repentance', of&nbsp;<em>metanoia</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 1:4'>Mar 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:3'>Luk 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:24'>Act 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Metanoia</em>&nbsp;strictly means to think again, or legally, a reversal of a legal decision. The legal connotations of the language are developed further in Romans 1-8, which expounds the Gospel in terms of the court room. I have suggested elsewhere that Paul may have heard John preaching, for all Jerusalem went to hear his message, including "many of the Pharisees" (:7), and Paul the Pharisee was living in Jerusalem at the time. This would explain his many allusions to John's teaching, and it could be that the whole legal approach of Romans 1-8 is based upon this language of charge, agreement with the charge and re-thinking of the human case which we meet here, right at the start of the NT Gospel story (see on <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The wrath to come</em>&nbsp;to see how Romans uses John's term 10 times). The decision that we are condemned must be agreed with by us, whereas previously we had not agreed with it- considering us to be not that bad as people, victims of circumstance etc. Our re-thinking leads to God's re-thinking and reversal of the judgment against us. Note that the whole sense of the Greek words for 'confessing' and 'repenting' is internal to the human mind. Practical change is not of itself implied in the words. This of course comes as a result of a genuine agreement with the charge of sin and a radical re-thinking. It is not therefore for us to demand repentance from others in terms of external appearance. We cannot judge the secrets of the heart, and are to accept repentance as claimed, seeing that it is a deeply personal and internal affair:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:7&nbsp;<em>But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them</em>- <em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em> records how there "came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?". There is a parallel between desiring baptism and realizing that they must<em>&nbsp;do</em>&nbsp;something concretely in their lives. The baptism process brings us into the realm of God's gracious forgiveness and redemption, and into living contact with the real Christ. There is no way we can be passive to this and do nothing about it. Note that Matthew himself was a publican- this is an example of the Gospel records being a transcript of the message standardly taught by e:g. Matthew:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You offspring of vipers</em>- This intense, urgent presentation of the ultimate issues of life and death, acceptance and rejection, brought forth a massive response. People lined up for baptism. And John was hardly polite. He called his baptismal candidates a “generation of vipers”, alluding obviously to the seed of the serpent in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. Yet his tough line with them, his convicting them of sin, led them to ask what precisely they must do, in order to be baptized. They didn’t turn away in offence. They somehow sensed he was for real, and the message he preached couldn’t be ignored or shrugged off as the ravings of a fanatic. Time and again we see the same- the very height of the demand of Christ of itself convicts men and women of Him. And it’s for this reason that it seems almost ‘easier’ to convict people of Christ and the need for baptism into Him in societies [e:g. radical Moslem ones] where the price for conversion to Him is death or serious persecution… than in the easy going Western countries where being ‘Christian’ is the normal cultural thing to do. The Gospel was presented in different forms by the early preachers, according to their audience. John the Baptist set the pattern in this. Having quoted the prophecy about the need for the rough to be made smooth and the proud to be humbled in order for them to accept Jesus, John “said&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;to the multitude… ye offspring of vipers” (<em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em> RV). He used tough and startling language because that was what the audience required. He had set his aims- to humble the proud. And so he used “therefore” appropriate approaches. The early preachers as Paul became all things to all men, so that they might win some. They therefore consciously matched their presentation and&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;they articulated the same basic truths to their audience. But perhaps even his comment “Generation of vipers” was said with a heart of love and appeal, reflecting the “heart of mercy” which he had come to know in the Father. He was “the friend of the bridegroom” (<em><a href='B:500 3:29'>Joh 3:29</a></em>)- the one who introduced the groom to the bride and arranged the marriage and then the wedding. John’s “Generation of vipers” stuff was all part of his attempt to persuade the bride, Israel, to accept the groom, the Lord Jesus. He wasn’t angrily moralizing, lashing out at society as many a dysfunctional preacher does today, working out his own anger by criticizing and condemning society in the name of God. No, John was appealing. He had an agenda and an aim- to bring Israel and the Son of God together in marriage.</p><h4><em>Who warned you</em>- The Greek means to exemplify, to 'exhibit under the eyes', and can imply that John had himself shown them the way of repentance by having done so himself. John the Baptist rhetorically asked his hearers: “Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (<em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em>). The answer, of course, was ‘Well, you, John’. And John continues: “Bring forth&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;[i:e:, because I am the one who taught you] fruits meet for repentance”. John recognizes that his converts will be after his image in one sense; as Paul put it, what his hearers had heard and seen in him as he preached, they were to do. So I suggest the emphasis should be on the word 'who', rather than on the word 'you'. The sense is not 'You lot of sinners? Ha! And where did you lot hear of the need for repentance!'. Rather is it a rhetorical question. Who warned them to flee from the wrath to come? John himself. Here we see another window onto the humility of John in his appeal. He is saying that he too has confessed and repented of his sins, and he knew this was witnessed in his life. And he asks the legalistic Pharisees to follow his example. John was asking them to repent of their legalism and accept Jesus as Messiah, and it would seem that John had had to pass through that very same path himself, freeing himself from the Essene's legalism which it seems he had got associated with. And Elijah, John's role model, was another man who was led to repent of exclusivism and legalism. The point is clinched by a look at the Greek word translated 'warned'. It literally means to exhibit, to exemplify. John was the pattern for them. And if Paul was indeed amongst that crowd of cynical Pharisees, Paul was ultimately John's most stellar convert, although little did he realize it at the time. The same can happen with our preaching. We may make converts years after our death. And the lesson comes home clearly, that the preacher or the teacher is to be the living embodiment of his or her message, the word being preached made flesh in the preacher.</h4><p><em>To flee from the anger to come</em>- A common idea of Paul's especially in his letter to the Romans (<em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:15'>Rom 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:22'>Rom 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 12:19'>Rom 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:4-5'>Rom 13:4-5</a></em>). <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em> surely alludes here in speaking of how the wrath has come upon the orthodox Jews. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:6'>Mat 3:6</a></em>. In <em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em> Jesus seems to say that it is now impossible for that group to flee the coming wrath. Even in this life the frame of opportunity can come to an end before death.</p><p>Paul alluded to some parts of the Gospels much more than others. An example of this is the way in which he alluded so extensively to the passages related to John the Baptist. I would suggest that the reason for this is that he saw John as somehow his hero, one for whom he had a deep respect. In doing so he was sharing the estimation of his Lord, who also saw John as one of the greatest believers. There are many 'unconscious' links between Paul's writings and the records of John, indicating how deeply the example and words of John were in Paul's mind (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:9'>1Th 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:31'>Joh 3:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 15:47'>1Co 15:47</a></em>). Or consider how John said that wicked Jewry would be "hewn down" (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>); Paul uses the very same word to describe how the Jewish branches had now been "cut off" (<em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:24'>Rom 11:24</a></em>). Paul saw himself as being like the best man, who had betrothed the believers to Christ (<em><a href='B:540 11:2-3'>2Co 11:2-3</a></em>)- just as John had described himself as the friend of the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>). Or again, reflect how Paul's mention of John in <em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em> apparently adds nothing to his argument; it seems out of context. But it surely indicates the degree to which John was never far below the surface in Paul's thinking. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:8<em>&nbsp;Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance</em>-It seems likely that Paul went to hear John the Baptist preach; "there went out to him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:480 1:5'>Mar 1:5</a></em>), and at this time Paul was living in Jerusalem. I believe Paul heard John and was convicted by him of Christ. John preached the need to "bring forth fruits meet unto repentance" (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>); and Paul made those his own watchwords in his world-wide preaching (<em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>)- Paul describes his preaching in language which is directly alluding to how John preached. As John said that he was&nbsp;<em>sent</em>&nbsp;to baptize, but especially to witness of Christ (<em><a href='B:500 1:33'>Joh 1:33</a></em>), so Paul felt that he too was&nbsp;<em>sent to baptize</em>, but his emphasis was more on the preaching of Christ than physically baptizing (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>).</p><p>“Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance" must be connected with our Lord's description of the Gentile believers as "a nation bringing forth the (vineyard) fruits" of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 21:43'>Mat 21:43</a></em>). These are defined in <em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>: "The Kingdom of God Is::. righteousness, and peace, and joy". Christ's parable of the vine in John 15 explains that it is the word abiding in us which brings forth fruit. Bringing forth fruit is therefore a way of life (cp. <em><a href='B:520 6:21-22'>Rom 6:21-22</a></em>). In each aspect in which we 'bear fruit', we have in a sense 'repented'. Our repentance and fruit-bearing is not something which we can set time limits on within this life. Christ would have been satisfied if Israel had borne at least some immature fruit (<em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em>). Only when there is no fruit at all, in any aspect of spiritual life, will Christ reject us. Some will bear more fruit than others- some sixty, some an hundredfold. <em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em> connects repentance with fruit bearing. This shows that God may recognize&nbsp;<em>degrees</em>&nbsp;of repentance and response to His word, as He recognizes degrees of fruit bearing. It is far too simplistic for us to label some of our brethren as having repented and others as being totally unrepentant. In any case, the fruits of repentance are brought forth unto&nbsp;<em>God</em>, not necessarily to fellow believers (<em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em>). There is a marked dearth of evidence to show that a believer must prove his repentance in outward terms before his brethren can accept him:&nbsp;The “fruits” John had in mind are made more explicit in Luke 3. In order to prepare the way of the Lord, to make a level passage for Him, the man with two coats should give to him who had none, and likewise share his food (<em><a href='B:490 3:11'>Luk 3:11</a></em>). So the ‘equality’ and levelling was to be one of practical care for others. We have to ask, how often we have shared our food, clothing or money with those who don’t have… for this is all part of preparing for the Lord’s coming. It could even be that when there is more of what Paul calls “an equality” amongst the community of believers, that then the way of the Lord will have been prepared. And He will then return.</p><p>And yet despite the demand for “fruit”, John the Baptist showed a spirit of concession to human weakness in his preaching. He told the publicans: “Extort no more than that which is appointed you” (<em><a href='B:490 3:13'>Luk 3:13</a></em> RV). He tacitly accepted that these men would be into extortion. But within limits, he let it go. Likewise he told soldiers to be content with their wages- not to quit the job. And seeing there were no Roman Legions in Judaea at his time [Josephus,&nbsp;<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;18:5:1], these were likely Jewish soldiers. He didn’t tell them to quit their jobs, but to live with integrity within those jobs. He told the soldiers to be content with their wages- implying he expected them to not throw in their job. This is juxtaposed with the command for them to do no violence. But not grumbling about wages was as fundamental an issue for John as not doing physical violence to people. To have as Paul put it “Godliness with contentment” [another of his allusions to John’s preaching?] is as important as not doing violence. And yet our tendency is to think that moaning about our wages is a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do, whereas violence is of an altogether different order. It’s like Paul hitting the Corinthians for their divisiveness, when if we’d been writing to them we would likely have focused upon their immorality and false doctrine. John would have been far less demanding had he simply told the publicans and soldiers to quit their jobs. By asking them to continue, and yet to live out their lives within those jobs with Godly principles, He was being far more demanding. John places complaining about wages [a common human fault] in juxtaposition with doing violence to others (<em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em>)- to show that in his serious call to a devout and holy life, there are no such things as little sins. <em><a href='B:330 16:49-50'>Eze 16:49-50</a></em> defines the sins of Sodom as including “pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor… they were haughty, and committed abomination”. The abomination of their sexual perversion is placed last in the list, as if to emphasize that all the other sins were just as much sin. Likewise Paul writes to the Corinthians about their failures, but he doesn’t start where I would have started- with their drunkenness at the memorial meeting. Instead he starts off with their disunity. Those things which we may consider as lesser sins, the Bible continually lists together with those things we have been conditioned into thinking are the greater sins. Clearest of all is the way Paul lists schism and hatred in his lists of sins that will exclude from the Kingdom. The Anglo-Saxon worldview has taught that sexual sin is so infinitely far worse than a bit of argument within a church. But is this really right…?</p>


text:
<p>3:9&nbsp;<em>And think not to say within yourselves</em>- Always the Biblical emphasis is upon internal thought processes and the need to be aware of them. John's great convert Paul several times uses the same device in his letters- foreseeing the likely thought process in response to his message, and answering it ahead of time (e:g. <em><a href='B:530 15:35'>1Co 15:35</a></em>).</p><p><em>We have Abraham as our father, for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham</em>- Said perhaps pointing to the stones. Perhaps they were the 12 stones set up after the Jordan crossing (Joshua 3, 4). There is a word play between&nbsp;<em>avanim</em>, stones, and&nbsp;<em>banim,&nbsp;</em>sons:&nbsp;<em>Avanim</em>, stones, in turn sounds like&nbsp;<em>evyonim</em>, the term for the poor, the social outcasts- these were the "stones" which were being accepted into the covenant of grace:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:10<em>&nbsp;And even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire-&nbsp;</em>John's words about cutting down the fruitless tree are directly quoted by the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:33'>Mat 12:33</a></em> - as if to show His solidarity with John's teaching. Perhaps the Lord Jesus had heard these very words being preached by John when He went to be baptized by him. "Now [also]", right now; John felt that the day of Christ's judgment was very close. The language of gathering grain into the barn and burning the chaff is used by the Lord concerning the future judgment at His second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>). John saw the Lord Jesus as already having the winnowing fork in His hand (:13), meaning that in essence, judgment began with the ministry of Jesus. In essence, we stand before His judgment right now. Judgment day is not some unknown future entity which has no connection with this life:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:11<em>&nbsp;I indeed baptize you in water to repentance, but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire</em>- Christ "shall baptize&nbsp;<em>you</em>" plural was deeply meditated upon by Paul, until he came to see in the fact that we&nbsp;<em>plural</em>&nbsp;are baptized the strong implication that therefore we should be one body, without unnecessary divisions (= <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>).</p><p>John prophesied that the disciples would be baptized with fire (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>); this was fulfilled by tongues of Spirit descending which looked like fire (<em><a href='B:510 2:3'>Act 2:3</a></em>). Evidently this was not literal fire or else it would not have rested on the heads of the disciples. So the words of <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em> spoke of how things would&nbsp;<em>appear&nbsp;</em>to the disciples, without saying so explicitly.</p><p>John described himself as a preacher of Christ who was not "worthy" to do so. The same Greek word is used by Paul when he says he is "not&nbsp;<em>meet</em>&nbsp;(s:w:) to be called an apostle" (<em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>); and that it was God's grace alone that had made him an "<em>able</em>&nbsp;(s:w. "worthy") minister of the Gospel" (<em><a href='B:540 13:6'>2Co 13:6</a></em>). He knew that his "<em>sufficiency</em>" (s:w. "worthy") to give knowledge of salvation (John language- <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>), to be a preacher, was from God alone (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:5'>2Co 3:5</a></em>); and that in fact this was true of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;preachers. But do we really feel like this in our preaching? John was a burning and shining light to the world (<em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>), just as we should be (<em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>). And therefore, if we are to witness as John did, we need to have the humility of John in our preaching. He was 'in the Truth' from a baby, he lived a spiritual, self-controlled life. And yet he had this great sense of personal sinfulness and unworthiness as a preacher. It's difficult for those raised Christian to have the sense of sinfulness which Paul had, and thereby to have his zeal for preaching. But actually his zeal was a reflection of John's; and John was a 'good boy', brought up in the Faith. Yet he had a burning sense of his spiritual inadequacy. Anglo-Saxon Christianity urgently needs to capture his spirit:&nbsp; Truly Paul 'bore' Christ to the world just as John 'bore' (s:w:) Christ's Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). If ever a man was hard on himself, it was John the Baptist. His comment on his preaching of Christ was that he was not worthy (RVmg. ‘sufficient’) to bear Christ's sandals (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). The sandal-bearer was the herald; John knew he was heralding Christ's appearing, but he openly said he was not worthy to do this. He felt his insufficiency, as we ought to ours. Would we had that depth of awareness; for on the brink of the Lord's coming, we are in a remarkably similar position to John. Paul perhaps directs us back to John when he says that we are not “sufficient” to be the savour of God to this world; and yet we are made sufficient to preach by God (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:5-6'>2Co 3:5-6</a></em> RV). To carry the master’s sandals (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>) was, according to Vine, the work of the lowest slave. This was how John saw himself; and this is what witnessing for Jesus is all about, being the lowest slave and servant of the Lord of glory. It's interesting in this context to note how the Lord Jesus states that in some sense, John 'was Elijah', whereas he himself denies this (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:12'>Mat 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:13'>Mar 9:13</a></em>). Such was his humility.</p><p>For baptizing in water unto repentance, see note on <em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em> above. Given that Isaiah 40 offered forgiveness in order to provoke repentance, it could be that the AV translation is correct- although&nbsp;<em>eis</em>&nbsp;["unto"] has a very wide range of meaning. John baptized in order to lead people to repentance, rather than baptizing only those who had repented and got their lives in order. Even the NET Bible's "baptize::. for repentance" could be read the same way- baptism was for the end of provoking repentance, rather than being baptism only for the visibly repentant. This likelihood is strengthened once we realize that there is surely an allusion here to <em>Wis_11:23</em>: "You overlook the sins of men, unto repentance". Repentance in any case is an internal attitude (see on 3:6), and John as he stood in the Jordan River was totally incapable of judging whether or not in practice his hearers had actually changed their lives. He baptized them because they had confessed their sins and re-thought, re-pented. Not because they had actually changed in practical, ongoing lifestyle issues. Likewise the apostles who baptized 3000 people in Acts 2 had no way of measuring repentance in practice. <em><a href='B:480 1:15'>Mar 1:15</a></em> records John’s message as being: “Repent ye and believe the Gospel". This might seem to be in the wrong order- for we have come to think that surely belief of the Gospel comes before repentance. And so it does very often- but there is another option here- that the repentance is ongoing. Life after conversion is a life of believing the basic Gospel which led us to conversion and repentance in the first place:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>He shall baptize you" points up the contrast is between John baptizing unto repentance, and Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit. The contrast is between 'repentance' and 'the Holy Spirit'. I suggest that the idea is that the gift of the Holy Spirit would empower repentance and new-mindedness far more than what was achieved by unaided, steel-willed human repentance.</p>


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


text:
<p>3:13&nbsp;<em>Then Jesus went from Galilee to the Jordan, to John, to be baptized by him</em>- John's ministry was known throughout the Lord; perhaps the Lord travelled with others, some who would later become His disciples; this of itself was an act of identity with the humanity of first century Palestine.</p>


text:
<p>3:14&nbsp;<em>But John would have stopped him, saying: I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?</em>- There had clearly been contact between the Lord and John; John had not literally remained his whole life in the wilderness. Or if he did, then the Lord had travelled out there to meet him. His limited contact with the Lord had persuaded him that He was Messiah; for he wanted the Lord to baptize him. Baptism was something which it was expected would be done either by the Elijah prophet or Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 1:25'>Joh 1:25</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:15&nbsp;<em>But Jesus answering said to him-&nbsp;</em>The sensitivity of the Lord is reflected in how He frequently sensed and foresaw human behaviour and objections / response to His teaching and actions. You can read the Gospels and search for examples. Here’s a classic one: “But John would have hindered [Jesus]… but Jesus answering said…” (<em><a href='B:470 3:14'>Mat 3:14</a></em> RV). Jesus ‘answered’ John’s objection even before John had properly expressed it (see another example of this in <em><a href='B:490 22:70'>Luk 22:70</a></em>).</p><h4><em>Permit it now, for thus it becomes us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he permitted him</em>- Maybe the Lord Jesus felt that this act of total identification with sinners in their need was necessary for Him to achieve perfect / total righteousness. And He needed John's assistance in this- "it becomes&nbsp;<em>us</em>":&nbsp; He was baptized in order to be absolutely perfect, and that perfection involved the act of identification with sinners in order to totally identify with them. Perfection will never be achieved by holding aloof from sinners, but rather by identification with them that they might be saved. The reason for Jesus being baptized was surely that He wanted to identify with sinful man, taking His place in the line of mixed up folk waiting on the banks of the Jordan:&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p>3:16<em>&nbsp;And Jesus when he was baptized immediately came up out of the water, and the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and coming to rest on him</em>- Sometimes God indicates from what perspective the record is written; at other times He doesn’t. Thus <em><a href='B:470 3:16'>Mat 3:16</a></em> makes it clear that the Lord saw Heaven opened at his baptism, and the Spirit descending like a dove. But <em><a href='B:490 3:21-22'>Luk 3:21-22</a></em> just says that “the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended”. Luke doesn’t say that this is only what happened from the Lord’s perspective. This problem of perspective is at the root of the misunderstanding of the demon language in the Gospels.</p><p>"To Him" suggests that only the Lord Jesus saw this, although John too saw the dove descending and heard the voice (<em><a href='B:500 1:33'>Joh 1:33</a></em>). But He uses the same language in <em><a href='B:500 1:51'>Joh 1:51</a></em>: "Hereafter&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;shall see Heaven open, and the Angels of God::. descending", just as He had seen the heavens opened and the dove descending upon Him. His sense was that His experience at baptism was in essence to be that of all in Him. This connection lends weight to the idea that His baptism was an act of identification with us, He shared our experience and we are to share his. Likewise the Spirit 'lighted' upon Jesus at His baptism, and the only other time we find this idea is when He promised that although we know not from whence the Spirit 'lights' ["comes"], it will indeed 'light' upon every one that is born of water and Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 3:8'>Joh 3:8</a></em>). The same term is used in <em><a href='B:510 19:6'>Act 19:6</a></em>, where after baptism the Spirit 'lighted upon' those baptized. Thus the believer's baptism is spoken of in terms reminiscent of the Lord's. He was baptized to set us an example, identifying with us in order to appeal for us to likewise identify with Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>3:17&nbsp;<em>And a voice came from the heavens, saying: This is My beloved Son</em>- Surely an allusion to <em><a href='B:10 22:2'>Gen 22:2</a></em> (LXX), where the sacrificed Isaac was Abraham's beloved son.</p><p><em>In whom I am well pleased</em>- Combining references to <em><a href='B:230 2:7'>Psa 2:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>. Klausner: "In whom I shall be blessed". Quoted about the Lord also in <em><a href='B:470 12:18'>Mat 12:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:5'>Mat 17:5</a></em>. The contrast is with how the Father was not "well pleased" with Israel when they were in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:530 10:5'>1Co 10:5</a></em>); but He was well pleased with His Son in the wilderness. Many prophecies about Israel, the 'servant' of Isaiah's prophecies, come true in Jesus. God's plan in Israel failed due to their disobedience, but the intention behind it came true in Jesus; He was the Son who fulfilled the Father's wishes after Israel failed Him. Jesus thus became the embodiment of Israel; He was their representative before God. It is in this context that the representative nature of the Lord Jesus was first established; He was God's Son who was fully representative of Israel. It is thereby through Him that Israel can be finally restored to their Father.</p>


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


text:
<p>4:3&nbsp;<em>And the tempter came and said to him-&nbsp;</em>Matthew's record speaks of "the tempter", and the suggestion has been made that this was a technical term used to refer to the Essene priest whose duty it was to test the claims to Messiahship made by people (5). This would confirm the suggestion that the Lord's temptations were at the hands of the Jews. The desert where He was would've been accessible from the Qumran settlement of the Essenes, and the preceding chapter 3 of Matthew has recorded how many of these people appear to have accepted baptism from John the Baptist in the very area where the temptations occurred. Perhaps "the tempter" priest stayed around and entered into dialogue with Jesus. In confirmation of the idea that the "devil" was some form of Jewish priestly figure, we note that <em><a href='B:470 4:4'>Mat 4:4</a></em> records that Jesus told him that "It is&nbsp;<em>written</em>::.". To the illiterate, Jesus usually said that they would have&nbsp;<em>heard</em>&nbsp;something&nbsp;<em>said</em>&nbsp;in the Old Testament; but to the literate Jewish religious leadership, He prefaces His quotations or allusions by saying that "It is&nbsp;<em>written</em>". The fact He uses this phrase here would suggest He may have been talking to one of that class. The Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20&nbsp;has a surprising number of similarities to the Lord’s life and death amongst the Jews, suggesting that they did indeed subject Him to tests of His Messiahship:</p><p>“Let us lie in wait for the virtuous man, since he annoys us and opposes our way of life, reproaches us for our breaches of the law an accuses us of playing false:::he claims to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a son of the Lord. Before us he stands, a reproof to our way of thinking, the very sight of him weighs our spirits down; His way of life is not like other men’s::. in His opinion we are counterfeit::. and boasts of having God as His father. let us see if what he says is true, let us observe what kind of end he himself will have. If the virtuous man is God’s son, God will take his part and rescue him from the clutches of his enemies<em>. Let us test him with cruelty and with torture, and thus explore this gentleness of His and put His endurance to the proof. Let us condemn him to a shameful death</em>&nbsp;since he will be looked after- we have his word for it" (Susan Garrett lists several Greek words and phrases found in the Gospel of Mark which are identical to those in this section of the Wisdom of Solomon. It would seem that Mark was aware of this passage in the Wisdom of Solomon, and sought to show how throughout the Lord's ministry, and especially in His death, the Jews were seeking to apply it to Him in the way they treated Him. See Susan Garrett,&nbsp;<em>The Temptations Of Jesus In Mark's Gospel</em>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) p. 68:).</p><p>Every other use of the word "tempter" in Matthew is about the temptation / testing of Jesus by the Jewish leadership (<em><a href='B:470 16:1'>Mat 16:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:3'>Mat 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:18'>Mat 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:35'>Mat 22:35</a></em>); and that very group are presented as the 'satan' or adversary to the Lord Jesus and His work. There is nothing sinful of itself about putting someone to the test. The same word is used about Jesus putting the disciples to the test (<em><a href='B:500 6:6'>Joh 6:6</a></em>); Paul tested / put to the test [s:w:, A:V. "assayed"] the idea of preaching in Bithynia (<em><a href='B:510 16:7'>Act 16:7</a></em>); we are to put ourselves to the test (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em>); God put Abraham to the test (<em><a href='B:650 11:17'>Heb 11:17</a></em>), false apostles were to be put to the test by the faithful (<em><a href='B:730 2:2'>Rev 2:2</a></em>). It ought to be clear that there is nothing sinister nor sinful about the idea of being 'put to the test' nor of putting another to the test:&nbsp;</p><p>If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread - It's perhaps noteworthy that in the wilderness temptation, the Lord responds to the "If you are the Son of&nbsp;<em>God</em>::." by quoting <em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em> "<em>man</em>&nbsp;shall not live by bread alone"- and the Jonathan Targum has&nbsp;<em>bar nasha</em>&nbsp;[son of man] here for "man". If we are correct in understanding those wilderness temptations as the Lord's internal struggles, we see Him tempted to wrongly focus upon His being Son of<em>&nbsp;God</em>, forgetting His humanity; and we see Him overcoming this temptation, preferring instead to perceive Himself as Son of&nbsp;<em>man</em>. The&nbsp;<em>if::. then</em>&nbsp;structure here (a 'first class conditional') effectively means 'Because:::' (See Craig A. Evans,&nbsp;<em>Matthew</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 2012) p. 83). In this case, we are clearly being given an insight into the internal thinking of the Lord Jesus. 'Because You are Son of God, why not:::'. A truly human Jesus would inevitably have had such thoughts, and the record here makes that clear. Seeing that Mary appears to have become somewhat influenced by the surrounding view of Jesus as her illegitimate son, it's likely the Lord too had moments when He wondered whether this could all be true- whether He really was God's Son:&nbsp;</p><p>Command that these stones become bread- This would not in itself have been a sin if He had agreed to it. But it would have been choosing a lower level, by breaking His fast. But the next temptations were to actually sin. If He had agreed to the first suggestion, obedience to the next ones would have been harder. It could even be argued that to put the Lord to the test was permissible on a lower level- for passages like <em><a href='B:230 34:8'>Psa 34:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a></em> almost encourage it for those with a weak faith. Gideon likewise put the Lord to the test and was answered. But the Lord chose the higher level: and He knew Scripture which could support it. But the fact He chose the highest level first of all, meant that He was better able to take the higher level again, and to finally overcome the third temptation, which was definitely a clear choice between right and wrong. More than this, anything other than a desire to make the highest maximum commitment can lead to failure. “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left” (<em><a href='B:250 10:2'>Ecc 10:2</a></em> NIV) has been understood as referring not so much to right and wrong, good and evil, as to the highest good and lesser good (cp. how the left hand can stand for simply lesser blessing rather than outright evil, e:g. <em><a href='B:10 48:13-20'>Gen 48:13-20</a></em>). The fool inclines to lower commitment. The wise will always incline to the maximum, wholehearted level.</p>


text:
<p>4:4&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said: It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God</em>- The&nbsp;Lord&nbsp;overcame&nbsp;all&nbsp;His&nbsp;temptations&nbsp;by&nbsp;quoting&nbsp;from Deuteronomy, showing that His mind was seeking strength from the words of the Angel leading Israel through the wilderness. There are clear similarities between the Angel's leading of Israel through the wilderness and the Lord's experience in the wilderness:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4><em><a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Deu 8:2-3</a></em></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td><em><a href='B:470 4:1-4'>Mat 4:1-4</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>v. 2 "The Lord thy God [an Angel] led you::. in the wilderness"</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>v. 1 Jesus led by the spirit (an Angel?) into the wilderness.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forty years in the wilderness</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Forty days in the wilderness</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>v. 3 "He (the Angel who led them in v. 2) suffered you to hunger".</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>The Angel made Jesus hunger.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Angel "fed you with manna" (<em><a href='B:230 78:25'>Psa 78:25</a></em>)</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Jesus was tempted to ask the Angel to provide bread as He did to Israel in their testing.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Man does not live by bread alone"</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>v. 4 "Man does not live by bread alone"</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Thus the Lord Jesus surveyed His own experience in the wilderness, and saw that He could take to Himself personally the lessons given to Israel. The Angel led Israel through the wilderness "to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments or no" (<em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em>). God Himself knows anyway, so this must be regarding the Angel, seeking to know the spiritual strength of Israel, as Job's&nbsp;Satan Angel sought to know Job's strength. Similarly, the Lord’s&nbsp;Angel led Him into the wilderness, suffering Him to hunger, to humble and&nbsp;prove Him, to reveal His real attitude to the word of God. His quoting of the word to answer the temptations surely proved this to the Angel, especially since the Lord showed Himself so capable of thinking Himself into Scripture, and therefore taking the lessons most powerfully to Himself. The Lord was made to realize the importance of His memory of the word, as He would have later reflected that this was the only way He had overcome- that man spiritually lives by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". As a result of their wilderness temptations, both Israel and Christ were led to "consider in (their) heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God (the Angel) chasteneth thee". The chastenings of the Lord spiritually&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;wilderness&nbsp;were therefore arranged by the Angels. There did not have to be Angels actually tempting Christ in the wilderness temptations- because they can act directly on a man's heart, they can lead us into temptation. The fact we pray for Him not to implies that He does- through the Angels, as He Himself tempts no man (<em><a href='B:660 1:13'>Jas 1:13</a></em>), although the Angels tempted Abraham, and Israel among others. Thus the Angels may arrange an external stimulus, e. g. the fruit of the tree of knowledge, knowing it must produce certain internal desires within us which tempt us. Note how the temptation to throw Himself off the top of the temple was a temptation to misuse Angelic care. He answered it by a quotation which has an Angelic context: "You (Jesus) shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted Him in Massah" (<em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em>). At Massah the Israelites put the Angel to the test by questioning whether He could provide water (<em><a href='B:20 17:2-7'>Exo 17:2-7</a></em>).</h4>


text:
<p>4:5&nbsp;<em>Then the Devil took him into the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple</em>- The Greek for "took him" is often used in a non-literal sense, with the idea of receiving someone into an office or situation. The same word is used in :8 about the Lord being taken up a high mountain. The idea may well be that He was imagining being received into rulership of the Messianic Kingdom, and was wondering whether that would be possible through accepting 'the devil', be it His own flesh or the Jewish system, who humanly speaking seemed able to offer a path to this. Likewise '<em>set him</em>' later on in :5 carries the idea of being appointed, established in authority:&nbsp;</p><p>The Synoptics speak of how satan ‘comes to’ and tempts and challenges the Lord Jesus to claim earthly political power, which ‘satan’ can give him (<em><a href='B:470 4:8-9'>Mat 4:8-9</a></em>). But John describes this in terms of “the people” coming to Him and trying to make Him King- which temptation He refused (<em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>). Likewise it was ‘the devil’ in the wilderness who tempted Jesus to make the stones into bread. But in <em><a href='B:500 6:30-31'>Joh 6:30-31</a></em>, it is the Jewish people who offer Him the same temptation. In the wilderness, the Lord responded that man lives by the bread which comes from the mouth of God. In <em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>, He responds likewise by speaking about “the true bread from heaven”. The temptation from ‘the devil’ to publicly display His Divine powers in front of Israel in the Jerusalem temple (<em><a href='B:470 4:5-6'>Mat 4:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:9-12'>Luk 4:9-12</a></em>) is repeated by John in terms of the Lord’s brothers tempting Him to go up to the same temple and openly validate Himself “to the world” (<em><a href='B:500 7:1-5'>Joh 7:1-5</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


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


text:
<p>4:7&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: Again it is written, You shall not make trial of the Lord your God</em>- The Greek effectively means 'On the other hand, it is also written:::'. The Lord Jesus did not try to reconcile the two verses, He accepted them as part of a dialectic whereby this verse says that but this verse says this- which is typical Hebrew reasoning. Geek reasoning would seek to explain that this verse says this, but that is qualified by this other verse, so the truth is a mixture between the two verses. The Hebrew style of reasoning leaves apparent contradictions to the Western, Greek reasoning mind. But they are not this at all, just dialectical style.</p>


text:
<p>4:8&nbsp;<em>Again, the Devil took him to an exceeding high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them</em>- The Greek could be translated 'the very highest', clearly a reference to the time of the Kingdom of God on earth. It can hardly be that a fiendish being took the Lord Jesus literally up the highest mountain (Everest) from where He could see all the world. Nor would being up a tall mountain enable the Lord to see "the glory of them". Surely a non-literal event is implied here- within the Lord's mind.</p><p>The temptations are hard to take literally:-</p><p>- <em><a href='B:470 4:8'>Mat 4:8</a></em> implies that Jesus was led up into a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world in their future glory, “In a moment of time”. There is no mountain high enough to see all the world. And why would the height of the mountain enable Jesus to see what the world would be like in the future? The earth, being a sphere, there is no point on its surface from which one can see all the parts of the world at one time.</p><p>- A comparison of Matthew 4 and Luke 4 shows that the temptations are described in a different order. <em><a href='B:480 11:13'>Mar 11:13</a></em> says that Jesus was “in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan”, whilst <em><a href='B:470 4:2-3'>Mat 4:2-3</a></em> says that “when he had fasted forty days:::the tempter (Satan) came to Him::.". Because Scripture cannot contradict itself, we can conclude that these same temptations kept repeating themselves. The temptation to turn stones into bread is an obvious example. This would fit nicely if these temptations occurred within the mind of Jesus. Being of our nature, the lack of food would have affected him mentally as well as physically, and thus his mind would have easily begun to imagine things. Just going a few days without food can lead to delirium for some (cp. <em><a href='B:90 30:12'>1Sa 30:12</a></em>). The similarity between rolls of bread and stones is mentioned by Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 7:9'>Mat 7:9</a></em>, and doubtless those images often merged in his tortured mind - although always to be brought into swift control by his recollection of the Word</p><p>- Jesus probably told the Gospel writers the record of His temptations, and to bring home in words the intensity of what He underwent, He could have used the figurative approach seen in Matthew 4 and Luke 4.</p><p>- It seems unlikely that several times the devil led Jesus through the wilderness and streets of Jerusalem and then scaled a pinnacle of the temple together, all in view of the inquisitive Jews. Josephus makes no record of anything like this happening - presumably it would have caused a major stir. Similarly, if these temptations occurred several times within the forty days as well as at the end of that period (which they did at least twice, seeing that Matthew and Luke have them in different order), how would Jesus have had time to walk (note the devil “led” Jesus there) to the nearest high mountain (which could have been Hermon in the far north of Israel), climb to the top and back down again, return to the wilderness and then repeat the exercise? His temptations all occurred in the wilderness - He was there for forty days, tempted all the time by the devil (he only departed at the end, :11). If Jesus was tempted by the devil each day, and the temptations occurred only in the wilderness, then it follows that Jesus could not have left the wilderness to go to Jerusalem or travel to a high mountain. These things therefore could not have literally happened.</p><p>That the temptations were internal to the mind of Jesus is suggested by the way that in Matthew's record, there is a progression from the desert, to the temple pinnacle, to a high mountain- as if in some sort of ascent toward Heaven. It's even possible that Paul has this in mind when he comments that Jesus did not consider rising up to equality with God a thing to be grasped at, He dismissed that temptation, and instead He progressively&nbsp;<em>lowered</em>&nbsp;Himself, even to the death of the cross (<em><a href='B:570 2:6-8'>Phi 2:6-8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>4:9&nbsp;<em>And he said to him: All these things will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me</em>- The Lord knew full well that "all things", the Kingdom of God when the kingdoms of this world have been subsumed beneath it, could only be given to Him to God. He was tempted to play God, to assume that by His own action He could grasp it for Himself without the cross. It is perhaps to this that Paul alludes when he writes that the Lord did not consider such equality with God a thing to be even grasped after (<em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em>). Again we see how the essence of the wilderness temptations returned to the Lord on the cross. For <em><a href='B:570 2:6'>Phi 2:6</a></em> specifically speaks of the Lord in His time of dying.</p>


text:
<p>4:10&nbsp;<em>Then said Jesus to him: Away with you Satan! For it is written: You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve</em>- The record of the Lord’s wilderness temptations is almost certainly a reflection of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;self-perception; He spoke to the ‘devil’ / personification of sin which was within Him, He saw Himself as two people, and His spiritual man triumphed gloriously against the man of the flesh. <em><a href='B:490 4:8'>Luk 4:8</a></em> records how “Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”. He understood that we can only serve two masters: God or the flesh (“mammon” is another personification of the flesh, similar to ‘satan’). He saw His own flesh, His own internal thoughts, as a master begging to be served which He must totally reject. His words are a quotation from <em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em>, which warns Israel to serve Yahweh alone and not idols. He perceived His own natural mind and desire as an idol calling to be served. When the Lord explained what had happened in the wilderness to the disciples and thereby to the Gospel writers, He opened His heart to them. He gave us all a window on how He perceived Himself, as He sought to explain to men the internal struggles of the Son of God. Bringing it all back home, I must ask firstly how much we even&nbsp;<em>struggle</em>&nbsp;with temptation? And as and when we do, would we not be helped by the Lord’s example of talking to ourselves, and personalising Scripture as He did? ‘You don’t want to do&nbsp;<em>that</em>! Give up your place in the Kingdom, for that::. drug, that girl, that job? Of course not! Come on. There&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;a way of escape; Paul told me God won’t try me beyond my strength, He will make me a way of escape’:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:11&nbsp;<em>Then the Devil left him, and angels came and ministered to him</em>- The same words are used of how they minister to&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a></em>). And the theme of Hebrews 1, 2 is that the Lord was indeed of our nature, and in essence had the same relationship with us as they had with Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>4:12&nbsp;<em>Now when he heard that John was imprisoned-&nbsp;</em>It's as if the Lord took the end of John's public ministry as the cue to begin His (“from that time…”, :17). He may have worked this out from the implication of the prophecies about the Elijah prophet. Or it may be that He took John’s imprisonment as the sign to go to Galilee. Whatever, He was acting according to information which came to Him, and structuring His ministry accordingly. We get the impression that this was done without direct commandment from the Father but at His initiative.</p><p>He withdrew into Galilee- The Greek definitely implies to withdraw oneself. This seems typical of the Lord during His ministry- to go public for a while and then withdraw.</p>


text:
<p>4:13&nbsp;<em>And leaving Nazareth</em>- Gk. ‘to forsake’. Perhaps because of the lack of response already apparent in His home town. Again, as commented on :12, we see the Lord making decisions about His ministry on His initiative in accord with how situations developed.</p><p><em>He went and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali</em>- The idea is of 'to reside'. He changed His base from Nazareth to Capernaum in order to give His message more access to Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>4:14&nbsp;<em>That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying</em>- This sounds as if the Lord was consciously attempting to fulfil God's word. He was "the word made flesh" but He had to consciously achieve that. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:15'>Mat 3:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>4:15&nbsp;<em>The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, on the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles-</em>"Toward the sea" is "by the way of the sea" (AV)<em>.</em>&nbsp;The idea was that John the Baptist was to prepare “the way” for Messiah. Even at this early stage in the ministry, it seems that the Lord recognized that that “way” was going to have to be amongst the Gentiles:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:16&nbsp;<em>The people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light-</em>Each of the Gospels is somehow personalized to the writer. Matthew, for example, changes the Lord's quotation of <em><a href='B:290 9:9'>Isa 9:9</a></em> from "the people which&nbsp;<em>walked</em>&nbsp;in darkness::." to "the people which<em>&nbsp;sat</em>&nbsp;in darkness saw great light" (<em><a href='B:470 4:16'>Mat 4:16</a></em>), because he was&nbsp;<em>sitting</em>&nbsp;at the receipt of custom when the Lord called him (<em><a href='B:470 9:9'>Mat 9:9</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And for those dwelling in the region and the shadow of death-&nbsp;</em>As if death is personified, having its own region and shadow. The darkness of the context in <em><a href='B:290 9:2'>Isa 9:2</a></em> is that of <em><a href='B:290 8:22'>Isa 8:22</a></em> - the darkness of condemnation, for the rejected for whom there was 'no dawn' (<em><a href='B:290 8:20'>Isa 8:20</a></em> Heb:). We can be condemned in this life and yet still change that verdict- by coming to the light of Christ. Isaiah 8 concluded by speaking of the wicked being sent into the darkness of condemnation (a common figure in Isaiah, e:g. <em><a href='B:290 5:30'>Isa 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:19'>Isa 9:19</a></em>). Those who dwell in the dark shadow of death are therefore those who have been condemned- but for them, the light of Christ arose from despised Galilee and the area around the Sea of Galilee (<em><a href='B:290 9:1'>Isa 9:1</a></em> - "the sea" surely refers in the context to the Sea of Galilee, not the Mediterranean):&nbsp;</p><p><em>On them a light has dawned-</em>&nbsp;The light is clearly the Lord Jesus. He uses the same word soon afterwards in speaking of how God makes His light to ‘spring up’ upon both the just and the unjust, the evil and the good (<em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em>). These categories are therefore within the group of those to whom the light of the Gospel has been revealed. Likewise the rising of the sun in the parable of the sower (<em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em> s:w:) would refer to the beginning of Christ’s public ministry; the various types of ground initially responded to John’s message, but when Christ’s ministry was revealed openly, i:e. the sun sprung up, then persecution began, and they fell away.</p>


text:
<p>4:17&nbsp;<em>From that time began Jesus to preach and to say: Repent!-</em>&nbsp;The Lord’s first public word was the challenge to change. His opening words were surely carefully chosen to verbatim repeat those of John (<em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>). He wanted to show the continuity of the message from John to Himself. For He was building upon John’s work, which had been intended to prepare the way for Him to come triumphantly to Zion over the ‘way’ which had been prepared in the hearts of repentant people. The exact repetition of John’s message could suggest that the Lord saw John’s ministry as not having been responded to- and therefore his message and appeal needed repeating.</p><p><em>For the kingdom of heaven is at hand</em>- Gk. 'approaching'. The idea was that John the Baptist had attempted to prepare the way, the highway, over which Messiah would come. So now, Messiah was approaching. "The kingdom of God" was a title for Messiah, seeing that He was the King of the Kingdom; and the term is used like that in Scripture too, e:g. <em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>. The Kingdom could have been then established, the glory of Yahweh could have come to Zion if John's work of preparing the road for it had been successful. But ultimately, Israel would not. But the Greek can also mean that the Kingdom was being ‘made near’, it was being drawn near by repentance- which is why the Lord was appealing for repentance. This is a significant theme in Bible teaching- that the exact calendar date of the Kingdom’s establishment is dependent upon the repentance of Israel. This repentance appears a prerequisite to the Lord’s coming in glory and the establishment of the Kingdom. Our focus should therefore be upon appealing to Israel to repent.</p>


text:
<p>4:18<em>&nbsp;And walking by the sea of Galilee-&nbsp;</em>"Walking by" is literally ‘around’. The idea could be that He walked all around the lake:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>He saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen</em>-The Lord's call always comes at the most inconvenient moment. It was whilst Simon and Andrew were in the very act of casting their net into the sea, caught in a freeze-frame of still life, silhouetted against the sea and hills of Galilee, that the Lord calls them to go preaching (<em><a href='B:480 1:17'>Mar 1:17</a></em>). The Lord surely intended them to [at least later] figure out His allusion to <em><a href='B:300 16:14-16'>Jer 16:14-16</a></em>, which prophesied that fishermen would be sent out to catch Israel and bring them home to the Father. And He called them to do that, right in the very midst of everyday life:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 5:5'>Luk 5:5</a></em> gives more detail. Despite having toiled all night and caught nothing, Peter was able to subdue his natural wisdom, his sense of futility, and the sense of irritation and superiority which exists in the experienced working man: "Nevertheless (how much that hides!) at&nbsp;<em>thy word</em>&nbsp;I will let down the net" (<em><a href='B:490 5:5'>Luk 5:5</a></em>). It would seem that the parallel record of this is found in <em><a href='B:470 4:18'>Mat 4:18</a></em>, which describes the call of the disciples soon after Christ's triumphant emergence from the wilderness temptations. We learn from <em><a href='B:500 1:41-42'>Joh 1:41-42</a></em> that it was Peter's brother, Andrew, who first told Peter about Jesus, and who brought him to meet Jesus first of all. The point is that at the time of Peter's call as he was fishing, he had probably heard very few of Christ's words personally. He had heard about Him, and listened to His words for perhaps a few hours at different times in the past. So where did he get this tremendous respect for the word of Christ from, which he demonstrated when Christ called him? The answer must be that he meditated deeply on those words that he had heard and understood, and came to appreciate that the man saying them was worth giving all for. Our far easier access to God's word does not seem to make us more meditative as individuals. We have access to hearing God's word which previous generations never had. We can listen to it on any manner of mobile devices, have recordings of Scripture playing at home, analyse it by computer, hear it sung to us according to our taste in music, read it from pocket Bibles as we work and travel::. we&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>could</em>&nbsp;do all these things. My sense is that we just don't make use of our opportunities as we should. Why has God given our generation these special opportunities to be ultra-familiar with His word? Surely it is because our age contains temptations which are simply more powerful than those of former years. So it is&nbsp;<em>vital</em>, vital for our eternal destiny, that we do make as much use as possible of all these opportunities. We should be&nbsp;<em>cramming</em>,&nbsp;yes cramming, our hearts and brains with the words of God. I certainly get the feeling that Peter would have listened to a recording of Isaiah on his mobile device if he had one, as he went out fishing; that he'd have had tapes of the Psalms going all evening long in his little fisherman's cottage, wife and kids caught up in his enthusiasm too (<em><a href='B:480 10:10'>Mar 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:15'>Mar 10:15</a></em> suggests that the incident with the little children occurred in Peter's house):&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p>4:19&nbsp;And<em>&nbsp;he said to them: Follow me, and I will make you</em>- One intention of our calling to the Gospel is to bring others to the Kingdom. Evangelism isn’t therefore something intended for only some within the body of Christ. And the Lord has a personal training program for each of us- "I will make you::.".</p><p><em>Fishers of men</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>halieus</em>&nbsp;is literally ‘a salty one’, from&nbsp;<em>hals</em>, salt. The Lord invites all in Him to see themselves as the salty ones of the earth (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>). The call to be fishers, salty ones, is therefore not only for those men on the shore of Galilee, nor for just some of us- but for us all. The Qumran documents spoke of ‘the fishers of men’ as being those who would condemn Israel in the last day; and yet the Lord clearly had the idea that they were to ‘catch’ people out of the ‘sea’ of the nations and bring them to salvation. So the preachers as ‘fishers of men’ actually have a double role- as Paul put it, to some our preaching is the savour of death, to others, the savour of life (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>). Not only does this encourage us as the preachers to&nbsp;<em>plead</em>&nbsp;with men to choose life rather than death; but it is a sober reminder that we too face the impact of the very Gospel which we ourselves preach, and must likewise live lives of ongoing response. We preach, therefore, aimed at a decision- not merely ‘witnessing’, nor simply imparting helpful information.</p>


text:
<p>4:20&nbsp;<em>And they immediately left the nets and followed him</em>- The Greek word translated “left” is used throughout the Synoptic records of the disciples ‘leaving’ what they knew in response to the Gospel. They left their nets, then their boat and even their father (:22). The same word is translated ‘to forgive’. Because of our experience of having our sins ‘let go’ by God and His Son, we are thereby motivated to ‘let go’ not only others’ sins and debts to us, but all the ties that bind us to the things of this life. The immediacy of their response is a theme of Matthew's; it is he who begins by so stressing how immediately Joseph and Mary responded.</p>


text:
<p>4:21&nbsp;<em>And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them</em>- They were intending to continue fishing. There was therefore no theatrics attached to their dramatic leaving of all:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:22&nbsp;<em>And they immediately left the boat and their father and followed him-&nbsp;</em>They became His disciples, that is the meaning of the idiom. The way the Lord called people in the midst of their daily lives, and they immediately “left all and followed Him” is surely recorded to set a pattern for all future response to Him (<em><a href='B:470 4:22'>Mat 4:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:18'>Mar 1:18</a></em>). See on :20. Those fishermen who left their nets had heard the message some time earlier, but the record is framed so as to stress the immediacy and totality of response to Him, in the midst of daily life. In a day when the complexity of modern living can become an excuse to justify almost anything as an expression of discipleship, we need to remember the starker simplicities of Jesus’ first call: “Follow me”. And the immediate response which was made to it. In this sense, Jesus through His word that makes Him flesh to us, i:e. an imaginable person…still walks up to fishermen, into shops, accountants’ offices, school classrooms: and bids us urgently and immediately leave behind our worldly advantage, and follow Him in the way of true discipleship. The immediacy of response is quite a theme (:20, and especially in Mark's early chapters). It continues with the speed at which people were baptized in the Acts:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:23&nbsp;And<em>&nbsp;Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people- "</em>Went about… teaching… preaching… healing" is just what we read of the Lord's followers doing in Acts. The preaching of the apostles (and of ourselves) continues the personal work of the Lord in whom they lived and moved, and therefore often Acts records the preaching work in language lifted from Luke as well as the other Gospel records (e:g. <em><a href='B:510 4:2'>Act 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:12-16'>Act 5:12-16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The preaching of the Kingdom is made parallel to preaching the time of acceptance with God and forgiveness of sins&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 4:43'>Luk 4:43</a></em> cp. 19, <em><a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a></em>); <em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>, which seems to teach that the Kingdom of God is more about "peace and joy in the Holy Spirit", both now and eternally, than physical, tangible things. Christ's parables about the Kingdom don't speak of a political Kingdom, but rather about the relationship between God and the believer in the here and now:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>4:24&nbsp;<em>Then his fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and he healed them</em></p><p><em>-</em>&nbsp; The repetition of the word “and::." gives the impression that every kind of illness – physical and mental, understood and not understood – was healed by the Lord Jesus. “Lunatic” translates the Greek&nbsp;<em>selçniazomai&nbsp;</em>– “to be moon struck”, derived from the noun&nbsp;<em>selçnç</em>, the moon. It’s not true that some mental illnesses come from being moon–struck. But the idea is used, without correction – just as the idea of ‘demon possession’ is in the preceding phrase. “Brought” translates a word which was used in the technical sense of bringing sacrifice- and the idea of converts as sacrifices is repeated in <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>4:25&nbsp;<em>And great crowds followed him, those from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from the other side of the Jordan</em>- Luke makes the point that His popularity was not only because of the miracles, but because of His teaching. <em><a href='B:490 4:22'>Luk 4:22</a></em> records how people were amazed at the gracious words He spoke; there was something very unusual in His manner of speaking. Because of the gracious words and manner of speaking of Jesus, therefore God so highly exalted Him (<em><a href='B:230 45:2'>Psa 45:2</a></em>). The Father was&nbsp;<em>so&nbsp;</em>impressed with the words of His Son. Evidently there must have been something totally outstanding about His use of language. God highly exalted Him because He so loved righteousness and hated wickedness (<em><a href='B:230 45:7'>Psa 45:7</a></em>), and yet also because of His manner of speaking (<em><a href='B:230 45:2'>Psa 45:2</a></em>); so this&nbsp;<em>love&nbsp;</em>of righteousness and hatred of evil was what made His words so special. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>5:1&nbsp;<em>And seeing the crowds, he went into the mountain and when he had sat down, his disciples came to him</em>- The article suggests a specific mountain in mind- perhaps the great mountain Jesus had in mind in <em><a href='B:470 4:8'>Mat 4:8</a></em>? Jesus taught up a mountain, suggesting that His teaching is accessible to those who make some effort to receive it. The Sermon on the Mount is the equivalent of the giving of the Law, also on a mountain. As God / the Angel gave the law to Moses, so Jesus did to the disciples. The disciples ascending the mount to receive the teaching parallels them with Moses, with the implication they too were to relay it to Israel. Instead of the people being forbidden to come up the mountain, they were allowed to- for by the end of the Sermon we learn that the multitudes were also there/ bound by the Sabbath commandment. But it was well understood in the first century that priests on duty&nbsp;were free from the Sabbath legislation. The hint could therefore be that the Lord believed that because His obedient listeners were to live their lives as the new priesthood, they were therefore free from Sabbath legislation. The Lord was surely very conscious that John had come to prepare the way for Him, in terms of Isaiah 40. And yet that same prophecy saw the good news being declared to Jerusalem from a mountain (<em><a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a></em>). Perhaps the Lord was seeking to consciously fulfil this by going up a mountain and proclaiming blessedness and good news to spiritual Jerusalem. It could be further noted that the Gospel of Matthew features five sections of recorded speeches of Jesus, each concluded by the phrase “When Jesus had finished these sayings” (<em><a href='B:470 7:28'>Mat 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:1'>Mat 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:53'>Mat 13:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:1'>Mat 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:1'>Mat 26:1</a></em>). It may be that Matthew is seeking to present the Gospel as a new Torah, with five ‘books’ to it just as there were in the old Torah.</p>


text:
<p>5:2&nbsp;<em>And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying</em>- As if this struck Matthew, recalling how this manifesto of His teaching first fell from His lips. There may be the implication that what He said was by direct revelation from God.</p>


text:
<p>5:3- see on 5:43.</p><p><em>Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em>Our prayers should be like those of a man on death row in a dark dungeon, waiting to die, but groaning for salvation (<em><a href='B:230 102:17'>Psa 102:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 102:20'>Psa 102:20</a></em>). This is the extent of our desperation. We are “the poor” (Gk. ‘the crouchers’), cringing in utter spiritual destitution (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em>). And yet we have a terrible tendency to only occasionally&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;pray, content with prayer on a surface level. The Lord's parables invite us to see ourselves as, e:g:, the desperate widow woman pleading for deliverance from her oppressive landlord (<em><a href='B:490 18:3'>Luk 18:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:4&nbsp;<em>Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted-&nbsp;</em>Associated in the Old Testament with mourning for sin (<em><a href='B:20 33:4-5'>Exo 33:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 10:6'>Ezr 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 8:9'>Neh 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 38:5-6'>Psa 38:5-6</a></em>). The comfort offered in Isaiah was specifically comfort for sinners who realized their desperation (<em><a href='B:290 12:1'>Isa 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a></em>). The time of God's grace was extended, therefore, to those who mourned for their sins (<em><a href='B:290 61:2-3'>Isa 61:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:10'>Isa 66:10</a></em>). Such Godly sorrow is the sorrow of repentance (<em><a href='B:540 7:10'>2Co 7:10</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>We noted in chapter 4 that the Lord had in mind the way that John had prepared the way for Him in terms of the prophecy of Isaiah 40, which spoke of 'comfort' to God's doubting people. If this comfort were accepted, then the glory would come to Zion and John's work would have prepared a highway of repentant people over which the Lord Jesus could have come to Zion and established the Kingdom there and then. Comfort to the mourners was one of Isaiah's descriptions of that possible Kingdom. It could have all happened in the first century, but Israel would not- and so the final fulfilment of this comfort will be at Christ's return and the establishment of God's Kingdom fully on earth. "Be comforted" may be a prophesy of the Comforter which was to give a measure of comfort even in this life (<em><a href='B:500 14:16'>Joh 14:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:5&nbsp;<em>Blessed are the meek</em>- Those humbled by their sins. James, in his commentary on the Sermon, alludes here by saying that God gives grace to the meek, and therefore sinners should cleanse themselves (<em><a href='B:660 4:6'>Jas 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 4:8-10'>Jas 4:8-10</a></em>).</p><p><em>For they shall inherit the earth</em>- Clearly a reference to the promises to Abraham. But it was no good just being a physical descendant of Abraham- humility was the required characteristic. To the Lord, humility was the very<em>&nbsp;epitome</em>&nbsp;of righteousness (<em><a href='B:470 5:5'>Mat 5:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 37:29'>Psa 37:29</a></em>), as Malachi saw pride as the epitome of wickedness (see the parallelism in <em><a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a></em>). There is a telling parallelism in <em><a href='B:430 2:3'>Zep 2:3</a></em> which equates Yahweh God of Israel with humility: "Seek ye Yahweh::. seek meekness”.</p>


text:
<p>5:6&nbsp;<em>Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness-&nbsp;</em>Notice how some of the Lord’s very first words on opening His ministry were “<em>Blessed</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em>) are they which do&nbsp;<em>hunger</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>) and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be&nbsp;<em>filled&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a></em>)” (<em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>). Clearly He is alluding to His mother’s own description of herself. It’s as if He stands up there before the hushed crowd and lays down His manifesto with those words. This was the keynote of what He had to say to humanity. Everybody was waiting to hear what His message really was. And this is what He said. He was saying ‘This, guys, is what I essentially and most fundamentally seek to inspire in you’. And He saw His dear mother as the epitome of the converts He was seeking to make. I lay great store by this allusion. For it makes Mary, at least at the time of the Angel’s visit, truly our pattern. She heard the glad tidings and believed that word in faith, holding on to it in her heart (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:21'>Luk 8:21</a></em>). She was a model for all who hear the Gospel. It could even be that the language of <em><a href='B:490 1:32-33'>Luk 1:32-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:35'>Luk 1:35</a></em> is framed in such a way as to make Mary appear to be the first person who heard the gospel about Jesus. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Thirst after righteousness</em>- The characteristics of the 'blessed' in the first four beatitudes are that they will be spiritually poor (:3), mourning (often used in connection with contrition for sin), humbled, and thirsting to be more righteous than they are. "Righteousness" could mean 'justice' but the term is used by Paul to specifically refer to 'justification from sin'. These descriptions immediately give us all the encouragement that this message of the Kingdom is for me, even me. The next blessing is for the merciful, the forgiving, because they shall obtain mercy- i:e. final cleansing from sin and justification on judgment day. Although of course this is possible even now. See on <em><a href='B:470 5:9'>Mat 5:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>peacemakers&nbsp;</em>and on <em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>For they shall be filled</em>- S:w. <em><a href='B:470 14:20'>Mat 14:20</a></em> about the 'filling' of the multitude who came to hear the word of Jesus. All the Kingdom blessings have some fulfilment in this life. John's version of this is the record of the Lord saying that the salvation He provides would satisfy those who hungered and thirsted for it (<em><a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:7&nbsp;<em>Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy</em>- This is apparently missing in Luke's record. He says instead that the reviled and excluded will be blessed (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>). Samuel Lachs suggests another original text actually read "Happy are they who are excommunicated for they shall receive mercy" (Samuel T. Lachs,&nbsp;<em>A Rabbinic Commentary of the New Testament</em>&nbsp;(Jersey City: Ktav, 1987) p. 75). There's a clear connection with <em><a href='B:230 18:25'>Psa 18:25</a></em>: "With the merciful you will show yourself merciful. With the perfect man, you will show yourself perfect". This verse was clearly in the Lord's mind, and it may shed light on His later challenge to be perfect as the Father is perfect (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>)- in this case, He would be inviting us to forgive others as God does. Paul in <em><a href='B:620 1:16'>2Ti 1:16</a></em> saw Onesiphorus as the merciful man of <em><a href='B:470 5:7'>Mat 5:7</a></em>; and the Jerusalem ecclesia (<em><a href='B:650 10:34'>Heb 10:34</a></em>) as the persecuted people of <em><a href='B:470 5:12'>Mat 5:12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>5:8&nbsp;<em>Blessed are the pure in heart</em>- Heb:&nbsp;<em>bare lev</em>, also translated 'broken hearted' in <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>. A pure heart can also be understood in the context of what happens on repentance and receipt of forgiveness, for <em><a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a></em> uses the term to describe David's position after his repentance and forgiveness (also in <em><a href='B:230 73:13'>Psa 73:13</a></em>).</p><p><em>For they shall see God</em>- Again the Lord is encouraging the disciples whom He was addressing to see themselves as Moses (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:1'>Mat 5:1</a></em>), for Moses was held in Judaism as the only one who had seen God (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:9&nbsp;<em>Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God</em>- Samuel T. Lachs suggests another original text actually read "Blessed are they that stumble" (Lachs, p. 77), and this would fit with our suggestion made on <em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em> that the 'happy' people are those who are spiritually weak but are accepted and forgiven. However, the reference may be to the priesthood, with whom God made a covenant of peace, that they might bring Israel to peace with Him (<em><a href='B:40 25:12'>Num 25:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 2:6'>Mal 2:6</a></em>). Just as the Lord encouraged the disciples to see themselves as Moses, so He inspires them with the thought that they, the nothing special, secular Jews, could and would take over the work of the priesthood:&nbsp; Rabbi Hillel “exhorted his students to become disciples of Aaron, ‘peace lovers and peacemakers’ (mAb1:12)” (As quoted in Geza Vermes,&nbsp;<em>The Authentic Gospel of Jesus</em>&nbsp;(London: Penguin, 2004) p. 314).</p>


text:
<p>5:10&nbsp;<em>Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven</em>- 'Persecute' is literally 'to drive away' (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 1:23'>Mat 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:34'>Mat 23:34</a></em>), maybe carrying the idea of excommunication. Being thrown out of the synagogue was a major and frequent occurrence for many who came to Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>). There are Old Testament connections between persecution and suffering for sin (<em><a href='B:50 30:1-7'>Deu 30:1-7</a></em>), so the Lord could also have in view, as often in the Beatitudes, that He is offering blessing and happiness for the messed up sinners who are suffering in this life for their sins.</p>


text:
<p>5:11&nbsp;<em>Blessed are you when men reproach you because of me, and persecute you and falsely accuse you of all sorts of evil</em>-&nbsp; Quoted by Peter in <em><a href='B:670 4:14'>1Pe 4:14</a></em> where he says that we are blessed / happy if we are reviled for the sake of Christ's Name. Verses 10 and 11 seem to imply that persecution, slander and serious opposition is inevitable for all who will follow Christ. Yet when these things happen, we seem to be shocked and surprised.</p><h4>Paul's extraordinary ability to rejoice in his trials seems to have been rooted in his sustained reflection upon <em><a href='B:470 5:11-12'>Mat 5:11-12</a></em>: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you::. rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward::. for so persecuted they the prophets”. These words are alluded to in at least 5 verses in his epistles. Again seeking to challenge the prevailing views of the Jewish leadership, the Lord invited His humble fishermen-followers to see themselves as the great prophets of old being persecuted by a wicked Israel (<em><a href='B:470 5:11'>Mat 5:11</a></em>). When Corinth reviled him (<em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>), Paul saw this as being reviled and persecuted after the pattern of <em><a href='B:470 5:12'>Mat 5:12</a></em>.</h4>


text:
<p>5:12- see on <em><a href='B:470 5:7'>Mat 5:7</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for likewise they persecuted the prophets that preceded you-&nbsp;</em>The language of persecution is also rooted very much in the language and experience of the prophets. The similar language in <em><a href='B:480 13:8-11'>Mar 13:8-11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 21:12-18'>Luk 21:12-18</a></em> suggests the same. Again, just as the Lord has challenged his secular, nothing-special followers to see themselves as Moses, now He invites them to see themselves as the prophets. And so a theme develops in the Sermon- that He is seeking to place the mantle of Moses, David and the prophets upon ordinary, sinful members of spiritual society, seeking to show them their huge potential significance in God's program. And that impression must come home to us too in our situations, no longer considering that spiritual heroics and work for God are somehow for 'the others', the leaders.</p>


text:
<p>5:13&nbsp;<em>You are the salt of the earth</em>- Salt inevitably affects, by reason of&nbsp;<em>what it is</em>, whatever is next to it. We are lights in a dark world. Lights give light. If the salt doesn't have the influence of salt, it is thrown away. Our&nbsp;poor&nbsp;record of preaching by personal contact is very worrying when seen in this light. We have hidden behind leaflets and press adverts and giving money. But if we aren't the salt, if we don't show&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;light in our little world; are we in fact the salt or the light of the earth? This unconscious spirituality, this natural witnessing, is the essential reflection of our experience of the Lord Jesus. He didn't say 'Do good works so that men may see the light'. He said "<em>let your light shine</em>" - and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;men will see your good works and glorify the Father:&nbsp;</p><p>One characteristic of salt is that it creates thirst. We are mistaken if we assume that all those people out there are just waiting for us to come to them with a series of true doctrinal propositions. Virtually nobody is seriously interested- until they meet you and me. We need to create some sort of realization of need in those we mix with. Through our examples and through the way we make our initial approaches to them, we need to plug in to that basic human hunger for their creator. Plenty of other religions do just this- and we ought to be far more ‘in there’ than many of us are. The language seems to suggest that unless we are not influencing others, then we will be condemned. As in <em><a href='B:470 4:19'>Mat 4:19</a></em>, the Lord seems to be teaching that some form of outgoing effect upon others, if not evangelism, is part and parcel of following Him. The parable of the light under the bucket in <em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em> teaches the same.</p><p>We&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;the salt of the earth. The Lord doesn’t say that we ought to be the salt of the earth, or should try to be. Salt with no flavour or influence is pointless, worthless, untrue to what it is intended to be, displeasing to its user, fit only to be thrown out; and so are we, if we fail to witness to others (<em><a href='B:490 14:35'>Luk 14:35</a></em>). Likewise, we&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;the light of the world. By the very nature of who we are as in Christ, we are to influence the world around us. We don’t just hold the light in our hands;&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>are the light, our whole being, every moment we live. Preaching the light is not therefore something which we occasionally do. Sodium chloride (salt) is inert, meaning it remains unchanged by processes acting upon it and retains its characteristics through whatever. In the same way as the believer is the city set on a hill which cannot be hid, the man who builds on rock, the good tree that must bring forth good fruit, so the Lord seems to be saying again that the essential direction of a believer's life is clear. God sees as either His people or not, and there is no grey area. We don't drop in and out of fellowship with Him. And this should be a comfort to us. We are his. Any salt that lost its saltiness was not true salt, but some imitation (at the time, gypsum was sold by rogue salt traders as salt) or just something which appeared like salt- there is some 'salt' from the Dead Sea area which may have been in the Lord's mind. But the point was, that it was not true salt from the start. The covenant of salt was given to Aaron (<em><a href='B:40 18:19'>Num 18:19</a></em>)- so yet again, the Lord is encouraging those secular men to see themselves as a new priesthood:&nbsp;<br/>The counter-culture of which Jesus is Lord is indeed radical. The Sermon on the Mount, and so much of Jesus' later teaching, revolves around "us" [His people] acting one way whilst the world acts in another. We are to love all men, whereas the world loves only its friends; we are to pray meaningfully, whilst the Gentile world merely heap up empty phrases; we are to seek the things of God's Kingdom, whilst the world seeks only for material things. Human values are radically reversed in Christ. The humble are exalted and the proud debased; the first are put last, the servant made the greatest. But Jesus also contrasts His followers not only with "the Gentiles" but with the contemporary religious people- the 'scribes and Pharisees'. Thus we are to be radically different both from the nominal church, and the secular world in general. Repeatedly Jesus speaks of "they" and "you"; and yet He also spoke of the handful of Palestinian peasants who really grasped His teaching as being the salt of the earth [Israel?] and the light of the [whole Gentile] world. It was their separateness from the world that was to be a part of the world's salvation. So Jesus was certainly not teaching a bunker mentality, an island existence, but rather a reaching out into the world of others for their salvation. The true radicalism is the radicalism of love- love lived out in ordinary life. Whether we strive for absolute truthfulness, what place we seek at a feast, the struggle to grant real and total forgiveness- this is the radicalism of love.</p><p>The beatitudes were spoken generally of all believers, but "You are the salt of the earth" was spoken specifically to the disciples. We can understand the 'earth' as the land- of Israel. The Lord pinned His hopes for the whole land of Israel on that band of rather unlikely men, most of them secular, non-religious Jews. It was in their power to change and prepare the whole land for Him. The very metaphor of salt was well chosen- for salt was cheap and common. It was by their very earthliness and humanity that their mission was to succeed, just as was the case for the Lord Himself.</p><p><em>But if the salt has lost its savour, with what shall it be salted? It becomes good for nothing but to be thrown out and trodden under the feet of men</em>- The idea could be that if we are not salt for the earth, preparing people to be acceptable sacrifices to God, then there is no plan B. It all depends upon us. And if we don’t do that work, then we shall be rejected. Note how Paul speaks of the conversion of people as the offering up in sacrifice of the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>).</p><p>"Good" in "good for nothing" has the idea is of being able, to have possibility. If we will not use our potential for good, then we will be rejected, because we have no possibilities for use. It's only when we wilfully lose our potential for good that we really are of no use. <em><a href='B:490 14:34'>Luk 14:34</a></em> carries the same idea- if salt loses savour, what then can be used for seasoning ["wherewith shall it be salted"]? The idea is surely that if salt cannot be used for making salty- then it can be used for nothing, it has no practical use.</p><p>The same phrase "thrown out" is used about the rejection of the wicked at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). The 'treading underfoot by men' would then refer to the faithful having some part to play in the condemnation of the wicked. The idiom may mean that they will be despised by them. Or there could be a literal element to it (<em><a href='B:460 4:3'>Mal 4:3</a></em> "the wicked shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in that day"). It is not for us to thus judge others&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;because we are to do so&nbsp;<em>then</em>.</p>


text:
<p>5:14<em>&nbsp;You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid</em>- The reference is surely to Jerusalem, which was known as the city set on a hill (N:T. Wright,&nbsp;<em>Jesus and the Victory of God</em>&nbsp;(London: S:P:C:K:, 2001) p. 289). The connection between this city and "the light of the world" is clearly drawing from Old Testament descriptions of Jerusalem being a light to which the true Israel would rally and the Gentile world would come for enlightenment about the true God (<em><a href='B:230 132:17'>Psa 132:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:110 11:34-36'>1Ki 11:34-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:1'>Isa 60:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a></em>). Jerusalem was the classic external symbol of Israel and Judaism- and the Lord is saying that His largely non-religious, secular Jewish disciples were to be the true Zion for the enlightenment of both Israel and the world. This is similar to His invitation for them to see themselves as Moses, who alone "saw God", and sharing in the persecutions of the prophets. This high calling echoes down to us- we who like to think that we are not amongst God's great heroes, and who prefer to leave the dramatic acts of faith to our leaders and high profile members. But the calling is to each of us, to be of no less significance than them, not to hide behind the grand religious symbols of faith such as the temple and the city of Jerusalem- but to be those things in daily life. Judaism understood the Levitical priesthood as the light of the Jewish and Gentile worlds. The Testament of Levi 14:3 claimed of the priesthood: "For as the heaven is purer in the Lord’s sight than the earth, so also be ye, the lights of Israel, (purer) than all the Gentiles [or in another manuscript "ye who are the lights of Israel, shall be as the sun and moon"]". And yet as so often in the Sermon, the Lord applies the language of priesthood to his secular, spiritually poor listeners:&nbsp;</p><p>There appears the idea that if we hide who we are from others, then we are not really Christian. A city on a hill cannot possibly be covered. It is totally public. There must be an element about our discipleship which is likewise absolutely open and obvious to the world. When the Lord returns, it would be strange indeed if our neighbours were shocked to know that we were actually one of His people. The same word is used about the man who 'hid' the talent of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>). The relevance of this emphasis in the first century world was that it was apparently easier to merely quietly assent to Christian teaching, rather than come out in the open about it. The same word is used of how Joseph of Arimathea 'secretly', hiddenly, believed, for fear of the Jews (<em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em>). But in the end, he 'came out', as we all are lead to do by providential circumstance and our own growing conviction of Christ:&nbsp;</p><p><em>All&nbsp;</em>those who preach Him are like a city that cannot be hidden (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>); just as He likewise “could not be hid” in His preaching (<em><a href='B:490 7:24'>Luk 7:24</a></em>). He was the light of the world, and so are we. In the work of witness, we find ourselves especially united to Him. We are Him to this world, and in a sense, He only shines in this world through us. Witnessing is in a sense for our benefit. Perhaps in answer to the unspoken question 'How can we avoid losing our saltiness?', the Lord replied by saying that a city set on a hill cannot be hid (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>). He meant that the open exhibition of the Truth by us will help us in the life of personal obedience to Him. The city set on a hill is specifically spoken as being Nazareth, where the Lord had grown up (<em><a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a></em>). Jesus must've seen the town from the distance and thought out His teaching over the years before He now publicly stated it.</p>


text:
<p>5:15&nbsp;<em>Neither do men light a lamp and put it under a basket but on the stand; and it shines for all that are in the house</em>- The Lord speaks of how we are the light of the world, giving light to the world in the same way as "they" light a lamp. Who are the "they"? The point has been made that to 1st century Palestinian ears, the answer was obvious: Women. Because lighting the lamps was a typical female duty, which men were not usually involved in. Could it not be that the Lord Jesus even&nbsp;<em>especially</em>&nbsp;envisaged women as His witnesses? Did He here have in mind how a great company of women would be the first to share the news that the light of the world had risen?</p><p>The Greek article in "the lamp / candlestick" refers to the specific candlestick, and to Jewish minds this would surely have referred to the candlestick in the Holy Place (s:w. <em><a href='B:650 9:2'>Heb 9:2</a></em>). This continues the theme of the Lord teaching a new form of Judaism, for His sermon on the mount is full of allusions to previous Mosaic practice, but redefining it. The implication of :16 is that ordinary men are present in the Holy Place too, who will see our light. Or it could be that Jesus has in mind how it was the priests who alone entered the Holy Place- and He is saying that the light from those who followed Him would illuminate the Jewish priesthood. The light of the candlestick is both the believer (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>) and the Gospel itself (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>). We are to be the Gospel. We must burn as a candle now, in shedding forth the light, or we will be burnt at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> use the same words). This is but one of many examples of the logic of endurance; we must burn anyway, so why not do it for the Lord's sake and reap the reward.</p><p>The story of the candle that was put under a bucket brings out an issue related to that of the desire to root up the tares: the candle was put there (presumably) on account of an almost paranoiac fear that the wind would blow it out; but this over-protection of the lamp in itself caused the light to go out (<em><a href='B:470 5:15'>Mat 5:15</a></em>). Time and again, preaching the light, holding up the beacon of the word of Christ's cross, has been impeded or stifled in the name of preserving the truth, strengthening&nbsp;what remains (words taken out of context). And because of this lack of witness, this lack of holding out the light to others, the fire of Christ has waxed dim amongst us. This ties in to the theme that preaching is not just commanded as a publicity exercise for Almighty God; He doesn't need us to do that for Him. It is commanded for the benefit of the preacher more than those preached to. To put a candle under a bucket or bed seems senseless; yet this is how senseless and inappropriate it is to hold back preaching for the sake of defending the Faith. Indeed, to put it under a bed (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>) and then go to sleep (candles are normally only lit at night) is likely to destroy the person who does it, to burn them while they are asleep. All who have the light but don't preach it (in whatever form) are likely to suffer the same; notice how the Lord (by implication) links night time and sleepiness with an apathy in preaching. Evidently the Lord foresaw the attitude that has surfaced amongst His people: 'We must concentrate on keeping the Truth, new converts are often problematic, too much energy goes to preaching rather than building up ourselves in the faith'. Probably the resistance to preaching to the Gentiles in the first century used similar reasoning. The Lord may have had in mind a Talmud entry (<em>Shabbat</em>&nbsp;107a) which permitted the covering of a lamp with a bowl on the Sabbath if it was done in order to stop the entire house catching fire. He is arguing that such a fear based attitude, fearful of possible consequence if we share the light, will result in the light going out. And that lesson needs to be learnt time and again.</p>


text:
<p>5:16&nbsp;<em>Likewise, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven</em>- These are those "in the house[hold]" (:15), "those who enter" (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em>). The general public does not seem to glorify God because of good works. <em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em> seems to understand the verse as meaning that we give light and opportunity for praise to other believers. Paul writes of how the generous commitments of the Corinthian ecclesias had “inspired very many” to generosity (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). And we too, in our abundant responses to God’s super-abundant grace, will inspire each other likewise. I don’t mean, of course, in the proud manner of many charity donors, trying to outshine each other before the publics’ gaze by their ‘generosity’. I mean that in the graces of forgiveness, kindness in a myriad modest ways, that we see performed by others, we will find&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;motivation to do likewise. For rightly-performed good works are a light to the world; perhaps it is their very modesty which makes them “<em>shine</em>&nbsp;before men”. So in this sense we will perceive others’ acts of grace and be inspired by them, no matter how discreetly and modestly done they are. For they inevitably shine in a way that gives light to all who are in the (ecclesial) house, so that they too glorify the Father (<em><a href='B:470 5:16'>Mat 5:16</a></em>).</p><p>It could be that the "men" who glorify God in Heaven are the Angels- the same "men" who lit our candle in the first place (:15). "Men" in the parables who do the 'gathering' of our fruits (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:16'>Mat 7:16</a></em>) represent Angels, who are the ones who will actually do the gathering at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>). This seems to make most sense, and avoids the idea of our doing good works specifically in order to impress men. And men do not glorify God just because they see our good works. But Angels, who lit our candle in the first place, notice how our light is shining out to others "in the house", and glorify God in Heaven ["<em>is</em>&nbsp;in Heaven" is unjustified- the idea is that they glorify the Father, in Heaven]. In this interpretation, the "men" are different to those who are "in the house".</p>


text:
<h4>5:17&nbsp;<em>Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfil</em>- The idea that the Lord Jesus ended the Law of Moses on the cross needs some reflection. That statement only pushes the question back one stage further- how exactly did He ‘end’ the Law there? How did a man dying on a cross actually end the Law? The Lord Jesus, supremely in His death, was “the end of the law” (<em><a href='B:520 10:4'>Rom 10:4</a></em>). But the Greek&nbsp;<em>telos</em>&nbsp;[“end”] is elsewhere translated “the goal” (<em><a href='B:610 1:5'>1Ti 1:5</a></em> NIV). The character and person of the Lord Jesus at the end was the goal of the Mosaic law; those 613 commandments, if perfectly obeyed, were intended to give rise to a personality like that of the Lord Jesus. When He reached the climax of His personal development and spirituality, in the moment of His death, the Law was “fulfilled”. Then, it was "accomplished" (:18), and&nbsp;<em>ginomai&nbsp;</em>there is usually used about events being accomplished; the supreme event in view is the cross. The Lord taught that He “came” in order to die; and yet He also “came” in order to “fulfil” the Law (<em><a href='B:470 5:17'>Mat 5:17</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 5:17'>Mat 5:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:550 5:14'>Gal 5:14</a></em>. Christ fulfilled the Law by His supreme love of His neighbour (us) as Himself. The Law of Moses was intended to create a perfect man- if it were to be totally obeyed. The Lord Jesus did this- and therefore there was no more need for the Law. Yet the Beatitudes were addressed to those who hungered to be righteous, and who were spiritually poor, having broken God's laws. It was therefore in this context that the Lord Jesus sets before those very people the ultimate good news- that He has come determined to succeed in perfect obedience to the Law, and thus fulfilling it, He would remove its binding nature upon others. Hence the Law was added&nbsp;<em>until&nbsp;</em>the Seed should come (<em><a href='B:550 3:19'>Gal 3:19</a></em>). This conclusion (in broad terms) was also arrived at by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Dietrich Bonhoeffer,&nbsp;<em>The Cost of Discipleship</em>&nbsp;(London: S:C:M:, 2001 ed:) pp. 74-76). The Lord's total obedience and fulfilling of the Law is therefore further good news for we who have failed both historically and in present life to keep it.</h4>


text:
<p>5:18&nbsp;<em>For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the law, until all things be accomplished</em>- Vine comments: "Jot is for jod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Tittle is the little bend or point which serves to distinguish certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance. Jewish tradition mentions the letter jod as being irremovable; adding that, if all men in the world were gathered to abolish the least letter in the law, they would not succeed. The guilt of changing those little hooks which distinguish between certain Hebrew letters is declared to be so great that, if such a thing were done, the world would be destroyed".</p>


text:
<p>5:19&nbsp;<em>Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments</em>- See on 'jot and tittle' (:18). Note the connection between breaking "these least commandments" and being "least in the Kingdom". The least in the Kingdom will therefore be those who didn't consider the small things worthy of their attention. But the principle is that by our attitude to that which is "least" we show our appropriacy to receive that which is great (<em><a href='B:490 16:10'>Luk 16:10</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And shall teach men to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven</em>- The Lord explained that “the least in the Kingdom of Heaven” would have broken “the least” commandments, and would have taught men so (<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em>); and yet “the least in the Kingdom” was a phrase He elsewhere used about those who would actually be in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 11:11'>Mat 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em> "the least of these my brothers"). Here surely is His desire to save, and His gracious overlooking of intellectual failure, human misunderstanding, and dogmatism in that misunderstanding (‘teaching men so’). The idea of being called / named / pronounced great or least in the Kingdom suggests differing degrees of reward distributed at judgment day. The idea of being called / named at the day of judgment has just been used in <em><a href='B:470 5:9'>Mat 5:9</a></em> (s:w:). There is thus the possible implication that some who will be accepted by the Lord who even at their acceptance at the judgment have wrong attitudes towards their brethren. Thus before the Lord of the harvest, those who thought they had worked hardest complained that those they thought had done less, were still getting a penny. They were rebuked, but they still had their penny (cp. salvation; <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>). The subsequent comment that the first shall be last might imply that they will be in the Kingdom, but in the least place. Likewise the brother who takes the highest place in the ecclesia will be made with shame to take the lower place (<em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em>). Or the bitter elder brother, angry at the Father's gracious enthusiasm for the worthless brother, is addressed by the Father (God) in language which is relevant to the Lord Jesus: "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" (<em><a href='B:490 15:30'>Luk 15:30</a></em>). These sentiments are elsewhere expressed about the Lord Jesus. Is the implication that bitter elder brother is still in Christ and accepted in Him, even though his attitude to his brother is not what it should be? The least in the Kingdom will be those who break commandments&nbsp;<em>and teach men so&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em>); but the least in the Kingdom will be counted greater than John the Baptist was in this life (<em><a href='B:470 11:11'>Mat 11:11</a></em>). The simple message is that there will be some in the Kingdom who simply weren't very obedient in this their day of probation. Admittedly, these details are capable of other interpretations. But bear these points in&nbsp;mind, especially if you ever struggle with the apparent harshness of some Christians you may meet.</p><p>The least in the Kingdom will be those who break commandments&nbsp;<em>and teach men so&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em>); but the least in the Kingdom will be counted greater than John the Baptist was in this life (<em><a href='B:470 11:11'>Mat 11:11</a></em>). The simple message is that there will be some in the Kingdom who simply weren't very obedient in this their day of probation. Admittedly, these details are capable of other interpretations. But bear these points in&nbsp;mind, especially if you ever struggle with the apparent harshness of some Christians you may meet:&nbsp;</p><p>It is Jesus Himself who shall be called great (the same two words used in <em><a href='B:490 1:32'>Luk 1:32</a></em> "He shall be&nbsp;<em>great</em>&nbsp;and shall be&nbsp;<em>called</em>&nbsp;the Son of the Highest"). The one who would do and teach supremely would be Jesus. Here, as so often, the Lord makes an oblique reference to Himself (as in mentioning that some seed would bring forth one hundred fold). The fact we teach others to do righteousness will be a factor in our acceptance (<em><a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a></em>); although not the only one. Again we see the implication that we are to somehow teach others, to engage with others, in order to be acceptable:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>5:20&nbsp;<em>For I say to you, that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no way enter into the kingdom of heaven-&nbsp;</em>The Lord asks us to&nbsp;<em>exceed</em>&nbsp;the “righteousness” of the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>). By “righteousness” he refers to their charity, for which they were well known. In addition to tithing ten percent of absolutely everything, they gave a fifth of their income to charity such as widows, orphans, newly-wedded couples etc. In addition they made anonymous gifts in a “quiet room” of the Temple. How does our giving compare to that? And the Lord challenges us that unless we&nbsp;<em>exceed</em>&nbsp;that, “ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven”. Radical, challenging words- that are hard to re-interpret or get around. And yet surely the answer is that super-abounding (AV 'exceeding') righteousness is only attainable by being justified / counted righteous in Christ. The Lord's challenging statement was surely in order to lead us to the same conclusions reached in Romans 1-8 about being counted righteous when we have no righteousness of our own. For to super-abundantly exceed the technical, points-scoring righteousness of the Pharisees was well-nigh impossible:&nbsp;</p><p><em>'</em>Entering the Kingdom' is a very common idea in the Lord's teaching. But He understood people to be 'entering' the Kingdom right now ("them that are entering", <em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). In the same way as judgment is ongoing now, so is condemnation and entry into the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>5:21&nbsp;<em>You have heard that it was said to those of old: You shall not kill, and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment</em>- Jesus was addressing the illiterate poor. Elsewhere, to the educated and literate, He says that they are aware that "It is&nbsp;<em>written</em>". Here He quotes both one of the ten commandments and also the tradition of the elders. We need to reflect upon the implications of the fact that the vast majority of the early Christians were illiterate. Literacy levels in first century Palestine were only 10% at the highest estimate. Some estimate that the literacy level in the Roman empire was a maximum of 10%, and literacy levels in Palestine were at most 3%. Most of the literate people in Palestine would have been either the wealthy or the Jewish scribes. And yet it was to the poor that the Gospel was preached, and even in Corinth there were not many educated or “mighty” in this world within the ecclesia. Notice how the Lord said to the Pharisees: “Have you not&nbsp;<em>read</em>?” (<em><a href='B:480 2:25'>Mar 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:4'>Mat 19:4</a></em>), whilst He says to those who responded to Him: “You have&nbsp;<em>heard</em>” (<em><a href='B:470 5:21'>Mat 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:27'>Mat 5:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:33'>Mat 5:33</a></em>). His followers were largely the illiterate:&nbsp;As the ecclesial world developed, Paul wrote inspired letters to the ecclesias. Those letters would have been&nbsp;<em>read</em>&nbsp;to the brethren and sisters. Hence the great importance of ‘teachers’ in the early churches, those who could faithfully read and transmit to others what had been written.</p>


text:
<p>5:22&nbsp;<em>But I say to you</em>-&nbsp;Having quoted one of the ten commandments, Jesus implies that His teaching now supersedes them. See on 5:1:&nbsp;</p><p><em>That everyone who is angry with his brother</em>- We are all brothers and sisters, each of us adopted into the Divine family, each of us freed slaves, rejoicing in that pure grace. Most times the NT speaks of ‘brothers’, it is in the context of tensions between people (see <em><a href='B:470 5:21-24'>Mat 5:21-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:43-48'>Mat 5:43-48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:1-5'>Mat 7:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:15-35'>Mat 18:15-35</a></em>). We can’t separate ourselves from our brethren any more than we can from our natural families. Once a brother, we are always a brother. No matter what disappointments and disagreements we may have, we are baptized into not only the Lord Jesus personally, but also into a never ending relationship with each other. We cannot walk away from it.</p><p><em>Without a cause</em>- As added in some texts and AV. The Greek is always translated elsewhere 'vainly', the idea being 'in vain', 'without an effect'. Anger which doesn't achieve anything positive is wrong. God's anger is creative- e:g. the 'anger' of His judgment through the flood brought about the salvation of the faithful. Anger therefore is not in itself wrong. The motives are all important.</p><p><em>Shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever shall say to his brother Raca shall be in danger of the council, and whoever shall say Moros shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna-&nbsp;</em>One of the major themes of the Lord's teaching in the sermon on the mount was the need to respect others; to see the value and meaning of persons. Indeed, it can rightly be said that all sin depersonalizes another person. Sin is almost always against persons. Relentlessly, ruthlessly, the Lord drives deeper, and yet deeper, into the very texture of human personality in demanding that, e:g:, we are not even angry with others, lest we effectively murder them. To say "Raca" to your brother was to commit sin worthy of serious judgment, He taught (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). "Ra-ca" was the sound made when a man cleared his throat to spit, and it was a term of abuse in earlier Semitic languages. To despise your brother, to disregard his importance as a person, was to be seen as an ultimate sin. In this light we should seek to avoid the many terms of abuse which are so common today:&nbsp;“a right idiot" etc. The Law taught that one should not curse a deaf person. Think what this really means. Surely the essence of it is that we should never be abusive, in any form, to or about anyone, even if it is sure that they will never know or feel our abuse.<br/>Every word will be judged (<em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em>), and in some cases by words we will justified and by our speech we will be condemned. So we must speak as those who will be judged for what we speak (<em><a href='B:660 2:12'>Jas 2:12</a></em>). The man who&nbsp;<em>says&nbsp;</em>to his brother 'Raca' or 'Thou fool' is in real danger of hell fire (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). The tongue has the power to cast a man into hell fire (<em><a href='B:660 3:5-6'>Jas 3:5-6</a></em>)- some may be condemned for what they have said, perhaps connecting with how the beast is thrown into the fire of destruction because of his words (<em><a href='B:340 7:11-12'>Dan 7:11-12</a></em>). Thus there is a link between the judgment of the unworthy and that of the world. The process of condemnation will remind the wicked of all their hard words and hard deeds (<em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). Yet now, we can speak words all too easily. Yet we talk and speak as those whose words will be taken into account at the last day. This little selection of passages is powerful- or ought to be. There is reason to think that specific record is kept of incidents, and in some form there will be a 'going through' of them. Thus when self-righteous Jews told their brethren "Stand by yourself, come not near me, for I am holier than you", God comments that "This is written before me::. I will recompense" (<em><a href='B:290 65:5-6'>Isa 65:5-6</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>&nbsp;</em>His standards were sometimes unbelievably high. Whoever called his brother a fool (Gk:&nbsp;<em>more</em>- a moron, but implying a rebel, an apostate- <em><a href='B:230 78:8'>Psa 78:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 5:23'>Jer 5:23</a></em> LXX) was liable to eternal condemnation by Him. John Stott claims that the Greek may directly transliterate the Hebrew word&nbsp;<em>mara</em>&nbsp;(a rebel or apostate) (John Stott,&nbsp;<em>The Message of the Sermon on the Mount: Christian Counter-culture</em>&nbsp;(Leicester: I:V:P:, 2003) p:84). The fact that calling our brother a 'fool' warrants definite condemnation surely implies of itself that the term meant that the fool would be condemned at judgment day. If we condemn others, even if they are to be condemned, then we shall be condemned. That is the Lord's message. We must remember that in Hebrew thought, to pronounce a curse upon a person was seen as highly meaningful and likely to come about. To declare someone as condemned at the future judgment seat would therefore have had a huge psychological effect upon the person. They would have felt that they really would be condemned. The evil practice of disfellowshipping individuals, implying implicitly and at times explicitly that they have no place in the body of Christ, can have the same effect:&nbsp;<br/>When the Lord spoke about calling your brother a fool being the same as murdering him (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>), He may well have been thinking of the passage in <em><a href='B:30 19:16-18'>Lev 19:16-18</a></em>: "Thou shall not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people::. thou shalt not hate thy neighbour in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise (frankly, NIV) rebuke thy neighbour::. thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge::. but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". The fact this passage is expanded upon so many times in Proverbs would indicate that gossip was as major a problem among the old Israel as it is among the new. But notice the fine psychology of the Spirit here: gossip in the church is related to having a grudge, to hating your neighbour in your heart, to not loving your neighbour as you love yourself (and we are&nbsp;<em>very</em>&nbsp;conservative about our own failings). To hate your brother in your heart, to gossip about him, was and is as bad as murdering him. And this same connection between gossip and murder is made in the prophets (<em><a href='B:330 22:9'>Eze 22:9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:240 26:22'>Pro 26:22</a></em>). But the Law provided a way out. If you had something against your brother, frankly tell him about his failure,&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;you would not hate him in your heart. If we don't do this, or try to get someone else to do it, we will end up hating our brother in our heart and we will gossip about him. &nbsp;</p><p><em>"</em>In danger of" in the Greek doesn't imply a mere possibility, but rather, that such a person will receive the threatened judgment. "The council" refers to the Sanhedrin; but you didn't come before them for muttering 'Raca'. The Lord surely meant that such would come before the Heavenly council, of Angels. For this was a well-known, Old Testament based idea- that there is a Heavenly council of Angels. And Christ will come with the Angels with Him to judge us. So the rejected will first come before the Lord, then the Angelic council, and then condemnation. It could be argued that calling a brother 'Raca' and being angry at him without a cause would lead to discussion about this at the day of judgment; but not condemnation ['hell fire', Gehenna]. Only pronouncing a brother a 'fool’, i:e. positively condemned and not to enter God's Kingdom, would lead to that condemnation. There appears to be a three stage progression here from judgment / discussion to council (Gk:&nbsp;<em>sanhedrin</em>), to condemnation in Gehenna. It could be that the three ideas are all parallel. But it's tempting to see them rather as a progression, and to note the similarity with the three stage progression of <em><a href='B:470 18:15-17'>Mat 18:15-17</a></em>, where in case of interpersonal conflict there was firstly a private reasoning with the brother, then bringing the church together to discuss the case (cp. the Sanhedrin), and then treating the person as a sinner. However, the surrounding context of <em><a href='B:470 18:15-17'>Mat 18:15-17</a></em> suggests to me that the Lord spoke all that tongue in cheek and did not intend it to be obeyed literally. For the question of the context is 'If my brother sins against me'. The Lord outlines the three step scenario- and then says that if your brother sins against you, forgive him 70 x 7, that is, even if his repentance seems less than credible, without seeking to test the legitimacy of his repentance. The three stage process was well known in Judaism, and the connection with <em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em> shows that in the Lord's thinking, it was an attempt to reflect the judgment and condemnation of God in the community of believers today. And that is precisely what the Lord implores us&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to do (especially in <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>We</em>&nbsp;are not to attempt to mimic Heaven's judgment and condemnation in our encounter with our brethren in this life. There are churches and groups who seek to follow <em><a href='B:470 18:15-17'>Mat 18:15-17</a></em> to the letter, claiming they are being Biblical in their approach. But some more research would indicate that perhaps by doing so they are doing exactly what the Lord did not want us to do, and by doing so may be placing themselves in danger of condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>5:23&nbsp;<em>If therefore</em>- The link with :22 is not immediately apparent. The idea seems to be that we should reconcile with our brother in order to avoid the temptation to unwarranted anger with our brother, muttering 'raca' about him, or pronouncing him a condemned fool. If we are unreconciled, even if the situation is our brother's fault because&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;has something against&nbsp;<em>us</em>, then we are liable to the temptation to become wrongly aggressive and condemnatory towards him. And this is a significant part of spiritual life- getting ourselves into an environment of thought and situation with others where temptation will not press so strongly upon us. It's easy to leave situations unreconciled, but time does not actually heal them, and the situations lead to temptations towards aggression and judgmental attitudes which may lead to our condemnation.</p><h4><em>You are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you-&nbsp;</em>I’d always read this, or perhaps glanced over it, as saying that I shouldn’t offer my gift on the altar if&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;had something against my brother, but I should reconcile with him; but seeing&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;have nothing against anyone, well I can just go on in serving the Lord. There may be others who have a problem with me, but then, that is for them to sort out with me. But no. The Lord is saying: ‘If your brother has something&nbsp;<em>against you</em>; if the fault is&nbsp;<em>his.</em>:. then&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;take the initiative and try to reconcile it, before doing anything else’.</h4>


text:
<p>5:24&nbsp;<em>Leave your gift before the altar and go your way</em>- The only Old Testament case of an interrupted sacrifice was Cain and Abel. Yahweh told Cain that if he would 'do well', then his sacrifice would be accepted, and Yahweh appears to suggest an animal for Cain to offer (<em><a href='B:10 4:7'>Gen 4:7</a></em>)- on this basis I would suggest that the sacrificial meeting was interrupted by Cain murdering Abel. The Lord also may have in view the way that a thief or deceiver could repent by&nbsp;putting things right with his brother&nbsp;<em>and then</em>&nbsp;offering a sacrifice (<em><a href='B:30 6:4-6'>Lev 6:4-6</a></em>). The Lord is assuming that we are guilty- and this is part of the hyperbole. If you have a relationship breakdown with your brother, then you are guilty. That's the hyperbole; we are not always guilty, but the Lord is making the point that we simply must do all within our power to reconcile, with a sense of pounding urgency. Refusal to talk to our brethren is absolutely not the right way. The Lord also surely has in mind the teaching that the sacrifice of the wicked is unacceptable (<em><a href='B:240 15:8'>Pro 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 21:27'>Pro 21:27</a></em>). Again the hyperbolic point is that we should act as if we are the guilty party in the case of relationship breakdown, and act with urgency to put things right. For time never heals in these cases- the longer the situation continues, the harder it is to ever resolve. Perhaps in turn Paul alludes to these things by urging us to examine ourselves (and his context is to examine our attitude to our brother) before we make the sacrifice at the Lord's table in the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 11:27-28'>1Co 11:27-28</a></em>)- 'the Lord's table' was another way of speaking about the altar, thus making the breaking of bread meeting the equivalent of offering sacrifice under the Old Covenant.</p><p><em>First be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift-&nbsp;</em>Particularly in that watershed night of wrestling, Jacob was our example. The Lord taught that we must all first be reconciled with our brother before we meet with God with our sacrifices (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>)- an obvious allusion to Jacob's reconciliation with Esau in his heart, and then meeting with God. We really must&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;go through that process, whether in one night or a longer period. Reconciliation with our brother is required before acceptably meeting God. And yet many if not most die unreconciled with someone. This is one window onto the necessity of the judgment seat- it is for our benefit rather than the Lord's. There we will become reconciled to our brethren as we observe their judgments, realizing why they were as they were, and perceiving our own desperate need for grace. The tough alternative to this suggestion is that those who refuse to reconcile with their brethren in this life shall not therefore meet the Lord acceptably. Now we perhaps understand better what Paul meant when he urged us "as much as lies in&nbsp;<em>you</em>" to live at peace with all men (<em><a href='B:520 12:18'>Rom 12:18</a></em>). Given that Christ can come at any moment, or our lives end, there is an urgency in all this. Which lead the Lord to urge us to reconcile "quickly" with our brother at any cost (:25). See on :25&nbsp;<em>lest at any time</em>.</p>


text:
<p>5:25&nbsp;<em>Agree with your adversary</em>- The context of the preceding verses imply this is our brother. The Lord recognized there would be satans and personal adversaries within His ecclesia.</p><p><em>Quickly-&nbsp;</em>We must agree with our adversary quickly, for we are on our way to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>). This continues Matthew's theme of immediate response; see on 4:20. The call of the Gospel is effectively a call to go to judgment. If we truly perceive this, and our coming need for the utmost grace, we will settle our differences with our brethren- “quickly”. The whole Kingdom of God is likened to the parable of the virgins about the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:1'>Mat 25:1</a></em>). We are&nbsp;<em>speeding</em>&nbsp;towards judgment, therefore we should watch with urgency what manner of people we are (<em><a href='B:680 3:11-12'>2Pe 3:11-12</a></em>). This urgency of our approach to preaching is in harmony with the generally urgent call to spiritual life which there is everywhere in the Lord’s teaching. He gives the impression that we are living life on a knife edge. He saw men as rushing to their destruction. We are the accused man on the steps of the court, whose case is hopeless. Now is the very last moment for him to settle up with his brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 12:58'>Luk 12:58</a></em>). We’re like the unjust steward, with a knife at our throat because all our deceptions have been busted.<em>&nbsp;Everything</em>&nbsp;is at risk for the guy. Life in prison, goodbye to wife and kids, poverty… stretch out before him. He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;get right with his brethren by forgiving them their debts. We can’t come before God with our offering, i:e. our request for forgiveness, if our brother has any complaint against us regarding unforgiveness (<em><a href='B:470 5:23'>Mat 5:23</a></em>). Forgiving each other is as important as that. As we judge, so we will be judged. Our attitude to the least of the Lord’s brethren is our attitude to Him. There are likely no readers who don’t need this exhortation- to ensure that they have genuinely forgiven all their brethren, and that so far as lies within them, they are at peace with all men. At any moment the bridegroom may return… so have your lamp burning well, i:e. be spiritually aware and filled with the Spirit. Put on your wedding garment, the righteousness of Jesus, before it’s too late (<em><a href='B:470 22:11-13'>Mat 22:11-13</a></em>). He’s just about to come. The judge stands before our door, as James puts it.</p><p><em>While you are with him in the street</em>- Gk. "in the way”. The Lord seems to have in mind Joseph's admonition to his brothers to not fall out whilst in the way together, but to abide under the deep impression of his grace towards them (<em><a href='B:10 45:24'>Gen 45:24</a></em>).</p><p><em>Lest</em>- The idea seems to be 'In case he:::', or even perhaps stronger, implying 'because he will:::'. Surveying the NT usage of the term, it generally seems to imply that 'this will be the case'. The idea is that if you have an adversary and do not reconcile with him, then you will be found guilty. The facts of the case don't come into it- if you are unreconciled, then you are guilty. Thus hyperbole is to reinforce the point made in :24- that reconciliation is so vital. There is of course the unspoken rider, that we must be reconciled "as much as lies in you" (<em><a href='B:520 12:18'>Rom 12:18</a></em>). Paul died apparently unreconciled to many brethren- they in Asia had turned away from him personally (note the irony, that they 'turned away; (<em><a href='B:620 1:15'>2Ti 1:15</a></em>) from the one who had 'turned them away' from idols (<em><a href='B:510 19:26'>Act 19:26</a></em>)), although some of the believers in Asia are addressed positively by the Lord Jesus in the letters of Revelation 2, 3. But the point of the Lord's hyperbole is that those unreconciled to their brethren will be tempted to get into aggressive and condemnatory attitudes which may well lead to their exclusion from the Kingdom. And therefore He uses this hyperbole- that the unreconciled will be certainly found guilty and condemned, simply because they are unreconciled and have adversaries amongst their brethren.</p><p><em>The adversary deliver you</em>- The implication is that our brother has the power to deliver us to judgment, or not. Again we see how reconciliation is a choice; it is in our power to bring our brother to judgment for certain things, and that process might even lead to his condemnation. But, the metaphor implies, we can&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;be adversarial, reconcile, and therefore our brother will not come to judgment for being unreconciled with us:&nbsp;</p><p><em>To the judge</em>- The synagogue official. Luke seems to translate the Palestinian style of things into terms which were understandable by a Roman audience. Thus <em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em> speak of houses with cellars, which were uncommon in Palestine; and in <em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em> of houses with an entrance passage from which the light shines out. The synagogue official of <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> becomes the "bailiff" in <em><a href='B:490 12:58'>Luk 12:58</a></em>. In Palestine, the cultivation of mustard in garden beds was forbidden, whereas <em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em> speaks of mustard sown in a garden, which would have been understandable only to a Roman audience. It seems in these cases that inspiration caused Luke to dynamically translate the essence of the Lord's teaching into terms understandable to a non-Palestinian audience. Even in <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em> we read of going to prison for non-payment of debts, which was not the standard Jewish practice. Imprisonment was unknown in Jewish law. The point of all this is to show that we must match our terms and language to our audience.</p><p><em>And the judge deliver you to the officer and you be thrown into prison</em>- There will be degrees of punishment. For some, the judge will pass them to the officer, who will cast them into prison (i:e. condemnation). For others, the judgment will pass them to the council and from there to hell fire (<em><a href='B:470 5:21-25'>Mat 5:21-25</a></em>). Although the wages of sin will still be death at the judgment, it will be a "sorer punishment" for those under the New Covenant than those under the Old. Because there are, in some way, degrees of sin, there must also be degrees of punishment (<em><a href='B:140 28:13'>2Ch 28:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 28:22'>2Ch 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:18'>1Co 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 5:18'>Lev 5:18</a></em> note "according to thy estimation"; Judas had a "greater sin" than Pilate, <em><a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a></em>). The punishment of the wicked at judgment will somehow take this into account. If the rejected are destroyed together (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>) and yet there are varying degrees of punishment, it follows that the punishment must be on a mental level; and "gnashing of teeth" certainly fits in with this suggestion. The progression judge-officer-prison is similar to judgment-council-Gehenna condemnation in :22. I suggested that this may refer to the stages of the judgment process for the condemned at the last day, with unresolved sin being passed further on to others [Angels?] to consider. I suggested also that perhaps judgment and council may refer to unresolved sins being referred to more serious processes of judgment, out of which we may still emerge 'saved', but have eternally learnt our lesson. The same idea may be here- and even the final 'prison' can be exited, although at great cost to us (although on the other hand, a similar metaphor is used in <em><a href='B:470 18:34'>Mat 18:34</a></em> for the unforgiving debtor who is cast into prison and tormented "until he should pay all that was due". This could be speaking of condemnation). These metaphors may all be speaking about the learning process through which the unreconciled may have to pass at judgment day.</p><p>The rejected amongst the people of God will in some ways share the condemnation of the world which they loved. It may be that there will be different geographical areas of punishment; some are cast into fire, others into outer darkness, into prison (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>)::. or are these simply saying that there will be different kinds of punishment? Or are they different figures for the same thing? Whatever, the sense that the day is drawing near should find expression in the love and care we show towards our brethren. The Lord exhorts to agree with our adversary quickly, whilst we are on the way to judgment- and He says this in the context of warning us to be reconciled with our brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:23'>Mat 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>). In the light of approaching judgment there is an urgency about our need for reconciliation both with our brother and thereby with God (is He the "adversary" in the parable?). All this talk about reconciliation is placed in the Lord's opening manifesto of His fundamental values and beliefs. It should have the same prominence in our thinking and action.</p>


text:
<p>5:26&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny</em>- This may refer to the eternity of final condemnation for having been unreconciled to our brethren. In this case, we need to do all we can so that each and every situation of lack of reconciliation is truly not our fault. At the very least we are to have an open table to all our brethren. But not getting out "until" could mean that a slack attitude to reconciliation with our brethren will lead to dire consequences for us in this life, and there will be no way out until whatever our fault was in the matter, our debt, is completely manifested and paid.</p>


text:
<p>5:27&nbsp;<em>You have heard that it was said: You shall not commit adultery-&nbsp;</em>AV "Said by them of old time". The Lord seems to avoid saying 'By Moses'. He seems to be stressing that the ten commandments had come down to them in oral form; and He was standing before them actually telling them new commandments. The contrast is 'They said::. but I say', rather than 'Moses wrote, but I write:::'.</p>


text:
<p>5:28&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, that everyone that looks on a woman-&nbsp;</em>Bathsheba was "very beautiful to&nbsp;<em>look upon</em>" (<em><a href='B:100 11:2'>2Sa 11:2</a></em>). And David did just that. Our Lord surely had his eye on that passage when he spoke about him that "<em>looketh on</em>&nbsp;a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already" (<em><a href='B:470 5:28'>Mat 5:28</a></em>). Jubilees 4:15,22, a commonly known book in Judaism at the Lord's time, claimed that the sons of God of <em><a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a></em> were Angels who fell because they lusted with their eyes after "the daughters of men". As so often in the Bible, wrong ideas are alluded to and corrected. It was not that Angels sinned by lustful looks leading to adultery- this language is reapplied to us as humans:&nbsp;Looking on a woman lustfully is also the language of <em><a href='B:220 31:1'>Job 31:1</a></em>: "I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?". Job recognized that if he did so, this would be the same as actually committing the deed. He says he will not look lustfully on a maid because "Is not destruction to the wicked? and a strange punishment to the&nbsp;<em>workers</em>&nbsp;of iniquity?" (<em><a href='B:220 31:3'>Job 31:3</a></em>). Thus Job's understanding that a lustful look in the heart was working iniquity was at the basis of Christ's teaching.</p><p><em>Lusting for her</em>- Gk. 'to set the heart upon'. The Lord is not speaking about involuntary turning of the eyes to simply look at a woman.</p><p><em>Has already committed adultery with her in his heart</em>- Gk. 'even now'. The suggestion is that the adultery is going to happen in real physical terms, but it happened before God at the time of fantasizing it. It seems to me that the sense of the Greek here implies that an act of actually physically committed fornication will always begin with lust for the act in the heart. This is not to say that sexual fantasy is OK and only actually performing it is sinful. But the sense of 'even now' would appear to mean that this is not what the Lord is teaching here. He is saying that acts of fornication are actually committed ahead of the act- within the human heart. Sexual fantasy about forbidden partners would surely be outlawed by the many NT commands about spiritual mindedness- e:g. "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (<em><a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>5:29&nbsp;<em>And if your right eye causes you to stumble</em>- To make to stumble, not to give umbrage. The eye must surely be understood in the context of :28. It could be that the Lord specifically has sexual sin in mind. It is His form of "Flee fornication". Paul saw <em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em> in a sexual context (= <em><a href='B:580 3:5'>Col 3:5</a></em>); which fits the context of <em><a href='B:470 5:28'>Mat 5:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>Pluck it out</em>- The Greek word is every other time translated to save or deliver:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And throw it away -</em>&nbsp;The Lord taught that we should cut off those parts of our lives that offend us, and “cast it [away] from you”- because in the end, the whole body of the wicked person will be “cast [away] into hell” (<em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em> - the same Greek word is used in both places in this same verse). What He’s saying surely is that we must recognize those parts of our lives which are worthy of condemnation, and&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;must condemn them now in this life, dissociating our spiritual self from our carnal self as Paul does in Romans 7 - for this is the meaning of the figure of ‘casting away’. He has just used the term in <em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>, and it is so often used to mean 'cast to condemnation' elsewhere too (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:50'>Mat 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). We are to "cast out" the parts of our lives which offend us, and if we don't, we will be "cast" into condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>). The word play on "cast" is obviously intentional; the Lord clearly has the idea that we are to self-condemn those things in our lives which are sinful and worthy of condemnation. If we don't, then we will be 'cast out' in our entirety at judgment day. Sin is to be condemned; we either condemn ourselves for it now, or we will be condemned for it then:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish and not your whole body be thrown into Gehenna</em>- The idea of self-condemnation is continued here:&nbsp; If we literally cut off part of our body, it perishes. If we do not, then the whole body will perish in Gehenna, the condemnation of the last day. For God is able to destroy [s:w. to perish] the body in Gehenna (<em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>). So we are to make perish those parts of our lives which make us sin- i:e. we are to condemn them.</p>


text:
<p>5:30- see on <em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>And if your right hand causes you to stumble-&nbsp;</em>Not just 'your hand'. The right hand was a Hebrew idiom for the power, the thinking, the dominant desire of a man. If it’s all taking us the wrong way, we must cut it off- and cast it from us, with no regrets about what we have given up:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Cut it off and throw it away, for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish and not your whole body go into Gehenna-&nbsp;</em>Even though Jesus never sinned, He reveals a remarkable insight into the process of human sin, temptation and subsequent moral need. This was learnt not only from reflection on Old Testament teaching, but surely also by a sensitive seeking to enter into the feelings and processes of the sinner. This is why no sinner, ourselves included, need ever feel that this perfect Man is somehow unable to be touched by the feeling of our infirmities. Consider how He spoke of looking upon a woman to lust after her; and how He used the chilling figure of cutting out the eye or hand that offended (<em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em>)- the very punishments meted out in Palestine at the time for sexual misbehaviour. He had surely observed men with eyes on stalks, looking at women. Although He never sinned, yet He had thought Himself into their likelihood of failure, He knew all about the affairs going on in the village, the gutter talk of the guys at work::. yet He knew and reflected upon those peoples' moral need, they were questions to Him that demanded answers, rather than a thanking God that He was not like other men were. Reflect on the characters of the Lord's parables. They cover the whole gamut of first century Palestinian life- labourers and elder sons and officials and mums and dads. They were snapshots of typical human behaviour, and as such they are essays in the way Jesus diagnosed the human condition; how much He had reflected upon people and society, and perceived our tragic need as nobody else has. &nbsp;He invites the zealous saint to cut off the various limbs of the body (for they&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;cause offence at some time!), so that he might enter the Kingdom. To the Jewish&nbsp;mind, imagining such a scene would have created the impression of priestly action. The sensitive reader is invited to see himself as “the offering and the priest”.</p>


text:
<h4>5:31&nbsp;<em>It was also said: Whoever shall send away his wife, let him give her a contract of divorce</em>- I suggested earlier that the Lord was carefully not saying that 'Moses said this, but I say differently'. But now He moves on to criticize the teaching of the religious leaders about divorce, which had effectively been elevated to the level of God's law. Divorce was often practiced in ancient societies for trivial reasons and in the heat of the moment. The divorce contract demanded by Moses however required some forethought; for one thing it had to be written, which in a largely illiterate society would involve getting others involved. And the contract would have stated the reasons, and the conditions regarding any issues of maintenance. This is a far superior and more morally developed way than in many primitive societies.</h4>


text:
<p>5:32&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, that everyone that divorces his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality-&nbsp;</em>The Lord has in view the guilty Pharisees of the Hillel school who were twisting <em><a href='B:50 24:1-4'>Deu 24:1-4</a></em> to mean that one could divorce for any reason so long as a divorce paper was written. Jesus at this point is not addressing the Pharisees but His potential followers. He is probably citing this well-known controversy in order to demonstrate how motives behind an action are what are culpable. He is inviting His hearers to consider the motive for divorce and perceive that as all important, rather than the fact of divorce. This is why I suggest the key word in this verse is&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, translated "cause". It is the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of fornication which is the reason for divorce (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:37'>Mat 5:37</a></em>). The thinking, reasoning, idea of fornication is what leads to divorce. This interpretation makes the Lord's reasoning here flow seamlessly and directly on from His teaching in preceding verses about the root of sexual sin being in the mind. So the Lord is indeed saying that the Hillel school of thought- that divorce was possible for any trivial reason- was wrong. But as always, He moves the focus to a higher and more demanding level. He implies that "fornication" is the Biblical justification for divorce, but He says that actually it is the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, the thought, of fornication which is the problem. And this is in line with what He has just been teaching about the thought and action of fornication being so closely connected:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Makes her commit adultery-&nbsp;</em>There is no doubt that we can be counted responsible for making another brother sin, even though he too bears responsibility for that sin. The man who commits adultery causes his ex-wife to commit adultery too, the Lord observed (<em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>). Her sin remains her sin, but he too is guilty. <em><a href='B:240 5:15-16'>Pro 5:15-16</a></em> (NIV) teach likewise: that a man should drink the waters of his own well, i:e. take sexual fulfilment from his own wife, otherwise his waters (i:e. the sexuality of his wife) will overflow into the streets for all and sundry. She will turn to other men due to his unfaithfulness. Sin thus has so many aspects.</p><p><em>And whoever shall marry a divorced woman commits adultery</em>- The 'whosoever' earlier in this verse seems to refer to men who thought they could divorce their wife for any reason and go off with another woman. This view led women into sinful relationships with those men. But perhaps what is in view in this part of the verse is the women who divorced their husbands for any reason- for women in some circles did have the power to divorce in the first century. The man who married such a woman was also committing adultery. The 'whosoever' refers to people who were getting divorced for any reason apart from fornication, and thereby leading both themselves and their new partners into sin.</p>


text:
<p>5:33&nbsp;<em>Again, you have heard that it was said to them of old: You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord</em>- This refers to perjury, i:e. lying about something in court. Perjury has a motive- e:g. simply lying about your age to a causal enquirer is not perjury, but it is perjury if you lie about your age in order to get old age retirement benefits. So we see the theme of&nbsp;<em>motive</em>&nbsp;being continued. But the Lord takes the matter further. He not only forbids false swearing but swearing at all- as if He foresaw that any oath is likely to end up a false oath, such is the weakness of humanity and our tendency not to be truthful. <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em> quotes this and says that "Above all" we should not swear falsely, lest we fall into condemnation. This is strong language. The implication is that if we lie in a human court, that is one thing- but that lie will be tried in the court of Heaven and will lead to condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>5:34&nbsp;<em>But I say to you: Swear not at all, neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God</em>- The Lord taught that His people were to be unconditionally truthful, because every untruthful word would be judged at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em>). When He taught us ‘swear not at all’ (<em><a href='B:470 5:33-37'>Mat 5:33-37</a></em>), He spoke specifically about not swearing by the judgment throne of God at Jerusalem. Jews and indeed all Semitic peoples were in the habit of swearing by the last day judgment, to prove that they were truthful (cp. <em><a href='B:470 23:16-22'>Mat 23:16-22</a></em>). The Lord is saying that His people have no need to use those invocations and oaths- because they are to live&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;as if they are before the final judgment seat of God in Jerusalem. And therefore, our words will be true- because we live as men and women who stand constantly before His judgment presence. Swearing by "heaven" may refer to the temple; the "earth" of :35 would be the land of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>5:35&nbsp;<em>Nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet. Nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King</em>- The Jews, like many people, swore too easily. They thought that swearing by something greater than them was so acceptable that it actually excused them from basic truthfulness within their hearts. Their reasoning therefore was that they could lie about a matter because they judged they would never be found out; and swore by all manner of greater things to add credibility to their lie. This is the whole problem with religious structures of whatever kind; external things&nbsp;are invested with more authority and importance than the need for internal truth and spirituality. We see here the Lord's penetrating analysis of human psychology. The Lord clearly understood God as a personal being, who was personally manifest in the earth / land of Israel and Jerusalem- despite their apostasy. Clearly God does not offer His fellowship only on the basis of purity, nor does He practice any sense of guilt by association.</p>


text:
<p>5:36&nbsp;<em>Neither shall you swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black</em>- Starting with the greatest thing- the throne of God- down to the apparently most insignificant (one hair), the Lord shows that absolutely nothing (great or small) can give any more meaning to human words than the words themselves.</p>


text:
<p>5:37&nbsp;<em>But let your Yes mean Yes, and your No, No. For whatever is more than these comes from evil-&nbsp;</em>The AV and some manuscripts add "Let your communication be::.". The word&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>is used. The contrast is between 'swearing' in words, and having an internal&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, a thought behind the words, which is clear and honest. This continues the theme of <em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em> about the<em>&nbsp;logos</em>&nbsp;of fornication. We are to pay attention to our&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;rather than merely the external word and action.</p><p><em>Yes, yes</em>- People had the idea that there was normal language, and then oaths, which ensured that what you were saying was really true. The Lord is teaching that we should operate on only one level of language- absolute truth. We should not think that some areas of our language use can be less honest than others. The demand is for a total influence of God's truth into every aspect of human life and thinking.</p><p>Wrong words come&nbsp;<em>ek</em>, 'out of', evil or "the evil one". Yet the thrust of the Lord's teaching so far in the Sermon has been that wrong words and behaviour come&nbsp;<em>ek</em>, out of, the human heart and motivations. This, then, is 'the evil', personified as 'the evil one'. In using this term the Lord was radically redefining the popular conceptions of an external 'evil one' as an external being, teaching that it is the evil<em>&nbsp;logos&nbsp;</em>within the human heart which is the real 'evil one'. We note how deeply the Lord's teaching is concerned with internal thought processes. Whatever is more than a simple yes-no way of speaking involves something from 'the evil one'; and we weasel our way with words and meanings only when we are under temptation to be sinful. But that is a deeply internal, psychological situation, deep, deep within the human heart.</p>


text:
<p>5:38<em>&nbsp;You have heard that it was said: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth</em>-When the Lord Jesus gave His commandments as an elaboration of Moses' Law, that Law was still in force. He didn't say 'When I'm dead, this is how you should behave:::'. He was showing us a higher level; but in the interim period until the Law was taken out of the way, He was opening up the&nbsp;<em>choice</em>&nbsp;of taking that higher level, even though making use of the concessions which Moses offered would not have been a sin during that period. Thus He spoke of not insisting on "an eye for an eye"; even though in certain rare cases the Law did allow for this. He was saying: 'You can keep Moses' Law, and take an eye for an eye. But there is a higher level: to simply forgive'. And that in fact was inculcated by Moses' law itself.</p>


text:
<p>5:39&nbsp;<em>But I say to you: Do not resist him that is evil</em>- The Greek term for resisting evil occurs only in <em><a href='B:560 6:13'>Eph 6:13</a></em>. We are in this life to arm ourselves spiritually, so that we may be able to resist in the evil day. If Paul is alluding to this part of the Sermon, the point would be that we are not to resist evil in this life, because our time to ultimately resist it will be in the last day. Then, along with the Lord Himself, we will resist and overcome evil through the establishment of the Kingdom on earth. <em><a href='B:520 13:2'>Rom 13:2</a></em> is likely another allusion to "resist not evil"- if we "resist" [s:w:] Governments whom God has put in power, then we are resisting God. This means that Paul fully understood that the 'powers that be' are indeed "evil", but they are not to be proactively 'resisted' by those in Christ. The time for that will come, but is not now. We are, however, to "resist the devil" (<em><a href='B:660 4:7'>Jas 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:9'>1Pe 5:9</a></em>). Surely "resist not evil" is in view. We are to resist sin within us, but not evil in its political form around us. Again, as so often in the Bible, we see that the focus for our spiritual struggle is within rather than without. As always in the Sermon, the example of Jesus was the making of the word into flesh. <em><a href='B:660 5:6'>Jas 5:6</a></em> seems to make this point, by pointing out that Jesus did not and in a sense does not resist evil done against Him: “You have condemned, you have murdered the righteous one. He doesn’t resist you”. And yet He will judge this behaviour- not now, but at the last day.</p><p><em>But whoever hits you on your right cheek</em>- You singular. Time and again the Sermon on the Mount / Plain seems to take a broad sweep in its record of the Lord’s teaching to us all; and then He suddenly focuses in on the individual. The AV brings this out well through the use of “you” (plural) and “thee” (singular): “Blessed are you poor… love your enemies… to him who strikes thee on the cheek…”. Note how many times there is this change of pronoun in Luke 6. Clearly the Lord wants us to see our collective standing before Him, and yet not to overlook the purely personal nature of His appeal to us individually:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Turn to him the other also</em>- The Lord was smitten on the cheek but enquired why He was being smitten, rather than literally turning the other cheek. But to do this would be so humiliating for the aggressor that it would be a far more effective resistance of evil than anything else. The power in the confrontation is now with the one who turns the other cheek. S/he is calling the shots, not the beater. The idea of not resisting evil and offering the other cheek (<em><a href='B:470 5:39'>Mat 5:39</a></em>) we normally apply to suffering loss from the world without fighting for our rights. Yet Paul took this as referring to the need to not retaliate to the harmful things done to us by members of the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:520 12:16-17'>Rom 12:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:7'>1Co 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:15'>1Th 5:15</a></em>). When struck on the right cheek- which was a Semitic insult to a heretic- they were to not respond and open themselves up for further insult [surely a lesson for those brethren who are falsely accused of wrong beliefs]. And yet the compassion of Jesus shines through both His parables and the records of His words; as does His acceptance of people for who they were. People were relaxed with Him because they could see He had no hidden agenda. He wasn't going to use them for His own power trip.</p>


text:
<p>5:40&nbsp;<em>And if anyone wants to sue you and take away</em>- A rather liberal translation of the single Greek word&nbsp;<em>krino</em>. The idea is quite simply of judging. We can be wrongly judged by others without them taking us to court. The simple principle 'Do not resist wrong judgment of you' is a very large ask. Even in this life, truth often comes out. And if we believe in the ultimate justice of the final judgment, we will not for ever be going around correcting others' misjudgements and wrong impressions of us. That is something I have had to deeply learn in my own life.</p><p><em>Your coat, let him also have your cloak-&nbsp;</em>It was forbidden by the Law to keep a man’s outer garment overnight (<em><a href='B:20 22:26-27'>Exo 22:26-27</a></em>). But the Lord taught&nbsp;<em>whilst the law was still in operation&nbsp;</em>that we should be willing to give it up, and even offer it (<em><a href='B:470 5:40'>Mat 5:40</a></em>). The threatened man could have quoted the Law and kept his clothing. But the Lord bids us go to a higher level, beyond using God’s law to uphold our own rights. And in this He raises a vital if difficult principle: Don’t always enforce what Biblical rights you have against your brother. Don’t rush to your own defence and justification even if Scripture is on your side. Live on the level of true love and non-resistance to evil. In this case the idea would be that even if someone amongst God's people does something unBiblical to us, clearly breaking God's laws, we are still to not resist evil but rather by our grace to them, shame them into repentance.</p>


text:
<p>5:41&nbsp;<em>And whoever shall compel you to go one mile, go with him two-&nbsp;</em>The Lord’s high value of persons is reflected in how He taught His followers to not resist evil. A poor man had only two garments- an outer one, and an inner one (<em><a href='B:50 24:10-13'>Deu 24:10-13</a></em>). Underneath that, he was naked. Yet the Lord taught that if you had your outer garment unjustly taken from you, then offer your abuser your undercloth. Offer him, in all seriousness, to take it off you, and leave you standing next to him arrystarkus. This would have turned the table. The abuser would be the one left ashamed, as he surely wouldn’t do this. And thus the&nbsp;<em>dignity of the abused person was left intact at the end</em>. This was the Lord’s desire. Likewise, Roman soldiers were allowed to impress a Jew to carry their pack for a mile, but they were liable to punishment if they made him carry it two miles. To offer to carry it the second mile would almost always be turned down by the abusive soldier. And again, at the end of the exchange, he would be the one humiliated, and the Lord’s follower, even though abused, would remain with head up and dignity intact.</p>


text:
<p>5:42&nbsp;<em>Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would</em>- Luke says that the Lord taught that we should “give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom. For with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again” (<em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em>). We might have expected Him to say: ‘Give generously, with a good, running over measure, and this is what you will receive in return’. But He doesn’t. He says simply “Give”; and then we will be given to in a generous measure, because with what measure we use in our giving, we will receive. Thinking it through, He means surely that “giving”, by His definition, means a generous, well packed, abundant giving; for that&nbsp;<em>is&nbsp;</em>Christian giving. And note that the context of <em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em> is the Lord talking about not being critical and judgmental of others, but rather forgiving and accepting them. It is our 'giving' in this sense which is to be so full and generous. Only God’s grace / giving can inspire this attitude within us, as we live hemmed in by the people of a materialistic, mean world, where nobody takes up a cross for anyone else. This is why Paul makes a play on the word ‘grace’ when writing to the Corinthians about giving; for&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, “grace”, means ‘giving’. He urges them to not receive God’s grace in vain, but rather, motivated by it, to give grace to others (<em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:6-7'>2Co 8:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Borrow from you</em>- The Greek strictly means to borrow for interest. Seeing this was illegal under the Law of Moses, the Lord is saying that we should just lend- but not for interest. We would all soon bankrupt if we read this as it stands in many English translations. Or it could be that the Lord was aware that He was talking to extremely poor people who had so little to lend that it was not as hard for them to take Him seriously on this point as it is for those who have so much more.</p><p>According to Luke’s record here, the Lord taught that we must love our enemies “and lend [in whatever way] never despairing” (<em><a href='B:490 6:35'>Luk 6:35</a></em> RV). The Lord sought to inculcate in His followers His same positive spirit. To never give up with people, for all the losses, the casualties, the hurt… never despairing of humanity. This was and is the spirit of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>5:43<em>&nbsp;You have heard that it was said: You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's attitude to the Essenes is a case study in bridge building- developing what we have in common with our target audience, and yet through that commonality addressing the issues over which we differ. The Dead Sea scrolls reveal that the terms ""poor in spirit" and "poor" are technical terms used only by the Essenes to describe themselves". So when the Lord encouraged us to be "poor in spirit" (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em>), He was commending the Essene position. Likewise when He praised those who were eunuchs for God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 19:10-12'>Mat 19:10-12</a></em>), He was alluding to the Essenes, who were the only celibate group in 1st century Israel. And yet lepers were anathema to the Essenes, and the Lord's staying in the home of Simon the leper (<em><a href='B:480 14:3'>Mar 14:3</a></em>) was a purposeful affront to Essene thinking. The parable of the Good Samaritan has been seen as another purposeful attack upon them; likewise the Lord's teaching: "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy" (<em><a href='B:470 5:43'>Mat 5:43</a></em>). It was the Essenes in their&nbsp;<em>Rule Of The Community</em>&nbsp;who taught that Essenes must yearly chant curses upon their enemies. So the Lord even within Matthew 5, and certainly within His teaching as a whole, both commended and challenged the Essenes; His bridge building didn't involve just accepting their position.</p>


text:
<h4>5:44&nbsp;<em>But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you-&nbsp;</em>Praying for our enemies and abusers, not wishing a curse upon them but rather a blessing, sounds like Job (<em><a href='B:470 5:44'>Mat 5:44</a></em> = <em><a href='B:220 31:30'>Job 31:30</a></em>). 'Blessing' has Biblical connection with the ideas of forgiveness and salvation. There would be no point in praying for forgiveness for the obviously impenitent unless God might actually grant it. This opens huge possibilities and potentials to us. God is willing to forgive people for the sake of the prayers and efforts of others (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). Jesus isn't simply telling us to vaguely pray for our enemies because it is psychologically good for us and eases our pain a bit. Genuine prayer for abusers really has the possibility of being heard- for God is willing to save people for the sake of our prayers. Otherwise, this exhortation to do good to abusers through praying for their blessing would be rather meaningless. 'Cursing' likewise tended to carry the sense of 'May you be condemned at the day of judgment'. Those who condemn others will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em> etc:)- and yet we can pray for their blessing. It is perhaps only our prayers and desire for their salvation which can over-ride the otherwise certain connection between condemning others and being condemned. This gives those condemned and abused by others so much work to do. In fact, so amazing are the possibilities that that alone is therapeutic. Moses' praying for Pharaoh in <em><a href='B:20 9:28-29'>Exo 9:28-29</a></em> is perhaps the Old Testament source of Christ's words. Let's not read those records as implying that Moses simply uttered a few words to God, and then each of the plagues was lifted. There was an element of real fervency in Moses' prayers- which may well be lacking in ours. This is surely an example of genuinely praying for our enemies.</h4><p>Curse [condemn]::. hate::. despitefully use [slander]::. persecute [chase out- excommunicate]<em>&nbsp;</em>the terms used here are very applicable to attitudes from some members of God's people to others- first century Israel, in the first context, and the Christian church in the longer term context. The language is not to applicable to persecution at the hands of the unbelieving world. Likewise the commands to pray for spiritual blessing and acceptance of our abusers is surely more appropriate to prayers for those who are bitter misbelievers than for complete unbelievers who profess no desire to please God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>5:45 See on 6:26.<br/><em>That you might be sons of your Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>Jesus juxtaposed ideas in a radical way. He spoke of drinking His blood; and of a Samaritan who was good, a spiritual hero. It was impossible for Jews to associate the term 'Samaritan' and the concept of being spiritually an example. And so the stark, radical challenge of the Lord's words must be allowed to come down into the 21st century too. <em><a href='B:490 6:35'>Luk 6:35</a></em> has Jesus speaking of "children of the Most High" and yet <em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em> has "children of your father". What did Jesus actually say? Perhaps: "Children of&nbsp;<em>abba</em>, daddy, the Most High". He juxtaposed His shocking idea of&nbsp;<em>abba&nbsp;</em>with the exalted title "the Most High". The Most High was in fact as close as&nbsp;<em>abba</em>, daddy, father:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>For He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust-</em>&nbsp;God consciously makes the sun rise each day- it isn't part of a kind of perpetual motion machine. Hence the force of His promises in the prophets that in the same way as He consciously maintains the solar system, so He will maintain His Israel. Psalms 104 is full of such examples: "He waters the hills::. causes the grass to grow::. makes darkness (consciously, each night)::. the young lions::. seek their meat from God::. send forth Your Spirit (Angel), they are created" (not just by the reproductive system). There are important implications following from these ideas with regard to our faith in prayer. It seems to me that our belief that the world is going on inevitably by clockwork is one of the things which militates against faith. To give a simple example: we may need to catch a certain train which is to leave at 9 a:m. We wake up late at 8:30 a:m. and find it hard to have faith in our (all too hasty) prayer that we will get it, because we are accustomed to trains leaving on time. But if we have the necessary faith to believe that each individual action in life is the work of God, then it is not so hard to believe that God will make the action of that train leaving occur at 9:30 a:m. rather than at 9 a:m. when He normally makes it leave. The whole of creation keeps on going as a result of God having a heart that bleeds for people. “If he causes his heart to return unto himself”, the whole of creation would simply cease (<em><a href='B:220 34:14'>Job 34:14</a></em> RVmg:). His spirit is His heart and mind, as well as physical power. Creation is kept going not by clockwork, but by the conscious outpouring of His Spirit toward us. In times of depression we need to remember this; that the very fact the world is still going, the planet still moves, atoms stay in their place and all matter still exists… is proof that the God who has a heart that bleeds for us is still there, with His heart going out to us His creation. And the spirit of the Father must be in us His children.</p><p>Just because the Father gives His sun and rain to all without discrimination, we likewise should love our enemies (<em><a href='B:470 5:43-45'>Mat 5:43-45</a></em>). This is the imperative of creation. We noted on <em><a href='B:470 5:44'>Mat 5:44</a></em> that our prayer and goodness to our enemies is in order to lead them to repentance and salvation. This is surely one motive behind the way God sends rain and sunshine upon the evil as well as the good. His goodness to them is intended to lead them to repentance. Only at the day of judgment will He execute judgment against them, and that is to be our perspective too. See on 5:39&nbsp;<em>resist not evil</em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>5:46&nbsp;For<em>&nbsp;if you love them that love you</em>- We tend to love in response to others' love. But the love which the Lord has in mind is the love which is an act of the will, consciously effected towards the&nbsp;<em>un</em>loving:&nbsp;</p><p><em>What reward have you?</em>- The idea is of wages. Whilst salvation itself is a free gift, in contrast to the wages paid by sin, this is not to say that there will not be some element of reward / wages / eternal recognition of our spiritual achievements in this life. The preceding verses have spoken of prayer and blessing for our abusers. This kind of attitude will be eternally rewarded. Not least if we see those we prayed for, those we blessed and forgave without their repentance, eternally with us in God's Kingdom. The final judgment will be of our works, not because works justify us, but because our use of the freedom we have had and exercised in our lives is the basis of the future reward we will be given. Salvation itself is not on the basis of our works (<em><a href='B:520 11:6'>Rom 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>); indeed, the&nbsp;<em>free gift&nbsp;</em>of salvation by pure grace is contrasted with the&nbsp;<em>wages&nbsp;</em>paid by sin (<em><a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). And yet at the judgment, the preacher receives&nbsp;<em>wages</em>&nbsp;for what he did (<em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>), the labourers receive&nbsp;<em>hire</em>&nbsp;(s:w. wages) for their work in the vineyard (<em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>). There is a&nbsp;<em>reward</em>&nbsp;(s:w. wages) for those who rise to the level of loving the totally unresponsive (<em><a href='B:470 5:46'>Mat 5:46</a></em>), or preaching in situations quite against their natural inclination (<em><a href='B:530 9:18'>1Co 9:18</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>Salvation</em>&nbsp;itself isn't given on this basis of works; but the nature of our eternal existence in the Kingdom will be a reflection of our use of the gift of freedom in this life. In that sense the judgment will be of our works.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 6:32'>Luk 6:32</a></em> speaks of us having “thanks”. The Greek for "thank" in <em><a href='B:490 6:32'>Luk 6:32</a></em> is 'charis', normally translated "grace", and often connected with the help of the Spirit which is given to us in response to our own efforts. Taking responsibility for others is often thankless. Our human dysfunction cries out for recognition and affirmation, and we tend not to do those things for which we are not thanked. This is one of the most radical aspects of our calling as followers of Christ- to serve without being thanked. Belief in God’s judgment helps us with this. For all our works will be rewarded in some sense by Him at the last day. If we love those that love us, we have no “thank”- but we will have “thank”, or “praise of God” ultimately. And this is what ultimately matters.</p><p><em>Even the tax collectors do the same</em>- As demonstrated by the account of Zacchaeus, these were the most friendless people in society. Rejected by family, they were unloved by about everyone. The only person who would salute / greet them was a fellow publican (:47). The implication is that publicans [tax collectors] were loved only by themselves. Loving those who love us is little better than the selfish self-love of the lonely publican. Matthew was a publican and he surely had himself very much in view as he recounted this teaching of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>5:47&nbsp;<em>And if you greet your brothers only, what do you more than they. The tax collectors do likewise</em>- "More" is, Gk:, 'to super-abound'. This is a word characteristic of the new life in Christ. As God makes His grace&nbsp;<em>abound</em>&nbsp;to us,&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are to&nbsp;<em>abound</em>&nbsp;to every good work (<em><a href='B:540 9:8'>2Co 9:8</a></em>). We are to ‘abound’ in love to each other, as God abounds to us (<em><a href='B:590 3:12'>1Th 3:12</a></em>). This is why there will never be a grudging spirit in those who serve properly motivated by God’s abundance to us. This super-abounding quality in our kindness, generosity, forgiveness etc. is a feature lacking in the unbelievers around us. If we salute our brethren only, then we do not super-abound (<em><a href='B:470 5:47'>Mat 5:47</a></em>); if we love as the world loves its own, then we have missed the special quality of love which the Father and Son speak of and exemplify. This radical generosity of spirit to others is something which will mark us apart from this world.</p>


text:
<p>5:48 See on 5:7.</p><p><em>You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect-&nbsp;</em>We are either seen as absolutely perfect, or totally wicked, due to God's imputation of righteousness or evil to us (<em><a href='B:230 37:37'>Psa 37:37</a></em>). There is no third way. The pure in heart see God, their righteousness (to God) exceeds that of the Pharisees, no part of their body offends them or they pluck it out; they are perfect as their Father is (<em><a href='B:470 5:8'>Mat 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>). Every one of the faithful will have a body even now completely full of light, with no part dark (<em><a href='B:490 11:36'>Luk 11:36</a></em>); we will walk, even as the Lord walked (<em><a href='B:690 2:6'>1Jn 2:6</a></em>). These impossible standards were surely designed by the Lord to force us towards a real faith in the imputed righteousness which we can glory in; that the Father really does see us as this righteous. Men have risen up to this. David at the end of his life could say that he was upright and had kept himself from his iniquity (<em><a href='B:100 22:21-24'>2Sa 22:21-24</a></em>). He could only say this by a clear understanding of the concept of imputed righteousness. Paul's claim to have always lived in a pure conscience must be seen in the same way.</p><p>God makes concessions to human weakness; He sets an ideal standard, but will accept us achieving a lower level. "Be ye therefore perfect,&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;your Father in heaven is perfect" (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>) is proof enough of this. The standard is clear: absolute perfection. But our lower attainment is accepted, by grace. If God accepts our obvious failure to attain an ideal standard, we should be inspired to accept this in others. Daily Israel were taught this; for they were to offer totally unblemished animals. And yet there was no totally unblemished animal. We need to recognize that God sets an ultimately high standard, but is prepared to accept our achievement of a lower standard- i:e. God makes concessions. We all disobey the same commandments of Christ day by day and hour by hour. Yet we have a firm hope in salvation. Therefore obedience to commandments is not the only necessity for salvation. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect" (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>) goes unfulfilled by each of us- as far as our own obedience is concerned. It is possible to disobey Christ's commandments every day and be saved. If this statement is false, then salvation is only possible is we attain God's moral perfection, which is impossible. If disobedience to Christ's commands is tolerable by God (on account of our faith in the atonement), how can&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;decide&nbsp;<em>which&nbsp;</em>of those commandments we will tolerate being broken by our brethren, and which of them we will disfellowship for? If we cannot recognize degrees of sin, it is difficult to pronounce some commands to be more important than others.</p><p>There are times when Paul's inspired commentary opens up some of the Lord's more difficult sayings. On "Be you therefore perfect", Paul's comment is: "Be perfected" (<em><a href='B:540 13:11'>2Co 13:11</a></em>). This is quite different to how many may take it- 'Let God perfect you' is the message. Relatively late in his career Paul could comment: “Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect” (<em><a href='B:570 3:12'>Phi 3:12</a></em>), alluding to the Lord’s bidding to be perfect as our Father is (<em><a href='B:470 5:48'>Mat 5:48</a></em>). Through this allusion to the Gospels, Paul is showing his own admission of failure to live up to the standard set. And yet we must compare “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect" with “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect…” (<em><a href='B:570 3:12'>Phi 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:15'>Phi 3:15</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em>, he considers he is ‘perfect’, and has put away the things of childhood. Thus he saw his spiritual maturity only on account of his being in Christ; for he himself was not “already perfect”, he admitted.<br/>Luke’s account has "be merciful, as your Father also is merciful" (<em><a href='B:490 6:36'>Luk 6:36</a></em>). Quite simply, who God is should inspire us to be like Him; to copy His characteristics [the things of His Name] in our personalities. We must be "perfect" as our Father is; "be ye holy", because He is holy (<em><a href='B:670 1:14-16'>1Pe 1:14-16</a></em>); "kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God forgave… be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children" (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:1'>Eph 5:1</a></em>); "merciful, as your Father also is merciful" (<em><a href='B:490 6:36'>Luk 6:36</a></em>). <em><a href='B:240 19:11'>Pro 19:11</a></em> RV uses language frequently applied to Yahweh Himself and applies it to the wise man: "The discretion of a man maketh him slow to anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression". And thus Phinehas was commended for being "jealous with my jealousy" (<em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em> RV)- his emotion at that time was a mirror of that of God Himself. Not only was language re-interpreted by the Christians. Whole concepts were reoriented. Holiness in the sense of separation from the unclean had been a major theme in the Mosaic Law, and it figured largely in the theology of the Pharisees. But the Lord quoted “Be holy because I, Yahweh your God am holy” (<em><a href='B:30 19:2'>Lev 19:2</a></em>) as “Be ye therefore merciful, even as your father in heaven is merciful” (<em><a href='B:490 6:36'>Luk 6:36</a></em>). To be merciful to those who sin is now the true holiness- not merely separation from them and condemnation of their ways. Note, too, how He invites us to interpret the Yahweh as “father”, rather than transliterating the Name.</p><p>The Lord’s manifesto as recorded in the Sermon on the Mount was structured and set up by Him in some ways as a ‘new law’ as opposed to the old law of Moses. And yet His law likewise proves impossible to keep. We cannot be perfect as our Father Is. To a man and to a woman, we would admit that we cannot fully forgive our enemies from our hearts. And so, according to the Lord’s law, we each stand unforgiven. We are to sell all that we have and give to the poor, or risk forfeiting the Kingdom because of our love of this world’s goods (<em><a href='B:480 10:17-22'>Mar 10:17-22</a></em>). An angry thought is murder, a passing lustful look becomes adultery- all mortal sins, which catch each of us within their net. Why was this? Surely yet again, the Lord wished to convict us of our guilt before Him, our inabilities, our desperation… so that we could come to appreciate the wonder of His character and His saving grace. For He was the one and only embodiment of His own teaching, to the point that the person who fulfilled all His teaching was in fact He Himself- and no other man. In knowing Him, we thus know our own desperation, and yet we likewise know- because we know Him- the certainty of our salvation by grace. Further, it becomes apparent that the Lord accepted with open arms those who were so very far from the ideals He laid down in the Sermon on the Mount. He convicted them of their guilt in such a way that with joy and peace they ran to His grace.</p>


text:
<p>6:1&nbsp;<em>Take heed you do not do your good deeds</em>- Gk. 'to hold the mind towards'. Again and again, the Lord's emphasis is upon the innermost functioning of the mind and thought processes. For to be spiritually minded is the essence of Christianity:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Before men, to be seen by them</em>- The same Greek phrase is used in <em><a href='B:470 23:5'>Mat 23:5</a></em> about the Pharisees doing all their works motivated by this desire to be seen of men. What we do&nbsp;<em>unseen</em>&nbsp;by men is therefore the litmus test of our love and Christianity. We should almost have an obsession about doing good works unseen by men- we must "take heed", consciously set our mind, to do unseen acts of kindness to others. Because the "reward", the nature of our eternity, will depend on these things.</p><p><em>Else you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>Salvation is by grace, but the 'reward' will be in terms of how the&nbsp;<em>nature</em>&nbsp;of our eternal existence reflects good things done in this life. The Greek word for 'reward' is quite common in the Sermon, and the first usage of it suggests that the reward is given in Heaven right now (<em><a href='B:470 5:12'>Mat 5:12</a></em> "great&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;your reward in Heaven", s:w. <em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em> "he that reaps receives wages / reward, and gathers fruit unto life eternal"; <em><a href='B:470 5:46'>Mat 5:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:1-2'>Mat 6:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:5'>Mat 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:16'>Mat 6:16</a></em>). Yet the Lord comes from Heaven to give us the rewards after we have been resurrected at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a></em>). So if we will be given an eternal reward for our works, it follows that there is a recompense for us noted in the books of Heaven at the very point we do the good deed. But there will be no such recompense for things which are openly seen of men, or anything which is consciously done so as to be seen by men. In the reality of life, the hardest thing about good deeds is when we sense nobody appreciates us, that we are holding the fort alone, that we have no recognition. On one hand, recognition for labour is hugely important to our basic psychological makeup- and employers have all come to realize that. It is only by appreciating the principle of eternal blessing for being<em>&nbsp;u</em>nrecognized that we can live the way Jesus asks of us. It is my observation in the life of believers that often the Lord's most zealous servants are marginalized, falsely accused, rejected from churches etc. The Lord's teaching here makes perfect sense of that phenomenon. He wants them to continue their service in a way which will be eternally recognized, and He wants to ensure their motives for their good works are not in order to be seen of men. Therefore He allows them to be marginalized. So that their works may be totally sincere, and receive an eternal recognition. It is also the case that when serving others, we reflect that nobody realized all the host of planning and frustrations which went into one good deed. A plan to visit someone in hospital may involve struggles with public transport, getting lost on the way, forgetting our telephone, being late home which meant we missed something important::. and so forth. It is all those good deeds which others don't see. They 'see' only that we spent 15 minutes in a hospital visiting someone. But those other components to the good deed of the 15 minutes are all carefully logged with the Lord.</p>


text:
<h4>6:2&nbsp;<em>When therefore you do alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets</em>- The reference may be to the bronze collection 'trumpet' into which the wealthy loudly poured large numbers of pennies. Remember that Jesus was addressing His sermon to the illiterate and desperately poor. There was little likelihood they would ever do this. So we are to understand the Lord as making a warning out of those wealthy people- to all of us, in whatever context, great or small, to not advertise our kindnesses, and to not be motivated to it by the thought of what others would think of it.</h4><p><em>That they may have glory from men</em>&nbsp;- Perhaps the emphasis is upon "they". Our good works are to be so that "men" give glory to&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 5:16'>Mat 5:16</a></em>). To have any intention of attracting glory to ourselves is therefore to play God. For all glory is to go to Him:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Truly I say to you, they have received their reward</em>- The Greek translated "have" means both to receive fully, and intransitively, 'to keep away'. They get their full reward now, so they are keeping themselves away from any future reward at the last day. According to the allusion here in <em><a href='B:610 4:8'>1Ti 4:8</a></em>, the implication is that we aren't to take <em><a href='B:470 6:2-3'>Mat 6:2-3</a></em> ("they have their reward") as implying that we have&nbsp;<em>no</em>&nbsp;reward in this life. We do (cp. <em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:3&nbsp;<em>But when you do alms</em>- The Lord Jesus was addressing the very poorest in society. And yet He assumed they would do some good and show some generosity to others. We can too easily dismiss Bible teaching about generosity and assume it applies to the rich, or at least, not to me. Yet the Lord's implication is that every single person can give and be generous in some way. The Lord speaks here of "<em>when</em>" you give, rather than&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;you give. He took giving to others in need as being a basic, intrinsic part of life in Him.</p><p><em>Do not let your left hand know what your right hand does-&nbsp;</em>There had developed a strong Jewish tradition that the right hand side of a man was his spiritual side, and the left hand side was the equivalent of the New Testament 'devil'. The Lord Jesus referred to this understanding when He warned: "Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" (<em><a href='B:470 6:3'>Mat 6:3</a></em>)- implying that the good deeds of the spiritual man would be misused by the 'devil', e:g. in using them as grounds for spiritual pride.</p><p>The idea perhaps is that our good deeds should not be done consciously, we hardly know ourselves that we are doing them. The Lord taught just the same when He portrayed the faithful at the last day almost arguing back with their Lord before His judgement seat, totally denying they had done the good deeds which He was now rewarding them for ("when did we see You::.", <em><a href='B:470 25:39'>Mat 25:39</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:4<em>&nbsp;That your alms may be in secret, and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you</em>- as if God is especially manifest in Christ when we stand before him in judgment to receive our rewards openly. Our prayers “in secret” will be ‘rewarded’ “openly”; but the language of ‘open reward’ is used by the Lord in reference to the judgment: “For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angels; and then he shall reward [s:w:] every man” (<em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>). In that day the workers will be ‘rewarded’ for their work (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:6'>Rom 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a></em>); yet <em><a href='B:470 6:4-6'>Mat 6:4-6</a></em> says they will be rewarded for their prayers. Prayer will only ultimately be answered when the Lord returns; hence <em><a href='B:470 6:4-6'>Mat 6:4-6</a></em> leads on to the Lord’s prayer, with its emphasis upon requesting the coming of the Kingdom, forgiveness etc. rather than petty human requests. Here again we see a connection between prayer and the final judgment.</p><p>Giving alms should be so secret, according to our suggestion on 6:3, that we ourselves are not even fully conscious of them. There is repeated emphasis that what is in secret, concealed from view, will be openly rewarded (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:18'>Mat 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:2'>Luk 12:2</a></em>). The day of judgment will be a judging of the secret things (<em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). Absolutely nothing that is now hid shall not then be made open- this is a considerable theme in the Lord's teaching (<em><a href='B:470 10:26'>Mat 10:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:22'>Mar 4:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:17'>Luk 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:2'>Luk 12:2</a></em>). The Lord's own journey to die at Jerusalem was done 'in secret'- as so often, He spoke His teaching to Himself (<em><a href='B:500 7:10'>Joh 7:10</a></em>). The need for a sense of significance, reward and recognition to be attached to our works is basic to the structure of human personality. We're not asked to deny this, to live as if we are more or less than human. We're asked instead to realize that the day for that shall come, but it is not now, nor are we to seek it now from the eyes of men.</p><p>The public dimension to the judgment process [AV "openly"] will mean that somehow in a moment we will know 'the secret things' of each other. Only with that basis of understanding could believers who appear to differ in this life live eternally together.</p>


text:
<p>6:5&nbsp;<em>And when you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward</em>- The same Greek word for "seen of men" occurs in 6:16,18 (AV "to appear"). Doing spiritual things for the sake of external appearance was clearly a particular concern of the Lord Jesus. Church life inevitably leads to temptations in this area- mixing with the same people regularly, with families intermarrying over the years, appearance becomes a great temptation. But having this as a motivation for any act of spirituality is so abhorrent to the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>6:6&nbsp;<em>But you, when you pray, enter into your room and shut your door, pray to your Father who is unseen-&nbsp;</em>The Lord taught the intensity of the life He required by taking Old Testament passages which refer to the crisis of the last days, and applying them to the daily life of His people. Take <em><a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a></em>, which speaks of how in the final tribulation, God’s people will shut the doors around them and pray. The Lord applies this to the daily, regular prayer of His people- we are to pray in secret, in our room, with doors closed (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>)- clearly an allusion to the Isaiah passage. In the time of Elisha we read that when a problem arose, the people concerned went indoors and shut the door. Going inside and shutting the door is associated with prayer, both by the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>) and Elisha himself (<em><a href='B:120 4:33'>2Ki 4:33</a></em>). The other instances of shutting the door don’t involve prayer, but they involve obediently doing something in faith- the woman shut the door upon her sons and poured out the oil in faith; she shut the door upon her sick son (<em><a href='B:120 4:5'>2Ki 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 4:21'>2Ki 4:21</a></em>). Perhaps the implication is that what she did in faith and hope was read by God as prayer, even though she didn’t apparently verbalize anything:&nbsp; The widow woman shut the door and started to pour out the oil into the vessels (<em><a href='B:120 4:5'>2Ki 4:5</a></em>); the way the Lord alludes to this implies that she prayed before she started pouring, and yet she was sure already that it would happen (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>). This should inspire a spirit of soberness in our prayers.</p><p><em>And your Father who sees in secret shall reward you-&nbsp;</em>We should be saying and expressing things to God which are our most intense, essential, personal feelings. We cannot, therefore, easily use trite, stock phrases in our personal prayers. Note the grammatically needless repetition of the personal pronoun in <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>: "You, when&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;pray, enter into&nbsp;<em>your&nbsp;</em>closet, and when&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>have shut&nbsp;<em>your&nbsp;</em>door, pray to&nbsp;<em>your&nbsp;</em>Father, which is in secret; and&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;Father who sees in secret shall reward&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;openly". Likewise when reading the Psalms, especially 71, note how many times David addresses God with the personal pronoun: thee, thy, thou… it really is a personal relationship.</p>


text:
<p>6:7&nbsp;<em>And in praying do not use vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do, for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking-&nbsp;</em>We will not use "vain repetitions" (<em><a href='B:470 6:7'>Mat 6:7</a></em>); the Greek means literally 'to stutter / stammer with the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>'. We know what the man with a chronic stammer is trying to say before he actually finishes saying it. To hear him saying the same syllables again and again is a frustration for us. It's a telling way of putting it. God knows our need before we ask (<em><a href='B:470 6:8'>Mat 6:8</a></em>). Say it, if we have to be explicit, and mean what we ask. And leave it there. 'Don't keep stammering on in your prayers' is to be connected with what comes a bit later: "Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? Or, What shall we drink? Or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek)::. but seek (i:e. pray for, <em><a href='B:290 55:6'>Isa 55:6</a></em> the Kingdom of God, and His (imputed) righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (<em><a href='B:470 6:31-33'>Mat 6:31-33</a></em>). We are not merely to believe that what we ask for we will receive. Note how again the word&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;occurs; we commented several times in chapter 5 that this is a core idea in the Sermon. Our innermost thought and intention is of the essence.</p>


text:
<p>6:8&nbsp;<em>Therefore, do not be like them! Even before you ask Him, your Father knows&nbsp;</em>- This gives a profound insight into the purpose of prayer. Prayer is not in order to inform God of human need. He knows all things, and He knows every human need. So if prayer is not in order to inform God of anything, what is it for? Ultimately, it is for our benefit. Keeping on and on repeating our perceived needs, repeating them vainly, as if we are endlessly stuttering, is actually a form of selfishness. Prayer is to be about dialogue with God, sharing life with Him, confession, sharing thoughts. An analysis of David's prayers as recorded in the book of Psalms shows that only about 5% of the verses are requests for anything material. The rest is simply talking with God. The idea of prayer as a mindless repetition of specific needs, in the belief that the more times we state them, the more likely God is to respond- is the very opposite of the kind of prayer which God intends. The Lord's model prayer which He goes on to give features only one request for anything material- and that is simply a request that God gives us enough food for today.</p><p>The Kingdom prophecy that “Before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear" (<em><a href='B:290 65:24'>Isa 65:24</a></em>) is applied to us&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 6:8'>Mat 6:8</a></em>)- as if answered prayer is a foretaste of the Kingdom life.</p><p><em>What things you need-&nbsp;</em>The hope of the future Kingdom means that we will not now be materialistic. It will give us strength against materialism. And the model prayer was given by Jesus in the context of His comment on how some tend to always be asking God for material things. The Lord teaches that the paramount thing we should request is the coming of the Kingdom, and our forgiveness so that we might partake in it:&nbsp;<em>This</em>&nbsp;is the request we should be making- for "Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of… after&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;manner therefore pray ye…" (<em><a href='B:470 6:9-10'>Mat 6:9-10</a></em>). Later in Matthew 6 the Lord repeats the same words: "Your heavenly Father&nbsp;<em>knoweth that ye have need of all these things</em>… seek ye first his Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 6:32-34'>Mat 6:32-34</a></em> RV). The structure of the Lord's prayer reflects this- for the first and only request in it is a seeking for the coming of His Kingdom. The RV of <em><a href='B:650 10:34-35'>Heb 10:34-35</a></em> brings out well the same theme: " Ye took joyfully the spoiling of your&nbsp;<em>possessions</em>, knowing that ye have your own selves for a better&nbsp;<em>possession</em>" (RVmg). Having warned against materialism, the Lord bids His men to “rather seek ye the Kingdom of God::. it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:490 9:31-32'>Luk 9:31-32</a></em>) in the place of seeking for material things. The more we grasp that it really is God’s will that we will be there, the more strength we will have to resist seeking for material things in this life. By being sure that we will be there, the Kingdom becomes our treasure, where our heart is, rather than any material treasure in this life (<em><a href='B:490 9:34'>Luk 9:34</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:9&nbsp;<em>In this manner you should pray-</em>&nbsp;The model prayer given by the Lord can of course be used just as it Is. But it’s worth noting that the Lord’s own subsequent prayers, and some of Paul, repeated the essence of some of the phrases in it, but in different words. This may be a useful pattern for us in learning how to formulate prayers. The prayer of Jesus in John 17 is in some ways an expanded restatement of the model prayer. In it, the Lord asks for the Father’s Name to be hallowed or glorified (<em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:11-12'>Joh 17:11-12</a></em>); for His work or will to be done or finished (<em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>); for deliverance from the evil one (<em><a href='B:500 17:15'>Joh 17:15</a></em>). The prayer of John 17 can be divided into three units of about the same length (<em><a href='B:500 17:1-9'>Joh 17:1-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:19-26'>Joh 17:19-26</a></em>). Each has the theme of glory, of directly addressing the Father, and of the needs of God’s people- all clearly taken from the model prayer.</p><p><em>Our Father</em>- The model prayer begins with the words "Our Father". Straight away we are bidden remember that no man is an island; the Lord intended us to be aware of the entire community of believers in our private prayers. "Give us this day&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;daily bread" may appear hard for comfortably off Christians to pray- until they grasp that they are praying for "our" daily bread, not "my" daily bread. There are so many in the brotherhood for whom having daily bread is indeed a constantly uncertain question. We should be aware of the whole brotherhood; and pray that "we" will be given our bread for today:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Who is in Heaven</em>- A feature of Biblical prayers is the way they start with some reference to God, often involving several clauses. We are to firstly visualize Him there. This is to be connected with the idea of lifting the eyes to Heaven at the start of a prayer (<em><a href='B:230 121:1'>Psa 121:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 123:1'>Psa 123:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:27'>Eze 23:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 4:34'>Dan 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:23'>Luk 16:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</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>). "God&nbsp;<em>is in Heaven</em>, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few (more often translated "little")" (<em><a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a></em>). Ezra, Nehemiah and Solomon all start their major prayers with a reference to the fact that God really&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;there in Heaven. The fact that God is a material, corporeal being is vital here. The very fact God has a spatial location, in Heaven, with Christ at His right hand, indicates of itself that God is a physical rather than purely spiritual being. The fact Christ really is there, seated at God's right hand interceding for us, was a concept which filled Paul's thinking (<em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:20'>Eph 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:1'>Col 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 1:13'>Heb 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:1'>Heb 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:670 3:22'>1Pe 3:22</a></em>). This teaching about our having a&nbsp;<em>Heavenly&nbsp;</em>Father may appear quite painless to accept; but it was radical, demanding stuff in the first century. The family then was “the centrally located institution maintaining societal existence… it [was] the primary focus of personal loyalty and it [held] supreme sway over individual life”. “Our father,&nbsp;<em>who is in Heaven</em>” was a prayer hard to pray if one really accepted the full import of the words; every bit as much as it is today. The idea of belonging to another family, of which the invisible Lord Jesus in Heaven was the head, belonging to a new society of world-wide brothers and sisters, where the Lord from Heaven held “supreme sway over individual life”, was radical indeed. It took huge commitment and a deep faith in this invisible head of the new family to step out from ones existing family. And the call of Christ is no less radical today. The social circle at uni, the guys at work, our unbelieving&nbsp;family members… now all take a radical second place to our precious family in Christ. And yet we so easily abuse or disregard the importance of our spiritual family; we too easily exclude them, won’t meet with them, can’t be bothered about them. &nbsp;&nbsp; <><em>Let Your Name be glorified</em>- “Hallowed / sanctified be Your name" uses an aorist tense which implies that it will be accomplished as a one-time act; at the coming of the Lord. Indeed, the aorist tenses in the Lord's model prayer are arresting; each phrase of the prayer asks for something to be done in a one-time sense. This alone suggests an intended 'answer' in terms of the final establishment of the Kingdom. “Hallowed be Your Name” was actually one of the Eighteen Benedictions used by most Jews at the time. This common phrase was consciously seen as a reference to the YHWH Name (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Before God: The Prayer Life of the Historical Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Santa Rosa, CA: The Polebridge Press, 1999) p. 76). But the Lord purposefully juxtaposes&nbsp;<em>Abba</em>, “Father”, with that phrase. This Aramaic, non-Hebrew, familiar word, an equivalent of “Daddy!”, is placed by the Lord next to Judaism’s most well-known and frequently used blessing of the YHWH Name. By doing so, He was making the Name even more hallowed and glorious- by showing that the essence of that Name speaks of familiar family relationship with us, and is no longer the carefully guarded preserve of Hebrew people, thought, culture and language. <>The Lord prayed this in Gethsemane; and it took Him so long to say these words that the disciples fell asleep.</p>


text:
<p>6:10&nbsp;<em>Your Kingdom come-&nbsp;</em>Greek scholars have pointed out that some phrases in the Lord's prayer show a remarkable lack of etiquette and the usual language of petition to a superior; literally, the text reads: "Come Your Kingdom, done Your will”. Is this part of the "boldness" in approaching God which the NT speaks of? That God should encourage us in this (although He also encourages us in reverential fear of Him) reflects something of His humility. The Kingdom of God refers to that over which God reigns. We are “a colony of Heaven” in our response to His principles (<em><a href='B:570 3:20'>Phi 3:20</a></em> Moffat). We are to pray for His Kingdom to come, so that His will may be done on earth (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>). The Kingdom and the doing of His will are therefore paralleled. His Kingdom reigns over all in Heaven, for there, all the Angels are obedient to Him (<em><a href='B:230 103:19-21'>Psa 103:19-21</a></em>). By praying for the Kingdom to come on earth we are not only praying for the Lord’s second coming, but for the progress of the Gospel world-wide right now. Not only that more men and women will hear it and respond, but that those who have accepted it might work God’s will rather than their own to an ever greater extent. Whether or not we can physically spread the Gospel is in this sense irrelevant; our prayer should be, first and foremost if the pattern of the Lord’s prayer is to be taken exactly, for the triumph of the Gospel world-wide. It has been pointed out by Philip Yancey that "Thy Kingdom come!" was violently in conflict with the Roman view that the lives of a subject people like Israel belonged to Caesar's kingdom.</p><p>"'Your kingdom come!' is therefore a word of defiance; to pray it is a subversive activity. This is also how the authorities understand the ministry of Jesus: it is subversive and not to be tolerated" (Philip Yancey,&nbsp;<em>The Jesus I Never Knew</em>&nbsp;(Harper Collins, 1998). The word&nbsp;<em>basileia&nbsp;</em>translated “Kingdom” definitely brought to mind the imperial reign or empire of Rome. Thus Hal Taussig comments: “Whenever anyone in Jesus’ time used the term “basileia”, the first thing people thought of was the Roman “kingdom” or “empire”. That is, “basileia” really meant “Roman empire” to most people who heard it… It was to many ears a direct insult to the Roman empire. Uttered in the presence of Roman soldiers, such a prayer could have gotten [a person] in immediate trouble” (Hal Taussig,&nbsp;<em>op cit</em>&nbsp;pp. 21,96). And so with us, the seeking of the future Kingdom is a radical denial of the spirit of our age, which seeks its Kingdom now; it demands a separation from the world around us. The well-known description of the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:290 2:1-4'>Isa 2:1-4</a></em> is in the context of appealing to Israel to change their ways. Because they would&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;walk in the ways of the Lord, therefore "O house of Israel [therefore] Come ye [now] and walk in the ways of the Lord" (2:5). The hope of Israel ought to motivate Israel to live the Kingdom life here and now.</p><h4><em>Your will be done- A</em>gain using an aorist which demands a one-time fulfilment- in the sense of 'May Your will come about:::'. The will of God is often associated with His ultimate plan of salvation (e:g. <em><a href='B:560 1:5-12'>Eph 1:5-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a></em>). It has been pointed out that "Hallowed be Your Name" is (grammatically) a request for action, rather than simply an expression of praise. Jesus prayed this in Gethsemane and it cost Him His life. We know from the Old Testament that God in fact "hallows" His own Name (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:25'>Eze 28:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:22-23'>Eze 36:22-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 38:16'>Eze 38:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 39:27'>Eze 39:27</a></em>). By asking God to "hallow" or sanctify / realize that Name in our lives, we are definitely praying in accordance with His will. He wishes to do this- and so He will surely do this in our lives if we ask Him. All the principles connected with His Name will be articulated in our lives and experience for sure if we pray for this- for we will be praying according to His revealed will in His word. And the ultimate fulfilment of all this will be in final coming of the Kingdom. But see on 7:21.<br/>In interpreting the Sermon on the Mount, we need to look for similar phrases within the Sermon in order to grasp the sense the Lord was seeking to develop. And we have just such a connection of though here when we observe that the Sermon concludes with an appeal to 'do the will of My Father' (<em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em>; and the theme continues in the Lord's teaching, e:g. <em><a href='B:470 12:50'>Mat 12:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:31'>Mat 21:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:47'>Luk 12:47</a></em>). We are praying therefore not only for Christ's return when the literal coming of the Kingdom on earth will mean that God's will shall be done on earth. We are asking for the principles of God's rulership / Kingdom over men (as outlined in the Lord's parables of the Kingdom) to be manifested in our lives; and for strength to do God's will on earth here and now. In probing deeper how the Lord understood the Father's will, we find the term&nbsp;specifically and repeatedly linked with the salvation of persons, supremely enabled through the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:470 18:14'>Mat 18:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:39-40'>Joh 6:39-40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:5'>Eph 1:5</a></em>). We would therefore be justified in seeing this request for the Kingdom to come and [in parallel] God's will to be done as a request for the successful spreading of the Gospel worldwide (see note on "in earth" below). The coming of the Kingdom and the doing of God's will are in parallel- the coming of the Kingship of God in human life means that humans do God's will as taught by the Lord in the Sermon. Of course, the final physical coming of the Kingdom is also in view, but that is the final manifestation of the process which is now ongoing in human hearts. This more internal, spiritual interpretation of the coming of the Kingdom would be in line with the rest of the Sermon, which emphasizes the rule of Divine principles in the deepest parts of the human heart.</h4><p>This phrase occurs verbatim on the Lord's lips when He Himself prayed in Gethsemane "Your will be done" (<em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>). So often we find the Lord Himself being the embodiment of His own teaching in the Sermon. The difficulty with which the Lord said those words shows how hard it is to really pray 'the Lord's prayer'. The way it can be rattled off so quickly is tragic:&nbsp;</p><p><em>On earth as it is in Heaven</em>- Gk:&nbsp;<em>epi</em>&nbsp;the earth, as the will of God is now done in (Gk:&nbsp;<em>en</em>) Heaven:&nbsp;<em>Epi</em>&nbsp;in this context has the sense of being spread throughout; whereas&nbsp;<em>en</em>&nbsp;more simply and directly means "in". Is there a hint here that we are to be praying for the success of the geographical spreading of the Gospel of the Kingdom throughout the earth? Not just knowledge of that Gospel, but people actually submitting to God's Kingship and living by Kingdom principles; not just baptisms but transformed lives. By doing God's will as it is now done in Heaven, we are developing outposts of God's Heavenly Kingdom here on earth, and this will come to term in the return of Christ and the more physical establishment of the Kingdom on the planet, the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, in every fibre of earthly existence.</p>


text:
<p>6:11&nbsp;<em>Give us this day our daily bread-&nbsp;</em>This has long been recognized as an inadequate translation of a very strange Greek phrase. The adjective&nbsp;<em>epiousios</em>&nbsp;in "our daily bread" is one example of Christ’s radical use of language; there in the midst of the prayer which the Lord bid His followers constantly use, was a word which was virtually unknown to them. Our bread only-for-this-day was the idea; the word is used for the rations of soldiers. The idea is 'Give us today, right now, the bread / food of tomorrow'. In ancient Judaism,&nbsp;<em>mahar&nbsp;</em>means not only tomorrow but the great Tomorrow, i:e. the Kingdom. Jesus spoke of the inauguration of the future Kingdom in terms of eating food together (<em><a href='B:470 8:11'>Mat 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:21'>Luk 6:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:16'>Rev 7:16</a></em>). 'Give us the future Kingdom today, may it come right now' is perhaps one of the levels on which He intended us to understand the prayer. The aorist implies: 'Give us this once and final time' the bread of tomorrow. The Lord was surely alluding to the way that Israel in the wilderness had been told that "in the morning [tomorrow] you shall be filled with bread"; and this was widely understood in first century Palestine as being typical of the coming of Messiah's Kingdom. Notice too how <em><a href='B:290 55:10'>Isa 55:10</a></em> connects the descent of God's word made flesh in Jesus, with the giving of bread. And one practical point. Even though we may have daily bread, we are still to pray for it. It’s rather like <em><a href='B:450 10:1'>Zec 10:1</a></em>: “Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain”; even when it’s the season, still ask Him for what it appears you naturally already have. Israel were fed with manna one day at a time- this is so stressed (<em><a href='B:20 16:4'>Exo 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:19-20'>Exo 16:19-20</a></em>).</p><p>The idea of 'daily bread' recalls the gift of manna. There was to be no hoarding of manna- anything extra was to be shared with others (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>). But we live in a world where the financial challenges of retirement, housing, small family size [if any family at all]::. mean that there appears no other option but to 'hoard manna' for the future. To some extent this may be a reflection of the way that life in these very last days is indeed quite different to anything previously known in history; but all the same, we face a very real challenge. Are we going to hoard manna, for our retirement, for our unknown futures? Or will we rise up to the challenge to trust in God's day by day provision, and share what's left over? "Give us this day our bread-for-today" really needs to be prayed by us daily. Let's give full weight to the Lord's command to pray for only "our daily bread", the daily rations granted to a soldier on active duty. It's almost impossible to translate this term adequately in English. In the former USSR and Communist East Germany (DDR), there was the idea that nobody in a Socialist state should go hungry. And so if you were hungry in a restaurant after eating, you had the right to ask for some food, beyond what you paid for. In the former East Germany, the term&nbsp;<em>Sättigungsbeilage&nbsp;</em>was used for this in restaurants- the portion of necessity. It's this food we should ask God for- the food to keep us alive, the food which a Socialist restaurant would give you for free. We shouldn't be thinking in terms of anything more than this. It's an eloquent essay in what our attitude to wealth, materialism and long term self-provision ought to be:&nbsp;</p><p>To steal is to take the Name of Yahweh called upon us in vain (<em><a href='B:240 30:9'>Pro 30:9</a></em>), and therefore we ask to be given&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;our daily bread and no more (NIV); not so much that if we are found out, the Name will be brought into disrepute, but rather that we personally will have blasphemed the imperative of Yahweh which is heavy upon us; these words of Agur are applied to us in <em><a href='B:470 6:11'>Mat 6:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>6:12&nbsp;<em>And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors</em>- Probably an allusion to the jubilee. We release / forgive men their debt to us, as God does to us. If we chose not to participate in this Jubilee by not releasing others, then we cannot expect to receive it ourselves (note the Jubilee allusions in <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). Around 90% of Old Testament references to sin use the metaphor of a weight or burden, which can be lifted by forgiveness. The Lord Jesus prefers to speak of sin as a debt, which can be forgiven by not being demanded and the debt erased. The metaphor of debt is somewhat richer than that or burdens. It opens the possibility that God lent to us, that He allowed us to get into that debt- because He didn't strike us dead for the sin. 'Debt' also carries with it the idea that we would like to repay, but cannot. This is the flavour of the Lord's opening to the Sermon- that He is the solution for those who would like to be spiritual but feel unable to be as they would wish to be (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>). The release of debt carries with it a greater sense of gratitude, knowing that we should not have got into the debt in the first place. All this was foreseen by the Lord in His change of metaphor from sin as weight to sin as debt. It has been noted that sin was not spoken as debt until Jesus introduced the idea. We are in debt to God. And yet so many have the idea that God owes them, and big time. The prayer of Apollonius of Tyana was that “Oye gods, give me the things which are owing to me”. And that ancient attitude is alive today, leading to some who think it is their right not to work and to be supported, or expect some kind of material blessing from God. When actually, we are in deep debt to God, and forgiven it only by pure grace.</p><p>Those “indebted” to us (<em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>) are those who have a debt to us. But Biblically, who are those who are ‘indebted’? The same Greek word occurs often in the New Testament. <em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em> explains that there is a debt to us if we have been sinned against and it’s not been reconciled. The debt our brethren have to us, and we to them, is to love one another, to lay our lives down for each other, to entertain and receive each other at home (s:w. <em><a href='B:710 1:8'>3Jn 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:11'>1Jn 4:11</a></em>). A wife has her husband in her debt if he doesn’t love her with the love of Christ (<em><a href='B:560 5:28'>Eph 5:28</a></em>); our brethren are in debt to us if they don’t give us material help when we truly need it (<em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em>); or if they don’t wash our feet (<em><a href='B:500 13:14'>Joh 13:14</a></em>). A debt implies that it’s not been paid; and so I come to the conclusion that the&nbsp;<em>forgiveness&nbsp;</em>of our debtors is forgiving our brethren when they don’t love us as they should, don’t care for us… and never apologize or rectify it. The debt is outstanding; they’ve not cleared it. But we are to forgive it; we are to forgive unconditionally, without demanding restoration or grovelling repentance before us. This is the challenge of that phrase in the Lord’s prayer. For we ask for “our sins” in general to be likewise forgiven; and they surely include many ‘secret sins’ which we don’t even perceive or haven’t repented of. And further. “As we also forgive every one that is indebted to us” (<em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>) can actually be read as a word of command, a statement that is actually a request. The request is that the sins of those who’ve sinned against us be forgiven- in this sense, “whosesoever sins ye remit [s:w. forgive] they are remitted unto them” (<em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>). That’s another challenging thought. If they’re impenitent, how can they be forgiven? But if&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;forgive them, perhaps we are to understand that God is happy to forgive them. If we feel, as I do, that we’ve been sinned against so much… then we have a wonderful opportunity to gain our own forgiveness and even that of those people… by forgiving them. The more I hurt at how others have treated me, the more I realize my own desperate need for forgiveness. The two things, as the Lord foresaw in His model prayer, dovetail seamlessly together.<br/>Further evidence that Jesus prayed in Aramaic is found by comparing the two records of the Lord's prayer; Matthew has "forgive us our debts", whilst Luke has "forgive us our sins". The Aramaic word&nbsp;<em>hobha</em>&nbsp;means both 'sin' and 'debt'. The conclusion is therefore that Jesus taught the disciples to pray in their native Aramaic dialect rather than in Hebrew or Greek. Further, the Lord's prayer has many links to the&nbsp;<em>Kaddish</em>, an ancient Aramaic prayer which included phrases like "Exalted and hallowed be his great name::. may he let his kingdom rule::. speedily and soon".</p><p>"As we<em>::."&nbsp;</em>is a challenge:&nbsp;The crucial little Greek word&nbsp;<em>hos</em>&nbsp;is elsewhere translated: according as, as soon as, even as, like as, as greatly as, since, whenever, while. Clearly enough, our forgiveness by God is dependent upon and of the same nature as our forgiveness of others.</p><p>"Forgive us our / debts sins as we have forgiven those who sin against us" (Lk:)<em>&nbsp;</em>again uses the aorist which implies 'Forgive us this once'. Could this not be an anticipation of the state of the believer before the judgment seat of Christ- 'forgive me please this once for all my sins, as I have forgiven those who sinned against me'. If so, we have a powerful exhortation to forgive&nbsp;<em>now</em>; for in that awesome moment, it will be so apparent that the Lord's gracious acceptance of us will be directly proportional to how deeply we accepted and forgave our brethren in this life. Notice how strongly Jesus links future judgment with our present forgiveness (<em><a href='B:490 6:37'>Luk 6:37</a></em>). He teaches us to pray now for forgiveness on the basis of how we have forgiven others, knowing that in prayer, we have a foretaste of the judgment. Now we can come boldly before the throne of grace in prayer, just as we will come before that same throne in the last day.</p>


text:
<p>6:13&nbsp;<em>And lead us not</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>eisphero</em>&nbsp;definitely means to lead inward. The internal process of temptation is in view here, as explained specifically by <em><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a></em> - which may be a specific comment on this part of the Sermon. Much of James is an expansion upon the Sermon. Whilst the process of temptation is internal (and note how internal processes are the great theme of the Sermon), God is capable of leading a person in the process. The dynamics in the upward and downward spirals are ultimately of God.</p><p><em>Into temptation but deliver us from evil-&nbsp;</em>This<em>&nbsp;</em>can only really come true when we are changed into divine nature; for only then will we be freed /delivered [aorist- once, finally, for all time] from the 'devil' of sin. The word for trial / temptation is&nbsp;<em>peirasmos</em>, and I have never been entirely satisfied that we can reconcile the Lord's words here with the fact that God does not tempt any man (<em><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a></em>). However, I feel happier with the idea that the Lord may specifically be bidding us pray for deliverance from the latter day holocaust to come upon the saints. The Lord Jesus can keep us from "the hour of trial [<em>peirasmos</em>] which is coming on the whole world" (<em><a href='B:730 3:10'>Rev 3:10</a></em>). When the disciples were bidden pray that they enter not into temptation (<em><a href='B:480 14:38'>Mar 14:38</a></em> -&nbsp;<em>peirasmos</em>&nbsp;again), they were being asked to pray the model prayer with passionate concentration and meaning. Yet those men in Gethsemane were and are representative of the latter day saints who are bidden pray that they may escape "all those things”, the hour of trial /<em>peirasmos&nbsp;</em>which is coming, and to stand acceptably before the Son of man at His coming. We ought to be praying fervently for this deliverance; but I wonder how many of us are? For the days of the final tribulation will be shortened for the sake of the elect- i:e:, for the sake of their prayers (<em><a href='B:480 13:19-20'>Mar 13:19-20</a></em>). The final tribulation of the last days will be the supreme struggle between the flesh and spirit, between the believer and the world, between Christ and the Biblical 'devil'; and we are to pray that we will be delivered victorious from that struggle. Thus "Lead us not into 'the test'" (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>) could in this context be understood as a plea to save us from entering into the time of final tribulation- just as the Lord specifically exhorts us to pray to be delivered from that time. The implication would be that the final time of testing will be so severe that indeed the elect will scarcely be saved. It seems to me that none of us have the urgent sense of the time of testing ahead which we should have; how many are praying daily to be spared it? How many are in actual denial that it will ever come, even though it's clear enough in Scripture?</p><p>We must pray not to be led into temptation (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>); but when we fall into such temptation (s:w:), count it all joy, James says (1:2). The exercise of praying not to experience those temptations was for our spiritual benefit, and God is willing that it should be so.</p><p><em>"</em>Deliver us from evil" is surely alluded to in <em><a href='B:680 2:9'>2Pe 2:9</a></em> “The Lord knows how to&nbsp;<em>deliver</em>&nbsp;the Godly out of temptations”. Evil and temptation are thereby paralleled.</p><p>The Lord Jesus based this part of His prayer on Old Testament passages like <em><a href='B:130 4:10'>1Ch 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 25:22'>Psa 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:11'>Psa 26:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 31:8'>Psa 31:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 34:22'>Psa 34:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:35'>Psa 78:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:42'>Psa 78:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 140:1'>Psa 140:1</a></em> and <em><a href='B:240 2:12'>Pro 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 6:24'>Pro 6:24</a></em>, which ask for ‘deliverance’ from evil<em>&nbsp;people</em>, sin, distress, tribulation etc. here on earth. Not one of those passages speaks of deliverance from a personal, superhuman Satan. Esther’s prayer in <em><a href='B:150 4:19'>Ezr 4:19</a></em> LXX is very similar – “Deliver us from the hand of the evildoer”, but that ‘evildoer’ was Haman, not any personal, superhuman Satan. Even if we insist upon reading ‘the evil one’, “the evil one” in the Old Testament was always “the evil man in Israel” (<em><a href='B:50 17:12'>Deu 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:19'>Deu 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:21-24'>Deu 22:21-24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:530 5:13'>1Co 5:13</a></em>) – never a superhuman being. And there may be another allusion by the Lord to <em><a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a></em>, where God is called the One “who has redeemed me from all evil”. As the Old Testament ‘word made flesh’, the thinking of the Lord Jesus was constantly reflective of Old Testament passages; but in every case here, the passages He alluded to were&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>concerning a superhuman Devil figure. God ‘delivers from’ “every trouble” (<em><a href='B:230 54:7'>Psa 54:7</a></em>), persecutors and enemies (<em><a href='B:230 142:6'>Psa 142:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:14'>Psa 69:14</a></em>) – but as Ernst Lohmeyer notes, “There is no instance of the [orthodox understanding of the] Devil being called ‘the evil one’ in the Old Testament or in the Jewish writings” (Ernst Lohmeyer,&nbsp;<em>The Lord's Prayer</em>, translated by John Bowden (London: Collins, 1965) p. 214).</p><p>It’s been observed that every aspect of the Lord’s prayer can be interpreted with reference to the future coming of the Kingdom of God on earth. Prayer for deliverance from evil, the time of testing (Gk:), would then tally well with the Lord’s exhortation to pray that we may be delivered from the final time of evil coming on the earth (<em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>). Another insight into this petition is that God does in fact lead men in a downward spiral as well as in an upward spiral of relationship with Him – Pharaoh would be the classic example. “Why do you make us err from your ways?” was the lament of Israel to their God in <em><a href='B:290 63:17'>Isa 63:17</a></em>. It is perhaps this situation more than any which we should fear – being hardened in sin, drawing ever closer to the waterfall of destruction, until we come to the point that the forces behind us are now too strong to resist::. Saul lying face down in the dirt of ancient Palestine the night before his death would be the classic visual image of it. And the Lord would be urging us to pray earnestly that we are not led in that downward spiral. His conversation in Gethsemane, both with the disciples and with His Father, had many points of contact with the text of the Lord’s Prayer. “Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation” (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em>) would perhaps be His equivalent of “lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil”.</p><h4><em>For Yours is the Kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever</em>- AV and some manuscripts. "For Yours<em>::."&nbsp;</em>is significant. The sense of ‘for’ is definitely ‘because…’, but it could simply be with reference to the entire preceding prayer. Or it could particularly be with reference to the preceding request: “Deliver us from evil”. In any case, the question arises: Why should God answer the prayer, be it the entire prayer or the specific request for deliverance from evil, because the Kingdom, power and glory is God’s? The idea may be that because the Kingdom we seek now to be part of, and to eternally live in, is God’s, therefore it follows that He earnestly desires to grant it to us His children. And we plead that He hears our requests, especially for deliverance from temptation and evil, because surely He wants to give us His glorious Kingdom. Because the Kingdom is&nbsp;<em>His</em>, all glory is to Him, and He wants to see us giving Him glory; because He has all power- therefore we ask Him to give us the requests we have made, because they are all intended to achieve glory to Him and to ensure our entry into His Kingdom. Another angle of exposition would be to consider that we ask for deliverance from temptation and sin because we know that God has rulership (“Kingdom”) and power over all- given His unlimited physical and spiritual power, we ask Him to use it to answer our requests. This reasoning of course assumes that all that has preceded in the prayer is in order for us to enter the Kingdom and to see His glory worked out. Any requests for merely human benefit and advantage cannot be concluded with such an argument- that we ask God to hear this&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;the Kingdom, power and glory is his:&nbsp;</h4><p>This is the appropriate conclusion to a prayer that asks for the establishment of that Kingdom. Whilst commenting upon the Lord's prayer, it is worth pointing out that the Lord repeated the essence of each phrase at various points during His life. When facing His ultimate struggle when facing up to the cross, He asked that the Father's Name would be glorified (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>)- quoting His own words from His model prayer. It hurt and cost Him so much to pray that prayer- the prayer we may have known for so many years that we can pray it almost at no cost. But to truly ask for the Father's will to be done is in fact a commitment to the way of the cross (<em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:7-10'>Heb 10:7-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em>). So let us pray the prayer- but putting meaning into the words.</p><p>May I place two well-known Scriptures together in your minds. “<em>Yours&nbsp;</em>[God’s] is the Kingdom”. And “Blessed are you poor, for&nbsp;<em>yours</em>&nbsp;is the Kingdom&nbsp;<em>of God</em>” (<em><a href='B:490 6:20'>Luk 6:20</a></em>). The Lord assures us that the Father wants to give&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;Kingdom to those who are poor in spirit, to the broken, to the self-doubters, the uncertain, those uncomfortable with themselves, the unbearably and desperately lonely, the awkwardly spoken… the poor in spirit. Those who would be the very last to believe that God would give&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;what is evidently&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;Kingdom. But not only&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;the Father do this, but Jesus stresses that it&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;ours right now. The certainty of the glory that will be revealed for us means that we cope better with suffering; as Paul writes, they “are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (<em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Amen</em>- AV and some manuscripts. Joachim Jeremias mentions that "according to idiomatic Jewish usage the word&nbsp;<em>amen&nbsp;</em>is used to affirm, endorse or appropriate the words of another person [whereas] in the words of Jesus it is used to introduce and endorse Jesus' own words::. to end one's own prayer with&nbsp;<em>amen&nbsp;</em>was considered a sign of ignorance" (See the article "Amen" in Joachim Jeremias,&nbsp;<em>New Testament Theology</em>&nbsp;(New York: Scribner's, 1971) pp. 35,36). Thus the Lord Jesus was introducing a radically new type of speaking. But He did so because He wanted us to realize that if our spirit is united with God’s, then our words to God are in a sense God talking to Himself; hence we say ‘Amen’ to our own words, when ‘amen’ was usually a confirmation of God’s words. <em><a href='B:500 16:26'>Joh 16:26</a></em> fits in here, where in the context of speaking of the unity of the believers with the Father and with Himself, the Lord says that He will not need to pray for the believer, but God Himself will hear the believer. I take this to mean that Jesus foresaw that the time would come when our prayer would be His prayer. It’s not so much that He prays for us, but rather prays with us and even through us.</p>


text:
<p>6:14&nbsp;<em>For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you</em>- The Lord guessed that His teaching to ask for forgiveness “as” we forgive others would be radical and hard to accept. The Lord’s teaching in the prayer [“as we forgive”] was clear enough, but He repeats it twice (also in :15), so that there be no possible difficulty in interpretation. He rarely spells things out this specifically and with such immediate repetition. The vital, eternally vital need to forgive others is underlined. And the Lord repeats this teaching later in His teaching, with the further detail that unless we forgive others “from your hearts”, we will not be forgiven (<em><a href='B:470 18:35'>Mat 18:35</a></em>; also in <em><a href='B:480 11:25'>Mar 11:25</a></em>). This chronic and urgent need to forgive others, aware that&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;we forgive them is the basis of&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;God will forgive us, leads to the question of whether we should forgive others without their repentance. If we first demand specific repentance, then this is the basis upon which we are asking to be judged; and we all, surely, sin without repentance, sometimes because at the time we do not perceive the sinfulness of our behaviour:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:15&nbsp;<em>But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses</em>- Paul alludes here in <em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>. Jesus said: "If you forgive, you'll be forgiven". Paul subtly changes the tenses: "You've been forgiven already, so forgive". It's as if Paul is saying: 'Think carefully about <em><a href='B:470 6:14'>Mat 6:14</a></em>. Don't think it means 'If you do this, I'll do that for you'. No. God has forgiven you. But that forgiveness is conditional on the fact that in the future you will forgive people. If you don't, then that forgiveness you've already been given is cancelled. This is what Jesus really had in mind'. This would suggest a very close analysis of those simple words of Jesus, using all the logic and knowledge of Biblical principles which Paul had. Note that the command to forgive our debtors when we pray is applied by Paul to the need to forgive those who sin against us in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:13'>Col 3:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:16&nbsp;<em>Moreover when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. For they disfigure their faces</em>- There is a semantic connection between these words. A&nbsp;<em>hupokrites</em>&nbsp;was a play actor, one who wore a mask. These hypocrites create false faces for themselves, that is the idea- their disfigured faces are but as a mask. The Greek for “disfigure” occurs only five times in the NT, once here- and twice in the next few verses, <em><a href='B:470 6:19-20'>Mat 6:19-20</a></em>, where the Lord warns that external material wealth ‘corrupts’, destroys itself, or is disfigured. By disfiguring their faces, they were destroying their faces, destroying themselves because they wanted to appear other than they were.</p><p><em>So that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward</em>- "May be seen" is s:w. <em><a href='B:470 6:5'>Mat 6:5</a></em>, also in <em><a href='B:470 23:27-28'>Mat 23:27-28</a></em>. To act in a way so as to spiritually impress men is especially distasteful to the Lord. The issue of what other churches, ecclesias or individuals will think of us is not to pay any part in our decision making and action. We are living, thinking and deciding in the loving gaze of the Father and Son. The wonder of that should mean that all fear of human criticism or desire for human approval plays absolutely no role.</p>


text:
<p>6:17&nbsp;<em>But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face</em>- Every effort is to be made to conceal our spiritual sacrifices. We are to appear as usual (as in <em><a href='B:340 10:3'>Dan 10:3</a></em>). We are to be actors, hypocrites, in a good sense. The Lord is also alluding to how the rabbis forbad "washing and anointing" on the day of atonement, which was a day of fasting. The Lord is teaching open defiance to their hypocrisy:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:18<em>&nbsp;So you will not be seen by men to fast, but by your Father who is unseen; and your Father, who sees in secret</em>- Gk. ‘the One who is in secret / hidden’. The hiddenness of God is in the sense that He specifically looks at the hidden man of the heart (<em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em>). This is the sphere in which He operates and sees.</p><p><em>Shall reward you-&nbsp;</em>"Openly". Who we will eternally be in the Kingdom, is who we were secretly in this life. What we think about as we fall asleep, as we travel, walk down streets… this is the essence of the life in Christ. The change of nature we will experience at the Lord’s return will simply be a physical manifestation of who we are in spirit in this life. We will be made manifest [s:w:], declared openly, at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). This means that we will be preserved as we spiritually are in this life. This means that the development of our spiritual person is of paramount importance, because that is how we shall eternally be. The Lord goes right on to warn against materialism (:19,20). But that is in the context of the paramount need for the development of spiritual mindedness. It is petty materialism which is the greatest enemy of this development- the cares of this life and the attainment of material wealth are what crowd out spiritual thinking. The treasure, the most important thing in our life, is our “heart”, our thinking (<em><a href='B:470 6:21'>Mat 6:21</a></em>; “the good treasure of the heart”, <em><a href='B:470 12:35'>Mat 12:35</a></em>). Building up spirituality is placed in opposition to building up material wealth.</p>


text:
<p>6:19&nbsp;<em>Do not store up for yourselves treasures upon the earth</em>- see on 6:18 “openly”.</p><p><em>Where moth and rust consume</em>- Or, "corrupt". <em><a href='B:660 5:2'>Jas 5:2</a></em> alludes here and states that wealth is already rusted and moth-eaten. So this perhaps was the Lord’s idea here, although the grammar is unclear. The idea of gold is that it doesn’t rust. What appears to be permanent material wealth is not, and is already rusted in God’s eyes.</p><p><em>And where thieves break in and steal</em>- Literally, ‘dig through’. Relevant to the earth houses of the very poorest people. The Lord’s return is going to break up the house of those not looking for His return (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em> s:w:). It may be that ‘thieves’ is an intensive plural referring to the great thief, whom Jesus likens to Himself in <em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>. In this case He would be saying that He will take human wealth anyway at the last day- so we should give it to Him now and not seek it.<br/>Because we know people (and brethren) who are richer and more wealth-seeking than we are, it's fatally easy to conclude that therefore we aren't rich, therefore we aren't materialistic. This is part of the subtle snare of materialism; that we all think that this is an area where we're not doing too badly; that really, we don't care&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;much where we live, or what the furniture's like, or whether we have money to take a holiday::. But remember, our attitude to materialism is the litmus test of all our spirituality. None of us should be so quick to say that we're OK in this area. "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break (Gk. dig) through and steal" (<em><a href='B:470 6:19'>Mat 6:19</a></em>) was spoken to a huge crowd of Jewish peasants. The Lord wasn't only referring to the few rich men who might be hanging around on the edge of the group. He was talking to all of them. He knew their mud walled homes which thieves could so easily dig through. That little cheap bangle, that ring, thinly buried under the bed mat after the pattern of Achan, that prized tunic::. the petty riches of the poor which they so strove for, which&nbsp;<em>to them</em>&nbsp;were priceless treasures. This is what the Lord was getting at; and His point was that&nbsp;<em>every one of us</em>, from beggar to prince, has this 'laying up' mentality. He is almost ruthless in His demands.</p>


text:
<p>6:20&nbsp;<em>But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves cannot break in or steal</em>- The idea is of incremental growth. It’s as if spirituality, both in personality and deed, is carefully noted in Heaven as it occurs:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:21&nbsp;<em>For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also</em>- Gk. ‘to there’. The direction of our heart is towards where our treasure Is. If our treasure is in Heaven, with God, then our life direction will be towards Him and not towards earthly things. The emphasis of the Lord throughout the Sermon has been on the state of the heart. The overall direction of our heart, our thinking, is all important. That direction cannot be both to earthly things and Heavenly things. Laying up treasure on earth cannot be done whilst having treasure in Heaven. The emphasis of course is on ‘laying up’, wilfully incrementing, not the mere possession of wealth which the Lord may send into our hands. ‘Laying up’ means to increment, not to merely possess. But it is the overall direction of our hearts which will be the deciding factor in our eternal destiny; ‘to where’ they are directed. And we can direct them by deciding what our treasure really is, and where it Is.</p>


text:
<p>6:22&nbsp;<em>The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is healthy, your whole body shall be full of light</em>- This observation about single-mindedness ["healthy" = 'single'] follows on from the Lord’s teaching about the overall direction of the human mind, observing that we cannot have two overall directions for our heart. Our eye must be single, the entrance of light must be only from one source. God gives to all men with a single eye (<em><a href='B:660 1:5'>Jas 1:5</a></em> Gk:); and in response, we too must be single eyed in our giving (<em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em> s:w:- this is one of James’ many allusions to the sermon on the mount). If our eye / world-view / outlook on life is&nbsp;<em>single</em>&nbsp;[s:w. ‘simple’ in the passages quoted], then our whole body / life will be full of light (<em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em>). In daily work, in private reflection and planning for our immediate futures and present needs, there must be a direct and undiluted belief of the teachings of the Gospel, connecting those teachings to our daily life of faith. In this simplicity of the life of faith, in a world that makes life so complicated [especially for the poor], we will find humility. With that simplicity and humility will come peace, and the ability to pray with a concentrated and uncluttered mind, without our thoughts wandering off into the petty troubles of life as we frame our words before Almighty God each morning and night.</p><br/><p>I’ve always sensed that the more complex a person, the harder it is for them to be generous. But we are all commanded to be generous to the Lord’s cause, knowing that nothing we have is our own. And I am not only talking to wealthy brethren:&nbsp;<em>All</em>&nbsp;of us have something, and all of us can give something to our brethren. Consider how the poor believers of the first century such as Corinth [amongst whom there were not many rich or mighty, Paul reminds them] collected funds for the poor brethren in Judea. There is a Greek word translated “simplicity” which is related to the word translated "single" here in <em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em>. It occurs eight times in the NT. Five of these are in 2 Corinthians, written as it was in the context of Corinth giving funds for the Jerusalem poor.</p><p>Consider how the word is translated:<br/>- Paul had “<em>simplicity</em>&nbsp;and Godly sincerity” (<em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>)<br/>- They had “<em>liberality</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>)<br/>- “<em>Bountifulness</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>)<br/>- Their “<em>liberal distribution</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em>)<br/>- He feared lest they be corrupted from “the&nbsp;<em>simplicity</em>&nbsp;that is in Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>).</p><p>Evidently Paul saw a link between generosity and the simplicity of the faith in Christ. It doesn’t need a lexicon to tell you that this word means both ‘simplicity’ and also ‘generous’. The connection is because the basis for generosity is a simple faith. Not a dumb, blind faith, glossing over the details of God’s word. But a realistic, simple, direct conviction. This is why Paul exhorts that all giving to the Lord’s cause should be done with “simplicity” (<em><a href='B:520 12:8'>Rom 12:8</a></em> - the AVmg. translates ‘liberally’). Give, in whatever way, and don’t complicate it with all the ifs and buts which our fleshly mind proposes. Paul warns them against false teachers who would corrupt them from their “simplicity”- and yet he usually speaks of ‘simplicity’ in the sense of generosity. Pure doctrine, wholeheartedly accepted, will lead us to be generous. False doctrine and human philosophy leads to all manner of self-complication. Paul was clever, he was smart; but he rejoiced that he lived his life “in simplicity:::by the grace of God” (<em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>):&nbsp; If our eye is single (translating a Greek word related to that translated ‘simple’), then the whole body is full of light (<em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em>)- and the Lord spoke again in the context of generosity. An evil eye, a world view that is not ‘simple’ or single, is used as a figure for mean spiritedness:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:23&nbsp;<em>But if your eye is bad, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!</em>- A bad or evil eye was an idiom for mean spiritedness. It continues the theme of materialism from the previous verses. To follow materialism is to be mean spirited- towards God. Speaking in the context of serving<em>&nbsp;either</em>&nbsp;God&nbsp;<em>or</em>&nbsp;mammon, the Lord uttered these difficult words: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth::. the light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness::. how great is that darkness!" (<em><a href='B:470 6:19-22'>Mat 6:19-22</a></em>). All this is in the context of not being materialistic. The Lord is drawing on the OT usage of "an evil eye" - and consistently, this idiom means someone who is selfishly materialistic (<em><a href='B:240 22:9'>Pro 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 28:22'>Pro 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a></em>). The NIV renders some of these idioms as "stingy" or “mean". A single eye refers to a generous spirit (<em><a href='B:130 29:17'>1Ch 29:17</a></em> LXX), and a related Greek word occurs in <em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em> with the sense of “generous". So surely the Lord is saying that our attitude to wealth controls our whole spirituality. Whether we have a mean or generous spirit will affect our whole life- an evil [stingy] eye means our whole body is full of darkness. Just let this sink in. If we are materialistic, our whole life will be filled with darkness, whatever our external pretensions may be, and there is a definite link to be made here with the "darkness" of rejection. The riches of Jericho are described with a Hebrew word which means both a curse, and something devoted (to God; <em><a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a></em>). This teaches a powerful lesson: such riches of this world as come into our possession will curse us, unless they are devoted to the Father.</p>


text:
<p>6:24&nbsp;<em>No one can serve two masters</em>- It would be too simplistic to interpret this as meaning that we are either totally serving the Lord, or not serving Him. Paul seems to have thought a lot about this verse because he refers to it several times in Romans, basing his entire Romans chapter 6 around the idea that we do not serve sin as a Master (<em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>). But he goes straight on to lament that in reality, he does serve "the law of sin" with his flesh, but "I myself" serve the law of God (<em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>). And he concludes the letter by warning that some do not serve the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 16:18'>Rom 16:18</a></em>). Perhaps Paul is writing partly in response to confusion about the Lord's words- for we keep on sinning, yet He taught we can only serve Him alone. And his perspective is that we ourselves as believers are totally devoted to Him as our only Lord and Master. But the flesh, which we do not identify as the real self of the believer, continues to serve the sin principle:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>For either he will hate the one-&nbsp;</em>The Lord wasn't just trying to shock us when He offered us the choice between hating God and loving Him (<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a></em>); He was deadly literal in what He said. The Lord hammered away at the same theme when He spoke of how a tree can only bring forth one kind of spiritual fruit: bad, or good (<em><a href='B:470 7:18-19'>Mat 7:18-19</a></em>). James likewise: a spring can either give sweet water or bitter water (<em><a href='B:660 3:11'>Jas 3:11</a></em>). We either love God, or the world. If we love the world, we have&nbsp;<em>no</em>&nbsp;love of God in us (<em><a href='B:690 2:15'>1Jn 2:15</a></em>). The man who found the treasure in the field, or the pearl of great price, sold&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;that he had, in order to obtain it. If he had sold any less, he wouldn't have raised the required price. These mini-parables are Christ's comment on the Law's requirement that God's people love Him with&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;their heart and soul, realizing the logic of devotion. Samuel pleaded with Israel: " Serve the Lord with all your heart; and turn ye not aside: for then should ye go after vain things [i:e. idols]" (<em><a href='B:90 12:20-21'>1Sa 12:20-21</a></em>). If we don't serve God whole-heartedly, we will serve the idols of this present age. There's no third road. If we are God’s people, we will flee from the false teacher (<em><a href='B:500 10:5'>Joh 10:5</a></em>). If we do anything other than this, we reflect our basic attitude to God’s truth.</h4><p><em>And love the other-&nbsp;</em>Because Israel were in covenant with God,&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;they were not to make covenants with the other nations, and marriage is mentioned as an example of this (<em><a href='B:20 34:10'>Exo 34:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a></em>). In his repetition of this part of the law in Deuteronomy, Moses gave even more repeated emphasis to the fact that our covenant with God precludes any covenant relationship with anyone else: "Thou shalt make no covenant with them::. neither shalt thou make marriages with them::. for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all (other) people that are on the face of the earth. The Lord :::set his love upon you :::chose you::. because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers::. the Lord hath brought you out (of the world) with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen::. know therefore that the Lord thy God, he God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments::. and repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them; he will not be slack to him that hateth him. Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments::." (<em><a href='B:50 7:2-11'>Deu 7:2-11</a></em>). The wonder of our relationship with Yahweh is stated time and again. To marry back into Egypt, the house of bondmen from which we have been redeemed, is to despise the covenant, to reverse the redemptive work which God has wrought with us. In this context of marriage out of the Faith, we read that God will destroy "him that hateth Him”, and repay him to his face. On the other hand, not marrying Gentiles was part of&nbsp;<em>loving</em>&nbsp;God (<em><a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a></em>):&nbsp;So according to Moses, whoever married a Gentile was effectively hating God. It is possible that the Lord had this in mind when He taught that we either serve God and hate the world, or we love the world and hate God (<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em>). This isn't, of course, how we see it. We would like to think that there is a third way; a way in which we can love God and yet also love someone in the world. Yet effectively, in God's eyes, this is hating Him. Doubtless many Israelites thought Moses was going too heavy in saying that those who married Gentiles were hating God. And the new Israel may be tempted to likewise respond to the new covenant's insistence that our love of God means a thorough rejection of this world. Whoever even&nbsp;<em>wishes</em>&nbsp;to be a friend of the world is an enemy of God (<em><a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a></em>).</p><p><em>Or else he will be loyal to the one-&nbsp;</em>There are only two masters whom we completely serve; we hold to either mammon, or God&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em>). The idea of loyalty or “holding to” in Greek implies holding&nbsp;<em>against</em>&nbsp;something else; the result of holding to God is that we are against everything else. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (<em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>)- rather than being passively indifferent. Men reacted to the Lord in ultimately one of two ways- they either truly believed on Him, or supported the Jews in murdering Him (<em><a href='B:500 11:45-46'>Joh 11:45-46</a></em>). Those who apparently believed on Him but kept it quiet were forced by the cross and resurrection to make their commitment one way or the other [and serious reflection on the memorials of these things in bread and wine leads us to the same decision]. So much for the philosophy of balance! The Hebrew word for vacillate (translated "dissemble" in AV) also means to go astray; indecision and indifference are effectively decisions against God's way. The Hebrew language often reflects God's characteristics and attitudes.</p><p><em>And despise the other</em>- The Greek word is usually used elsewhere about despising other believers (<em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:22'>1Co 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 4:12'>1Ti 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:2'>1Ti 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:10'>2Pe 2:10</a></em>). Loving God involves loving our brother, and despising our brethren means we do not love God but rather despise Him.</p><p><em>You cannot serve God and money-&nbsp;</em>When the Lord spoke of the impossibility of serving two masters, He personified the one as "Mammon" (AV), the antithesis of God. He goes on to define what he meant: "Therefore::. take no&nbsp;<em>thought</em>&nbsp;for your life::. which of you by&nbsp;<em>taking thought</em>::. why&nbsp;<em>take ye thought</em>&nbsp;for raiment::. therefore take no&nbsp;<em>thought</em>&nbsp;saying, What shall we eat?::. seek ye first the Kingdom of God::. take therefore no&nbsp;<em>thought</em>&nbsp;for the morrow" (<em><a href='B:470 6:24-25'>Mat 6:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:27-28'>Mat 6:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:33-34'>Mat 6:33-34</a></em>). Clearly the Lord saw "Mammon", this personified anti-God, as an attitude of&nbsp;<em>mind</em>. He had the same view of 'Satan' as we do: a personification of sin in the human mind. He also saw seeking "the Kingdom of God" as somehow parallel with serving God rather than mammon. We would wish there were some third category, God, mammon and something in between; as we may idly speculate that it would suit us if there were three categories at judgement day, accepted, rejected, and something else. But both then and now, this very minute, this isn't the case. A deep down recognition of this will have its effect practically. If we are serving God, let's not give anything to mammon, let's not play games, juggling and using brinkmanship:&nbsp;</p><p>There is fair evidence that in God's eyes, our attitude to materialism is the epitome of our spirituality. The Lord places before us only two possible roads: the service of God, or that of mammon (Aramaic for riches / wealth, <em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em>). We would rather expect Him to have said: service of God or the flesh. Indeed, this is the choice that is elsewhere placed before us in the NT. However, the Lord evidently saw "mammon" as the epitome of all the flesh stands for. It is probably the view of many of us that while we have many areas of spiritual weakness, materialism is not one of them. But according to the Lord, if we are reading Him rightly, our attitude to the flesh generally is reflected in our attitude to wealth. This is why the Bible does have a lot to say about the sacrifice of 'our' material possessions; not because God needs them in themselves, but because our resignation of them to His service is an epitome of our whole spirituality.<br/><em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em> is alluded to in <em><a href='B:630 1:9'>Tit 1:9</a></em>. Holding to God as your master rather than mammon is achieved through holding on to His word. Paul sees one application of serving mammon as acting in a hypocritical way in order to please some in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em> = <em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>6:25&nbsp;<em>Therefore I say to you</em>- Because our hearts can only be in one place, either with God or not, we should especially beware of materialism. For this more than anything else can lead us to hate God and to despise Him- because it takes our hearts away from Him.</p><p><em>Do not be anxious for your life; what you shall eat, or what you shall drink. Nor for your body; what you shall wear</em>- The Sermon is concerned with how we think, with inculcating spiritual mindedness. The exhortations in this section against materialism arise out of that- they are appeals not to be materialistic and faithless in God's provision, because this leads to our thinking, our heart and mind, being on those things rather than with the Lord. It's true that the Greek translated 'thought' can mean 'no&nbsp;<em>anxious</em>&nbsp;thought'. But the problem is that we can make this mean that we are in fact allowed to spend a lot of time thinking about material things, so long as we're not 'anxious'. This line of interpretation seems to ignore the wider context. We can be spiritually minded, the Lord is teaching, if we simply accept that we shall never go hungry or naked. God will provide for His children who trust in Him. The Lord clearly saw material concerns as being the great enemy of daily spiritual mindedness. The emphasis upon not taking thought is considerable- the Lord uses the word five times in swift succession (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:27-28'>Mat 6:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>). And He repeats the command not to take thought for what we shall eat or drink (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>). Luke's record records this warning not to worry about what we shall 'eat and drink' only once (<em><a href='B:490 12:29'>Luk 12:29</a></em>), but it is prefaced by the parable of the rich fool, upon whose lips we find the same words. After he has spent a lifetime amassing wealth, he says to himself "eat, drink and be merry" (<em><a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a></em>). Clearly we are to understand him as a man who failed to live by the Lord's principles not to worry about eating and drinking. Yet he was not poor. He was fabulously rich. The point is thus established that the rich, or at least those who have enough to eat and drink, are not to consider the Lord's principle as speaking only to the desperately poor who are tempted to worry about what they shall eat. The principle applies to the rich too. For it is a basic human principle that all of us, rich or poor, are tempted to expend mental thought about how we shall basically survive. The omission of the Sermon in John is typical of how John omits much of the Synoptic material, and yet repeats it in essence. He records the same 'eat and drink' language about our need eat and drink of the flesh and blood of the crucified Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>). The point perhaps is that instead of expending mental energy worrying about how we shall eat and drink, we are to instead focus upon absorbing the Lord Jesus into our lives. And all material things will somehow fall into place. A similar idea is to be found in the Lord's warning not to worry about what clothing to "put on", because He uses the same word about how the rejected man had not 'put on' the wedding garment of the Lord's righteousness (<em><a href='B:470 22:11'>Mat 22:11</a></em>). Repeatedly the later New Testament appeals for us to "put on [s:w:] the Lord Jesus" (<em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:14'>Rom 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:24'>Eph 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:11'>Eph 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:14'>Eph 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:12'>Col 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:8'>1Th 5:8</a></em>), so that in the last day we may 'put on' the clothing of immortality (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 15:53-54'>1Co 15:53-54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:3'>2Co 5:3</a></em>). If putting on&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;garment is our mental focus, then we need not worry about what we shall 'put on' for clothing in this life.<br/>This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:570 4:6'>Phi 4:6</a></em>. How do we obey that command to "take no thought for your life"? By praying consciously for every little thing that you need in daily life, e:g. daily bread. We do not have two masters; only one. Therefore, the more we grasp this, the more we will give ourselves solely to Him. And this leads on, in the thinking of Jesus, to having no anxious thought for tomorrow; for a life of total devotion to Him means that we need not worry about tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:24-25'>Mat 6:24-25</a></em>). If we seek first His Kingdom, then we will not be anxious for tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:33-34'>Mat 6:33-34</a></em>).</p><p><em>Is not the life more than the food, and the body more than the garment?</em>- This continues the theme outlined above. The presence of the articles focuses attention upon&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>body- and surely the Lord has in view the life to come, which will involve having a glorious&nbsp;<em>body</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em>), not existence in any disembodied sense. The contrast is therefore between this present life, and&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life to come; this present body, and&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;body which is to be given us. It's a question of identification; whether we focus upon this present life and body, or perceive that this life is but a miniscule percentage of our eternal existence, when we will not be living this life with this body. The life and the body to come are "more" than the present life and body; and the Greek for "more" is elsewhere translated 'the greater part', the idea being 'the major portion'. The vastly greater part of our existence will be with&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;life and&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>body which is yet to come. If we are secure in Christ and confident of our eternal destiny by His grace, then issues pertaining to this life and this body become insignificant.</p>


text:
<p>6:26&nbsp;<em>Look at</em>- Gk. 'gaze into'. Surely He drew attention to some birds flying around. And the Greek words behind "Behold" mean more than a casual glance. He asks us to look for some time with deep penetration at the birds of the natural creation, and learn a lesson.</p><p><em>The birds in the sky; they do not sow, nor do they reap or gather crops into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of much more value than they?</em>- As always, the Lord applied His words to Himself. For we sense in <em><a href='B:470 8:20'>Mat 8:20</a></em> that He had really thought about His words. Yes, the Father feeds the birds- but they have nests, and the Son of Man at least that night had nowhere to lay His head. Note too that the birds of the air are generally unclean (<em><a href='B:510 10:12'>Act 10:12</a></em>). The fact God feeds even the unclean animals ties in with the Lord's opening comfort when He began the Sermon that His message is for those who worry about their uncleanness and spiritual inadequacy before God.</p><p>Sow::. reap::. gather into barns&nbsp;are words repeatedly used by the Lord Jesus, especially in Matthew, for the work of the Gospel. The seed of the word is&nbsp;<em>sown&nbsp;</em>(Matthew records three sowing parables- <em><a href='B:470 13:3'>Mat 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:31'>Mat 13:31</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>), then&nbsp;<em>reaped</em>&nbsp;at Christ's return (<em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em> - as in <em><a href='B:540 9:6'>2Co 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:7-9'>Gal 6:7-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:15'>Rev 14:15</a></em>), and finally&nbsp;<em>gathered</em>&nbsp;(by the preachers and Angels, <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>), "into my barn" (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>)- the Kingdom. We cannot simply ignore all this use of identical language in Matthew's Gospel. I noted at 6:25 and elsewhere that the Sermon is often saying 'Do not worry about the activities which are part of this life, but focus instead on doing those activities in a spiritual sense'. I gave the example of how the command not to worry about what we shall physically eat and drink implies that we should instead be concerned about our spiritual eating and drinking. Remembering the focus of the Sermon upon the need for outgoing, proactive sharing of the Gospel, it would be fair to conclude that the Lord wishes us to not worry about sowing, reaping and gathering into barns in the literal sense, but instead to concern ourselves with doing those things&nbsp;<em>in the work of the Gospel</em>. 'Focus on sharing the Gospel, and all the material things will fall into place if you just trust that they will work out OK'.</p><p>God consciously feeds the birds with their every mouthful. &nbsp;"If God so clothe the grass of the field::. shall He not much more clothe you?" (<em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>). In the same way, God individually and consciously cares for each blade of grass. Fundamentally, they do not grow so much as a result of chemical combination or photosynthesis, but due to the conscious care of God using such processes. The idea of every little thing in life and the world being controlled by Angels contradicts the notion that God has set this world in motion according to certain natural laws, and that things continue without His direct intervention- as if the whole system is run by clockwork which God initially wound up. Intervention in this system by God has been called 'the hand of providence'. However, these ideas surely contradict the clear Biblical teaching that every movement in the natural creation is consciously controlled by God through His Angels, thus needing an energetic input from Him through His Spirit for every action to occur:&nbsp; "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither&nbsp;do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your Heavenly Father feeds them" suggests that God consciously feeds the birds with their every mouthful. See too <em><a href='B:470 5:45'>Mat 5:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:29-31'>Mat 10:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:12'>Job 38:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 38:32'>Job 38:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 39:27'>Job 39:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:6'>Amo 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:7'>Isa 40:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 90:3'>Psa 90:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:13'>Psa 104:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:1'>Pro 11:1</a></em>.</p><p>Things being "better than" or "of more value than" is quite a theme in the thinking of the Lord Jesus. The Greek word is used by Him at least three times in this way. Better than the birds, than many sparrows (<em><a href='B:470 10:31'>Mat 10:31</a></em>), than a sheep (<em><a href='B:470 12:12'>Mat 12:12</a></em>). Doubtless this thought was developed in the Lord by His observation of birds, flocks of sparrows and sheep- developing the implications of the simple thought that we are of more value than them to God. For we are made in His image in a way in which they are not.</p>


text:
<p>6:27&nbsp;<em>Which of you by worrying</em>- As always, the emphasis is upon the state of the heart. No amount of mental worry can add anything to us. And so our hearts and minds should instead be devoted to the God who can transform our body into an eternal state of existence (see on 6:25).</p><p><em>Can add</em>- The same word occurs in 6:33. We cannot ultimately 'add' anything to ourselves in secular life; if we seek first the things of God's Kingdom [i:e. 'take thought' for them rather than our material life], then what is necessary for the material, human life will be added to us. The concept of 'addition' suggests we are to see ourselves as ourselves&nbsp;<em>without</em>&nbsp;the issues of food, clothing and survival. We are then to decide how we are to take care of those 'additional' issues. And the Lord is teaching that we are to focus upon spiritual things and the service of God's Kingdom, believing that He will 'add' these things to us. To perceive ourselves independent from our human, secular needs and position is hard. But Paul got the idea right when he spoke of how we bring nothing into this world and can take nothing out (<em><a href='B:610 6:7'>1Ti 6:7</a></em>). 'We' come into this world; we exist, but have nothing added to us initially. And 'we' exit this world, likewise without anything 'added'.</p><p><em>One cubit to his stature</em>- The Greek can mean 'age' as well as referring to our body. No amount of secular thought can add age to our lives. Because life, the eternal life, comes only from God. So it is to Him that our hearts belong. Again, the Lord Jesus was the word of the Sermon made flesh in His own example. For we read that He grew in stature before God (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em> s:w:)- not by anxious worldly thought. Perhaps Zacchaeus thought upon the implications of the Lord's words, because Luke uses the same word to note that he was of inadequate stature (<em><a href='B:490 19:3'>Luk 19:3</a></em>). The 'stature' that we seek to attain is not any physique or longevity in this life- but the "stature of the fullness of Christ" (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em> s:w:). The amount of thought and effort that goes into trying to live longer, adding a cubit to our lifespan, is immense. And understandably so, for those who have only this life. Surely the Lord is saying that we should give no anxious thought to this, but rather, give our mental energy to growing into the age / stature of Himself.</p>


text:
<h4>6:28&nbsp;So<em>&nbsp;why do you worry about clothing?</em>- The allusion is surely to how God provided food, drink and clothing which didn't wear out for the Israelites on their wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:50 8:4'>Deu 8:4</a></em>), just as He will for those who have crossed the Red Sea in baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). Again, it seems likely that the Lord intended us to refocus from material to spiritual. For later in Matthew we read of Him emphasizing the ultimate importance of having the right 'clothing' [s:w. "wedding garment"] to enter God's Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 22:11-12'>Mat 22:11-12</a></em>). On a simply practical level, it's my observation that many believers find spirituality hard because their minds are too taken up with making money- to fund the buying of branded, designer clothing. In our generation as never before, the price range of clothing is as never before. It is rather beyond me why in a brotherhood of need, it seems perfectly acceptable to not buy good second hand clothing and pay ten or more times the price for new clothing with the right brand name on it. But maybe that's just me.</h4><p><em>Consider the lilies of the field</em>- Gk. 'to study deeply', used only here in the NT. The same idea, although a different word, as the Greek for "Behold" in <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>. Whilst no doubt the Lord with a wave of the hand did draw attention to the mountain lilies growing where He was teaching, He was most definitely not inviting us to take a cursory glance at them. But rather to study them; and the unusual Greek word used for "consider" drove home that point. Perhaps He picked one and invited the disciples to gaze at it in silence for some time.</p><p><em>How they grow</em>- The Greek can mean 'in what way' and also 'how much', 'to what great extent'.</p><p><em>They neither toil nor spin!</em>- As so often in the Lord's teaching and parables, He was careful to balance what He said with relevance to both men ['toiling' in Greek has the idea of heavy labour], and women [spinning]. The later appeal for those who are 'toiling' in heavy labour to come to Christ (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>) is an invitation to know in this life a lifting of the curse of labour which came upon Adam. This is not to say that we shall not have to labour, but the desperate toiling for survival is mitigated by the knowledge that God will ultimately provide for His people.</p>


text:
<p>6:29&nbsp;Yet<em>&nbsp;I say to you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these</em>- It is hard to avoid the connection with the description of the righteous as being clothed in glory at the last day. The clothing metaphor is repeated throughout the NT in this connection (e:g. <em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:18'>Rev 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:13'>Rev 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a></em>). Of course we are dealing with metaphor here- plants are not literally clothed, although perhaps the Lord was alluding to them flowering as their 'glory'. The lily is glorious for what it is, not because it has laboured to make itself something other than it Is. We will be made glorious by God in Christ. The city set on a hill cannot be hid. We are who and as we are before God. There is nothing to cover with clothing. This consideration alone puts the whole issue of present clothing into perspective.</p><p>The Lord Jesus hinted indirectly at Solomon's pride when he said that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one wild flower, symbolic of how God would clothe, with imputed righteousness, even the weakest believer (<em><a href='B:470 6:29-30'>Mat 6:29-30</a></em>):&nbsp; This reference to Solomon is only one of several hints that our Lord read Solomon in a negative light:&nbsp;&nbsp;He goes on to warn against excessive attention to food, drink and clothes (<em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>)- all things which the court of Solomon revelled in to a quite extraordinary extent. "Take therefore no (anxious) thought for the morrow::. sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" (<em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>) sounds like a rebuke of the way Solomon did just this in Ecclesiastes, as he intellectually battled with the sadness of knowing that all his achievements would mean nothing in the future. "But", says Jesus, "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>)- clearly a reference to Solomon seeking Divine wisdom and subsequently being blessed; surely the Lord is telling us to follow Solomon's example in this, but to avoid his pride and materialism. Solomon didn’t seek the future Kingdom of God, but rather his own. The Lord taught that we should love our enemies, and not fall into the trap of only loving those who love us (<em><a href='B:470 5:44-46'>Mat 5:44-46</a></em>). He seems to be alluding here to Solomon’s claim that wisdom says: “I love them that love me” (<em><a href='B:240 8:17'>Pro 8:17</a></em>). Maybe I’m wrong, and the Lord didn’t have His mind there on that passage; but in the context of Him re-interpreting and re-presenting Solomon to us, it seems likely that He was consciously showing that God’s grace is in fact the very opposite of what Solomon thought. God loves His enemies, and doesn’t only love those who love Him; and this is to be our credo likewise:&nbsp;The record of how Solomon spoke of his building of the temple can now be seen as blatant pride in his external appearance of spirituality;&nbsp; without the foregoing analysis of the&nbsp;<em>hints&nbsp;</em>of Solomon's pride, this wouldn't necessarily be a correct conclusion to reach;&nbsp; but with all these inspired links, surely we can read the following as pure pride: "Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven (hardly praying in his closet!&nbsp; Was Christ alluding to Solomon in <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>?)::. the house that I have built for thy name" (<em><a href='B:110 8:22'>1Ki 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:44'>1Ki 8:44</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;Solomon's frequent emphasis on the fact that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>built the house makes a telling connection with the principle that God does not live in houses&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;by men (<em><a href='B:510 17:24'>Act 17:24</a></em>?) &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>6:30&nbsp;<em>Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is here today-</em>&nbsp; The blessings God gives us do not come by clockwork- we thankfully recognize they are individual acts of mercy towards us. Perhaps&nbsp;our sometimes 'clockwork' prayers are an indication that we think God's blessings of food etc. are clockwork too? In the same way, God individually and consciously cares for each blade of grass. Fundamentally, they do not grow merely as a result of chemical combination or photosynthesis, but due to the conscious care of God using such processes. See on <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>. The worry-free life is a characteristic of the true believer. If God gave us His Son, how much more will He not give us “all things”? The Lord brought out the point in <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>: If God so clothes the grass… how much more will He clothe us, therefore, don’t worry! “Clothe” translates the Greek&nbsp;<em>amphi-hennumi</em>- to enrobe around. The Lord seems to have been referring to a type of wild flower that appears to be draped around by its natural skin, rather like an irIs. God gives the wild flowers robes… although they do not spin them or work for them (<em><a href='B:470 6:29'>Mat 6:29</a></em>). Solomon’s robes weren’t as beautiful as them. And how&nbsp;<em>much more</em>&nbsp;will God clothe us, both literally and with salvation (for this is how the Bible usually uses the idea of God clothing us). God does so much for the lilies, who are to be ‘thrown into the fire’… a phrase which inevitably connects with the Lord’s other uses of that idea to describe the final condemnation of the wicked (as in <em><a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a></em>). God cares for flowers, and He even cares and provides for those whom He will one day condemn. For God to keep such people alive is a conscious outflowing of His lavish energy, His gracious gift of life and health. If He does that for things and persons which will ultimately be ‘thrown into the fire’, how&nbsp;<em>much more</em>&nbsp;will He clothe us. Let’s remember that creation isn’t run on clockwork; God makes His rain come, and His sun to rise, on the just and unjust; He’s aware when a bird falls from the air; counts the hairs on our heads, as a mother dotes over a new-born baby’s features. Just by keeping alive humanity (indeed, all of creation), God is lavishing His grace and consciously outgiving of Himself.</p><p><em>But tomorrow is thrown into the furnace</em>- We have noted that the idea of 'casting' is used by the Lord with reference to condemnation at the last day; and 'the oven' is reminiscent of the imagery of Gehenna fire to destroy the rejected. If God shows so much care and gives so much passing glory to that which shall be rejected and be ultimately unused by Him in eternity- how much more will he clothe us whom He loves and has accepted with His nature. All worry about what garment we shall physically put on, let alone whether it has a brand name on it or not, becomes subsumed beneath the wonder of the metaphor of our final clothing.</p><p><em>Will He not more surely care for you, O you of little faith!</em>- The word is used another three times in Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:8'>Mat 16:8</a></em>). In each case it refers specifically to a lack of faith in the saving power of Jesus. The "little faith" is not so much in God's promised provision of physical clothing, but in the promise of final clothing in salvation. But God's care even for those whom He shall condemn, keeping them in life, and the glory He gives to the plant and animal creation which last but for days, is sure encouragement that He shall so much more super abundantly clothe us with salvation- and also, will ensure we don't go physically naked in this world. The Gospel records, as transcripts of the disciples' early preaching, show the disciples appealing to others to have faith, to believe and be baptized. And yet the same accounts record so often how weak and small was the disciples' faith. Matthew is a classic example: <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:26'>Mat 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:8'>Mat 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>. It was on the basis of this acknowledged weakness of their own, that the disciples could appeal so powerfully to others. The more real they showed themselves to be, the more credible was their appeal.</p>


text:
<p>6:31&nbsp;<em>Therefore, do not be anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, How shall we be clothed?</em>- The three things God provided for Israel in their wilderness journey. The same old clothes, food (manna) and water, of course. But He provided for them.</p><p>God will provide for us to be "clothed", but the question is, how does He provide? The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:38'>Mat 25:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:43'>Mat 25:43</a></em> about the believer in Christ who is not clothed, and needs to be clothed by other believers- some of whom refuse to, whilst others do. If God really does provide food and clothing for His people- why are some apparently without them? One window onto that question might be that potentially all such needs have been met, in that the food and clothing is within the brotherhood. But there can be a dysfunction, in that it is not shared out as it should be- meaning that some go without the provision which God has potentially provided. But another window is that David could say that he had never seen the seed of the righteous begging bread at any time in his long and varied life (<em><a href='B:230 37:25'>Psa 37:25</a></em>). And despite a lifetime in the poorer world I also have yet to encounter this. The promise holds true, in my observation.</p>


text:
<p>6:32&nbsp;<em>For the Gentiles clamour for all these things-&nbsp;</em>God's people who worry and spend their thoughts on eating, drinking and clothing are no better than the Gentile world. This was a radical thing to say to first century Jews. It is a common Biblical theme that the unspiritual amongst God's people shall share the judgments of the world whom in spirit they are like. The idea of the Gentiles seeking is of course from <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>, where we read that finally the Gentiles will seek unto Christ (as in <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>). Perhaps the idea is that we should right now have that changed direction of 'seeking' which the Gentile world will have in the future. Our practical life in Christ is really all about our response to the abounding nature of God’s grace. If we really believe it, then we will trust in Him and not worry. <em><a href='B:470 6:32'>Mat 6:32</a></em> goes on to imply that the difference between the Gentile world and the believer in Christ is quite simply that we believe that our Father has this level of care and concern for us; and therefore we will not worry, whereas the unbelieving world worry constantly about material things. This is how much of a ‘first principle’ this really Is.</p><p>'Clamour' is the idea of seeking, and is parallel with 'thinking' anxiously in :31. Again it is the overall direction of our hearts, to where our seeking is set, our mental life and thinking, which is the issue. Rather than individual acts of spiritual failure or success.</p><p><em>Even though your heavenly Father knows you have need of them all</em>- God knows our human situation. Our faithlessness and lack of spiritual mindedness is because of an unspoken sense that actually He is unaware of our needs and the nature of being human. But the God who knows all things is not unaware of humanity and the needs which accompany being human. Frequently the prophecies directed to the Jews returning from Babylon spoke at length of God's amazing knowledge- because the sense was that whilst God existed, He did not know close-up about the human situation. He does, of course, know perfectly.</p><p><em>Hapas</em>, 'all things', means strictly 'each and every one of'. God knows every single human need relating to eating, drinking, clothing and existing. And He knows better than we do our greatest need- to eat and drink of that bread and blood which gives eternal life, and to be clothed with His nature.</p>


text:
<p>6:33&nbsp;<em>So seek first</em>- Seeking is paralleled with taking thought in :31,32. The overall direction of our lives must be towards the Kingdom of God above all. If that is put "first", then actually there is no room for thought about much else. The idea is not 'Seek the Kingdom first, and other things secondly'. Rather must the 'seeking' of our thinking be towards the Kingdom. 'Seeking' was a common Hebraism for 'worship'. But the Lord has defined 'seeking' as thinking, as the overall direction of our mental state, our heart. It was not merely a question of going through the worship rituals of Judaism in a holy space such as the temple. True worship is redefined as the state of our heart.</p><p><em>His Kingdom</em>- I noted under <em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em> that the coming of the Kingdom in our lives is through the doing of God's will. The Lord's message is not simply that we should long for the coming of the Kingdom at His second coming; it is that starting right now, we should seek above all things to extend the principles of the Kingdom (as taught in the Lord's parables of the Kingdom) in our lives and in the world around us.</p><p><em>And His righteousness</em>- The Sermon was intended for those who earnestly wished to be righteous but felt unable to attain it as they wished (see on <em><a href='B:470 5:6'>Mat 5:6</a></em>). Yet we should continue 'seeking' it. And Paul takes the thought further by declaring that if we really seek to be righteous, then we will become "in Christ" and believe in God's offer of imputed righteousness.</p><p><em>And all these things</em>- Semitic languages such as Aramaic and Hebrew can often have various levels of meaning in a phrase. The phrase may mean or say one thing, but also suggest something else. We are of course reading the expression of those phrases in Greek:&nbsp;<em>Pas tauta</em>&nbsp;(usually translated "all these things") need not necessarily be translated as a plural. The idea could equally be 'The whole, complete thing'- we might say 'The real deal'. And that would make sense of the connection between 'added' and <em><a href='B:470 6:27'>Mat 6:27</a></em>, which speaks of how we cannot 'add' a cubit to our lifespan. The implication could be that 'the real deal', the&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;thing- eternal life, salvation in God's Kingdom- shall be added if we seek that Kingdom first and foremost. Alternatively, we can interpret more in line with the common translations and understand that 'all these things' is the same 'all these things' of the preceding verse 32- the material things which God knows we need. These things&nbsp;<em>will be added</em>&nbsp;to us if we do not seek them first, but rather seek God's Kingdom first. But there is the suggestion that the real 'all things' for us is eternity in God's Kingdom. For a discussion of what may have happened if these basic things are apparently&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;added to a believer, see on <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>Shall be added to you</em>- The only other usage of the word in Matthew is just a few verses earlier, where the Lord has pointed out that we are unable to 'add' a cubit to our length of human life nor to our body height (6:27).</p>


text:
<p>6:34&nbsp;<em>Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own-&nbsp;</em>The only other occurrence of the Greek word in Matthew is a few verses earlier in :30. God provides for the grass which "tomorrow" will be cast into the fire. We observed under <em><a href='B:470 6:30'>Mat 6:30</a></em> that this is the language of condemnation. If God even keeps alive and provides for those who shall be condemned, and the things of the animal and plant creation which live for only a day or so, how much more will He care for us. The "tomorrow" which is in view is therefore the ultimate 'tomorrow'- of the coming of Christ. We are to take no anxious thought for the outcome of that day if we know that in our hearts we are seeking the things of the Kingdom above all. In the same spirit, Paul taught that all who wholeheartedly love the Lord's appearing shall be saved (<em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>). We should not be full of worried thought about our possible rejection on that day, but rather the overall thinking of our mind should be positively full of the things of the Kingdom. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" could be read as meaning 'Yes there will be evil for some on that day, but don't waste your thoughts worrying about that. If your heart is for the Kingdom of God, you are secure. Don't worry about it". Although this is the ultimate sense of 'tomorrow' which the Lord has in mind, His words can be understood on a quite simple literal level too. We are to live one day at a time without worrying about the future, because quite simply- God will provide. Each day has its own problems, and don't worry about them ahead of time. Rather focus your thinking and mental energy upon the things of God's Kingdom. This is exactly in the spirit of the command in the Lord's model prayer to ask for enough food only for today (<em><a href='B:470 6:11'>Mat 6:11</a></em>). Living like this is of course seen by the world as irresponsible. But it is not irresponsible if we do so with a firm faith that God is responsible for our tomorrows.</p>


text:
<h4>7:1&nbsp;<em>Judge not, that you be not judged-&nbsp;</em>For Paul, one phrase from these chapters echoed in his mind throughout the years; thus "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>) is at the basis of <em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>; the whole of Romans 14 (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>), and <em><a href='B:530 4:3'>1Co 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>. The Lord's teaching about judging does not in fact say that the act of condemning our brother is in itself a sin- it's simply that we must cast out the beam from our own eye first, and then we can judge our brother by pointing out to him the splinter in his eye. But the Lord tells us not to judge because He foresaw that we would never completely throw out the beam from our own eye. His command not to judge /&nbsp;condemn at all was therefore in this sense a concession to our inevitable weakness (<em><a href='B:470 7:1-5'>Mat 7:1-5</a></em>). The commentary of James on this part of the Sermon is interesting: “Don’t speak against one another, brothers. He who speaks against a brother and judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge" (<em><a href='B:660 4:11'>Jas 4:11</a></em>). In what sense is to judge / condemn our brother to judge the law? And which law? Maybe James considered <em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em> to be so fundamental a part of "the law of Christ" that he refers to it as "the law". I suggest under <em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em> that James considers the Sermon to be "the perfect law". The Lord had taught clearly that under His law, to condemn meant being condemned. Yet there were those in James' readership, as there are today, who think they can go ahead and condemn others. Seeing the Lord's law is so clear, James is saying that effectively they are condemning the law of Jesus, placing themselves as judges over His law by deciding that they can break it at will.</h4>


text:
<p>7:2&nbsp;For<em>&nbsp;with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged</em>- The "judgment" is of condemnation- every one of the 28 occurrences of the Greek word refer to "damnation" or "condemnation". The 'judging' which is prohibited in :1 is therefore of condemning others.</p><p><em>And with what measure you use, it shall be applied to you</em>- This verse begins with "For". Because of the principle that we shall be condemned if we condemn, we need to remember that we will receive according to the measure we use to people in this life. Again, a direct connection is made between our judgment experience before Jesus at the last day, and our attitude to others now:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>7:3<em>&nbsp;And why do you see the splinter that is in your brother's eye but ignore the plank that is in your own eye?-&nbsp;</em>In Luke, the Lord prefaces this mini-parable by saying that the blind can't lead the blind. For Him, a man with even slightly impaired vision was effectively blind. In this very context He speaks of the need to be "perfect::. as his master". Only the perfect, by implication, can criticize their brethren. And the final reason He gives for not attempting to cast out the plank from our brother's eye is that "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit”. This is rather hard to understand in the context. But on reflection, it seems that He is teaching that if we are good trees, we will have no corrupt fruit, no splinters in our eye- and because none of us are like this, there is corrupt fruit on each of us, we aren't perfect as our Master, therefore we shouldn't think of trying to cast out the plank from our brother's eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:39-43'>Luk 6:39-43</a></em>). And of course He bids us to be perfect as our Father is. These high standards of demand were mixed with an incredible grace. Only a man who was evidently perfect could speak like this with any realness or credibility. Otherwise His words would just have been seen as the ravings of a weirdo. But there was a realness to His perfection that made and makes His demands so piercingly appropriate to us. The way He handled His perfection is a wonderful insight into His character. He knew that He was without sin; and He knew that the life He lived moment by moment was to be the pattern for all God’s people. Yet somehow, He handled this in a manner which was never arrogant, never proud, and never off-putting to sinners; but rather, actually inviting to them.</p><p>This continues the context about judging from verses 1 and 2. Our attitude to others will be the Lord's attitude to us at the last day. If we are hyper-critical of others, then this is how the Lord will look upon us. If&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;should mark iniquity in us, none could stand (<em><a href='B:230 130:3'>Psa 130:3</a></em>)- and we should struggle with the natural human tendency to mark iniquity in others. The question 'Why:::?' is answered by the Lord in verse 4- He perceived that we excuse our judgmentalness and critical attitudes with the excuse that we actually want to assist the poor person who is the object of our critical gaze. How many times have we heard the bitterest, most carping criticism of others- rounded off with the excuse 'I actually really feel so sorry for him'. This is the very mentality the Lord is bringing to our attention. He bids us realize how we justify critical attitudes towards others on the basis that we kind ourselves that we want to help them.<br/><br/>The splinter is literally, a twig. Both a twig and a beam are all of the same material- wood. If the Lord was indeed a woodworker, He would have prepared this teaching during meditation in His workplace. The point is, all our faults are of the same essence. The problem is that although we have been called out of darkness / blindness into the light of life, we are still blind in so many ways- even though blindness is a feature of the unsaved, and ignorance of God is the basis of His anger with men (<em><a href='B:600 1:8'>2Th 1:8</a></em>). Crystal clear teaching of Jesus relating to wealth, brotherly love, personal forgiveness, the vital unity of His church, personal purity… these all go ignored in some way by each of us, and therefore by us as a community. The Lord gently warns us that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;likely to be blind in some way- why, He asks, are we so keen to comment on our brother's blindness / darkness, when we too have such limited vision (<em><a href='B:470 7:3'>Mat 7:3</a></em>)? We can read the same passages time and again, and fail to let them really register.<br/><br/>"Consider not" is alluded to by James. James is full of references to the Sermon, and <em><a href='B:660 1:23-24'>Jas 1:23-24</a></em> repeat this Greek word for "consider". James warns that we can be like the man who considers / beholds his face in a mirror and then carries on with life, immediately forgetting what he has seen of himself. It's not that we are totally, blissfully unaware of our faults. We see / consider them, but for a fleeting moment. And then live as if we have not seen them. The Lord is telling us to indeed see / consider our own planks. The idea seems to be that the plank in our own eye is our judgmental attitude towards our brother. This is what damages our vision; John teaches that we cannot see where we are walking if we hate our brother in our heart (<em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>). If we are without this major impediment to our vision, then maybe we will be able to assist others with removing small parts [a twig] of the major problems [a beam] which we have ourselves overcome.</p>


text:
<p>7:4&nbsp;<em>Or how will you say to your brother-&nbsp;</em>Remember that the Sermon was spoken to the disciples. The Lord is foreseeing how things would tend to go in the life of His collective people. There is something grotesque, absurd, over the top in this story. Christ's parables often have an element of unreality in them to highlight how His attitudes are unusual (e:g. the employer who pays all his men the same wages for different hours of work). And these unusual attitudes of His reflect the sensitivity of Jesus:&nbsp;But in this story of the two carpenters there is something not only unreal, but almost cartoon-like. We read it and think 'The Lord's obviously exaggerating, nobody would really be so foolish'. But that's exactly how He knew we would think! Our attempts to sort out our brother really are that absurd! Christ is effectively saying: 'Now, I know you'll think I'm exaggerating- but I'm not' (<em><a href='B:490 6:41-42'>Luk 6:41-42</a></em>). Often it seems the Lord intends us to think His parables through to their end, imagining the necessary details. A splinter will come out of the eye naturally, it's presence will provoke tears which ultimately will wash it out. 'The grief of life will work on your brother to solve his problem, there are some spiritual weaknesses which time and the experience of life will heal; but I know you people will want to rush in and speed up the spiritual growth of your brother. But you can't do it!'. Christ even foresaw how we will stress the fact that our fellow believer is our "brother" as we try to do this; as if we'll try to be so righteous in the very moment when in God's eyes we do something grotesquely foolish. Doubtless the Lord's carpenter years were the time when He formulated this story. Perhaps He intends us to take it further, and pick up the implication that these two carpenters couldn't help each other; but there's another one who can:::&nbsp; See on 13:28.</p><p><em>Let me remove the splinter in your eye, when you have a plank in your own eye?-</em>&nbsp;"Remove" is s:w. 'cast out' in :5. The word is elsewhere used about the casting out of the rejected in 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>; <em><a href='B:500 6:37'>Joh 6:37</a></em>). It is also used about casting out from church (<em><a href='B:710 1:10'>3Jn 1:10</a></em>) and synagogue and society (<em><a href='B:510 13:50'>Act 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:34'>Joh 9:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>). In Luke's account of the Lord's presentation of the material, he uses the same word for "cast out" from religious association (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>) as he does just a few verses later for this 'casting out' of splinters (<em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em>). The casting out is therefore a judgmental condemning of others- and that is the connection with the preceding context of <em><a href='B:470 7:1-3'>Mat 7:1-3</a></em>. In practice, this involved religious disfellowship. Christ's people are to associate with each other in fellowship because they are convinced that by grace, they in the body of Christ shall share eternity together. To 'cast out' from fellowship someone is therefore to effectively 'cast them out' in condemnation. The same word is used in both senses. The Lord's parable is most insightful- because He observes that actually to do this is a natural tendency for His followers, and they will justify it in terms of thinking they are doing it out of concern. And yet their attempt to do this is in fact the plank in their own eye. That judgmentalism is in fact a far worse failing than any fault they have observed in their brother. And this all flows directly and seamlessly on from the Lord's point blank statement that He will condemn those who condemn others (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>). The practice and upholding of the wicked practice of disfellowship therefore appears to be an issue upon which our eternity may be staked. We must pay any price, including social death and being cut off from communities and families we have known and loved, in order to avoid doing this.</p><p>We cannot "behold" our plank. This is an invitation to try to actually see the plank in your own eye. The plank is there exactly because you have tried to 'cast out' your brother, having heard the Lord's teaching about the need for a "single eye" (<em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em>) and deciding that your brother's eye is defective. The plank is your judgmentalism. And that is what is so hard to perceive.</p>


text:
<p>7:5&nbsp;<em>You hypocrite</em>- Usually on the Lord's lips with reference to the Pharisees whom the Lord clearly detested and whom the rank and file disciples whom He was addressing likewise despised. But the Lord is saying that their critical, condemnatory attitude to each other would make them no different to the Pharisees.</p><p><em>First</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>proton</em>&nbsp;suggests that the following clause is of ultimate, supreme importance; it's not simply a chronological statement that 'first do this, then do that'. If we condemn ourselves in our self-examination, we will not be condemned (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). We are to most importantly [Gk:&nbsp;<em>proton</em>] “cast out” the beam from our own eye (<em><a href='B:490 6:42'>Luk 6:42</a></em>)- and the Lord uses the same word about the ‘casting forth’ of the rejected at the last day. We are to judge our own weaknesses as worthy of condemnation.</p><p><em>Remove the plank from your own eye and then shall you</em>- We are to condemn ourselves firstly, recognizing our major blindness, and then with the humility of spirit elicited by this, we will have crystal clear vision with which to assist others.</p><p><em>See clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>dia-blepo</em>&nbsp;is related to the verb&nbsp;<em>blepo</em>&nbsp;in :3 ("why do you&nbsp;<em>behold / see</em>&nbsp;the splinter::."). The judgmental believer sees the splinter in his brother's eye and wants to condemn him for it, but the one who has repented of his judgmentalism and removed that plank from his spiritual vision will see through ('through' is really the sense of&nbsp;<em>dia</em>). The translation "see clearly" doesn't seem to me to have much to commend it. The one who has repented of the plank of his judgmentalism will see through casting out / condemning the splinter in his brother's eye. "Then" you will see through casting out the splinter from his eye-&nbsp;<em>tote</em>&nbsp;more comfortably carries the sense of 'right then'. The moment you repent of your condemnatory judgmentalism, you immediately see through condemning your brother's weakness. And so the Lord has powerfully enforced His principle which He began with at the start of this section- do not condemn. And through this profound parable of casting out splinters and planks, He has brought us to see through our brother's splinter. But the only way you can do that is to cast out / condemn your own condemnatory attitudes. It is often claimed that those who have committed what some would see as 'major' sins feel unable to judge others for their sins, and this is seen as a weakness. But actually, we are all major sinners. Those who have repented or matured into softer, non-condemnatory attitudes are mature, and not 'weak' as they are portrayed by their hard line brethren.</p><p>The Lord foresaw the problems we would have within our community of believers in Him; from the schisms of the first century to the struggles of latter day believers. This story is a classic- of the carpenter with a beam in his own eye who is so keen to extract the splinter from the eye of his fellow worker (note how he almost forces himself upon his brother to do this!). There is something grotesque, absurd, over the top in this story. In this story of the two carpenters there is something not only unreal, but almost cartoon-like. We read it and think 'The Lord's obviously exaggerating, nobody would really be so foolish'. But that's exactly how He knew we would think! Our attempts to sort out our brother really are that absurd! Christ is effectively saying: 'Now, I know you'll think I'm exaggerating- but I'm not' (<em><a href='B:490 6:41-42'>Luk 6:41-42</a></em>). Often it seems the Lord intends us to think His parables through to their end, imagining the necessary details. A splinter will come out of the eye naturally, its presence will provoke tears which ultimately will wash it out. 'The grief of life will work on your brother to solve his problem, there are some spiritual weaknesses which time and the experience of life will heal; but I know you people will want to rush in and speed up the spiritual growth of your brother. But you can't do it!'. Christ even foresaw how we will stress the fact that our fellow believer is our "brother" as we try to do this; as if we'll try to be so righteous in the very moment when in God's eyes we do something grotesquely foolish. Doubtless the Lord's carpenter years were the time when He formulated this story of the two carpenters. Significantly they both had wood in their eye- as if a brother will tend to seek to correct another brother who has in essence the same weaknesses, but the ‘helping’ brother considers that the other brother’s is so much greater than his. Perhaps the Lord intends us to take it further, and pick up the implication that these two carpenters couldn't help each other; but there's another one who can:::&nbsp;</p><p>In Luke, having spoken of the need to tolerate our brother, the Lord Jesus repeated His common theme: that there is no third road: "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye:::? For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (<em><a href='B:490 6:41-43'>Luk 6:41-43</a></em>). There's no third position. Either we love our brother, and bring forth good fruit; or we don't get down to it, and bring forth bad fruit. We can't sometimes bring forth good, sometimes bad. At heart, we are either loving or selfishly hateful. Anything less than following Yahweh with all our heart is seen as doing evil in His eyes (<em><a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a></em>).</p><p>If we can achieve true self-examination, perceiving what needs to be cast out of our lives and doing so, we have achieved something extremely valuable. We need to ask ourselves what real, practical influence the Gospel is having upon us; for life in Christ is about change, not mere acceptance (let alone inheritance) of a theological position which we loyally preserve to the end of our days as many misguided religious folk do. The value of true change is brought out powerfully when the Lord speaks of casting our pearls before pigs, to be trodden underfoot by them. He says this immediately after stating that we are to “cast out” the beams from our own eyes; but we are not to “cast [out]” our pearls before pigs (<em><a href='B:470 7:5-6'>Mat 7:5-6</a></em>)- the Greek words for “cast out” in 7:5 (<em>ek-ballo</em>) and “cast” in 7:6 (<em>ballo</em>) are related. Clearly verse 6 belongs in the section about judging which begins in :1. The idea of being “cast out” is found earlier in the Sermon on the Mount, where the Lord warns of how saltless salt will be “cast out” and trodden underfoot (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>), the unforgiving will be “cast out” into prison (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>), those without fruit will be “cast out” into the fire (<em><a href='B:470 7:29'>Mat 7:29</a></em>). To be cast out is to be rejected at the last day; and by condemning ourselves now in our self-examination, casting out the eye that offends (<em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>), we avoid having to be “cast out” at the last judgment. If we condemn ourselves now in our self-examination, we shall not need to be condemned at the last day (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). But we are not to cast out our pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and attack us. In this context, I take this to mean that the offending eyes etc. which we cast out are not to be cast out to the world, lest they condemn us (which is how the Lord used the figure of trampling underfoot in <em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>). Thus the teaching about not casting pearls before pigs is seamlessly in context with the previous teaching about casting the beam out of our eye. Our repentances are to be before God and not necessarily the uncomprehending world. The pigs would’ve confused true pearls with swine feed, and become angry once they realized those stones weren’t food but stones. They just wouldn’t have appreciated them. This isn’t any justification for hypocrisy; it’s simply stating that repentance is a private thing before God. But the point to note is that the offending eyes etc. which are cast out are likened by the Lord to “pearls”; they are of such priceless value. Thus we see the colossal importance of true change, of self-examination resulting in the transformation of human life in practice.</p>


