# comment

text:
<p>13:8&nbsp;<em>For nation shall rise against nation-</em>&nbsp;Any first century fulfilment is unlikely because the&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;meant that the Roman empire was firmly in power and such a situation did not therefore occur.<em>&nbsp;Ethnos</em>&nbsp;is the word commonly translated "Gentiles". The picture of nations and kingdoms rising up against each other was simply not fulfilled in the run up to AD70- the Roman empire with their&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;did not permit such a situation. And the system of world empires which disintegrated in the 20th Century likewise didn't permit much of this in recent times, especially in the area around Israel, or in the land promised to Abraham, which is the focus of all Bible prophecy. Only in our times has this become a reality, especially in the Arab world and amongst the nations located in the territory promised to Abraham. The language of 'rising up' in revolt is now common amongst them. The picture, however, is of the Gospel going into all those "nations" at this time (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>), all those nations persecuting the believers (<em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em>), and the nations AV "Gentiles" taking Jerusalem and treading it down (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>); despite their internal struggles, these same "all nations" will be confederated under a latter Babylon (<em><a href='B:730 17:15'>Rev 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:23'>Rev 18:23</a></em>). The overall picture is of Gospel preaching going on at a time when the nations are rising up against each other, and at the same time persecuting the believers. This scenario is developing- but is as yet unfulfilled on a global scale. But it is daily fulfilling in the nations surrounding Israel, who are persecuting Christians, rising up against each other, and to whom the Gospel is being powerfully preached. Never before has my own mission organization received such major expression of serious interest from the Muslim nations surrounding Israel, thanks largely to the growth of the internet and the growing disillusion with the existing social and religious situation. People from all nations will be gathered before the Lord for judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>) and people from every nation will be saved (<em><a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>)- confirming that the Gospel will indeed spread to all nations before the Lord's return; it must at least be "proclaimed" to them all, thereby making people amongst them responsible to judgment; the "fullness of the Gentiles" must "come in" to Christ before the end comes and Israel repent (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). The Lord sent the disciples out to "all nations" (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> s:w:); the implication is that they failed to take the Gospel to them all, and therefore the intended scenario didn't fulfil as initially intended in the first century. <em><a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a></em> speaks of how there will be "upon the earth land- that promised to Abraham distress of nations", suggesting that the situation amongst the Gentile nations living within the land promised to Abraham is the particular focus of the prophecy. The same language is used of how there were devout Jews in "every nation under Heaven" (<em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em>)- and the list of nations in Acts 2 corresponds with the Middle Eastern Moslem world of today. We note that the promise that Abraham should be father of "many nations" was fulfilled in a literal sense in that Abraham is the ancestor of the Arab nations living in the land promised to him (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). And it is those nations particularly who have stated their desire to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jews, as required in <em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>.</p><p><em>And kingdom against kingdom-&nbsp;</em>It seems likely from Revelation that ‘Babylon’ of the last days will rise to political and military dominance in the territory promised to Abraham, the earth/ land of which the Bible speaks so much:&nbsp;The 10 nations / horns / leaders which exist in the land promised to Abraham- the “kings of the earth / land”- will give their power to Babylon, by force and by political manoeuvre, and this system will then invade Israel. The horns hating the whore implies there will be inter-Arab friction apparent in the beast system throughout its existence. "Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 24:7'>Mat 24:7</a></em>) will be a sign of the last days. In the AD70 context, this referred to friction between the Semitic peoples living around Israel; and the Lord's words are clearly an allusion to <em><a href='B:140 15:6'>2Ch 15:6</a></em>, which specifically uses the phrase about inter-Arab friction. The fragile alliance between them will then be broken by the Lord’s return, the horns will hate the whore and destroy her. They give their power to the beast for but “one hour”. Daniel seems to associate a covenant which is then broken with the latter day Antichrist. <em><a href='B:290 30:27-31'>Isa 30:27-31</a></em> speaks of the latter day Assyrian as placing “a bridle in the jaw of the people causing them to err”, referring to some kind of covenant / agreement which forces others to follow their direction. The Lord’s especial fury will be against the individual latter day Nebuchadnezzar who leads the invasion. The future leader of Babylon, the whore riding the beast, will see themselves as Nebuchadnezzar. Isaiah and Micah describe the latter day invader of the land as “the Assyrian” (<em><a href='B:290 10:5'>Isa 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:25'>Isa 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 30:31'>Isa 30:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 5:1-6'>Mic 5:1-6</a></em>). This itself suggests we are to see the individual who heads up the invasion, the rosh / chief prince of <em><a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a></em>, as an ethnic Assyrian / Iraqi. <em><a href='B:340 8:24-25'>Dan 8:24-25</a></em> invites us to see the same- the “king of fierce countenance” stands up out of the area of northern Iraq / northern Iran:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>There shall be earthquakes-&nbsp;</em>Just as there was at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em>), yet another reason for thinking that the tribulation of the last days will enable Israel to identify with the sufferings of their crucified Messiah. Again, earthquakes feature in the seals of <em><a href='B:730 6:12'>Rev 6:12</a></em>; and in the judgments upon Israel's enemies in <em><a href='B:730 11:13'>Rev 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:19'>Rev 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:18'>Rev 16:18</a></em>. Again, it seems that Israel will initially experience the judgments upon their enemies, just as they did in the lead up to their Passover deliverance in Egypt which also prefigures their final salvation. The fig tree nation- Israel- is to be shaken of a mighty wind (<em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>), and the word "shaken" is a form of that translated "earthquake". The forcing of fruit from the fig tree will be brought about by the experience of the earthquake:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>In various places-&nbsp;</em>The word "various" is added by the translators to try to make sense of the otherwise obvious statement that earthquakes will occur in "places". There is no suggestion in the Greek text that earthquakes will occur in various places worldwide where they have not been known to occur. But maybe we have here an intensive plural- the one great place. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a></em> about "the holy<em>&nbsp;place</em>". There are rumours that an earthquake hit the temple area around AD70. But seeing that the temple mount is the bone of contention between Israel and her neighbours, an earthquake splitting the mount would be appropriate. And of course this would link directly with the prediction of Zechariah 14, that when Christ returns there will be an earthquake which splits it. And yet this is used by the Lord as a sign of His coming, rather than a statement about what will happen at His return. It could be that this is an example of how the meaning of time will be somehow collapsed around the second coming; a sign of His return is in effect His return. Or it could be that the events described in the Olivet prophecy will all happen in a very short period of time, a matter of days rather than years or decades as is assumed by those who seek to connect the predictions with current world events. <em><a href='B:480 13:8'>Mar 13:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em> speak of the earthquakes in&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;places, but this doesn't necessarily mean 'various' places, but could equally mean 'around'- earthquakes around the holy place would then be signs and portents of the earthquake under the Holy Place which will happen when Christ returns. In <em><a href='B:510 6:13-14'>Act 6:13-14</a></em> Stephen's enemies appear to have twisted his quotations of the Lord's Olivet prophecy to mean that Christ would destroy the "holy place" s:w. "places" here in Matthew 24.</p><p><em>There shall be famines-</em>&nbsp;There was an acute famine in Israel during Elijah's ministry of three and a half years, as part of God's appeal for Israel to repent and respond to Elijah's message (<em><a href='B:490 4:25'>Luk 4:25</a></em>). And so it will be in the final three and a half year tribulation. Likewise it was famine which led the prodigal to repent and return to the Father (<em><a href='B:490 15:14'>Luk 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:17'>Luk 15:17</a></em>), a clear prototype of Israel's repentance. And perhaps the greatest prototype of their repentance is in the coming of Joseph's brothers to bow before Him; and this too was provoked by famine throughout the region around Israel (<em><a href='B:510 7:11'>Act 7:11</a></em>). There will be a purpose in all the sufferings which precede the Lord's return- and that purpose is to bring about Israel's repentance, which is the key condition required for His second coming. There were indeed major famines in the lead up to AD70 (<em><a href='B:510 11:28'>Act 11:28</a></em> "a great famine throughout all the world"); again, the signs which depended upon Divine intervention were fulfilled in the first century, but those which depended upon Israel and the believers did not, because they chose not to. And thus the second coming was delayed. “In the reign of the Emperor Claudius (AD41-54) there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign, the famine in Judea was so severe that the price of food became enormous and great numbers perished. Earthquakes occurred in each of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius” (R. C. Sproul,&nbsp;<em>The Last Days According to Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids, MI, 2000: Baker Books), p. 36). Paul encourages his first century readers that famine and other elements of the Olivet predictions would not separate believers from the love of God- as if he expected those signs to be fulfilled in their lifetimes (<em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>). The seals of Revelation 6 are full of reference to the Olivet predictions, as if they could all have been fulfilled in the first century (<em><a href='B:730 6:8'>Rev 6:8</a></em> speaks specifically of "famine"). Famine can come quicker than ever in our modern world, where most countries depend upon imported food; and this is especially the case in the area around Israel, where the climate doesn't enable the support of the relatively large population living in the area without food being imported. This explains how Babylon's famine comes in one day (<em><a href='B:730 18:8'>Rev 18:8</a></em>). This could never have been possible in the ancient world, where famine required a period of time to develop. Just as Israel initially experienced the early plagues upon Egypt, so it may be that the judgments poured out upon the Arab? world at the very end do initially affect Israel too, and lead them to repentance:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><h4><em>These things are the beginning of the birth pains</em>- The term is used of the Lord's suffering, which came to term in His resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 2:24'>Act 2:24</a></em>)- another hint that the tribulation is intended to bring those who endure it to an identity with the Lord's sufferings, and thus to share in His resurrection. There is therefore a positive intention in the sufferings. They are not merely an angry Deity releasing pent up anger upon the world. The term is also used in <em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em>, in a section full of allusion to the Olivet prophecy: "When they shall say peace and safety, then sudden destruction comes upon them, as&nbsp;<em>travail</em>&nbsp;s:w. "sorrows" upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape". This suggests that the various trials and tribulations just listed by the Lord are going to come suddenly- they don't describe decades of such things leading up to His return. Rather do they therefore describe a sudden situation which comes at a time of "peace and safety". They may therefore describe the events of days rather than years. The Lord within the Olivet prophecy had spoken of the possibility of "escape" by fleeing, but "they shall&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;escape"- because they will be disobedient to His teaching. The intention of the birth pangs is to forge an identity between the sufferers and the crucified Christ, coming to birth in a resurrection like his. But for these people, the birth pangs are tragic, resulting in death rather than resurrection to life.</h4><p>The Lord is surely alluding to the Rabbinic idea of "the birth-pangs of the Messiah" which they used in description of the traumatic situation in Israel before Messiah’s appearance. The Jewish public had initially expected Jesus to be Messiah, and felt that their time was indeed the birth-pangs of Messiah. But the Lord is saying that that time is yet to come. Seeing He did not come in AD70, we are again left to understand this as a reference to a situation&nbsp;<em>in Israel</em>&nbsp;which brings about the open manifestation of Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>13:9&nbsp;<em>But be warned. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in synagogues they shall beat you, and before governors and kings shall you stand for my sake, to bear witness before them</em>- The Lord predicted that His people would be cast out of the synagogues, as if He was happy that Christianity remained a sect of Judaism until such time as Judaism wouldn’t tolerate it. His prediction that His people would be beaten in synagogues (<em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>) implies they would still be members, for the synagogues only had power to discipline their own members, not the general public. The Lord had no fear of ‘guilt by association’ with wrong religious views such as there were within Judaism. They were to be "delivered up" just as the Lord was 'betrayed' s:w. 10:4; 20:18,19; 26:2,15,16,21,23,24,25,45,46,48; 27:3,4; 17:22 "the Son of Man shall be betrayed" to the Jews and 'delivered up' to the Gentiles s:w. 27:18,26,2 "delivered Him to Pontius Pilate" for suffering, death- and thereby to resurrection. Again, there is an attempt to make those enduring these things identify with Him in His time of suffering. They too would be delivered up to both Jews and Gentiles- to synagogues Jews; 10:17; <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em> and to prisons, rulers and kings Gentiles; <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>. Clearly the Lord had in mind a first century fulfilment of His words, but as we have seen, not all the signs fulfilled in the first century and the Lord's&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;did not literally happen when the temple was destroyed. We therefore have to look to a re-scheduled fulfilment of these words in the persecution of the disciples in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>13:10&nbsp;<em>And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations</em>- This could be read as a commandment, not a mere prediction. In this case, the idea is that&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;the Gospel is preached to all the world, then “the end comes”. The marvel is that this amazing preaching will be undertaken by a minority within the believing community, since, according to the preceding verses, the majority will have fallen away. And even amongst those who remain faithful, some will be in prison, others killed. It could be argued that this Gospel preaching occurs specifically during the tribulation period. If we were to take the Gospel to the whole world now, then perhaps this would not be necessary. But in the first century, it was persecution which was necessary to get the disciples to obey their Lord’s command to spread the Gospel outwards from Jerusalem to the world. And it was persecution which made the fleeing Jewish Christians rub shoulders with Gentiles, and thus share the Gospel with them:&nbsp;</p><p>"All the nations" is "in the whole world" in Matthew. The first century fulfilment of these words mentioned in <em><a href='B:520 10:18'>Rom 10:18</a></em> and <em><a href='B:580 1:6'>Col 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:26'>Col 1:26</a></em> was because there was the potential that the Lord could have come in AD70. But the Greek word literally means ‘the inhabited’, and more naturally refers to the whole planet. He envisaged the possibility that the disciples would not have gone preaching over the cities of Israel before the end came (<em><a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a></em>). But He did come in AD70, and so the Lord's words here about a genuine worldwide witness must come true before He returns. Note the Gospel is to be preached “in”,&nbsp;<em>en</em>, all the world, and not ‘to’ the whole world. This may envisage there being believers in all the world who preach where they are. This would nowhere near have been fulfilled in the first century. Also, <em><a href='B:580 1:6'>Col 1:6</a></em> speaks of the Gospel having gone to the&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>, whereas <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> requires the Gospel to be preached in the&nbsp;<em>oikoumene</em>:&nbsp;<em>Kosmos</em>&nbsp;is frequently used in the NT with reference to the&nbsp;<em>Jewish</em>&nbsp;world:&nbsp;<em>Oikoumene</em>&nbsp;has a more global and universal context and sense. <em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em> says that the Gospel must be published “among all nations” (Gk:&nbsp;<em>ethnos</em>), and this hardly occurred by AD70. Some parts of the Olivet prophecy had a limited application in the first century (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 10:18'>Mat 10:18</a></em>), but this doesn't mean that this is the&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;fulfilment of it. It is a feature of prophecy that it often has a short term fulfilment in order to validate the prophet in the eyes of his own generation. It would be strange indeed if the Olivet prophecy had&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;a short term fulfilment.</p><p>The great commission bids us go into all the world with Gospel; note the evident connection with <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>: "This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come":&nbsp; This definitely suggests that the great commission will be mightily obeyed in the last days. There are many other Biblical implications that there will be an unprecedented spread of the Gospel to the whole planet in the last days. Thus <em><a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a></em> speaks of a time in the very last days when “many shall run to and fro (an idiom often used concerning response to God's word: <em><a href='B:230 119:32'>Psa 119:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:60'>Psa 119:60</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 8:11-12'>Amo 8:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em> Gk:), and knowledge shall be increased the context is of Daniel wanting to understand about the second coming of Jesus::. many shall be purified, and made white, and tried (in the tribulation); but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand" . This increase of knowledge of the Gospel is to be spread world-wide by many running to and fro in the last days. The great commission will be fulfilled then as never before. <em><a href='B:340 11:32-33'>Dan 11:32-33</a></em> speaks of how in the time of the end "The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits::. instruct many”. &nbsp;Before every 'coming' of the Lord there has been a period of persecution and zealous preaching: Noah preached righteousness before the flood, as Lot probably tried to before the Lord's coming down in judgment on Sodom (would God have wrought such wholesale destruction without giving the people a chance to repent? Cp. Nineveh and Jonah). The schools of the prophets preached from the street corners and temple steps to warn of the coming of the day of the Lord at the hand of the Babylonians and Assyrians. And of course the dramatic coming of the Lord in judgment upon Israel in AD70, was heralded by Paul and his committed band of zealots staging the greatest preaching campaigns this world has seen. The crucial question, of course, is whether the Gospel has truly gone into all the world. One perspective to bear in mind is that in the preaching of Paul, ecclesias which he founded are taken as representing a whole area- e:g. Philippi is called "Macedonia" (<em><a href='B:570 4:15'>Phi 4:15</a></em>); Thessalonica is "Macedonia and Achaia" (<em><a href='B:590 1:7'>1Th 1:7</a></em>); Corinth is Achaia (<em><a href='B:530 16:15'>1Co 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a></em>); Ephesus for Asia (<em><a href='B:520 16:5'>Rom 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:8'>2Co 1:8</a></em>). In this sense Paul felt that he had fully preached the Gospel in a circle, moving from Jerusalem through Asia to Rome, and projecting onwards to Spain. Perhaps the Gospel goes into all the world in the sense that believers, however small in number, are to be found world-wide. And that seems to be where we're now up to in the 21st century.</p><p>Paul seems to have seen in Christ's prophecy that the Gospel would be fully known world-wide in the last as being a specific, personal command to him (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>):&nbsp;He saw prophecy as command more than solely prediction; and this is why prophecy has a degree of variation in how and when it is fulfilled. The words of <em><a href='B:480 16:15-16'>Mar 16:15-16</a></em> are clear: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Commands to repent, all men, the Lord’s resurrection::. these ideas all recur in <em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>, proving they are not solely relevant to those who first heard them; God now commands all men to repent, through our words. These words clearly don't apply to the first century only, for they are intended to be linked with <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>, which uses the same language about the preaching work of the very last days (even though the context may imply that as a community we will only be obedient to this command once egged on by major persecution). What all this means is that the great commission will be fulfilled in the last days. The connection with the great commission means that the Lord sent out the disciples in order to fulfil this aspect of the Olivet prophecy; but their failure to do the job fully meant that the prophecy had to be delayed and rescheduled in fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p>13:11&nbsp;<em>Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial-&nbsp;</em>The very language of the Lord's final sufferings, which will be fellowshipped / experienced in the latter day tribulation (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 22:54'>Luk 22:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:1'>Luk 23:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:32'>Luk 23:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:4'>Joh 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:13'>Joh 19:13</a></em>).</p><p><em>Do not worry beforehand about what to say-&nbsp;</em>A major theme of the Sermon on the Mount is not to be anxious; the same word occurs in <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>. Here the Lord is surely saying that the general principles He had taught there would have specific fulfilment in time of persecution:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Say whatever shall be given you in that hour-&nbsp;</em>"Given you" is language appropriate to Moses and prophets like Jeremiah; it is here applied to the Lord's generally secular followers (<em><a href='B:20 4:10-12'>Exo 4:10-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 1:6-10'>Jer 1:6-10</a></em>). He was continually encouraging them to see that ministries which they had never considered possible of realistic emulation were in fact to be their pattern. Time and again, the Lord is saying that His experience under persecution will be ours. For it was&nbsp;<em>given&nbsp;</em>Him what to&nbsp;<em>speak&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:500 3:34'>Joh 3:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:49'>Joh 12:49</a></em> same words) and He wants us to know that if we preach Him and seek to replicate His ministry in our own, then God likewise will strengthen us as He did His own Son. We note that it was likewise&nbsp;<em>given</em>&nbsp;to the apostles what to&nbsp;<em>speak</em>&nbsp;in <em><a href='B:510 2:4'>Act 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:29'>Act 4:29</a></em>. They misunderstood the great commission- they twisted it to mean that they must preach to all Jews rather than to all the Gentiles; but by grace, God still kept this aspect of the promise to support obedience to the commission given; even if it was misunderstood.</p><p><em>For it is not you that will speak but the Holy Spirit</em>- Even although “we do not know how to pray for as we ought, the Spirit himself intercedes for us” (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>). The Spirit of the Father and Son speaks in us when we pray (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>), if our will / spirit is theirs. To put this in more technical but I think very telling terms: “The subject-object scheme of ‘talking to somebody’ is transcended; He who speaks through us is he who is spoken to” (Paul Tillich,&nbsp;<em>Systematic Theology</em>&nbsp;Vol. 3 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963) p. 192). It’s perhaps the thought behind this idea of not us by the Spirit speaking.</p><p><em><a href='B:470 10:20'>Mat 10:20</a></em> says that the Spirit will speak "in you", not, as we might expect, ‘through you’. It may be that the Lord is hinting that if we have the Spirit of God within us, if we are thinking in a spiritual way generally in life, then in times of crisis that Spirit which is in us will guide us to say the right things when under pressure. If we are&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;spiritually minded, with our spirit being God’s Spirit, then in that future time of crisis we will know how to speak, the words will come out right, because we have lived now in a spiritually minded way. The idea of the Spirit of God speaking in a person, so that their words are not theirs but God’s, was language which Jews would’ve associated with the Old Testament prophets. Again we see the Lord inviting His secular, immature followers to see themselves as the prophets, those whom they had been taught were in a class of their own, and to whom they as mere secular men could in no way pretend. But the Lord’s followers were to be a new Moses, new prophets, a new priesthood, a new Israel.</p><p>Luke adds here: "For I will give you the words and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to contradict" (<em><a href='B:490 21:15'>Luk 21:15</a></em>). This is alluding to <em><a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a></em>, where God tells Moses at the time of the Egyptian persecution of God's people, "I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say". This persecution lead to intensified prayer to God, resulting in&nbsp;the deliverance of the suffering saints at Passover time, after a period of especial distress and 'time of trouble' for the surrounding world due to the plagues. After this deliverance, God's people went into the wilderness and were declared God's Kingdom. We have earlier shown how all these events form a remarkable latter day prophecy. This verse also suggests that the gifts of the Spirit may be given to some in the Elijah ministry in order to enable them to make a more powerful witness (as in <em><a href='B:730 11:6'>Rev 11:6</a></em>). The fact they are given personally by Christ would indicate that in some way, Christ is already back at this stage. Time and again we will see how the prophecies of events in the last days are ambiguous as to whether Christ is already back at the time of their fulfilment, or whether they herald his return. Seeing that we will never know the exact time of Christ's return, this is understandable. Similarly Joel 2 prophesies the pouring out of the gifts "before the great and terrible day of the Lord" (:31). Malachi surely refers to this passage when prophesying the Elijah ministry "before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a></em>). This suggests that the three and a half year Elijah ministry of the last days (<em><a href='B:660 5:17'>Jas 5:17</a></em>) will be accompanied by Spirit gifts, and will coincide with the time of persecution. Note that the gifts were given "before the day of the Lord" in AD70 too. It is possible that because of this possession of the gifts by 'Elijah', false teachers within the ecclesia at the end will also claim to possess them (<em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>), so convincingly that all but the elect within the ecclesia will be duped into following them. Yet it must be stressed that it is a feature of the gifts that they are unmistakable and obvious to identify (cp. <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>); it will be evident enough if and when they are poured out in the last days.</p>


text:
<h4>13:12&nbsp;<em>And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children shall rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death</em>- Again, the final sufferings of the Lord Jesus will be experienced within natural and spiritual Israel. <em><a href='B:400 7:2-9'>Mic 7:2-9</a></em> is a clear prophecy of Christ's sufferings. But embedded in it are words which are quoted in <em><a href='B:490 21:16'>Luk 21:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 10:36'>Mat 10:36</a></em> concerning the latter day tribulation of the believers: "The son dishonours the father::. a man's enemies are the men of his own house”. In similar manner, some of the prophecies of Israel's latter day sufferings speak in the same context of those of Christ. <em><a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a></em> is an example: ":::he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel (Christ) with a rod upon the cheek". The whole of Amos 5 can be scanned for connections with both the future tribulation of Israel, and also the sufferings of Christ.</h4><p>"Deliver up" is a term used about the Lord’s delivering to death, just as ‘to cause to be put to death’ is used of His death (<em><a href='B:470 26:59'>Mat 26:59</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:1'>Mat 27:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>). Our sufferings in the final tribulation, and for preaching the Gospel generally, grant us a fellowship with our Lord’s sufferings. Given the close knit nature of Middle Eastern families, the language of family breakup used here would’ve been far harder for the initial hearers to accept than it is for many of us. The family was seen as sacrosanct, somehow your family would always be there for you. But the Lord is teaching that the dislike of Him and His message would be such that it would unleash a social and psychological force of hatred such as had not been known previously. Judaism taught that it was only Gentile families which were like this- only Gentiles betrayed their brother, their parents and their children. But the Lord is teaching that through Israel’s rejection of Him and His people, Israel were acting like Gentiles and thus becoming as them in God’s sight.</p><p>This prophecy did not have major fulfilment in AD70, at least not betrayal "unto death". The scale of the rift within families, unto death, was not seen then within the Christian community. We are left to envisage a situation where family members are pressurized to hand over their other family members to death for the sake of their loyalty to Christ. This sounds like Islamist domination of areas, with this demand made; and that is developed further in Revelation.</p>


text:
<p>13:13&nbsp;<em>And you shall be hated by all for my name's sake; but he that endures to the end, the same shall be saved</em>- Matthew: "hated by all nations":&nbsp; But the Gospel will then be preached to “all nations” (<em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em>). It seems that the persecution will result in preaching, perhaps through highly publicized legal cases. If the Gospel is taken to all nations, then this will not need to happen. "For my Name’s sake" is a&nbsp;phrase which rarely occurs outside of the Olivet prophecy; one other time is in the upper room discourse, which is John’s parallel with the Olivet prophecy as recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Here we read again that the believers will be “hated… for My Name’s sake” (<em><a href='B:500 15:18'>Joh 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:21'>Joh 15:21</a></em>). But in John 15 the Lord seems to be angling His words not just to the twelve, but to all in Him; for His reasoning is that the world’s attitude to Him will be their attitude to us, and all in Him will suffer as He did. Again we can conclude that John, the latest of the Gospels, was re-adjusting the emphasis of the Olivet prophecy, knowing that it had been rescheduled and would not fully come true in an early coming of Christ in the first century. Those who endure the tribulation to the end will be saved in that they will be part of that unique generation which shall never die, but shall be "saved" by being changed to immortality at the Lord's return.</p><h4>The Olivet prophecy as recorded in Mark 13 has many allusions to the sufferings of our Lord, thereby suggesting that our sufferings during the coming tribulation will make us fellowship the cross as never before. The whole idea of darkness, earthquake, open graves, rocks shaking etc, which we read of in the Olivet and other last day prophecies is evidently the language of the crucifixion. The description of suffering before "the end" comes (<em><a href='B:480 13:7'>Mar 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:13'>Mar 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>) invites connection with Christ's death also being described as " the end”, coming as it did after a period of suffering (<em><a href='B:470 26:58'>Mat 26:58</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:37'>Luk 22:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>). This connection is strengthened by the way in which each record of the Olivet prophecy leads straight on into the sufferings of the Lord Jesus. There is to be a “little while” between the death of those persecuted in the last days, and the coming of the Lord; using the very same word which John uses for the “little while” of the three days of the Lord’s death (<em><a href='B:730 6:11'>Rev 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:16-19'>Joh 16:16-19</a></em>). Revelation 12 speaks of how the dead bodies of the tribulation victims will rest for three and a half days, just as the Lord’s body did. They will fully fellowship His death and therefore His resurrection. Similarly, the idea of all God's word being fulfilled by the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:490 24:44'>Luk 24:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:18'>Act 3:18</a></em>) follows on from the prophecy that all will be fulfilled at the time of suffering which heralds the second coming (<em><a href='B:490 21:22'>Luk 21:22</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 24:13'>Mat 24:13</a></em> commends those who endure to the end- of the great tribulation. The same word occurs in <em><a href='B:650 12:2-3'>Heb 12:2-3</a></em> about Christ enduring the cross- we fellowship the cross during the last day tribulation. The word in <em><a href='B:470 24:29'>Mat 24:29</a></em> for “the tribulation” is used in <em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em> about the afflictions of Christ. And as the Lord’s critics could not find a way to answer Him, so in our tribulation, all our adversaries will not be able to gainsay us (<em><a href='B:490 21:15'>Luk 21:15</a></em>). The Lord in <em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:4'>Joh 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:32'>Joh 16:32</a></em> used the term “the hour” to refer both to the ‘hour’ of His own sufferings, and the ‘hour’ of tribulation for His people. He clearly saw what He was about to endure as being repeated in the latter day tribulation of those for whom He was about to die.</h4><p>The other tribulation prophecies, notably in Revelation, are also shot through with allusions to Christ's passion.</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>"They shall deliver you up to the councils::.</td><td>As Christ to the Sanhedrin</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>beaten::.</td><td>Christ buffeted</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>rulers and kings for a testimony::.</td><td>Chief priests, Herod, Pilate</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>brother shall betray the brother::.</td><td>Judas; Peter's denial?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>turn back to take up his garment::.</td><td>John Mark's linen garment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>false Christs::.</td><td>Barabbas 'son of the father'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the sun shall be darkened::.</td><td>As at the crucifixion</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>watch and pray::.</td><td>"Watch with me"; Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at even::.</td><td>Last Supper</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at midnight::.</td><td>Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at the cock crowing::.</td><td>Peter's denials</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in the morning::.</td><td>Trial and crucifixion</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>find you sleeping"</td><td>Disciples in Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p>13:14&nbsp;<em>But when you see the abomination-&nbsp;</em>The word is mainly used elsewhere about the abominations of the Babylon system (<em><a href='B:730 17:4-5'>Rev 17:4-5</a></em>). I would suggest that once the rescheduling of Christ's return was decided by God, the Gospel of John was issued, with its more spiritual interpretation of the Olivet prophecy in terms of the Comforter, and the teaching that the principles of the tribulation are to be lived out throughout the lives of believers. And John was likewise inspired with the prophecy of Revelation, which is clearly based upon the Olivet prophecy and provides further details as to how the prophecy is to be fulfilled in the last days, with the events of AD70 being a partial fulfilment in order to give the prophecy credibility with the generation that first received it. This would be according to the Mosaic principle that a prophet could be judged as true if his words came true- requiring a primary fulfilment of all long term prophecies.</p><p><em>Of desolation-&nbsp;</em>The placing of the abomination is what will bring about the desolation. On Revelation 17, 18 I suggest that the whore Babylon will enthrone herself in Jerusalem, through the building of some Islamic and blasphemous religious building or capital there. And this will lead to her desolation. Luke records the Lord as saying that&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;Jerusalem was surrounded by armies,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;His people should know that the "desolation" of it was near. The desolation is therefore of Jerusalem rather than specifically the temple (<em><a href='B:490 21:20'>Luk 21:20</a></em>). The abominating desolation could therefore refer to the invading armies. Seeing&nbsp;<em>them&nbsp;</em>was the signal to flee. "Abomination" in the Old Testament typically refers to idolatry or paganism. One interpretation is that the desolator would place some pagan religious symbol in the temple. But this is the sign to flee, and this was only done by the Romans after the city had fallen. That, therefore, doesn’t really fit the requirements of the prophecy. The AD70 interpretation notes the pagan standards of the Roman legions, but even they were not placed in the temple. This was defended until the end, until the Romans forced entry, pulled it down and burnt it. As with many details of this prophecy, a future fulfilment is required. And yet we need to note that such desolation was only a visual reflection of the abomination the Jews had committed in the temple: "Because of the evil of your doings, and because of the&nbsp;<em>abominations&nbsp;</em>which ye have committed; therefore is your land a&nbsp;<em>desolation&nbsp;</em>and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day" (<em><a href='B:300 44:22'>Jer 44:22</a></em>). The abomination which caused desolation may not simply refer to some pagan symbols in the temple area. Josephus records that the Jewish zealots came into the Most Holy place, "placed an imposter in office as high priest, and ordained unqualified misfits to the priesthood" (<em>The Jewish Wars</em>&nbsp;4:3:6–9; 4:5:4). The pagan Idumeans were invited into the Most Holy by the zealots in order to murder the chief priest Annas.</p><p>The word "desolation" is used again about the desolation of the Babylon system (<em><a href='B:730 17:16'>Rev 17:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a></em>). Yet Babylon will be judged according to what it did to God's people- the judgment for 'desolating' will be 'desolation'. Yet the Olivet prophecy clearly intended the Roman armies to be the means of the desolation, but I suggest that Revelation extends the prophecy by giving more detail, and describing the system of desolation as 'Babylon'. And that system clearly has similarities with Rome- it could have been fulfilled in Rome, but because the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled, we can look for another equivalent of the enigmatic 'Babylon' of the last days. The "desolation" referred to is clearly to be understood as the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a></em> LXX, which says that the abomination that desolates will come "after the cutting off of Messiah the Prince". Whilst how long "after" is not defined, we are surely intended to understand that the desolating abomination comes soon after the death of Messiah:&nbsp; "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and&nbsp;<em>the end&nbsp;</em>thereof ("then shall&nbsp;<em>the end</em>&nbsp;come", <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>) shall be with a flood, ("as the days of Noah::."), and unto&nbsp;<em>the end&nbsp;</em>shall be war;&nbsp;<em>desolations&nbsp;</em>are determined . . . and upon the temple of&nbsp;<em>abominations&nbsp;</em>shall come one that makes&nbsp;<em>desolate&nbsp;</em>(cp. "your house is left unto you desolate", <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>),&nbsp; even unto the consummation, and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolated" (LXX). And yet note that that prophecy itself had had various potential fulfilments which didn’t come true. So it is fair to think that it could have had a fulfilment in AD70, but this was again deferred- for the same reason as ever, Israel’s lack of repentance.</p><p><em>Standing where it should not-&nbsp;</em>In Jerusalem, on the temple mount; "in the holy place" (Mt:). On Revelation 17, 18 I suggest that the whore Babylon will enthrone herself in Jerusalem, through the building of some Islamic and blasphemous religious building or capital there. And this will lead to her desolation. The contrast is with the Lamb who will descend to the temple mount and "stand" there s:w. <em><a href='B:730 14:1'>Rev 14:1</a></em>. This will be the final showdown between the real Christ and the fake one, as likewise foreseen in the prophecy of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2, where again the place of showdown is the temple. For this to be a sign to the believers to flee to the mountains, any application to the triumphant Roman legions placing their standards in the temple at the&nbsp;<em>end</em>&nbsp;of the Jewish war is precluded. And historically, it is doubtful whether that happened, as the temple was burnt with fire and the legions were told&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to do this.</p><p><em>(Let him that reads understand)</em>- The vast majority of first century believers were likely illiterate. So this may be an appeal to teachers to correctly understand and teach. The Lord speaks in a latter day context about “let him that reads understand” Daniel’s prophecies- referring to the special gift of understanding them which Daniel himself was told would come in the very end time. But note the parallels in the Lord’s teaching here: “Let him… understand… let him… not go down… let him… not return… let them… flee”. The understanding He refers to is not merely academic. It is the understanding that will lead to concrete action.</p><p>The Lord's Olivet prophecy as recorded by Mark has so many allusions to the Maccabean revolt under Mattathias ("the abomination", flight to the hills, "let the reader understand" and many other phrases are all quotations from 1 Maccabees 1-3). But in this context the Lord warns of false Messiahs- as if He considered the Maccabean heroes to be just that. And interestingly it is Mark more than any other Gospel writer who stresses the Messiahship of Jesus throughout the crucifixion record. A crucified Messiah was to the Jews a contradiction in terms. The idea of Jewish revolutionaries marching triumphantly to Jerusalem to liberate it was common in Jewish thought at the time- but Luke emphasizes that Christ's last journey to Jerusalem and triumphant entry to it was in fact in order to die the death of the cross there. The battle had been redefined by the Lord Jesus- not against Rome, but against internal sin and Jewish religious hypocrisy. Victory was by self-crucifixion, not military might. This was just too much for Jewish nationalism, just as legalists today end up baying for the blood of those who preach grace and not works:&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:650 5:6'>Heb 5:6</a></em>.</p><p>There are a number of hints that there will be a progressive growth in Biblical understanding amongst the latter day faithful. In the spirit of <em><a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a></em>, Habakkuk was told that the full understanding of his vision concerning the latter day judgment of Babylon was "yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie", and&nbsp;<em>at that time</em>&nbsp;the one who reads and understands it will "run" - using the same idiom as in <em><a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a></em> concerning the latter day believers 'running' in response to their understanding of God's word (<em><a href='B:420 2:2-3'>Hab 2:2-3</a></em>). The Olivet prophecy repeatedly talks about 'seeing' or (Gk:) understanding things and then acting upon this knowledge. The English translation somewhat masks this. Thus <em><a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a></em> "Whoso&nbsp;<em>reads</em>" uses a Greek word which really means to recognize, distinguish- and he who recognizes, understands, let him " understand" or, better,&nbsp;<em>meditate</em>. Or again, "When you shall see (Greek, to know, perceive) the abomination that makes desolate::." (<em><a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a></em>). This might suggest that the "abomination" isn't necessarily something physical. The idea seems to be 'When you understand that the abomination that makes desolate is in place, then:::', rather than 'When you see (physically) on the telly or in the newspaper an abomination in Jerusalem, then::. do something about it':&nbsp; "When you shall see (Gk. perceive, understand) all these things, (then you will) know that it is near" (<em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em>). "Behold (same Greek: perceive, comprehend) the fig tree::." (<em><a href='B:490 21:29'>Luk 21:29</a></em>). The emphasis is undoubtedly on the need for understanding of the signs, not just observing them.</p><p>“Let him that reads understand” is inviting us to be like Daniel in <em><a href='B:340 9:22-25'>Dan 9:22-25</a></em>, who also wanted to understand the meaning of the “abomination” prophecy. But he was told that the meaning of that vision about the abomination that desolates would only be revealed in the very last days, i:e. at the time of its fulfilment (<em><a href='B:340 8:17'>Dan 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 8:26'>Dan 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:9'>Dan 12:9</a></em>). The implication of all this is that there will be believing Jews living in the Jerusalem area at the time of the setting up of the abomination; and they will have special understanding of this prophecy which will lead them to flee. The importance of this for our present study is that this indicates that there will be believers in Israel just before the Lord returns. They will have “understanding” and will be motivated by this to respond. “<em>Let him</em>… understand” is paralleled with “<em>let him</em>&nbsp;that is on the housetop flee immediately…&nbsp;<em>let him&nbsp;</em>that is in the field not return”. Understanding leads to action- both then and now.</p><p><em>Then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains</em>- This is the equivalent of the plea in Revelation to flee out of Babylon, the latter day Islamic complex to be built in Jerusalem on the temple mount.</p><p>The same word was used by the Lord in introducing the Olivet prophecy in <em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>: "How can you&nbsp;<em>escape</em>&nbsp;the condemnation of Gehenna?". The way of escape was through obedience to His word. Clearly the Lord intended His words to be fulfilled in that immediate generation; but fleeing to the mountains did not bring ultimate salvation because the Lord did not return as intended. His coming has been rescheduled, and perhaps utter salvation for the Jewish remnant in the land will likewise depend upon 'fleeing'. The Old Covenant had specified that Israel would flee before their enemies if they broke the covenant; the command to 'flee' may therefore be an invitation to accept guilt for their sin, and thereby be saved through the very act of recognizing the justice of their judgment. For this is the essence of the salvation of every man in Christ. It could be that <em><a href='B:730 12:6'>Rev 12:6</a></em> provides more details, in speaking of the faithful fleeing into the wilderness and thereby being saved. This was the way to flee the coming condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). The Lord's words required some faith to accept, because if Jerusalem were surrounded by armies, how could the faithful flee? Josephus explains that the Roman legions did in fact withdraw for a time, allowing civilians to flee (B:J:2:19:6,7).</p><p><em>"</em>To the mountains" is better, 'toward'. Clearly this was capable of fulfilment in the Jewish war, in a fairly literal sense. But what is the latter day equivalent? "The mountains" could be an intensive plural for the one great, special, obvious mountain. The same word is found earlier in the chapter- the Lord is saying these words sitting on "the mount" of Olives (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>). And it is to that mount that He will return, according to <em><a href='B:510 1:12'>Act 1:12</a></em> and Zechariah 14. It could be, therefore, in a literal or figurative sense, an appeal to move towards the mount of Olives to meet Him at His return. Perhaps in a literal, geographical sense, that area will be the only area left by the invading armies, and they will surround the faithful Jewish remnant on that mount- and then the Lord shall come. But such speculation is unhelpful, because the principle of prophecy is that when it happens, then we shall understand. I do not believe we are intended to work out a sequence of events ahead of time. Indeed, given the conditional nature of Bible prophecy, that is impossible to do anyway:&nbsp;</p><p>As the faithful remnant were miraculously allowed to leave Sodom for the mountains, immediately unleashing the Divine judgments by doing so, the faithful Christian remnant were allowed to leave Jerusalem just before the final Roman onslaught of AD70, doubtless spurred on by their Lord's command: "Let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it (Jerusalem) depart out" (<em><a href='B:490 21:21'>Luk 21:21</a></em>). The reference to fleeing to the mountains would have suggested a conscious allusion back to&nbsp;the command to Lot to flee out of Sodom "to the mountain" (<em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em>):&nbsp;"Then let them which be in Judaea flee to the mountains" may mean that there will be Jewish believers in Jerusalem in the last days, seeing the whole prophecy has yet to be totally fulfilled (the AD70 application of these words was at best limited). <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> says that in the final tribulation of Israel, those Jews who are "written in the book", i:e. who are acceptable saints (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:27'>Rev 21:27</a></em>) will be delivered. So there will be a minority in latter day natural Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal, as in Elijah's time- which is typical of the situation at the latter day Elijah ministry. This is certainly encouragement enough to make witness to and within Israel a priority.</p>


text:
<p>13:15&nbsp;<em>And let him that is on the housetop-</em>&nbsp;The idea is that flight could be taken by jumping from housetop to housetop, without going back into the house. Escaping that way would best be done in any case without carrying anything. This is clearly language relevant specifically to first century Palestine, and is a parade example of how the prophecy was ideally intended for fulfilment then. The latter day fulfilment of these words will therefore only be in essence, rather than in detail. That is a principle we must bear in mind when considering many other Bible prophecies; the essence but not necessarily the detail will be fulfilled in the rescheduled and delayed version of their fulfilment. The implication of the language here and in :18 is that the sign to flee will be momentary; the signs are not, therefore, to be perceived over decades or even years, leading slowly towards the Lord’s coming. Rather these signs, especially of the abomination, will appear suddenly, to the extent that the believer must flee immediately, quite literally without a moment to lose.</p><p>But this reflection leads us to wonder whether the fleeing away in a split second, be it from the field or housetop, is more likely a reference to the need to respond immediately to the call to leave secular life and go to meet the Lord. The example of a person in the field (<em><a href='B:470 24:18'>Mat 24:18</a></em>) needing to leave immediately naturally connects with the words of <em><a href='B:470 24:40'>Mat 24:40</a></em> about the snatching away of the believers at the Lord’s return: “Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left”. This would dovetail well with the implication elsewhere that the immediacy of our response to the knowledge that ‘He’s back’ will effectively be our judgment. Those who themselves want to go to Him will be snatched away and meet Him, whilst those who delay will be rejected, as the foolish virgins who went first to buy oil.</p><p><em>Not go down, nor enter in to take anything out his house</em>- The allusion is clearly to Lot fleeing Sodom, also “to the mountains”. This is a type of the response of the believers to the call to judgment at the Lord’s return. If we don’t separate from the world, we will share their judgment. The immediacy of response is so stressed, and will be ultimately indicative of where our heart Is. Any desire to gather any material possessions will reveal that our heart is not wholly and solely with the Lord. But the Greek could equally mean ‘to take anyone person out of his house / family’. This again is a high demand- the demand of the Sermon on the Mount, to put family in second place behind personal loyalty to the Lord Jesus. All who love the Lord in spirit and in truth will respond to the sign or call to leave with immediacy. They will know that in any case, they are powerless to drag their unbelieving family members with them.</p>


text:
<p>13:16&nbsp;<em>And let him that is in the field not return back to take his cloak</em>- The immediacy of response is clear. Even grabbing an outer garment, equivalent of a jacket, would lead to unworthiness and destruction. The call to leave must be responded to immediately, with the faith that what clothing we have on is utterly irrelevant. This only really makes sense if the call or sign to escape is the call to judgment- and this verse connects with the words of <em><a href='B:470 24:40'>Mat 24:40</a></em> about the snatching away of the believers at the Lord’s return: “Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left”.</p>


text:
<p>13:17&nbsp;<em>But alas for women who are pregnant, and for those who are nursing infants in those days</em>- This may well match Paul's warning against marrying&nbsp;in the last days in 1 Corinthians 7. He understood the Olivet prophecy as having the real prophecy of fulfilment in his generation. As He hung on the cross, our Lord quoted this part of His Olivet prophecy to the women who stood by (<em><a href='B:490 23:29'>Luk 23:29</a></em> “blessed are those who never gave suck” = <em><a href='B:470 24:19'>Mat 24:19</a></em> “Woe to them… who give suck”, s:w:), concerning the sufferings of the believers in the 'last days'. Here we see His matchless selflessness; going out of His own sufferings, to think, with anguish, how they would be experienced by His followers in the tribulation. "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves::. for if they do these things (to) a green tree (the spiritually healthy Lord Jesus), what shall be done (to) the dry", the spiritually barren tree of Israel. This is a superb essay in the Lord's selflessness and minimizing of his own sufferings: he felt that what he was going through was less than what the spiritually weak would have to go through in the AD70 tribulation (and that of the last days). In the other 11 occurrences of “woe” in Matthew, the objects of the “woe” are clearly the unfaithful and the condemned; this category of those “with child” are therefore not amongst those who obediently ‘flee’. <em><a href='B:490 21:23'>Luk 21:23</a></em> states that they would be amongst those who would suffer the “wrath upon this people”. In <em><a href='B:490 23:29'>Luk 23:29</a></em> the Lord clearly envisaged the women of His generation, the ones who lined the road to Golgotha, as experiencing the trauma He predicted in the Olivet prophecy. And yet it is clear enough that the final fulfilment is yet to come- because His coming was rescheduled.</p>


text:
<h4>13:18&nbsp;<em>And pray that it is not in the winter</em>- The Lord’s request for prayer indicates that the exact timing of events in the tribulation will be changeable in accordance with the fervency of our latter day prayers. Changeable time periods has been a feature of God’s prophetic dealings with Israel; and <em><a href='B:470 22:22'>Mat 22:22</a></em> is explicit that the intended number of days will be shortened. An AD70 application for this is hard to find; it may be that the exact timing of the Roman offer of amnesty was dependent on the intensity of prayer by the besieged Jerusalem ecclesia. That ecclesia, rent as they were by&nbsp;schism, false doctrine and materialism (if we accept the evidence that Hebrews was addressed to them) was a type of the faithful remnant of the last days. They were finally sorted out by the events of AD67 - 70, cp. the latter day tribulation.</h4>


text:
<p>13:19&nbsp;<em>For those days shall cause distress, such as there has never been similar, from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be again</em>- The LXX uses this same word for "distress" or "tribulation2 in several passages pregnant with latter day significance:&nbsp;<br/>“The day of my Jacob’s&nbsp;<em>distress</em>” at the hands of Esau (<em><a href='B:10 35:3'>Gen 35:3</a></em>)<br/>“The&nbsp;<em>anguish</em>&nbsp;of his Joseph’s soul” at the hands of his half brethren and the Ishmaelites (<em><a href='B:10 42:21'>Gen 42:21</a></em>)<br/>“I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and&nbsp;<em>troubles&nbsp;</em>shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?” (<em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em>)- a passage in the Song of Moses regarding Israel’s latter day tribulations:&nbsp;<br/>“Thus says Hezekiah, This day is a day of&nbsp;<em>trouble</em>, and of rebuke, and blasphemy” (<em><a href='B:120 19:3'>2Ki 19:3</a></em>)- Sennacherib’s Assyrian invasion at this time was a clear prototype for the latter day invasion described in Ezekiel 38 and elsewhere:&nbsp;<br/>“The time of Jacob’s&nbsp;<em>trouble</em>” from which he will be delivered (<em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>)<br/>“There shall be a time of&nbsp;<em>trouble</em>, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time your people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book” (<em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em>). This time of trouble is specifically for Israel in the last days.</p><p><em><a href='B:480 13:19'>Mar 13:19</a></em> speaks of how "in those days" those in Judaea should flee to the mountains; "for&nbsp;<em>in those days</em>&nbsp;shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of creation::. neither shall be (referring to <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> concerning our last days)::. except that the Lord had shortened&nbsp;<em>those days</em>:::&nbsp;<em>in those days</em>, after that tribulation:::&nbsp;<em>then</em>shall they see the son of man coming". Surely “in those days" shouts for a continuous application to the same "days" - the days of the second coming. At best, "those days" can have a primary reference to the events of AD70, but the&nbsp;<em>main</em>&nbsp;fulfilment of the whole prophecy must be in the last days. This point seems impossible to answer by those who disallow any reference to the second coming.</p>


text:
<p>13:20&nbsp;<em>And except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved-&nbsp;</em>"Saved" here ("there should no flesh be saved") implies 'delivered'; it will appear that none of us will survive the tribulation, "but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened" and we will be saved by the second coming. Thus <em><a href='B:680 3:12'>2Pe 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:15'>2Pe 3:15</a></em> reminds us that by our prayers and spiritual development, the days before the second coming will be shortened. If they were not, even the elect would lose their faith (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>)- showing how those of us who are alive at Christ's coming will&nbsp;<em>barely</em>&nbsp;survive the spiritual traumas of the last days. The virgins were sleeping when they should have been watching; and Peter says that the righteous in the last generation (see context) will&nbsp;<em>scarcely</em>&nbsp;be saved (<em><a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a></em>). So it would appear that the days of the final tribulation will be shortened, although in another sense the coming of the Lord is delayed in order to allow our greater spiritual development (<em><a href='B:470 25:5'>Mat 25:5</a></em>). This ‘delay’ is why the harvest will be “over-ripe” for reaping (<em><a href='B:730 14:15'>Rev 14:15</a></em> RV)- or is this a reference to the lack of zeal of preachers to Israel in the last days, not harvesting the ready fruit? The Lord likens the final tribulation to the travail of a woman to bring forth her child. But we read in <em><a href='B:290 66:7-8'>Isa 66:7-8</a></em> in this same context of Israel’s latter day suffering: “Before she travailed, she brought forth: before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing?::. for as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children”. This seems to imply that the expected period of Zion’s travail will be cut short, and she will give spiritual birth far quicker than expected. Perhaps the Lord was alluding to this passage when He spoke of how “the days” of Zion’s labour? shall be shortened.</p><p><em>But for the elect's sake, which He chose, He shortened the days</em>- Both the Lord Jesus and Israel are called "the elect" (<em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:4'>Isa 45:4</a></em>); both are fulfilments of the servant songs in Isaiah. The days will be shortened for the elect's sake; for the sake of&nbsp;<em>Christ's</em>&nbsp;intercession, as well as ours. It’s tempting to understand “the elect” in the Olivet prophecy as referring specifically to the group of faithful believers or perhaps specifically Jewish ones who are alive and remain until the Lord’s coming. They are the ones who resist the temptation to be deceived in the very last days (<em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>) and who are snatched away at the Lord’s coming “from the four winds”, suggesting they are located worldwide (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>). We note that Christ on the cross was called by the same word&nbsp;<em>eklektos</em>- “the elect / chosen of God” (<em><a href='B:490 23:35'>Luk 23:35</a></em>). This group will indeed have identified with His crucifixion sufferings. Perhaps this is the group of believers who are also specifically called “the elect” who fight on Mount Zion alongside Jesus against the armies of Israel’s enemies (<em><a href='B:730 17:14'>Rev 17:14</a></em>). In the immediate context, the elect or chosen ones were perhaps intended by the Lord to refer to the listening disciples. <em><a href='B:480 13:20'>Mar 13:20</a></em> labours the point: “For the elect’s sake&nbsp;<em>eklektos</em>, whom He has chosen / elected&nbsp;<em>eklegomai</em>”. The word is specifically used about the Lord’s choosing of the twelve (<em><a href='B:490 6:13'>Luk 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:70'>Joh 6:70</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:19'>Joh 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:2'>Act 1:2</a></em>). He imagined them being scattered to “the four winds” in their obedience to the great commission, but thanks to them, the days would be shortened and they themselves would be gathered to Him at His return. That was the Lord’s hope and ideal intention. It didn’t happen in the first century, and thus has some element of reapplication in a different context in our last days:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>The vision will in one sense “not delay / tarry” (<em><a href='B:420 2:3'>Hab 2:3</a></em> RV). And yet the same verse speaks of how it does “tarry”. Perhaps in a human sense it delays, but not from God’s perspective. “It hasteth toward the end” (<em><a href='B:420 2:3'>Hab 2:3</a></em> RV) could imply that things are speeded up in their fulfilment in the very end time; for the elect’s sake the days until the second coming are shortened. And yet things are also delayed- the bridegroom tarries / delays, to the point that many realize that the Lord has delayed His coming, and begin to act inappropriately. One reconciliation of these paradoxes could be that some prophecies are speeded up in their fulfilment because of the elect would otherwise lose their faith; and yet other prophecies seem to be delayed in fulfilment because of the unspirituality of others:&nbsp; The possibility of changing the fulfilment of prophetic time periods is to be found in <em><a href='B:420 3:2'>Hab 3:2</a></em>: "In the midst of the years revive::."- i:e. please, God, do it immediately rather than waiting until the end of days.<br/>The Lord’s description of the shortening of the days uses some rather odd past tenses: “Except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elect’s sake… he shortened the days” (<em><a href='B:480 13:20'>Mar 13:20</a></em> RV). One wonders if we have here an allusion back to the days of Noah, where again there was the possibility that no flesh would have been saved. The 150 days of flooding is perhaps the basis of <em><a href='B:730 9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em>, where Israel is to have 150 days of tribulation at the hands of her Arab enemies in the last days. The connection between the passages would therefore seem to be teaching that the final 150 days tribulation will be shortened due to the repentance of the remnant.</p><p>For the elects' sake, the days to the second coming&nbsp;<em>will be</em>&nbsp;shortened (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>); but the Lord also said, perhaps in the same sentence, that the days&nbsp;<em>have already</em>&nbsp;been shortened (<em><a href='B:480 13:20'>Mar 13:20</a></em>). This shows that God conceives of time in a radically different way to how we do. The shortening of time in a sense hasn't take place, but in another sense it has. There can therefore be no trite explanation of how God can hasten the second coming in accordance with our prayers, and yet also have a set time to favour Zion. See on <em><a href='B:520 9:28-29'>Rom 9:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 9:10'>Rev 9:10</a></em>. This was typified in the Joseph story. "Then Joseph could not refrain himself::." (<em><a href='B:10 45:1'>Gen 45:1</a></em>) implies he planned to drag out the process of spiritually refining his brothers, but his love for them caused him to cut it short. "For the elect’s sake the days shall be shortened" by Christ (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>). The same Hebrew word in <em><a href='B:10 45:1'>Gen 45:1</a></em> is used in <em><a href='B:290 42:14'>Isa 42:14</a></em> about how God can no longer refrain Himself in the last days. The RV has: “had been shortened”, suggesting that maybe the Lord had already been in dialogue with the Father and secured a decrease in the Father’s original time period envisaged.</p>


text:
<p>13:21&nbsp;<em>And then if anyone shall say to you-&nbsp;</em>This again, spoken to the disciples, suggests that they were the ones who would see these things associated with the return of Christ. But they did not. And in any case, all twelve of them were being addressed, and one of them would turn away from Christ. So there was in any case a conditionality attached to the Lord’s words:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Look, here is the Christ or Look There he is- do not believe them</em>- “Lo” AV suggests the actual pointing out of a person. “Here… or there” AV is poor translation, because the same original word is behind both “here” and “there”. The impression is given of people pointing out actual individuals and claiming that ‘This is Christ’. The faithful are to flee once the sign is obvious that Christ is about to be revealed, and in those days and they may literally be days or hours the world will know that Christ’s return is imminent, and therefore all manner of charlatans will start claiming ‘It’s me’. The relatively few claims to be Jesus Christ which are made today are hardly credible, no temptation at all for the faithful, and nearly always the person making the claim is mentally ill. But the Olivet prophecy suggests that these claims by false Christs will be so credible that even the faithful will be sorely tempted to believe them. The risk of deception would be so great that the Lord repeatedly warned against it. If there is some worldwide sign that Christ is about to return, perhaps literally in the sky, as “the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven”, then in those days, such claimants will have far more credibility. It could be that one claimant is particularly persuasive, leading to the final show down on Mount Zion between the true Christ and the anti-Christ, the fake duplicate of Christ.</p>


text:
<p>13:22&nbsp;<em>For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray (if possible) the elect</em>- The Lord is virtually quoting the words of Moses in <em><a href='B:50 13:1'>Deu 13:1</a></em>: “When Heb:; AV “if” there arise among you a false prophet… and gives you a sign or wonder”. Even if signs are given, they are not to be believed; apparent miracles are no proof that a man is of God. The Lord is here asserting Himself as the new Moses. The appearance of miraculous “signs” was important in Judaism in order to identify Messiah- hence they asked the Lord to produce such signs (<em><a href='B:470 12:38'>Mat 12:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:1'>Mat 16:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:18'>Joh 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:48'>Joh 4:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:30'>Joh 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:22'>1Co 1:22</a></em> “the Jews require a sign”). The Lord had refused to respond, even though He had done many miracles. He said that “no sign” would be given to that generation apart from that of Jonah- i:e:, His resurrection. It was “a wicked and adulterous generation that seeks after a sign” (<em><a href='B:470 16:4'>Mat 16:4</a></em>). The disciples likewise assumed that there was to be such a “sign” predicting the Lord’s coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>). On one level it could be argued that the Lord’s answer is actually a refusal to give them such a miraculous “sign” from Him; rather did He give them descriptions of what would happen in the world. He had said the same, in essence, to the Jews when they demanded such a miraculous “sign” of Him; He said they would be given no such sign, but rather they were to discern the “signs s:w. of the times” (<em><a href='B:470 16:3-4'>Mat 16:3-4</a></em>). And this effectively is how He answers the disciples when at the beginning of the Olivet prophecy they likewise ask for a “sign”. He responds by giving them a list of “signs of the times”. However, it would seem from <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em> that there will in fact be the “sign” of Messiah visible in the sky- but only in the very last few? days before the forcible establishment of His Kingdom. This will be in opposition to the “signs’ shown by the false prophets. More detail is given in <em><a href='B:730 13:13-14'>Rev 13:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20</a></em> where we read of the beast system and false prophet doing signs by which they deceived the people in the earth / land. This is an expansion upon the Lord’s warning against being deceived by such signs. And the same scenario is found in <em><a href='B:600 2:9'>2Th 2:9</a></em>, where we find the man of sin sitting in the latter day temple doing “signs and lying wonders” (same words as here in <em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>), to be destroyed in the final conflict with the real Christ.</p><p>There is ample evidence that in the lead up to the Babylonian invasion which typifies that of the last days, Jeremiah had to work amid considerable opposition from false prophets who mocked his prophecies of impending Arab victory and the need to repent; they will have their counterparts among the ranks of modern Judaism in the last days (<em><a href='B:310 2:14'>Lam 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 20:6'>Jer 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 28:1-9'>Jer 28:1-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 29:24-26'>Jer 29:24-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 13:2-5'>Zec 13:2-5</a></em>). Perhaps it is such false prophets within Israel which our Lord spoke of in <em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>:&nbsp;But there’s no need to speculate too much- when these things come to pass, it will be crystal clear to those aware of the prophecy that we’ve now reached that stage. In the A:D:70 possibility of fulfilment, these people operated under the umbrella of fundamentalist Judaism, as they will in the last days:&nbsp;Their false bearing of the Lord's name (<em><a href='B:470 24:5'>Mat 24:5</a></em>) alludes back to the pseudo-prophets of Jeremiah's time doing the same (<em><a href='B:300 14:14'>Jer 14:14</a></em>):&nbsp;Zedekiah's trauma of being torn between wanting to accept the words of the false prophets whilst inwardly knowing the truth of Jeremiah's words, will perhaps be repeated in the leadership of latter-day Israel, to whom the Elijah ministry will teach the true word of God. The apparent mimicry of Jeremiah's style by the false prophets will perhaps be seen in the last days too.</p><p>The possibility of deception may be precluded by the fact that the elect, by reason of being the elect, will not be deceived. But there may also be the suggestion that it is impossible to deceive the elect because they are preserved from such deception. The Father and Son are willing and able to “keep you from falling” by sealing or preserving the faithful from such deception. The element of God’s work over and above human freewill effort is itself indicated by the very term “the elect”; those chosen, by God and not of themselves.</p><p>A major theme of the prophecy is the danger of being deceived (<em><a href='B:470 24:4-5'>Mat 24:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:11'>Mat 24:11</a></em>). The need for this urgent warning requires that the claimants have far more credibility than such persons have today.</p>


text:
<p>13:23&nbsp;<em>But be warned, I have told you all things beforehand</em>- In place of the Olivet prophecy, John's gospel has the message about the Comforter. Through the gift of the Spirit, the Lord is present in our hearts with such reality that it is as if He were with us. All calls to go out and see Him here or there will therefore intuitively be found false by us. And the connection with the Comforter passages continues in this verse, with a clear link to <em><a href='B:500 14:29'>Joh 14:29</a></em>: "And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe". The Lord was referring to the predictions of His sufferings and death; but here, the context is of the latter day tribulation. Those tribulations are to enable those who pass through them to fellowship with the sufferings and death of the Lord, that they might share in His immortality.</p><p>The intention of prophecy is that when it is fulfilled, then all is clear to the believers and they are thereby guided and strengthened. This will be particularly true in those last few days when the sign of the Son of Man is in the sky (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>), everyone somehow knows Christ is about to come- and inevitably false claimants will arise, perhaps one particular one will claim to be Christ and will go to battle against the real Christ. Hence the repetition of the Lord’s warning about not being deceived by this person or related claims.</p>


text:
<p>13:24&nbsp;<em>But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened-&nbsp;</em>After the tribulation, as it was when Jesus died (<em><a href='B:490 23:45'>Luk 23:45</a></em> s:w:). Israel’s tribulation will make them understand what He went through. The context has been the Lord’s insistence that His coming will be obviously visible, like lightening in the sky, and the reference to “the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven” / the sky (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>) would suggest that a literal sign in the sky is what the Lord has in mind. The allusion to the crucifixion would also require a literal element of fulfilment. The additional information given in <em><a href='B:730 8:12'>Rev 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 9:2'>Rev 9:2</a></em> suggests that this darkening of sun and stars happens progressively, although that may be over a period of only a few literal days. There are reports of such signs being seen over Jerusalem in the lead up to AD70, the appearance of comets etc. However it seems to me that Josephus had access to the Olivet prophecy and some of the wording of his historical claims is so similar to the Lord’s words that I personally doubt the degree of real fulfilment that was going on; rather do I suspect he was consciously alluding to the Lord’s words and wishing to see them fulfilled in the history he was recording. That is not the same thing as AD70 actually fulfilling in detail the Olivet prophecy.</p><p><em>And the moon shall not give her light</em>- Joseph's dream clearly identifies these symbols as representing Israel. The passages which make this same identification are many: <em><a href='B:10 37:9-10'>Gen 37:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 8:8-10'>Amo 8:8-10</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:400 3:6'>Mic 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:260 6:10'>Son 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 24:23'>Isa 24:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 33:20-26'>Jer 33:20-26</a></em>; JoeI 2:10,30-32; 3:15; <em><a href='B:510 2:20'>Act 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 6:12'>Rev 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 8:12'>Rev 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 12:1'>Rev 12:1</a></em>. <em><a href='B:300 31:35-36'>Jer 31:35-36</a></em> is likely the Old Testament passage the Lord specifically had in mind: "Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who divides the sea when the waves thereof roar; the Lord of hosts is his name. If those ordinances depart from before me, says the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever". Only here do we find "sun, moon, and stars" combined with "sea and waves roaring" as in the Olivet prophecy in Luke 21. In Luke He spoke of "On the earth distress of&nbsp;<em>nations&nbsp;</em>(Gentile nations causing distress in the earth / land of Israel) with perplexity… men's hearts failing them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth (or land, of Israel)”. The Greek word translated "perplexity" is used in the LXX concerning the final tribulation of Israel (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:22'>Deu 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:30'>Isa 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 8:20'>Isa 8:20</a></em> LXX):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4>13:25&nbsp;<em>And the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken</em>- The Greek phrase is used only elsewhere in <em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>. This vision is clearly an expansion upon the Olivet prophecy. There, the stars fall “as a fig tree casts her unripe figs”. This too is the language of the Olivet prophecy (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>). The lack of spiritual maturity in Israel is related to the stars of Israel- see on&nbsp;<em>Sun::. moon::. stars</em>&nbsp;falling. The appearance of comets would certainly give the impression of falling stars, and I suggest that the main fulfilment will be in terms of things visibly seen in the sky, as hard proof to all the world that the Lord Jesus is returning.</h4><p>The events of judgment day will be a ‘shaking’ of the world, including the faithful (<em><a href='B:490 6:48'>Luk 6:48</a></em> the house built on the rock could not be “shaken”, s:w:). <em><a href='B:650 12:26-27'>Heb 12:26-27</a></em> surely allude here, saying that just as the earth shook when the old covenant was instituted, so the “heavens” would also be shaken. The suggestion of the context is that this day of shaking both heaven and earth was almost upon the readership- who were Hebrews, Jewish Christians.</p>


text:
<p>13:26&nbsp;<em>And then shall they see the Son of Man-&nbsp;</em>In Matthew, when “all the tribes of the earth / land mourn in repentance… then shall they see the Son of man coming”. Some in Israel must repent before Christ returns. The Lord refers to this in speaking to the Jews who crucified Him: "You shall see s:w. the Son of Man::. coming in the clouds of Heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 26:64'>Mat 26:64</a></em>). They would see that all too late, as part of the process of their condemnation- to realize it was all true, and it is too late to do anything about it. The Lord had earlier used the same idea, in saying that that group would only "see" Him again when they said "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:490 13:35'>Luk 13:35</a></em>). They would see that and say that all too late. The Lord's words clearly suggest they of that generation would see His return in glory. But His coming was delayed, and they did not. But they will at the last day, for they will be resurrected to face judgment and condemnation. The chronological issues need not worry us too much- i:e. when will they be resurrected, at precisely what point on the timeline of these events. The meaning of time will surely be collapsed around the Lord's return. This will be the final fulfilment of the prophecy that they shall look upon Him whom they pierced and mourn (<em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a></em>; "look" is s:w. "see" in <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). The invitation of course is to look upon the crucified Christ now and mourn in repentance; for we shall have to do this one way or the other, either now in repentance, or too late in condemnation.</p><p><em>Coming in the clouds-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a></em>. The language of clouds and then Angels (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>) is reminiscent of the Lord’s ascension, at which the Angels promised His return “in like manner”; and the same language is used of His return in <em><a href='B:510 1:7'>Act 1:7</a></em>. This precludes any invisible ‘coming’ in AD70. Rather than thinking that the Lord somehow ‘came’ in AD70 in some metaphorical manner, I would suggest that the literal language is such that we can only conclude that His literal return has been delayed. Otherwise we end up forcing the obviously literal into the metaphorical.</p><p>The moment of the second coming is likened to a flash of lightning and the beginning of rain at the time of Noah's flood:&nbsp;&nbsp; This makes any application of&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;to the prolonged series of events in A:D. 69/70 at least tenuous when compared to the obvious application to the moment of the second coming:&nbsp;&nbsp; There are many links between Matthew 24, 25 and 1 Thessalonians 4, 5 which have been tabulated by several expositors. According to these connections, the Lord's 'parousia' mentioned in Matthew 24 is interpreted by Paul as referring to the literal second coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:30-31'>Mat 24:30-31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 4:15-16'>1Th 4:15-16</a></em>). In view of all this, it is desirable to interpret the 'coming' of the Lord in Matthew 24 as referring to the literal presence of Christ at His return, although this is not to rule out any primary reference to the events of A:D. 70:&nbsp;Indeed I would argue that since&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;means a literal presence, it’s not the case that the prophecy received a primary fulfilment in AD70; rather is it that the literal return of Christ was intended then, but was rescheduled. At best, the&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;element of the predictions had no partial fulfilment in AD70. The flow of the prophecy is indicated by the repetition of words like "then" : "<em>Then</em>&nbsp;shall they deliver you up:::&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall many be offended:::&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall the end come:::&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;let them which be in Judea:::&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall be great tribulation:::&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;if any man shall say unto you, Here is Christ:::&nbsp;<em>immediately after the tribulation of those days</em>&nbsp;("in<em>&nbsp;those days</em>, after that tribulation", <em><a href='B:480 13:24'>Mar 13:24</a></em>):::&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall appear the sign of the Son of man:::&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of man coming" (Matthew 24). There is no suggestion here of any break in application, from AD70 to the last days. If the reference to Christ coming in glory with the Angels is accepted as referring to the last days, but the earlier verses of the prophecy to AD70 alone, we have to find the point where Christ breaks from AD70 to the last days. And I would suggest such a point cannot be found.</p><p><em>"</em>In the clouds" clearly alludes to His ascension in clouds, and the promise that He would return "in like manner" (<em><a href='B:510 1:11'>Act 1:11</a></em>), presumably meaning in clouds to the same Mount of Olives. Again we are invited to understand these as literal clouds, just as the signs in the heavenly bodies are likewise to be understood. At His coming, the figurative will pass away and planet earth and those who dwell upon it will be faced with the ultimate reality- the personal, literal coming of God's Son to earth.</p><p><em>With great power and glory</em>- The very words used by the Lord in the model prayer of <em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em> concerning the power and glory of the Kingdom of God. The coming of the Lord to establish the Kingdom is clearly yet future and did not occur in AD70. This is the time when “the Son of Man shall come in the glory s:w. of His Father with His angels, and then shall He repay every man according to his deeds” (16:27; 25:31). Likewise, this is “the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory s:w:, and you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (<em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em>). Such a judgment and coming with Angels never occurred in AD70. John’s equivalent of this is to emphasize that in essence, the believers behold Christ’s glory now, insofar as they perceive the wonder and moral pinnacle of His achievement for us on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:580 3:4'>Col 3:4</a></em> teaches that “When Christ who is our life i:e. our basis of resurrection shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory”. His coming in glory will be ours, in that we will have been snatched away to meet with Him and will come with Him to Zion. And yet the next verse speaks as if now, at this point, the Angels are sent to gather the elect. But these chronological discrepancies are no real issue for the believer if we accept that the meaning of time must be changed around the time of Christ’s coming, as must the meaning of space if Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct. This would explain all practical concerns about space and time issues relating to the day of judgment. Another window on the apparent chronological discrepancies is the consideration that there are various possible potential scenarios, which will work out according to the speed and nature of the spiritual response of both natural and spiritual Israel.</p>


text:
<p>13:27&nbsp;<em>And then shall he send the angels-&nbsp;</em>The preachers of His Gospel are His messengers / ‘angels’ reaping in the harvest and proclaiming God’s victory. And yet these are the very things which the Angels are described as doing in the last day (<em><a href='B:480 13:27'>Mar 13:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:6-14'>Rev 14:6-14</a></em>). Yet we are doing it right now. In the preaching of the Gospel, we are sharing with the Angels in their work. We’re in tandem with them. The nature of our response to the Gospel when we hear it in this life is essentially our response to the call to judgment at the last day. The very same Greek words translated “Send… Angels” are to be found in the description of John the Baptist being sent to gather men to the Lord Jesus: “I send My messenger before Your face” (<em><a href='B:470 11:10'>Mat 11:10</a></em>). The idea is clearly that those who had responded to John’s message of repentance and faith in Christ’s forgiveness have in essence already been gathered for the Kingdom. And yet Israel generally had stoned those sent s:w. unto them (<em><a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a></em> - the Lord said this introducing the Olivet prophecy).</p><p>The preachers of His Gospel are His messengers / ‘angels’ reaping in the harvest and proclaiming God’s victory. And yet these are the very things which the Angels are described as doing in the last day (<em><a href='B:480 13:27'>Mar 13:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:6-14'>Rev 14:6-14</a></em>). Yet we are doing it right now. In the preaching of the Gospel, we are sharing with the Angels in their work. We’re in tandem with them.</p><p><em>And shall gather together his elect-&nbsp;</em>Alluded to in <em><a href='B:600 2:1'>2Th 2:1</a></em> "our gathering together unto Him". However, a case can be made that the believers are already with Christ when He comes in the clouds. Therefore the “elect” could possibly refer specifically to natural Israel rather than the believers. If the reference is to the believers, this creates a chronological issue- although see on <em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Power and great glory</em>. The Angels will be sent out to gather together the elect, but Angels will also be ‘sent forth’ to “gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity” (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>). It seems that this ‘gathering out’ will be achieved by the more positive ‘gathering together’ of the faithful. The point of gathering is the point of division between good and bad; our response to the certain news that ‘He’s back’ will decide the outcome of our judgment. Those wise virgins who go forth to meet Christ immediately are therefore those who will be "caught up together" with the faithful believers who will have been resurrected. Just as eagles mount up into the air and come down where the carcass is, so we will come to judgment. This will be when the Angels "gather together&nbsp;<em>his elect</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>). They then "meet the Lord in the air" literally, perhaps connecting with <em><a href='B:730 11:12'>Rev 11:12</a></em>:&nbsp; "They (the faithful, persecuted saints of the last days) heard a great voice from heaven (cp. "the voice" of <em><a href='B:590 4:16'>1Th 4:16</a></em>) saying unto them, Come up (cp. "caught up::.") hither:&nbsp;&nbsp; And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud (cp. "caught up::. in clouds"); and their enemies beheld them":&nbsp;&nbsp; It may well be that <em><a href='B:730 11:12'>Rev 11:12</a></em> is speaking of the faithful Jewish remnant of the last days, who will be snatched away along with us.</p><p><em>From the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven</em>- Is this a reference to the believers being “caught away in clouds, into the air, for the purpose of meeting the Lord" (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>)? It seems also an allusion to the lightning of :27. The Lord’s coming and His gathering of the elect is all in the same moment; and yet there are apparently various things which must occur all at the same time. The apparent contradictions in chronology need not worry us- see on <em><a href='B:470 24:31'>Mat 24:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Power and great glory</em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:28&nbsp;<em>Now from the fig tree learn its lesson-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em> records another parable of the fig tree, upon which that in the Olivet prophecy is based. Jesus, the dresser of God's vineyard of Israel, came seeking spiritual fruit on the fig tree, for the three years of his ministry. Because of the lack of it, the tree was cut down. Christ said "Now (i:e. towards the end of the tribulation period?) learn a parable of the fig tree" (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>). It is tempting to read this as effectively meaning 'Now learn&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;parable of the fig tree', seeing that the parable of the Olivet prophecy is so similar to the previous fig tree parable:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>When its branch becomes tender-&nbsp;</em>The obvious connection in Jewish minds would be with Messiah as the pre-eminent branch of Israel (<em><a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 33:15'>Jer 33:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 17:22'>Eze 17:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a></em>). Luke 21 adds the detail that we are to look also at “all the trees”. A tender branch, all the trees, the Kingdom of God- these are all themes to be found in <em><a href='B:330 17:22-24'>Eze 17:22-24</a></em>: “Thus says the Lord Yahweh: I will also take of the lofty top of the cedar the dynasty of the house of David, and will set it. I will crop off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and I will plant it on a high and lofty mountain. In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it the return of Christ to Mount Zion?; and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar. Under it shall dwell all birds of every wing; in the shade of its branches shall they dwell this is the picture of Christ’s Kingdom- <em><a href='B:480 4:32'>Mar 4:32</a></em>. All the trees cp. “the fig tree and all the trees” of the field shall know that I, Yahweh, have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish. I, Yahweh, have spoken and have done it”. This last verse was clearly in the Lord’s mind as He was led out to Golgotha (<em><a href='B:490 23:31'>Luk 23:31</a></em>). This clearly Messianic language is associated by the Lord with the beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel. The fig tree has to identify with Him as Messiah, become itself the tender branch, before fruit can be seen upon it.</p><p>I mentioned earlier in this exposition the strong parallels between the Olivet prophecy and the upper room discourse. The equivalent of the fig tree parable is in <em><a href='B:500 15:1-6'>Joh 15:1-6</a></em>: “I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that carries no fruit, he prunes away; and every branch that carries fruit, he cleanses it, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, so neither can you, except you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He that abides in me and I in him, the same carries much fruit. For severed from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is thrown out as a branch and withers, and these are gathered and thrown into the fire, and they are burned”. <em><a href='B:520 11:19'>Rom 11:19</a></em> in turn alludes here by associating the cut off, rejected branches with natural Israel. The branches are the tree, which is Christ. That same identification of the branch and Christ is made here in <em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>. Putting together these teachings, the implication would be that for the branches of Israel to again be fruitful, they must be grafted back in, seeing they have been cut off. And that is the very teaching of Romans 11. “When his branch is yet…” is an attempt to translate a difficult original text. The idea may be ‘If, so long as… the branch is tender, it can yield fruit’. The broken off branches must be grafted back in and only ‘so long as’ that is the case, they can bear fruit. In the first century context, the Lord may be urging Israel to bring forth spiritual fruit- whilst the branch is still tender, whilst it was still connected to the tree, and had not been broken off and burnt as Romans 11 envisaged happening. And yet Israel would not. Hence the Lord’s appeal to His listeners to&nbsp;<em>learn</em>&nbsp;this parable. And hence the manner in which He placed this teaching as the conclusion to the Olivet prophecy, because Israel’s repentance is the key precondition in His return. John 15 is saying the same thing by warning that once severed from Christ, then there would be no chance of bearing fruit.</p><p><em>And puts forth its leaves, you know that the summer is near</em>- The fig tree was to "shoot forth" (<em><a href='B:490 21:30'>Luk 21:30</a></em>) or 'germinate' (Young), witnessed by its putting forth of leaves (<em><a href='B:480 13:28'>Mar 13:28</a></em>) and tender branches (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>). When the fig tree puts forth leaves there are often immature, unripe figs amongst them. Thus Jesus inspected the fig tree outside Jerusalem to see if it had any fruit, and cursed it because it did not. It had “leaves only” (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>), but now the Lord seems to be saying that the presence of leaves will be a sign of His return. The obvious point of connection with 21:19 would suggest that He becomes more and more acceptant of&nbsp;<em>any&nbsp;</em>sign of spirituality and response in Israel; rather like the parable of the great supper features an increasing desperation on the part of the King to accept anyone who is willing to say “yes” to the invitation. "The time of&nbsp;<em>figs</em>&nbsp;was not yet", i:e. it was not reasonable to find fully developed fruit on it. The fig tree referred to the nation of Israel; Jesus expected to find at least the beginnings of some spiritual fruit, but due to the chronic dearth of response to his message, Jesus cursed the nation and dried it up (<em><a href='B:480 11:13-14'>Mar 11:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:20'>Mar 11:20</a></em>). This would lead us to interpret the putting forth of leaves on the fig tree as the signs of an initial repentance and indication that real spiritual fruit is developing. It may well be that the whole of the Olivet prophecy has reference to a final three and a half year tribulation of the believers just prior to the second coming, and that during this time there will be a period of zealous witnessing to both Jews and Gentiles. This fits into place with the fig tree parable; this preaching starts to produce some degree of response from Israel, and then "all (is) fulfilled" in the full manifestation of Christ's Kingdom. The parable says that as surely as Summer follows Spring, so those who see the blossoming of the fig tree in the parable, will see the Kingdom. Maybe this is to be taken literally; there may be a literal gap of a few weeks/months (as between Spring and Summer) between the first signs of Jewish repentance, and all being fulfilled. It may well be that the "all" which will be fulfilled in <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> is to be equated with "the times of the Gentiles" being fulfilled (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>). The Greek&nbsp;<em>kairos&nbsp;</em>translated “times” is also translated “opportunity”; the Gentiles’ opportunity to hear the Gospel is fast running out. There will be a call to Israel to repent in the last days, and a remnant will respond. This Elijah ministry and maybe our present witness to Jewry prepares the way for this? must occur “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”. We could interpret the putting forth of leaves on the fig tree as the signs of an initial repentance and indication that real spiritual fruit is developing.</p><p>One way to look at this is that summer stood for harvest, obviously so in this context of fruit on a fig tree. But harvest was clearly a metaphor for judgment upon Israel, which is the context and burden of the Olivet prophecy. The Lord has lamented that the fig tree of Israel has nothing but leaves- and because of that, He had uttered judgment upon her (<em><a href='B:470 21:19-20'>Mat 21:19-20</a></em>). So the Lord could be simply repeating this is parabolic terms. The judgment / harvest / Summer was to come upon the fig tree whilst she had only leaves and not fruit on her tender branch. And yet the language of ‘shooting forth’ Gk. germinating in <em><a href='B:490 21:30'>Luk 21:30</a></em> suggests that more than mere leaves are in view. Summer will only come once there is fruit to harvest. That seems the point:&nbsp;</p><h4>The shooting forth of the fig tree is given as the special sign that the Lord will return (<em><a href='B:490 21:30'>Luk 21:30</a></em>). This must be understood in the context of the Lord coming to the fig tree in Mark 11; He sought for at least the beginnings of fruit shooting forth, but found only leaves. And therefore He cursed the fig tree. He evidently saw the shooting forth of the fig tree as a figure of Israel's acceptance of Him, however immaturely. Likewise the parable of <em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em> makes the same connection between fruit on the fig tree and repentance within Israel. "Learn a (the) parable of the fig tree" (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>) may suggest that we are to understand the fig tree parable in the light of these other fig tree parables. And there are several OT links between fruit on the fig and spiritual fruit in Israel (<em><a href='B:400 7:1'>Mic 7:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 7:15-16'>Mat 7:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 3:17-18'>Hab 3:17-18</a></em>). When the branch of Israel “is now become tender”, i:e. immediately this happens, we are to know that the eternal Summer of God’s Kingdom is nigh (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em> RV). The tenderness of the branch is surely to be connected with the hard heart of Israel becoming tender through their acceptance of Jesus and the new covenant. When we see just the beginnings of Israel’s repentance, through a remnant responding, we are to know that “He is near, even at the doors” (<em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em> RV). All this evidence steers us away from the idea that the fig tree became tender through the re-establishment of the nation of Israel- and towards an understanding that this is all about Israel’s repentance.</h4>


text:
<p>13:29&nbsp;<em>So you also, when you see these things happening, you will know that he is near- at the doors</em>- Luke 21 “you know in your own selves”. Seeing the repentance of Israel will lead to the faithful perceiving that the end is near. This perhaps alludes to the same idea as in <em><a href='B:680 1:19'>2Pe 1:19</a></em>, that the day star shall arise in the hearts of the believers just before the Lord comes.</p><p>The structure of the argument suggests that “these things” specifically refers to the shooting forth of the fig tree:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4><em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>When Gk:&nbsp;<em>hotan</em></td><td>When Gk:&nbsp;<em>hotan</em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>His branch is yet tender and puts forth leaves</td><td>You see all these things</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>You know Gk:&nbsp;<em>ginosko</em></td><td>You know Gk:&nbsp;<em>ginosko</em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>That summer is near Gk:&nbsp;<em>eggus</em></td><td>That it is near Gk:&nbsp;<em>eggus</em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> “That the Kingdom of God is near Gk:&nbsp;<em>eggus</em>”.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The “Summer” meant ‘harvest’, and that was a metaphor for judgment. Verse 33 parallels this by saying that “it” is near. The “it” may well refer to the destruction of the temple, which is the context of the whole discussion; although <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> supplies “the Kingdom of God”. The Lord is bringing the discourse to a close by returning to the question which provoked it: “”When shall these things be?”. And He appears to be saying in the first century context that so long as only leaves remained on the fig tree of Israel, then the Summer of harvest judgment upon her was going to come. And yet the Lord here is using language with two or more meanings, as Scripture often does. In the latter day context, He seems to be saying that once spiritual fruit is beginning on the Israel fig tree, then this is the ultimate sign that the ultimate end is near.</h4><p>The idea of Christ at the door is repeated by the Lord Himself in <em><a href='B:730 3:19-20'>Rev 3:19-20</a></em> - where it means that Jesus is asking others to repent and turn to Him. Opening the door means the Lord has granted forgiveness- His being at the door implies surely that He is asking for repentance:&nbsp;<em>Epi&nbsp;</em>the doors can carry the sense of ‘about’ or ‘upon’, perhaps an allusion to the Angels of Passover night, which is such a strong type of the second coming. That would explain the plural “doors”. I suggested that Summer / harvest may refer to judgment; being ‘upon the doors’ may likewise suggest the Angel of Death in judgment. This would certainly fit the first century interpretation offered above- that while only leaves are on the fig tree branch, whilst it is still ‘tender’ and attached to the tree before it has been broken off in judgment, then Summer / harvest / judgment is coming for sure, in that very generation. But words have multiple meanings, and this fact is not ignored by God in the way the Bible is written, nor by His Son in the way He spoke. The allusion can equally be to the Passover Angel who as it were restrained the Angel of Death by hovering over the blood-sprinkled doors of the faithful. This would continue the ‘other’ usage of language by the Lord in the fig tree parable, which means that once there is some beginnings of spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel, then the repentance of that remnant will mean that the coming of the Lord is literally imminent and He stands&nbsp;<em>epi</em>&nbsp;the doors as the fulfilment of the Passover Angel.</p>


text:
<p>13:30&nbsp;<em>Truly I say to you: This generation shall not pass away-&nbsp;</em>This is similar to the Lord’s teaching that some of His generation would not die until they had seen the coming of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:480 9:1'>Mar 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:27'>Luk 9:27</a></em>). His saying may not be linked directly to the fig tree parable, as if to say ‘The generation that sees the fig tree fruit will not pass away until…’. Rather He may be concluding His message by again making clear that the entire prophecy was going to come true in that generation. Seeing that lifespans were not much over 40 years at that time, even AD70 would not have seen many of that generation alive. He says elsewhere that the actual people He was speaking with would see these things come true and see Him coming in glory. But this potential possibility was disallowed from happening in that generation by the refusal of Israel to repent and the weakness of spirituality and effort to spread the Gospel in those who did apparently believe into Christ. The transfiguration was hardly the main fulfilment of the Lord’s words, even though the record of it directly follow the Lord’s predictions. Like the events of AD70, it was at best a shadow fulfilment of the final coming of the Kingdom in visible power and glory. The use of “<em>this</em>&nbsp;generation” rather than “<em>that</em>&nbsp;generation” surely suggests the Lord hoped for and indeed intended a fulfilment of His words literally in that very generation. But that generation passed- because fruit on the fig tree was not found. Israel did not repent, and there was little spiritual fruit on those Jews who did accept Christ. All 38 NT occurrences of&nbsp;<em>genea</em>, “generation”, clearly refer to the contemporary generation or group of listeners. Any attempt to interpret&nbsp;<em>genea</em>&nbsp;as referring to the race or nation of Israel becomes impossible because the text would require that the race or nation of Israel pass away at the Lord’s second coming, but Israel are clearly envisaged as existing as a separate entity in the Millennial Kingdom.</p><p><em>Until-&nbsp;</em>If the Lord had meant simply 'until' we would read simply&nbsp;<em>heos</em>. But here we have two Greek words-&nbsp;<em>heos an</em>, which together denote a sense of conditionality and uncertainty. This is understandable if we understand that the Lord is talking of how His coming&nbsp;<em>could be</em>&nbsp;in that generation- but that depended upon some conditions which were beyond Him to fulfil and which depended upon men.</p><p><em>All these things happen</em>- AV "Be fulfilled". There is surely a word play between&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;"fulfilled" and&nbsp;<em>genea</em>&nbsp;"generation". That generation would not pass until all has 'become'. This is not the usual word used for the fulfilment of prophecies. When Matthew writes of the fulfilment of prophecies (and he does this often), the word&nbsp;<em>pleroo</em>&nbsp;is used. But here a much vaguer and more general word is used. Mark's record brings this out- the disciples ask when "all these things" would be "fulfilled" (<em>sunteleo</em>), and the Lord concludes the fig tree parable by saying "all these things" would be&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:30'>Mar 13:30</a></em>). That would appear purposeful; the Lord held out the definite possibility for His return in the first century and the fulfilment of all things He had spoken of. But He was surely aware that this could be rescheduled, and so He used a word pregnant with the possibility that "that generation" would see the 'coming into being' of the scenario He was presenting. That generation&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;could have been the fulfilment&nbsp;<em>genea</em>&nbsp;of all things, or they could have been at least the coming into being of that fulfilment; even if they failed to respond, they would not be without significance in bringing into being the ultimate fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p>13:31&nbsp;<em>Heaven and earth may pass away</em>- This could simply be saying to the effect 'Even if heaven and earth could pass, which they cannot, there is even less possibility that My words shall not be fulfilled'. <em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em> seems to use the term in that sense- "Even until&nbsp;<em>heos</em>, i:e. 'even if' heaven and earth pass::.". In this case, we are not to even bother trying to understand 'heaven and earth' as 'a system of things', although this is certainly how the term is used, especially in the context of the Jewish system. And yet later New Testament allusion to this passage seems to suggest we are justified in seeing some reference to the Jewish, Mosaic system of the first century. <em><a href='B:650 12:26'>Heb 12:26</a></em> speaks as if heaven and earth are to be so shaken by the blood of Christ and the new covenant that they will pass away just as Sinai shook at the inauguration of the old covenant. <em><a href='B:680 3:7-13'>2Pe 3:7-13</a></em> is perhaps the clearest statement- the 'heaven and earth' which "are now" in the first century were to pass away and be replaced by a new heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells. Clearly 'heaven and earth' are not literal, because righteousness already dwells in literal Heaven, and the earth shall not be literally destroyed; this passing of 'heaven and earth' is patterned after the destruction of sinful&nbsp;<em>society&nbsp;</em>in Noah's time (<em><a href='B:680 3:5'>2Pe 3:5</a></em>). We note that the Olivet prophecy concludes with a warning that society would become like it was in the days of Noah. Clearly this major changeover did happen in the first century in that the Jewish and Mosaic system did finally pass away in AD70 with the destruction of the temple. And yet Peter's words also seem to demand application to the second coming of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Clearly the heaven and earth of the Kingdom could have come in the first century, but 'all' that happened was that the Jewish and Mosaic systems were ended; this was in itself created a requirement for a&nbsp;<em>new&nbsp;</em>'heaven and earth' in which dwells righteousness, but that system has evidently not yet physically come on earth. In this sense, what happened in AD70 was a guarantee and a creation of the requirement for the new Kingdom to come- see on :30&nbsp;<em>Be fulfilled</em>.</p><p>The Greek word&nbsp;<em>Ge</em>&nbsp;"earth" is used often for the ‘land’ of Israel in the NT. We must remember that although the NT is written in Greek, it strongly reflects Hebrew usage of words. Again, the word commonly refers to the land of Israel. Consider some examples:&nbsp;<br/>- “But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King” (<em><a href='B:470 5:34-35'>Mat 5:34-35</a></em>). This is alluding to the Jewish habit of swearing by their own land:&nbsp;<br/>- “The kings of the earth take custom or tribute" (<em><a href='B:470 17:25'>Mat 17:25</a></em>). The rulers of the earth were those ruling over Israel:&nbsp;<br/>- “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth" (<em><a href='B:470 23:35'>Mat 23:35</a></em>). The blood shed on the earth means that which was shed in the land:&nbsp;<br/>- Heaven and earth passing away (<em><a href='B:470 24:35'>Mat 24:35</a></em>) follows on from the Lord speaking of how all tribes of the earth / land would mourn in repentance (:30). He was speaking in the common OT idiom that used ‘heaven and earth’ for Israel. The nation would pass away in AD70, but His words would not.</p><p><em>But my words shall not pass away</em>- The Lord uses&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>here rather than any other term for ‘words’, perhaps because He perceived that it was the essence of what He was saying that would be fulfilled, rather than necessarily the very letter.</p><p>There seems a parallel with :30. "My words shall not pass away" is parallel with "This generation shall not pass away"; "Heaven and earth shall pass away" is parallel with "All these things being fulfilled". 'Heaven and earth' passing is therefore in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth in fulfilment of all that was prophesied by the Lord. But there is then a parallel between "My words" and "this generation". The intention may be to show that that generation were to be identified with the Lord's words, and thereby with Himself. For whenever He elsewhere uses the term "My words", it is always in parallel to 'I Myself' (<em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:27'>Joh 15:27</a></em>). He was His words; He was the quintessential logos. And that generation were to be identified with them. If they did so, if the tender branch of the fig tree became one with the Messianic branch of the Old Testament prophecies, then all would be fulfilled in that generation.</p>


text:
<p>13:32&nbsp;<em>But of that day or that hour- Hemera&nbsp;</em>can refer to a period rather than a specific calendar day; it occurs often in the Olivet prophecy: “Those days” (<em><a href='B:470 24:19'>Mat 24:19</a></em>), “those days should be shortened” (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>), “the tribulation of those days” (<em><a href='B:470 24:29'>Mat 24:29</a></em>), “the days of Noah” (<em><a href='B:470 24:37'>Mat 24:37</a></em>), “the days that were before the flood” (<em><a href='B:470 24:38'>Mat 24:38</a></em>). So the Lord isn’t necessarily saying that there is a calendar day and hour within that day when He will return. He may even be implying that God has given us conditions to fulfil, and not a calendar date. There is no calendar date discernible from our side, because it is conditional. The Lord repeats this teaching in <em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em> when He says that we must watch exactly because “you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man comes”. When the disciples later asked to know this date, the Lord replied that “the times or seasons” have been “set within the Father’s own authority” (<em><a href='B:510 1:7'>Act 1:7</a></em> RV). This sounds like God has set up required preconditions, and the actual moment of the Lord’s return is somehow within frames of reference which His own authority alone has determined. But the Lord goes straight on to remind them of their calling to take the Gospel worldwide (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>); for that was one of the major preconditions. Instead of trying to discern a specific date ahead of time, they were instead to refocus upon the spreading of the Gospel. If all the mental effort put into trying to discern the calendar date had been put into simply spreading the Gospel, then perhaps the Lord would be here by now. However, there is also the possibility that in the very last days, the last generation&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;in fact know the day and hour.</p><p><em>Knows no one except the Father, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son-&nbsp;</em>There’s a major theme of knowing / seeing / perceiving in the Olivet prophecy:&nbsp;<em>Eido</em>, translated “knows”, carries the essential idea of ‘seeing’ or perceiving. We are to “see” / know / perceive the abomination of desolation, and when we “see” / know / perceive “all these things, know that it is near”. And yet, despite that, we can not know, at least at this stage, the day nor the hour of the Lord’s coming. The reason is made crystal clear in <em><a href='B:470 24:42'>Mat 24:42</a></em>: “Watch&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;because you do not know s:w. what hour your Lord comes”. <em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em> repeats this: “Watch&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;because you do not know s:w. neither the day nor the hour in which your Lord comes”. The ‘watching’, therefore, is the watching of ourselves and for the welfare of others;&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;the activity of seeking to match world events with Bible prophecies. So our watching is exactly because we do not know the day and hour. God in His wisdom made it like this- so that we should watch all the time. If we knew when the Lord were coming, then we would not watch for Him until that time. Such is human nature. If a man knows what day and hour the thief is coming, he will watch for him at that time (<em><a href='B:470 24:43'>Mat 24:43</a></em>). But if he doesn’t know, then he must watch all the time. So, looking at it from that point of view, it is absolutely necessary that we do&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;know the day and hour. And yet it seems so many have seriously misunderstood this. They think that they&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;work out the day and hour, and their ‘watching’ is not so much a personal readiness for the Lord’s coming at any moment as an extended scouring of the media in an attempt to slot various international happenings into Bible prophecies. Indeed it is observable that personal watchfulness often apparently comes to be excused because of ‘watching’ the “signs of the times”.</p>


text:
<p>13:33&nbsp;<em>Be warned, watch and pray. For you do not know when the time is</em>- This could be taken as a criticism, rather than stating a truism. It is true that we do not know the time of the Lord's return and therefore we should watch constantly. But we should consider the possibility that the last generation, as they pass through the tribulation, will in fact see prophecy fulfilling so accurately that they can foresee the Lord's coming. It is commonly thought that even the Lord Jesus doesn't know the time of his return, only the Father does. During his mortality, the Lord said exactly this (<em><a href='B:480 13:32'>Mar 13:32</a></em>)- at the time he was speaking to the disciples, he himself didn't know. But after his resurrection and glorification, the Lord made two statements to the disciples which he surely intended to be connected: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth::. it is not for you (the inquisitive eleven standing on Olivet) to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:7-8'>Act 1:7-8</a></em>). But&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Father's power has been given to His glorified Son, and this therefore includes knowledge of the "times and seasons" of the second coming. In the exalted Lord "are hid all the riches of wisdom and knowledge" (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>); it is thereby inconceivable that the Father would still keep back some knowledge from the Son. The point of all this is that when the Lord Jesus said that "of that day and that hour knoweth (present tense) no man, no, not the angels::. neither the Son" he was not laying down a general principle for all time. He was speaking of the situation at that time: 'You can't know now, indeed at the moment even I don't know; but these are the signs which will tell the believers when I'll come'. By implication he was saying 'You can't understand them, although I'm giving them to you, but in the future some will understand them, because these signs will accurately pinpoint my return'. This was exactly the spirit of what the Angel told Daniel when he too wished to know when Messiah would come in glory; he was basically told 'It's not for you to understand, but in the last days understanding of these things will be increased among God's people; they will know the time, but you can't'. There are so many connections between the Olivet prophecy and Daniel that perhaps it is legitimate to think that the Lord was alluding to the Angel's refusal to tell Daniel the time of Messiah's coming. That the Lord was primarily referring to the twelve when he spoke of them not knowing "when the time is" (<em><a href='B:480 13:33'>Mar 13:33</a></em>) is confirmed if we appreciate that the Lord Jesus sometimes uses "the time" as a reference to the appointed time for his own death (<em><a href='B:470 26:18'>Mat 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:6'>Joh 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:8'>Joh 7:8</a></em>). The disciples were fascinated with the time of his return, and the Lord was giving them the signs. But knowing his death was only days away, inevitably he had in mind "the time" of his passion. And he knew that as they didn't know the time of his return, so they didn't understand the time of his death. Having pointed out that they knew not "the time", in words surely reminiscent of his criticism of Jewry generally for not knowing "the time" of his coming and death (<em><a href='B:470 16:3'>Mat 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:44'>Luk 19:44</a></em>), the Lord went on to tell the story of the man (himself) who left his household (the disciples) and told them to watch, with warnings as to what would happen if they didn't. Every one of those warnings, and some other language in the Olivet prophecy, came true of the disciples in the next few days, in the context of "the time" being the time of Christ's death:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>They shall deliver you up to&nbsp;&nbsp; the councils</td><td>As Christ to the Sanhedrin</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>beaten</td><td>Christ buffeted</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>rulers and kings for a testimony&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>Chief priests, Herod, Pilate</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:::brother shall betray the brother&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>Judas; Peter's denial?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:::turn back to take up his garment&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>John Mark's linen garment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:::false Christs:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>An echo of 'Barabbas'?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the sun shall be darkened:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>As at the crucifixion</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Watch and pray:::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>"Watch with me"; Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at even:::&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>Last Supper</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at midnight::.</td><td>Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>at the cock crowing</td><td>Peter's denials</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in the morning</td><td>trials and crucifixion</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>find you sleeping</td><td>disciples in Gethsemane</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p>13:34&nbsp;<em>Like a man going on a journey; on leaving his house, he puts his servants in charge, each according to his assigned tasks. He also commands the gatekeeper to stay awake</em>- Each has his or her calling, and therefore we should each have a sense of authority because we realize this. We have a job to do, a mission to accomplish, and we have authority from the Lord Himself. For the Son of man gives to&nbsp;<em>each</em>&nbsp;of His servants both "authority" and his or her specific work to do (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>.</p><p>His enthusiasm for us comes out in Christ's description of Himself as 'taking a far journey' away from us to Heaven. The Greek strictly means 'to leave one's own native people to go abroad'; with the implication that the Lord feels closer towards us than to the Angels. He is somehow away from home whilst absent from us. This is exactly the line of argument of Hebrews 1, 2 : Christ didn't come to save Angels, He came to save us, therefore He had exactly our nature and feelings, not theirs.</p><p>The "porter" was commanded to watch; and he represents us all (:37). Watching over God's household is an idea taken from <em><a href='B:330 3:17'>Eze 3:17</a></em>; as the prophets in the Old Testament parables of judgment were the watchmen of the house of Israel, so each of us are. When the Lord had earlier told this parable, Peter (like us) asked the obvious question: "Do you speak this parable to us (the twelve in the first century), or even to all?" (<em><a href='B:490 12:41'>Luk 12:41</a></em>). The Lord's basic reply was "To all", although He didn't say so explicitly. Instead He said that if the Lord of the servant was away and came back unexpectedly, late at night, what a joy it would be to him if he found the lights on and the servant working diligently in caring for the others;&nbsp;<em>any</em>&nbsp;servant doing that is going to give his Lord joy; 'So, Peter, don't think about whether others are called to do the job, this is the ideal servant, you're all servants, so you get on and try to be like this ideal servant'. The porter's job was to keep out wolves; the Greek for "porter" literally means 'the watcher' (s:w. <em><a href='B:500 10:1'>Joh 10:1</a></em>, another example of how the parables fit together). An apathy in looking out for false teachers means we aren't doing the porter's job well, we are sleeping rather than looking after the household. <em><a href='B:470 24:43-45'>Mat 24:43-45</a></em> define watching for Christ's return as tending to the needs of our brethren; this is what will lead our hearts towards preparedness for the second coming, rather than the hobby of trying to match current events with Bible prophecy. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:35&nbsp;<em>Therefore stay awake. For you do not know when the lord of the house comes, whether in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning</em>- The motivation for watching, being away at the Lord's coming, is because we have a duty to the rest of the household. Pursuit of personal salvation is not of itself a very strong motivator. And we must be ever alert because we do not know when He shall return; for Bible prophecy is to be understood after the event, or whilst the event occurs, and is not intended to provide a timeline of future events.</p><p>The Lord says that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the watchers of the door of the house of the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:480 13:34-35'>Mar 13:34-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:39-40'>Luk 12:39-40</a></em>), as the prophets were the watchmen over the city of Zion, God's Old Testament ecclesia. We&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;therefore have a responsibility to guide and warn the ecclesia, not just to scrape out of condemnation for ourselves, but from a genuine, earnest desire to help others to the Kingdom road.<br/>We must speak the word as others are able to hear it, expressing the truths of Christ in language and terms which will reach them. There are some differences within the Gospels in the records of the parables. It could be that the different writers, under inspiration, were rendering the Lord’s Aramaic words into Greek in different styles of translation. Also, we must bear in mind the different audiences. Mark speaks of the four watches of the night which would have been familiar to Romans (<em><a href='B:480 13:35'>Mar 13:35</a></em> cp. 6:48), whereas <em><a href='B:490 12:38'>Luk 12:38</a></em> speaks of the Jewish division of the night into three watches (cp. <em><a href='B:70 7:19'>Jdg 7:19</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 6:47'>Luk 6:47</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:36&nbsp;<em>In case he comes suddenly finding you asleep-</em>&nbsp;The suddenness of the Lord's coming will only be felt by those who are asleep and as it were disturbed from their sleep. For those who are alert, His coming will not have this 'sudden' and 'unexpected' aspect to it. The connection is clearly with the parable of the virgins; and yet despite this exhortation to stay awake, they are slumbered. The "wise" were only saved by their awareness that they were likely to run out of oil, their spirituality was not so solid, and they recognized that.</p>


text:
<p>13:37&nbsp;<em>What I say to you I say to all: Stay awake</em>- <em><a href='B:470 24:43-45'>Mat 24:43-45</a></em> define watching for Christ's return as tending to the needs of our brethren; this is what will lead our hearts towards preparedness for the second coming, this is the result of our awareness of the imminence of the Lord's return.</p><p>“Watching" is not only a guarding of one's own spirituality; the idea of guarding a house and the people and goods inside it suggests that our watching is of our brethren and sisters too. Elders "watch for your souls" (<em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>) in this sense. Christ's parable about the gate-keeper might at first suggest that the duty of watching is only with the elders; it is for&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;to watch and feed the flock, in the same way as it was the duty of the house manager to guard the house and feed the other servants (<em><a href='B:470 24:43-51'>Mat 24:43-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:33-37'>Mar 13:33-37</a></em>). But that parable is intended for&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;of us; "Watch&nbsp;<em>ye</em>&nbsp;therefore (as intensely as that manager)::. and what I say unto you, I say unto&nbsp;<em>all</em>, Watch" (<em><a href='B:480 13:37'>Mar 13:37</a></em>). In other words, we are all elders, the command to watch for each other extends to each of us. And yet how really concerned are most of us about each other’s salvation?</p>


text:
<p>14:1&nbsp;<em>Now it was two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread; and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might arrest him using trickery and kill him</em>- This could imply that they tried to arrest Him before the feast, but decided to delay their plans until after the feast (:2). But the Lord was master of the situation. His life was not taken from Him but He gave it, and psychologically arranged the situation so that He would die as the Passover lambs were slain. He therefore arranged the situation in Bethany to provoke Judas to go and offer to betray Him to the Jews, knowing they would immediately jump at this opportunity.</p><p>The same word for "arrest" is used four times in Mt. about the ‘taking hold’ of the Lord Jesus in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>). This ‘laying on of hands’ against the Lord is likewise strongly noted by Mark (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 14:44'>Mar 14:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:46'>Mar 14:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:51'>Mar 14:51</a></em>). The sight of it was burnt into their memories. There are likewise parts and aspects of the Lord’s sufferings, and words associated with them, which are likewise burnt in the consciousness of all those who truly love Him.</p><p>"Trickery" is as AV "<em>By subtilty"</em>- an allusion to the Lord’s Jewish opposition as the seed of the serpent at whose hands the seed of the woman was wounded (<em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>). But the word literally refers to a bait, implying some plan to deceive Him into a position in which they could arrest Him. But what were these plans? The Lord fell for no bait. Perhaps the idea was that Judas would come and kiss Him, and lead Him into some isolated ambush or compromising situation. When the Lord made it clear to Judas that He knew what Judas was up to, the plan fell apart and the soldiers simply grabbed the Lord. And they ended killing Him “on the feast day”, which was exactly what they had planned to avoid (:2).</p><p>The plan made ahead of time to kill Him was clearly typified by the brothers’ plans to kill Joseph.</p>


text:
<p>14:2&nbsp;<em>For they said: Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people</em>- Yet they did arrest the Lord during the feast; another indication that He manipulated the situation so that He gave His life as the Passover lamb. So they did crucify the Lord during the feast, at the same time as the Passover lambs were being killed. Their plan went wrong- see on :1. Try as they might to not kill Him then, the Lord wanted to die as the Passover lamb, and this happened despite the Jews&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;wanting that. The Lord had control over the time of His death, because He gave His life rather than having it taken from Him.</p><p>Their fear of an "uproar" indicates the popularity the Lord enjoyed even at that stage, and the fact He was crucified with the general goodwill of the masses is therefore an essay in the fickleness of human nature. And yet the careful plans of the leaders didn't work out- there was "a tumult" about it, the same Greek word translated "uproar" (<em><a href='B:470 27:24'>Mat 27:24</a></em>), and likewise they did end up killing Jesus "on the feast day" when it was not their intention to.</p>


text:
<p>14:3&nbsp;<em>For Herod had arrested John and bound him-</em>&nbsp;'Laid hands on'. The Greek means just that, but it is possibly mistranslated in <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em>: "Whosoever sins you retain 'lay hands on', they are retained". The idea is that we can in some cases obtain forgiveness for others' sins; but we must beware lest we lay hands on their sin and commit it ourselves. This is exactly the teaching of Jude- to reclaim others who are in sin, whilst being careful not to become contaminated by their sins rubbing off on us. Herod and his servants (<em><a href='B:470 14:2'>Mat 14:2</a></em>) had laid hold on John, bound him, and cast him into prison. These are all terms used elsewhere about how the Lord Jesus will do exactly the same in condemning people at the last day. His servants (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>) shall lay hold of them (<em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>), bind them (<em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>) and cast them into prison (condemnation- <em><a href='B:470 18:30'>Mat 18:30</a></em>). And these terms are also used about what happened to the Lord Jesus in His death: laid hold on by servants at a king's command (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:48'>Mat 26:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>) bound (<em><a href='B:500 18:12'>Joh 18:12</a></em>), to prison (<em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>). Herod is therefore being set up here as an anti-Christ, a fake Christ. And the Lord's death is again described in similar terms to that of John, whose ministry He continued. The way disciples came seeking the body is another point of connection. As events unfolded with the Lord's arrest and binding, He would've surely perceived the connection with John. And would've likewise seen how He was as it were going through the process of condemnation, being treated as a sinner, although He was not one. This means that He has even more so the right to condemn men, because in essence He knows the condemnation process. And it gives Him the ability to identify with those who in this life are currently under condemnation for their sins, and seek to lead them out of that position.</p><p>14:3&nbsp;<em>And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table-&nbsp;</em>The anointing recorded in Mark 14 is clearly the same as that in Matthew 26. But the anointing in Luke 7 appears to have occurred in the house of a Pharisee called Simon somewhere in Galilee. The anointing recorded in John 12 is very similar, but occurred six days before the Passover and one day&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;the triumphal entry (<em><a href='B:500 12:12'>Joh 12:12</a></em>), whereas the anointing recorded in Matthew and Mark occurred&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;that. There are other differences, too. In <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em> Mary uses "a pound of spikenard" whereas the anointing in Matthew seems to emphasize the use of spikenard as a liquid, in an alabaster flask that had to be broken to release the liquid. The spikenard was worth&nbsp;<em>more</em>&nbsp;than 300 pence (<em><a href='B:480 14:5'>Mar 14:5</a></em>), whereas that of <em><a href='B:500 12:5'>Joh 12:5</a></em> was worth 300 pence; it was used to anoint the Lord's&nbsp;<em>feet</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>), whereas that of <em><a href='B:470 26:7'>Mat 26:7</a></em> was used to anoint His&nbsp;<em>head</em>. In <em><a href='B:500 12:4'>Joh 12:4</a></em> it is Judas who complains at the apparent waste of the money, whereas in <em><a href='B:470 26:8'>Mat 26:8</a></em> it is the disciples. <em><a href='B:470 26:11-12'>Mat 26:11-12</a></em> record the Lord's word about "You will always have the poor with you" and goes on to record His explanation that the woman had done this for His burial; whereas in <em><a href='B:500 12:7-8'>Joh 12:7-8</a></em> these two sayings are the other way around. The wiping of His feet with her hair is stressed in <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>, but Matthew and Mark are silent about this. John 12 clearly identifies the woman as Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus; whereas Matthew and Mark are careful to preserve her as a nameless "woman" who "came unto Him" (<em><a href='B:470 26:7'>Mat 26:7</a></em>). I therefore have no doubt that John 12 and Matthew 26 / Mark 14 speak of two separate anointings, both in Bethany, separated from each other by four days. The anointing in Luke 7 is clearly framed as a similar incident, also in the house of a man called Simon:&nbsp;</p><p>The question, of course, is why these three anointings are described in such similar language. Higher critics immediately speak of textual dislocation and mistakes made by the writers in their chronology of events. These kinds of approaches arise from a focus upon the text before our eyes, rather than having a wider perspective on Scripture earned by years of careful Bible reading of the entire Bible text. Those who read the entire Scriptures over a period of time cannot fail to be impressed by the repetition of situations and events. The way Joseph is called out of prison to interpret a King's dream and is then exalted to rulership in a pagan land is clearly the basis for the language used about Daniel's experience in Babylon. This is not to say that text got dislocated, that Daniel was Joseph or vice versa. Rather do we perceive a single Divine mind behind the production of the Bible as we have it; and God's intention was clearly to show that circumstances repeat within and between the lives of His people. And the language He uses in recording history seeks to bring out those repetitions. This is why the lament of Jeremiah in depression is so similar to that of Job in his depression. And of course we are free to assume that Biblical characters were aware of and took inspiration from those who had gone before them. I suggest that this is what we have going on in the records of these three anointings of the Lord by despised and misunderstood women. They were inspired by each other- for the Lord comments that what the women did was to be told worldwide. This was a command, and it was surely obeyed. Mary of Bethany was inspired by the woman of Luke 7, and the anonymous woman of Matthew 26 was inspired by Mary's anointing of four days previously. Mary had given spikenard worth 300 pence; this woman used even more expensive ointment. And in this is our lesson- to be inspired by the devotion of others to their Lord. Heaven's record of our response is as it were recorded in similar language, in recognition of the inspiration provided by earlier acts of faithfulness by those we know or who have gone before us.</p><p><em>There came a woman with an alabaster vial of ointment of pure nard- very expensive. She broke the vial and poured it over his head</em>- Mary’s lavish anointing of the Lord may well have been what inspired Nicodemus to so lavishly prepare the Lord’s body for burial. The vast quantities of spices he used was more than that used in the burials of some of the Caesars. He too must have bankrupted himself to anoint the Lord’s body. That two people did this within a week of each other is too close a similarity to be co-incidental. Surely Mary inspired him. &nbsp;</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>bar-utimos</em>&nbsp;uses a term,&nbsp;<em>utimos</em>, elsewhere used about the precious, costly blood of Christ. Matthew uses it about the "price" of the Lord's blood (<em><a href='B:470 27:6'>Mat 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:9'>Mat 27:9</a></em>), as does Paul (<em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>) and Peter (<em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em>). The point is simple. The Lord's blood shed for us was and is the most valuable thing in existence, in the entire cosmos; and we should feel that when we take the cup which symbolizes it. And our response is to give our most valuable things, materially and otherwise, for Him.</p><p>The woman anointed the Lord’s head in order to reflect her belief that He really was the Christ, the anointed one. She gave her life savings for this belief. It can be apparently painless to believe that Jesus is Christ, and yet the implications of accepting this simple fact can transform a life. What she did was surely rooted in her understanding of <em><a href='B:260 1:12'>Son 1:12</a></em>, where Solomon’s lover has spikenard (s:w. LXX <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>) which sends forth its smell “While the king sitteth at his table”. Clearly enough she saw Jesus right there and then as the King- even though His Kingdom was not of that world. Her love for Him, her reflection upon the Old Testament, and her perception of Him as her future Lord and King to the extent that she even then treated Him as such, so certain was her faith in His future victory and worthiness… this all motivated her to give the quintessence of her life’s work for Him. And it should for us too.</p><p>Mary's devotion to the Lord, based on the understanding she had, is truly inspirational. The original word translated "nard" is a foreign non Greek word, and appears to have originated far away from Palestine. The suggestion has been made that this bottle of nard belonged to some foreign royalty. The price of "more than three hundred pence" must be understood in terms of a penny-a-day employment rate for labourers (<em><a href='B:470 20:2'>Mat 20:2</a></em>). This bottle would typically only be used at the burial of a king. Yet Mary dearly loved her brother Lazarus, and had only recently buried him. But she hadn't used the nard for&nbsp;<em>him</em>; hence perhaps the information is added that his body would be stinking after four days- implying such expensive nard had not been used in embalming&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;body (<em><a href='B:500 11:39'>Joh 11:39</a></em> - the fact it's Martha who observes this may suggest she resented Mary for not using her nard for Lazarus, just as she resented how Mary didn't help her in the kitchen but instead sat at the Lord's feet). And the Lord Jesus perceived all this; for He commented to the disciples that Mary had "kept the nard for&nbsp;<em>my</em>&nbsp;burial" (<em><a href='B:500 12:7'>Joh 12:7</a></em>). The Lord's reference to her 'keeping' the nard can be powerfully understood in the context of Mary not using it for her brother's burial, but rather deciding to keep it for His burial. This not only shows the clarity of Mary's understanding of the Lord's upcoming death. It also reflects how she would give her most treasured possession in an apparently senseless act of devotion to Him. She anointed Him because she understood Him to be Christ, the anointed one. But this is what we expect of a woman who won the accolade from the Lord that she sought after the "one thing" that really matters- which is Him and His word (<em><a href='B:490 10:42'>Luk 10:42</a></em>). Our eyes have been opened to that same "one thing", and we too claim to have accepted Jesus of Nazareth as Christ; and so to place devotion to Christ above family, above retention of personal wealth and value::. is the intended issue of all this for us too.</p>


text:
<p>14:4&nbsp;<em>But there were some that had indignation among themselves, saying-&nbsp;</em>The indignation was among or "within" themselves, and so the words they are here recorded as saying were likely within themselves. We wonder how many other times when we read of people 'saying' something, the 'saying' was within their own minds. For self-talk is understood by the Lord as our actual words. Whether or not we hold our tongues back is not the ultimate issue. The words have been said within us. See on 26:10&nbsp;<em>When Jesus understood</em>. If the reconstruction of events I offered in commentary on :8, we can better understand their frustration. They would have seen an identical 'waste' of wealth in the anointing of four days previously in the same village, perhaps in the same home; and they had seen it in Galilee at the incident recorded in Luke 7. And they were doing their math and calculating the total cost 'wasted'.</p><h4><em>For what purpose-&nbsp;</em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>eis tis</em>&nbsp;could equally mean 'For whom?', the implication being that the poor could have been benefitted far more than the Lord Jesus. Hence the Lord replies that the purpose of the anointing was to embalm Him ahead of time for burial. Just as the woman was inspired by the generous anointing of Mary four days previously and the Galilean prostitute of Luke 7, so the huge amount of spices purchased by Nicodemus in <em><a href='B:500 19:39'>Joh 19:39</a></em> was likely motivated in turn by her example. Critics claim that the amount of spices ("one hundred pound weight") bought was more than used in the burial of the Caesars. The woman here used a pound of spikenard, worth more than the 300 pence at which Mary's anointing liquid was valued. And in turn, Nicodemus was motivated yet more- 100 times more. She gave one pound, he gave 100 pounds' weight. This is the reason for the deja vu of our lives, of how experiences repeat between human lives- it's so that we may be inspired to greater&nbsp;service than even those who went before.</h4><p><em>Has this waste of the ointment been made?</em>- "Waste" is the same Greek word used nearly 20 times in the NT for destruction and condemnation; it is the same word used in describing Judas as "the son of&nbsp;<em>perdition</em>". The tragedy of condemnation is the waste of what could have been. This is the sadness with which God sees condemnation. We note that four days before, it had been Judas who complained about the 'waste'. His attitude had spread to the disciples. But the paradox was that he was thereby the son of waste, he was condemning himself by complaining about the waste of devotion towards the Lord Jesus. The idea could even be that they were so angry that they thought that the woman was condemning herself by what she had done, because she could have given the money to the poor. This is seen so often in religious experience- those who stand on the sidelines become so bitter at how others actively express their devotions to their Lord that they go so far as to condemn them. We think of how Michal despised David for dancing before the Lord, and was punished with barrenness; and of the Lord’s observation: “Is your eye evil, because I am good / generous?” (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>). The world's wealthiest individuals are often very generous to charitable causes- and yet they do so to a chorus of criticism from those who have given little or nothing to such causes.</p>


text:
<p>14:5<em>&nbsp;For this ointment might have been sold for above three hundred denarii and given to the poor. And they scolded her</em>- The very words used by the Lord to the rich ruler, telling him to sell what he had and give to the poor (<em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>). Their idea in saying this may have been to accuse the woman of disobedience to the Lord’s teachings. We see here how deep are the feelings aroused by spiritual jealousy. This woman had made a stellar commitment to her Lord; and quite unspoken, her devotion challenged the other disciples. And so by all means they had to condemn her, and were happy to misquote the Lord’s words to achieve that. This is one simple reason why those most active and sacrificial in church life are often the most viciously attacked by their fellow disciples.</p>


text:
<p>14:6&nbsp;<em>But Jesus said: Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work</em>- The Greek has the idea of beauty. The same Greek phrase rendered “a good work” is found in <em><a href='B:610 5:10'>1Ti 5:10</a></em> as something required of a mature spiritual woman, and for which she must be “reported”- clearly alluding to how this woman’s “good work” was to be told / reported worldwide. She thus became a model for other sisters to follow, in the same way as she herself had copied the examples of Mary four days previously, and the sinful woman of Luke 7. This is the intended power and purpose of good works- they serve as inspiration for others to likewise glorify the Lord. The Greek expression ‘to work a good work’ is used elsewhere regarding the Lord’s working of miracles (<em><a href='B:500 6:28'>Joh 6:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:33'>Joh 10:33</a></em>). Her response was no less significant than the working of a miracle.</p><p><em>Upon me</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>eis eme</em>&nbsp;could as well mean ‘in Me’, as if the woman’s work gave the Lord huge encouragement within Himself.</p>


text:
<p>14:7&nbsp;<em>For you have the poor always with you, and whenever you want you can do them good-&nbsp;</em>Christ's love for us, His Father's spiritual house, was typified by His being likened to&nbsp;the poor slave under the Law who perpetually dedicated himself to serve his master's house. An extension of this idea is revealed by a connection between the Lord saying "Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always" (<em><a href='B:470 26:11'>Mat 26:11</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:50 15:11'>Deu 15:11</a></em> "For the poor shall never cease out of the land”. Thus Jesus is associating himself with the "poor man::. of thy brethren" of <em><a href='B:50 15:7'>Deu 15:7</a></em>. Note how Jesus calls himself a "poor man", especially on the cross: <em><a href='B:230 34:6'>Psa 34:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 35:10'>Psa 35:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 37:14'>Psa 37:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 40:17'>Psa 40:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:29'>Psa 69:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:33'>Psa 69:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 70:5'>Psa 70:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 86:1'>Psa 86:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 109:22'>Psa 109:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 113:7'>Psa 113:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em> - an impressive list. Christ exercised the rights of the poor to glean in the cornfield on the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:490 6:1'>Luk 6:1</a></em>); <em><a href='B:50 15:7'>Deu 15:7</a></em> warned the Israelites not to be hard hearted and refuse help to such a poor brother. Christ is alluding to this passage by saying that the disciples should not be hard hearted by stopping Mary give her rich ointment to Him, the poor. The following <em><a href='B:50 15:12-17'>Deu 15:12-17</a></em> is also concerning Jesus. Thus Jesus was spiritually poor and hungry, and was so grateful for Mary's encouragement.</p><p>Note that the Law also taught that if Israel were obedient, then there would be no poverty. And yet the same Law tacitly recognized the reality of human weakness in noting that “the poor shall never cease out of the land” (<em><a href='B:50 15:11'>Deu 15:11</a></em>). God’s law therefore also reflects His grace and understanding of human failure to be fully obedient.</p><p><em>But me you do not have always</em>- We would likely have been tempted to expose the root of the immediate problem- Judas was a thief, and wanted the cash because he would keep some of it and only distribute part to the poor. But the Lord as ever, was wiser than to confront issues in such a primitive way. He brushes past the complaint that this woman had ignored His principle of selling what we have and giving to the poor, and doesn’t expose the core reason for Judas’ trouble stirring about the issue. Rather He focuses upon what the woman&nbsp;<em>had&nbsp;</em>achieved, and bids the disciples look closer at His death and how they should be responding to it:&nbsp;<em>"</em>Always<em>"&nbsp;</em>is literally, ‘at all times’. There would always be opportunity, times of opportunity, to do good to the poor.</p><p>We find an example of Paul holding up Mary Magdalene as our example in <em><a href='B:540 8:12'>2Co 8:12</a></em>, where he speaks of how the Lord although He was rich became poor for our sakes, and we ought to be inspired by this to generosity towards our poorer brethren. The connection with Mary Magdalene goes back to <em><a href='B:480 14:7'>Mar 14:7</a></em>, where Jesus said that Mary&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;in fact given her wealth to the poor, by anointing Him, the poor one, the one who made Himself poor for our sakes.</p>


text:
<p>14:8&nbsp;<em>She has done what she could. She has anointed my body beforehand for the burying</em>- This could be read as the Lord saying that what she did inspired Him to go forward in the path to death which He was treading. The Greek means specifically embalming. It was as if the woman perceived that the Lord was effectively the slain lamb of God even whilst He was alive. It is used only once more in the New Testament, describing the embalming of the Lord's body (<em><a href='B:500 19:40'>Joh 19:40</a></em>).</p><p>Whether the woman of <em><a href='B:480 14:8'>Mar 14:8</a></em> really understood that she was anointing His body for burial is open to question. But the Lord's positivism graciously imputed this motive to her. See on <em><a href='B:480 16:3'>Mar 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:11-12'>2Co 8:11-12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>14:9- see on <em><a href='B:510 10:4'>Act 10:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>And truly I say to you: Wherever in the whole world the gospel shall be preached, what this woman has done shall be spoken of as a memorial to her</em>- Her generosity was set up as a cameo of the response to the Lord which all who believe the Gospel should make. The Gospel is not just a set of doctrines to be painlessly apprehended. It is a call to action after the pattern of this woman. The good news was to be of the Lord’s death and burial, and yet integral to that message was to be the pattern of response which was seen in her- to give our all, our most treasured and hoarded things, for His sake.</p><p>There is evident connection with the Lord's prophecy of how the Gospel would be preached in all the world (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>). He seems to have seen the 'Gospel' that would be preached as a re-telling of His life and incidents in it, such as the woman's anointing of Him. It is significant that her anointing is mentioned in all four Gospel records. In <em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em> we read that wherever the gospel was to be preached, what she had done would be narrated in memory of her. So ‘preaching the Gospel’ is defined there as a narration of the events and sayings of the Lord Jesus in His ministry. The Gospel records are transcripts of the Gospel preached by e:g. Matthew. The Gospel is therefore in the Gospels. The rest is interpretation and theology, necessary and helpful, but there is no avoiding the fact that the Gospel itself is in the records of the Gospel which we have in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.</p><p>The Lord foresaw that transcripts of His work and words would indeed be made, and He envisaged how the supreme devotion of this anonymous woman would be part of that message. The language is very similar to that of <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>: "This Gospel::. shall be preached&nbsp;<em>kerusso&nbsp;</em>again in all the world::. and then shall the end come". Matthew may have had in view how his version of the Gospel needed to be spread into all the world.</p><p>This could mean that when the Gospel message is proclaimed in all the world at Messiah’s return, then what Mary had done would be told before God that He may mercifully remember her for good at the judgment. This may sound a forced interpretation to Western ears and eyes, but we must remember that the idea of ‘for a memorial’ denoted being spoken of for good before someone, in this case, the judge of all. What follows from this is that there will be a direct link between our deeds today, and the judgment process of tomorrow or later today. What we have done will be told before God, and He will remember us for good. On one hand, works are irrelevant. We are saved by grace. On the other hand, there will be a certain ‘going through’ of our deeds before Him. Quite simply, there is a direct link between our behaviour and our future judgment. Nothing will in that sense be forgotten. &nbsp;</p><p>The early preachers would have gone around telling the good news about Jesus Christ, and in so doing would have recited time and again His teaching and life story. Mark records how the Lord commanded the Gospel to be preached world-wide (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>); but he surely intends this to be linked with his record of how the generosity of the sinful woman would be told "wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world" (<em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em>). 'The Gospel' was therefore not just the basic doctrines of the Gospel; it was the whole record of the life and works of Christ. This is why each of the Gospels is somehow personalized to the writer. And the comment that wherever the Gospel was preached, her example would be preached (<em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em>) is tantamount to saying that her action was to be the pattern for all who would afterward believe the Gospel. Note in passing that the Gospel was not intended by the Lord to be a mere set of doctrinal propositions; it was to be a message which included practical patterns of response to it, of which Mary’s was to be always mentioned.</p><p>The language of 'memorial' is typically used in contemporary literature about memorials to the gallant deeds of&nbsp;<em>men</em>. But the Lord was challenging such thinking by saying that the Gospel would include a memorial of an anonymous&nbsp;<em>woman</em>. And her humanly senseless pouring out of her wealth in a ten minute act of devotion to Him was none less than the bravest or noblest act of any man.</p>


text:
<p>14:10&nbsp;<em>And Judas Iscariot, he that was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, that he might betray him to them</em>- In all the Gospel records, the decision of Judas to betray the Lord follows on from the anointing incidents. I suggested on :1 that the Lord set up the whole scene, knowing that the apparent waste of so much money would deeply irk Judas and trigger the betrayal. People who are obsessed with money as he was often find such things unbearable to be part of. Judas is repeatedly called "Simon's son" at this time. And the anointing took place in Simon's house. It could well be that Judas was a member of the family, possibly even a brother of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. To see the family wealth 'wasted' in this way was unbearable for him. The reasons for his betrayal were surely multi-factorial, but attitudes to money played a large part. "What will you give me, and I will betray Him:::?" clearly suggests a financial motive; and the records seem to give the impression that the apparent waste of money, especially if it was money he thought might be coming to him in the inheritance, was the final straw for him. After that, he went to the Jews and opened discussions about betraying the Lord. The way he threw the thirty pieces of silver down on the ground reflects his final realization of how foolish he had been. And yet the lesson is so often never learnt; men and women effectively betray their Lord for money; accumulation of wealth, development of career, take precedence over devotion to Him, and finally lead to betrayal.</p>


text:
<p>14:11&nbsp;<em>And they, when they heard it, were glad; and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him</em>- Matthew says they gave him 30 pieces of silver immediately, but this would have been a down payment for a future promise of money.</p>


text:
<p>14:12&nbsp;<em>And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, his disciples said to him: Where will you have us prepare for you the Passover to eat?</em>- <em><a href='B:490 22:8'>Luk 22:8</a></em> adds the detail that actually this was said in response to Peter and John being told to go and prepare the Passover. <em><a href='B:480 14:15'>Mar 14:15</a></em> brings out the paradox that the Lord directed them to an upper room that was already "prepared" (s:w:), and there they prepared the Passover. The Lord had taught that the festal meal was already prepared for His people (<em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em> s:w:). The Lord was surely using the language of Passover preparation in saying that He was going to the cross to prepare a place for us (<em><a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a></em>)- and He said that at the very time Passover was being prepared. His request that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;prepare Passover was therefore asking for a mutuality in response from them.</p><p>We feel we must&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something before we can expect anything from God. And yet in condescension to this, the Father sometimes almost goes along with us in this. Reflect how the disciples, with all the petty pride of the practical man wishing to do something practical for the leader he adores, earnestly asked the Lord where to prepare for Him the Passover. He told them to find a certain man, and ask him where the Master would eat Passover&nbsp;<em>with His disciples</em>. He would show them an upper room furnished and already prepared. '<em>There'</em>, the Lord added with His gentle irony, 'prepare for&nbsp;<em>us</em>, not just me but you as well, to eat. Even though I've already arranged it all, and I'm inviting&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;to eat with&nbsp;<em>me</em>, well, I understand you must feel you do your little human bit, so there&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;prepare; although I've already prepared it all'. 'What love through all his actions ran'. This was grace and understanding and accommodation of men&nbsp;<em>par excellence</em>.</p>


text:
<p>14:13&nbsp;<em>And he sent two of his disciples and said to them: Go into the city and there you shall meet a man bearing a pitcher of water. Follow him</em>- This water was carried upstairs into the upper room, and became, as it were, the wine of the new covenant. Carrying water was woman's work, and the Lord surely arranged this special sign in order to show how at His table, there was gender equality. He was so far ahead of His time. The vague "such a man" is perhaps to conceal the identity of the householder, given that the Gospels were distributed at a time of persecution. Or perhaps it was in order to avoid the identifying of the house and turning it into some kind of shrine, or special honour being given to the householder.</p>


text:
<p>14:14&nbsp;<em>And wherever he enters, say to the master of the house: The teacher asks, where is the guest room in which I can eat the Passover with my disciples?</em>- The "guest room" is the same concept as in <em><a href='B:500 14:2'>Joh 14:2</a></em>, where there in that very guest room which they had "prepared", the Lord says that He is now going to the cross to prepare&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;a room, an eternal place in the Father's house. He wished them to perceive a mutuality between them and Himself; what they had done, He was now going to do on a far greater scale. And to this day, we sense this mutuality between us and our Lord.</p>


text:
<p>14:15&nbsp;<em>And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare it for us</em>- The room was "ready" and yet there they were to "prepare"; "prepare" translates the same Greek word as "ready". All was prepared; the Lord was the Passover lamb and had prepared Himself for an untimely death, just as they were to keep Passover in advance of the 14th Nissan. They were to show willingness to do their part, but they could not fully do it. It has been done for them already. And we get this impression in all our attempts at labour for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>14:16&nbsp;<em>And the disciples went into the city and found as he had said to them. And they made ready the Passover</em>- As noted on :15, it was already "made ready", so they just did the cosmetic arrangements. We likewise can add nothing really to the Lord's sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>14:17&nbsp;<em>And when it was evening he came with the twelve</em>- There is no actual mention of the slaying of the paschal lamb, which should have been done that evening. It had already been strangely provided for them.</p>


text:
<p>14:18&nbsp;<em>And as they sat and were eating, Jesus said: Truly I say to you, one of you shall betray me- even he that eats with me</em>- The Lord had repeatedly predicted that He would be 'betrayed' or 'handed over'. But He had not defined who would do it, indeed the form in which He had spoken of being 'handed over' was vague and didn't necessarily require that one individual would do it. We must remember that&nbsp;<em>paradidomi</em>&nbsp;means literally 'to hand over' and doesn't carry the sense of personal betrayal which the English word 'betray' is loaded with. They were there shocked when He stated that "one of&nbsp;<em>you</em>" would do this.</p>


text:
<p>14:19&nbsp;<em>They began-&nbsp;</em>The idea is that they all burst out with the same question at the same time. And yet <em><a href='B:480 14:19'>Mar 14:19</a></em> records that they asked this "One by one". The scene is imaginable- after initially all bursting out with the same question, they try to ask Him the same question personally in order to get an answer. Which is why Judas asks the question somewhat later. Again it is commendable that their very first reaction was to wonder whether they personally could be the betrayer- rather than 'Lord, is it&nbsp;<em>him</em>?'. But after realizing that it was not them personally, naturally they began to look at one another, wondering whom He was speaking of (<em><a href='B:500 13:22'>Joh 13:22</a></em>). Although "doubting of whom He spoke" (<em><a href='B:500 13:22'>Joh 13:22</a></em>) really means they were at a loss to know. Clearly they had absolutely no suspicion that it was Judas. And when Judas is told "What you are doing, do quickly" and Judas exits (<em><a href='B:500 13:27-29'>Joh 13:27-29</a></em>), they still assume that he must have been sent out to minister to the poor suggesting there were beggars around the feast, again hinting that the last supper was not held behind closed doors. This again speaks to us who replicate the last supper week by week. Some will indeed betray their Lord, but we have absolutely no idea who they are:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><h4><em>To be sorrowful-&nbsp;</em>It is commendable that their dominant emotion was of sorrow rather than anger. We perhaps would have expected anger more than sorrow. But their sorrow is a reflection of the degree of their love for the Lord, and their sorrow for the person who would face the awful consequences of doing so.</h4><p><em>And to say to him one by one: Is it I?</em>- Some texts read: "And another said, Is it I?”. It is easy to assume that this “another” was Judas. But it has been suggested that in spoken Aramaic, “and another said::." would be a device for saying ‘And I, I said:::’. If Mark’s Gospel is a verbatim account of Peter’s preaching of the Gospel, this would be so appropriate. Peter would be saying: ‘All the disciples couldn’t imagine it was them who would betray Jesus; and I, yes I also asked if it was me who would betray Him. I was so sure I wouldn’t’. The record in Mark 14 then goes on to describe how Peter&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;effectively betray / deny the Lord.</p><p>The negative implies the answer 'No, you are not the one'. It was more than a question- it was a declaration of innocence. This is the basis for self-examination at the Lord's table; we should be able to do it and conclude that we are not the Lord’s betrayer. Some who sit at that table will betray Him, and we are to realize the very real possibility of our own ultimate failure, the eternity of the future we may miss. Perhaps "every one of them" excludes Judas, because he apparently asked the question later, and replaces 'Lord' with "Master"Gk. 'rabbi' when he asks: "Master 'rabbi', is it I?" (<em><a href='B:470 26:25'>Mat 26:25</a></em>). His usage of 'rabbi' to address the Lord may reflect how influenced he was by Judaism, and how he failed to appreciate the utter Lordship of Jesus. Judas maybe persuaded himself that this Jesus was just another itinerant rabbi, who Judaism would be better off without. Note that "Is it I?" is&nbsp;<em>eimi ego</em>, literally 'Am I?'. This is one of many examples of where&nbsp;<em>ego eimi</em>&nbsp;means simply 'I am', and contrary to Trinitarian claims the words do not mean that the speaker of them is claiming to be God.</p>


text:
<p>14:20<em>&nbsp;And he said to them: It is one of the twelve. He that dipped in the dish at the same time with me</em>-The past tense is important, for if the Lord was predicting a future event, then all the disciples would be looking carefully at the dish. "Dipped",&nbsp;<em>em-bapto</em>, carries the suggestion that there was liquid or water within the dish. Lamb is greasy, and there would have been dishes of water on the table in which the diners dipped their hands. The Lord had done that at the same time as Judas, and must have pressed His fingers against those of Judas. But none of the others had noticed. <em><a href='B:500 13:26'>Joh 13:26</a></em> says that "It is he to whom I gave the morsel of bread after I dipped it"- perhaps meaning that the Lord had put a crumb of bread into Judas' fingers whilst their hands touched in the bowl. Any other reading of the incident faces the obvious difficulty that if indeed the Lord publicly pointed Judas out as the betrayer, there would have been no confusion as to why he went out into the darkness. And we would expect to read of an outcry amongst the 11 against Judas; but the record instead stresses that they totally didn't suspect Judas until he was out of the room. <em><a href='B:480 14:20'>Mar 14:20</a></em> adds that the Lord said that the man was "One of the twelve" who had dipped his hand with the Lord in the dish. This suggests there were others apart from the twelve eating at the table and dipping their hands in the dish. It was not therefore a closed communion. There would have been no need for such a "large" room (<em><a href='B:490 22:12'>Luk 22:12</a></em>) if only the twelve were present.</p><p>He lamented that His betrayer was one who had dipped in the dish with Him at the last supper. There was no way that this was meant to be an indication to the disciples that Judas was the betrayer- for they all ate the supper and dipped in the same dish. Hence His point was surely to foreground the awful fact that&nbsp;<em>it was a brother who had broken bread with Him</em>&nbsp;who would now betray Him. <em><a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a></em> laments that it was one who "ate of my bread" who betrayed Him. This is why the challenge "Lord, is it I?" echoes down to every communion service.</p>


text:
<p>14:21&nbsp;<em>For the Son of Man goes-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's 'going' was His going to the cross. The Lord used the same word in <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em> in describing Himself as the man who 'goes'&nbsp;<em>with joy&nbsp;</em>and sells all that He has in order to buy / redeem s:w. the field (representing the world) in order to gain for Himself the treasure (the redeemed). His 'going' to the cross was therefore done with some form of "joy". Even when the only visible representative of the treasure were that band of mixed up men and a few doubtful women. He uses the word again in telling Peter to 'go' behind Him and carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>). Yet the Lord looked beyond the cross; He saw Himself as 'going' to the Father (<em><a href='B:500 7:33'>Joh 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:14'>Joh 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:21-22'>Joh 8:21-22</a></em> s:w:), in the same way as we do not only 'go' to our death, but ultimately even death itself is part of an onward journey ultimately towards God and His Kingdom. The Lord's attitude to His death was that He&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;that He was now 'going to the Father' (<em><a href='B:500 13:3'>Joh 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:28'>Joh 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:5'>Joh 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:10'>Joh 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:16-17'>Joh 16:16-17</a></em> s:w:). This unique perspective upon death and suffering is only logical for those who have a clear conception of future resurrection and personal fellowship with the Father in His future Kingdom.</p><p><em>Even as it is written of him-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em> is specific: "But the scripture must be fulfilled: He that eats my bread lifted up his heel against me". The reference to the heel naturally suggests the Gospel promise of <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. But it seems the wrong way around- it is the seed of the woman who lifts up a bruised heel with which to crush the seed of the serpent. There is no lack of evidence that on the cross, the Lord identified totally with sinners, to the point that He felt forsaken just as sinners are forsaken. Or perhaps Judas justified his actions by deciding that Jesus was a false Messiah, the seed of the serpent, and the righteous thing to do was to crush the serpent with his heel:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>But woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed-&nbsp;</em>The Lord typically pronounced 'Woe' upon the Jewish world and their religious leaders. He classes Judas along with them, because his actions had been inspired by them. The devil, in this context referring to the Jewish opposition to Jesus, had put the idea of betrayal into the heart of Judas (<em><a href='B:500 13:2'>Joh 13:2</a></em>). "Woe" translates&nbsp;<em>ouai</em>, an intensified form of&nbsp;<em>ou</em>, "no". Perhaps in His word choice the Lord was still desperately saying to Judas 'No No Don't do it'. He knew that He had to be betrayed, but His appeals for Judas to repent were therefore rooted in an understanding that the Bible prophecies would come true in some other way than through Judas. For otherwise, Judas would have had no real possibility of repentance, and no real choice but than to do what he did.</p><p><em>It would be better for that man if he had not been born</em>- "Better" shows how the Lord is sympathetically looking at things from the perspective of Judas. For in John 14 He reasons that His departure is good for all concerned. The Lord foresaw Judas' agony at the last day. But the Greek can bear a retranslation: 'It would be virtuous for that man if he did not conceive / gender'. In that case, there would be yet another appeal for Judas to stop dead in his heart the conception of sin. The Lord elsewhere uses words with two or more meanings in order to deliver a specific message to an individual, within a statement of general truth which appeared intended for others. The messages He sent back to the imprisoned John the Baptist are a clear example. The Lord's last ditch attempts to save Judas, rather than allow himself to be so hurt by him that He just ignored him, are a powerful encouragement to us in dealing with those who harm us and wilfully do evil:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:22&nbsp;<em>And as they were eating-&nbsp;</em>Eating the Passover lamb. The bread and wine were accessories, side dishes, and the Lord takes these things and makes them so significant. He doesn't, e:g:, take some lamb and divide it between the guests with the message that "This represents My body". Even though the lamb was the more obvious symbol of Himself than the bread was. He wanted the last supper to be repeated by poor and ordinary people, who had bread but not lamb each week; He used common, readily available bread because that spoke more of His humanity, His ordinariness. He used what was to hand, just as we can for the breaking of bread.</p><p>Note that Judas was still present at this point. <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em> makes the point concerning him that "He that eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me". If Judas broke bread with the Lord, this surely indicates that there is nothing intrinsically sinful in breaking bread with sinners. The quotation from Psalms 41 is interesting in the LXX: "the man of my peace, on whom I set my hope". There was special potential in Judas, and the Lord on one hand had hopes for him. It has been argued that the giving of the "sop" to him was the sign of special love and fellowship. <em><a href='B:500 13:20'>Joh 13:20</a></em> goes on to say: "He that receiveth whomsoever I shall send, receiveth me". The 'receiving' in this context is receiving at the Lord's table. To reject others from His table is to reject the Lord.</p><p><em>He took bread-&nbsp;</em>Taking bread, blessing and breaking it and giving to the disciples was exactly what the Lord did at the feeding of the 5000 and 4000 (<em><a href='B:470 14:19'>Mat 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:36'>Mat 15:36</a></em>), and we are thereby justified in seeing what He did then as having a religious dimension, practicing thereby an extremely open table. To 'take bread' can mean although not always to actually eat bread. Consider: "The disciples had forgotten to take bread,<em>&nbsp;neither</em>&nbsp;did they have with them more than one loaf" (<em><a href='B:480 8:14'>Mar 8:14</a></em>)- the force of "neither::." is that they had not eaten bread, rather than that they had forgotten to bring any with them. Philip complained that there would not be enough bread for each of the crowd to 'take' even a little, i:e. to eat just a little (<em><a href='B:500 6:7'>Joh 6:7</a></em>). So it could be that the Lord took and ate bread, blessed it, and then asked the disciples to eat it. This sequence of events would then make the eating of bread a more conscious doing of what Jesus had done. He took the bread, and then He asks them to take the bread ("Take, eat"). He is inviting them to mimic Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And when he had blessed it-&nbsp;</em>It was usual to bless a meal, especially the Passover lamb, but here the Lord offers a special prayer for the accessory to the meal, the side dish of bread. He wanted to highlight the significance of the most ordinary thing on the table and show that it represented Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>He broke it and gave it to them, and said: Take, eat</em>- The use of&nbsp;<em>didomi</em>&nbsp;"gave" is set in the context of all the talk about how the Lord would be&nbsp;<em>para-didomi</em>, betrayed / handed / given over to the Jews. The idea is that what happened was ultimately the Lord's choice. He gave Himself, to God and to His people, rather than being given over to death against His will. <em><a href='B:490 22:29'>Luk 22:29</a></em> says that the Lord then used the word&nbsp;<em>didomi</em>&nbsp;again: "This is My body, which is given for you". The giving of the bread to them was symbolic of how He would give His body to crucifixion, and how the 'giving over' of Jesus by Judas was not something outside of the Lord's control. It was not a misfortune which changed plans, rather was it precisely in line with the Lord's own giving of His body.</p><p><em>This is my body-&nbsp;</em>He said "This is My body which is given for you" (<em><a href='B:490 22:29'>Luk 22:29</a></em>), and also "This is My body which is broken for you" (<em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em>). He surely said both, repeating the words as the disciples ate the bread. He chose bread and not lamb to represent His body because He wished to emphasize His ordinariness and thereby His presence in the human, daily things of life. To give ones’ body is a very intimate statement, almost to the point of being sexual. This is the sober intensity and extent to which the Lord gave Himself for us.</p><p>When Jesus said “this is My body” we are to understand that ‘this&nbsp;<em>represents</em>, this is a symbol of my body’. Jesus was clearly referring to what was usually said at the Passover: “This is the bread&nbsp;of affliction which our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt”. It wasn’t of course literally the same bread. “This is” clearly means ‘this represents’ in <em><a href='B:450 5:3'>Zec 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 5:8'>Zec 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:19-23'>Mat 13:19-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:25'>1Co 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:27'>1Co 12:27</a></em>. In some Bible versions, when we read the word ‘means’, it is simply a translation of the verb ‘to be’ (<em><a href='B:470 9:13'>Mat 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:7'>Mat 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:26'>Luk 15:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:12'>Act 2:12</a></em>). ‘This is’ should be read as ‘this means / this represents’. The deftness of the way He broke that bread apart and held the cup comes out here in <em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>. He knew what that breaking of bread was going to mean.</p>


text:
<p>14:23<em>&nbsp;And he took a cup-&nbsp;</em>This was by no means easy for Him, because in Gethsemane He struggled so deeply in order to take it. Surely Mark was aware of this and wishes us to remember it every time we break bread. He&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;take the cup- the cup we go on to read about, that was so difficult for Him to accept. Luke's record records the taking of the cup twice. This could be a reference to multiple cups of wine drunk at the Passover; or it could be that Luke simply records the incident twice. Or perhaps the Lord was simply drinking from the common table wine, and more than once drew out the symbology.</p><p><em>And when he had given thanks-&nbsp;</em>Here&nbsp;<em>eucharisteo</em>&nbsp;is used, but&nbsp;<em>eulogeo&nbsp;for</em>&nbsp;the 'blessing' of the bread. The difference may be in that the Lord took the bread, an accessory to the meal, and turned that which was so ordinary into something of spiritual symbolism; and His blessing of the bread was necessary for this. But&nbsp;<em>eucharisteo</em>&nbsp;includes the idea of grace,&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, and suggests more thankfulness for grace- a thought appropriate to the meaning of the Lord's blood shed for us by grace. And naturally we wonder whether the wine that was taken was one of the Passover cups, or simply some of the table wine, an accessory to the meal just as the bread was. Whilst there was a taking of four cups of wine at the Passover, this may not be the only explanation for Luke recording the taking of two of them. It could simply be that as they were eating the Passover lamb, they ate bread and drunk weak wine as part of the accompaniments which went with every Palestinian meal. And the Lord twice passed comment on the wine, that it represented His blood. This would be similar to the manner in which He chose the bread, the&nbsp;<em>artos</em>, the ordinary word for bread rather than one referring specifically to unleavened bread, as the symbol for His body- rather than the meat of the Passover lamb. He could have made use of the blood of the Passover lamb as a symbol in some way- e:g. He could have asked a servant to bring the blood of the lamb and asked the disciples to all dip their fingers in it. But instead He uses wine as a symbol of His blood. My hunch is that the wine was the ordinary table wine accompanying the meal, just as the bread was, and was not the ritually significant Passover cup. In any case, the tradition of drinking cups of wine at Passover was non-Biblical, and somehow out of keeping with the original spirit of Passover, which was to remember the haste with which the first Passover was eaten. <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em> speaks of "the cup of blessing which&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>bless", with the emphasis on the "we". We are to do what the Lord did that night- not be mere audience figures, but actually do what He did:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>He gave it to them and they all drank from it</em>- The Lord held the memorial meeting as a keeping of a Passover, and yet He changed some elements of it. Joachim Jeremias cites evidence that “By the time of Jesus, individual cups were used at the Passover meal", and yet <em><a href='B:480 14:23'>Mar 14:23</a></em> implies that He used only one cup, which was passed around amongst those at the last supper: “He took the cup RV “a cup"… he gave it to them: and they all drank of&nbsp;<em>it</em>&nbsp;singular". They didn’t take up their own cups and drink- the Lord gave them His cup, just as He passes on to all in Him a participation in His “cup" of suffering and final joy. Reflect how deftly and determinedly the Lord must have “received the cup" (<em><a href='B:490 22:17'>Luk 22:17</a></em> RV), knowing what it represented; imagine His body language. Paul’s references to “<em>the&nbsp;</em>cup" imply the same. This change was surely to indicate the unity that His death, His blood, His life, was to inspire amongst those who share in it. This, in passing, is behind my undoubted preference for not using individual cups at the memorial meeting. It would seem to be a returning to the Jewish legalistic tradition, however unintentionally. I have elsewhere commented upon the clear link between the death of Jesus and our unity. The memorial meeting is the supreme celebration of that unity between us. To deny a brother or sister participation in it is something serious indeed. Tragically, and it is a tragedy, we have tended to use the memorial meeting as a weapon for exclusion rather than as a celebration of our unity. Yet this was the intention, without doubt. Comparing <em><a href='B:490 22:20'>Luk 22:20</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 14:24'>Mar 14:24</a></em> we find the Lord saying that the cup of wine was “for you poured out, poured out for many"- as if He wanted them to be aware at the memorial meeting that it was not only they who had been redeemed in Him. Likewise the Passover was essentially a remembering of the deliverance of a community, through which the individual worshipper found his or her personal salvation. This is why it is just not good enough to insist on breaking bread alone, or with no thought to the fact that all of us were redeemed together, as one man, as one nation, in Him. Remember that the Hebrew word for covenant,&nbsp;<em>berith</em>, is "derived from a verb meaning 'to eat'". That covenant was made with a community, the Israel of God; by eating the covenant meal we recall that collective covenant, that salvation of a community of which we are part- and it is appropriate therefore that it becomes a symbol of our unity within that community. The Old Testament idea of covenant is associated with words like&nbsp;<em>hesed</em>&nbsp;(kindness, love, devotion, grace),&nbsp;<em>emeth</em>&nbsp;(truth, integrity),&nbsp;<em>emunah</em>&nbsp;(faithfulness, allegiance). These are the characteristics associated with being in covenant relationship; and we are to show them to all others who are in covenant relationship, not just some of them.</p>


text:
<p>14:24&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: This is my blood-&nbsp;</em>Given Jewish obsession with blood and ritual uncleanness arising from contact with it, such language was surely purposefully challenging and radical, just as He had spoken of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in <em><a href='B:500 6:53'>Joh 6:53</a></em>. This made many turn away when He said it, but the Lord realized that His followers had to make a total break with Judaism. The drift of some Christian believes back towards the mentality of Judaism is totally missing the Lord's point- He was speaking in such challenging terms to make His followers realize that there was no middle path of compromise between Him and Judaism. Although He never commanded them to leave the synagogue system, and assumed they would remain in it until they were thrown out of it, all the same the Lord stated His principles in such a way that it would've been effectively impossible for His followers to remain within that system:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><h4><em>Of the new covenant, which is poured out for many</em>- The promises to Abraham were effectively the new covenant, even though they were given before the old covenant the law of Moses was given. The Lord's death confirmed those promises made to the Jewish fathers (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>). But God's word is true as it stands and in that sense needs no confirmation, no guarantee of truthfulness. But in an effort to persuade us of the simple truth and reality of the promises of eternity in the Kingdom which were made to Abraham, God confirmed it through the death of His Son. This was foreseen in the horror of great darkness which Abraham experienced in Genesis 15. Abraham did nothing to confirm his side of the covenant; it was God who passed between the pieces of the slain animal, during a time of Divine darkness as there was on the cross, in order to demonstrate to Abraham and to us all how serious He was about keeping His promise. Through the death of Christ, God commended His love to us (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>), He confirmed the covenant; not that He needed to do so, nor that His love needs any more commendation to us. But He did, in order to seek to persuade us of the truth of the promises which comprise the Gospel (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). In this sense "the promise was made sure s:w. 'confirmed' to all the seed" (<em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>); the extra element of making sure or confirming the promise was in the death of God's Son. Our hope is therefore "sure<em>&nbsp;and</em>&nbsp;confirmed AV "steadfast"" (<em><a href='B:650 6:19'>Heb 6:19</a></em>). <em><a href='B:650 9:17'>Heb 9:17</a></em> puts it another way in saying that a will or legacy is only confirmed AV "of force" by the death of the one who promised the inheritance, and the death of Christ was God's way of confirming the truth of what He had promised. This same word meaning 'confirmed' is used by Peter in writing of how we have "the word of prophecy made sure / confirmed" (<em><a href='B:680 1:19'>2Pe 1:19</a></em>). The prophesied word is the word of the Gospel, the promise of the Kingdom which began in Genesis, and this has been confirmed to us, made even more sure, by the Lord's death. Peter isn't referring to prophecy in the sense of future events being predicted in the arena of world geopolitics; the prophesied word is the word of our salvation, of the Gospel- which is how Peter elsewhere uses the idea of "the word". God can save who He wishes, as, how and when He wishes. He was not somehow duty bound, left with no option, forced by an unpleasant logical bind to suffer the death of His Son. He gave His Son, according to His own plan from the beginning. But He did it that way in order to persuade us of His love and simple desire to give us the Kingdom He has promised from the beginning of His revelation to men. The Lord's blood is "of the new covenant" not in that it&nbsp;<em>is itself&nbsp;</em>the new covenant, but rather in that it is the blood associated with the confirmation of that covenant as true. And so it is understandable that the Lord should wish us to understand His blood as the blood of the new covenant, the supreme sign that it is for real, and desire us to regularly take that cup which reminds us of these things. <em><a href='B:650 6:17-18'>Heb 6:17-18</a></em> carries the same idea- that in order to demonstrate the utter certainty of the things promised to Abraham's seed, God confirmed it by an oath so that we might a strong consolation and persuasion of the certainty of the promise. The death of God's Son was not therefore unavoidable for Him; He could save us as He wishes. But He chose this most painful way in the ultimate attempt to persuade men of the reality of His Son. With this understanding we can better appreciate the tales of the old missionaries who went to pagan and illiterate tribes and reported a strange response to their message once they explained the idea of the Son of God dying on a cross to show us God's love. It must be persuasive to us too, week by week as we reflect on the blood of the covenant.</h4><p>"Covenant" literally means that which is to be disposed of or distributed, and was used about the distribution of property upon decease. The Lord's parables about the Master who distributes all His wealth and possessions to His servants were surely looking forward to His death, at which He gave us all He had- and that was and is visually symbolized in the breaking of bread, the division even of His body and life blood amongst us, for us to trade with.</p><p>Moses bound the people into covenant relationship with the words: “Behold the blood of the covenant" (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em>). These very words were used by the Lord in introducing the emblems of the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:480 14:24'>Mar 14:24</a></em>). This is how important it Is. We are showing that we are the covenant, special Israel of God amidst a Gentile world. Indeed, “the blood of the covenant" in later Judaism came to refer to the blood of circumcision (cp. <em><a href='B:10 17:10'>Gen 17:10</a></em>) and it could be that the Lord was seeking to draw a comparison between circumcision and the breaking of bread. For this is how His words would have sounded in the ears of His initial hearers. This is how vital and defining it is to partake of it.</p>


text:
<p>14:25<em>&nbsp;Truly I say to you: I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine-&nbsp;</em>An allusion to how the priest on duty was not to drink wine during his service. The Lord foresaw His work from then on, beginning with the cross, as an active doing of priestly work for us. This would imply that the essence of His work on the cross is the essence of His work for us today; there is a continuity between Him there and His work for us now, with elements of the same pain and passionate focus upon us and the achievement of our salvation. He is not waiting passively in Heaven for the time to return; He is actively busy for us. There is also the implication in His words that His future 'drinking' will be literal- He was holding literal wine in His hand, and He said He would not again drink it until the Kingdom. This suggests that at very least, He invites us to understand His future Messianic banquet as being in some ways a literal feast.</p><p><em>Until the day when I drink it anew-&nbsp;</em>This is not 'new' in the sense of freshly made (a different word is used for that), but new in terms of quality, not time. It speaks of a new quality, a freshness, rather than something 'new' in chronological terms. The new wine represented the blood of the new covenant which was shed on the cross. It could be argued that the drinking of this new wine became possible not simply at the last day, but in this life too, in the experience of the church after the Lord's shedding of that blood on the cross.</p><p><em>In the kingdom of God</em>- The reference is primarily to the literal Kingdom to be established on earth at His return (<em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em> goes on to speak of the disciples eating and drinking in the Kingdom as they sit with Christ on His throne judging Israel), but there is a sense in which His word is fulfilled in the breaking of bread service, where He drinks wine with us as the invisible guest. For His parables of the Kingdom all speak of the experience of God's reign / Kingship as a present experience in the lives of His people. <em><a href='B:490 22:16'>Luk 22:16</a></em> adds with reference to the bread: "Until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God". The fulfilment of Passover deliverance is finally in the last day, and yet the fulfilment of Passover is also to be seen in the breaking of bread service. Note in passing that the Lord's predilection for the term 'Kingdom of God' or 'Father's Kingdom' was perhaps to counterbalance the Jewish emphasis upon the Kingdom as being that of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;father&nbsp;<em>David</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 11:10'>Mar 11:10</a></em>). The Kingdom was God's, "<em>Yours</em>&nbsp;is the Kingdom", rather than simply and solely the re-establishment of Israel's Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord Jesus clearly saw a link between the breaking of bread and His return. He not only told His people to perform it “until he come", but He said both before and after the last supper putting together the Gospel records that He would not keep this feast until He returned. Our breakings of bread are therefore a foretaste of the final sitting down with Him in His Kingdom- for He had elsewhere used the idea of feasting with Him as a symbol of our fellowship with Him at His return. The Rabbis had repeatedly taught that Messiah would come at Passover; the first century Rabbi Joshua said that “In that night they were redeemed and in that night they will be redeemed by Messiah". Much evidence could be given of this. For this reason Josephus records how the Jewish revolts against Rome repeatedly occurred around Passover time. Yet all the Jewish feasts have some reference to the breaking of bread. The Hebrew writer picks up the image of the High Priest appearing to pronounce the blessing on the people as a type of the Lord’s second coming from Heaven bearing our blessing. And yet they also all prefigure judgment in some way. Thus the Mishnah taught: “At four times in the year is the world judged". Because the breaking of bread involves a serious concentration upon the cross, and the cross was in a sense the judgment of this world, it is apparent that the breaking of bread is in some ways a preview of the judgment seat.</p><p>The Lord's promise that He would not break bread again until He did it with us in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:480 14:25'>Mar 14:25</a></em>) seems to require a literal fulfilment. In a non-literal sense He breaks bread with His people even now. Therefore His statement that He would not do it again until the Kingdom seems to refer to His literal taking of bread and wine. Likewise His promise that He would literally gird Himself and come forth and serve us at a future banquet has to be linked in with this (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). If all the faithful are to be gathered together to a meal, and literally eat bread and drink wine with the Lord, this suggests all sorts of logistical and practical 'problems'. It is easier to understand that space and time will have different meanings at the judgment and after.</p>


text:
<p>14:26- see on <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when they had sung a hymn</em>- Probably the Passover hallel of Psalms 115-118. It's worth reading those Psalms imagining them on the lips of the Lord at the last supper; they are pregnant with relevance for His forthcoming death, especially the reference to "I will take the cup of salvation". <em><a href='B:650 2:12'>Heb 2:12</a></em> surely has the scene in mind, quoting "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto You" as being proof of the Lord's absolute humanity. The fact He sung praise to&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;surely reveals a human and not Divine Christ. But doing so amongst His brethren, "the church", as one of them, is an essay in His unity with us, both in nature and experience.</p><p><em>They went out to the Mount of Olives</em>- The Passover ritual required that nobody should go out of the house until morning (<em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>). This is clearly teaching that the Passover deliverance had already begun, even before the Lord's blood had been shed, and would connect with the usage of present tenses concerning the Passover and shedding of the Lord's blood (see on :2,28). This sets the scene for the Lord's comment in :32 that He would go before them, and they should follow Him. He was as Moses and as the Angel which went before Israel on Passover night. The allusion to <em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em> shows that the old legislation had passed away, and in any case the type of Passover being kept by the Lord was not strictly the Mosaic one- for it's likely He was celebrating it a day earlier than stipulated. But the point perhaps was that the true Israel of God were now 'going out' from Egypt; so certain was the Lord that He would achieve deliverance that He could speak of that deliverance as already being achieved. He didn't, therefore, see His work on the cross as something which He might or might not successfully achieve- as we should, He went ahead in the certainty of ultimate success and victory.</p>


text:
<p>14:27&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: All of you shall fall away. For it is written: I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad</em>- See on <em><a href='B:480 4:17'>Mar 4:17</a></em>. They would spiritually stumble and fall because <em><a href='B:450 13:7'>Zec 13:7</a></em> predicted this would happen. But the Lord goes on to urge them to watch and pray so that they do not succumb to temptation. He saw Biblical prophecy as being open ended in fulfilment- the prophecy of spiritual failure didn't have to come true. They could resist, sin and failure is never inevitable. He spoke to them in the upper room specifically so that they would&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>be offended (<em><a href='B:500 16:1'>Joh 16:1</a></em> s:w:); the prophecy didn't have to come true in the disciples, and the Lord did His utmost to provide the potential for it not coming true for them:&nbsp;</p><p>His death was to be as that of Moses, which left the Israel of God as sheep without a shepherd (<em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>). And yet the Lord's death would gather together the scattered s:w. people of God (<em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>), His death was as a shepherd giving His life for the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:11'>Joh 10:11</a></em>). His death and resurrection was to be the means of reviving the lost faith of the disciples- when they meditated upon it. The people of Israel at the Lord's time had had no true shepherds and were therefore as scattered sheep (<em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>):&nbsp; The Lord's death would therefore temporarily leave the disciples just like the rest of Israel- they would return to the mentality of Judaism, the 'satan' of the Jewish system and its thinking would tempt them and they would give in. The wolf of Judaism would scatter the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). The disciples were therefore as sheep who scattered because of the thinking of the Jewish world around them, who saw death on a cross as the final defeat for a man; and yet were to be gathered by that very death. Peter was one of those disciples, even though he insisted that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>would not be scattered even if others were. He surely had this in mind in appealing to other believers who were falling under the influence of Judaism: "You were as sheep going astray, but are now returned s:w. 'converted'- just as he was 'converted' to strengthen his brethren unto the Shepherd::. of your souls" (<em><a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a></em>). Peter was therefore appealing to others to follow his own pattern- of revival and conversion after spiritual failure. This is the basis for all powerful pastoral appeal.</p>


text:
<p>14:28<em>&nbsp;However, after I am raised up-&nbsp;</em>There is no equivalent of "after" in the Greek text. This is an insertion by translators in order to try to give sense to the three brief Greek words which simply say "And I rise again". The idea is that 'By My rising again, I will go before you:::'. The Lord's plan was that His resurrection would re-ignite faith in His disciples, and He would go before them as a shepherd leads His sheep, into Galilee.</p><p><em>I will go ahead of you into Galilee</em>- This is the language of the shepherd going before the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:4'>Joh 10:4</a></em>), in obedience to His voice. The Lord is saying that although they will stumble and lose faith, His resurrection will provide them with a credible word from Him which they would obey by following Him into Galilee. This is why the resurrected Lord's first instruction to the women was to "Go tell My brothers that they go into Galilee; there shall they see Me" (28:10). But it actually didn't work out like that. His meeting with them in Galilee was in fact the third time He revealed Himself to them (<em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em>). He appeared to them twice before that. And the picture we have of the disciples fishing in Galilee in John 21 is of them still relatively faithless, depressed and having returned to their fishing; they are hardly pictured as eagerly awaiting the Lord's promised appearance in Galilee. So it seems to me that the Lord changed His intended program with them. Their faith was so weak that He appeared to them in Jerusalem twice, whereas He had originally planned for the women to tell them His word- to go before Him into Galilee, and there He would reveal Himself to them. But in His love for them, His own desire to see them, His awareness of their weakness in faith::. He appeared to them twice&nbsp;<em>before</em>&nbsp;Galilee. And even then, we sense from the fishing incident of John 21 that they were still floundering in their faith, and may well have returned to Galilee in order to return to their fishing business, rather than in obedience to His word. Why did He so wish to meet them in Galilee, rather than in Jerusalem? Their journey to Galilee would've been a test of obedience for them, for sure. But surely the Lord reflected by this choice the paramount importance He placed upon the conversion of families. He wanted to appear to them there, surely, because that was where most of them were from, and where their families were. He wanted them too to be persuaded once and for all time of the reality of His resurrection:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This promise sounds very much like a conscious allusion to the Angel going ahead of Israel; as if Christ felt that He (through the Comforter Angel?) had taken over the role of the Angel that represented Him previously?</p>


text:
<p>14:29&nbsp;<em>But Peter said to him: Although all shall fall away, I will not</em>- Peter three separate times states that he will not fail the Lord (also in <em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:37'>Joh 13:37</a></em>). Literally, 'not at any time', i:e. 'not even once'. Hence the Lord's comment that Peter would deny Him not once but three times. Yet he denied the Lord three times, and it was on the Lord's third appearance to him (<em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em>) that the Lord undid the three denials by His three questions concerning whether Peter really loves Him, and three times (again by a charcoal fire) re-instates Peter in the work of strengthening his brethren. These tripilisms and repetitions serve to make the record memorable, and also reflect how somehow the Lord worked through Peter's failures with some overarching plan; there was a higher hand at work through all of the failure, reflected in these tripilisms which could only have been effected by a Divine, higher hand. The Lord's question to Peter "Do you love Me more than these?" surely has reference to the other disciples, whom Peter had thought himself spiritually superior to. He was sure that even if they stumbled, he would not. And the Lord paid special attention to undoing this attitude in Peter and specifically bringing him to realize that he was no better than his brethren. Any sense of spiritual superiority over others is so obnoxious to the Lord. And He will work in our lives to remove it from us, as He did with Job, Jonah and many others. Peter continually alludes to his denials throughout his appeal for Israel's repentance in Acts 2 and throughout his pastoral letters; it is our own failures and receipt of such utter grace which serve as the basis for our credible and persuasive appeal to others to repent. He spoke in <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em> of how the Lord Jesus is a stone of stumbling 'offence', s:w. to those who do not believe- and yet he said this fully aware that he had been one of those who stumbled over Jesus. <em><a href='B:470 21:44'>Mat 21:44</a></em> offers us to the choice- to stumble upon the stone and be broken, or for the stone to fall upon us and grind us to powder, in the figure of judgment and condemnation used in Daniel 2. We either stumble in failure upon Christ and rise up as Peter did, broken men and women, to do our best in serving Him- or that stone shall crush us in condemnation. That is the choice before us, and Peter is the parade example in this to all:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<h4>14:30&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to him: Truly I say to you, yes to you today, that this night-&nbsp;</em>Much of the Lord's knowledge and foreknowledge of events ahead of time can be explained in terms of His incredible sensitivity to others, His understanding of human psychology and behaviour patterns. But there are times when it seems He was given direct foreknowledge from the Father. And this seems one of them- to predict the exact number of denials that would be made that night, and to predict they would happen before the cock crew. This leads to the possibility that whenever He prefaces His words with "Truly I say unto you::.", He is stating something received by direct revelation. Another example is when He uses this rubric to introduce His prediction of how Peter would die (<em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>). This would be His equivalent of how the Old Testament prophets introduced their directly inspired words with the rubric "Thus says the Lord". "Truly" (AV "verily") is literally 'amen', as if the Lord Jesus is saying that He is aware of the words of His Father and in uttering them from His lips, is giving His personal agreement, stamp or 'Amen' to them.</h4><p><em>Before the cock crows twice-&nbsp;</em>There is no article in the Greek. 'Before cock crow' is the idea, before the earliest sign of morning when the first cock crew, that very night, before that night even began to come to a close. Crowing "twice" may mean that the cock would not need to crow twice, before Peter thrice denied Him.</p><p><em>You shall deny me three times</em>- There is more detail about the denials in Mark because Mark appears to be writing for Peter; Peter's presentation of the Gospel emphasized his own failures. The Roman persecution of Christians required the converts to three times deny the Lord Jesus. Perhaps such emphasis is given to Peter's triple denials in order to encourage those who failed that test that their relationship with the Lord was not finished; and in fact they were in good company.</p><p>It's been pointed out that chickens couldn't have been anywhere near the High Priest's house because the priests forbad anyone in Jerusalem from keeping chickens, lest they stray into the temple. The&nbsp;<em>Encyclopaedia Judaica</em>&nbsp;points out that the priest who was the temple crier was called the&nbsp;<em>Gaver</em>, Hebrew for 'cock' or 'rooster'. This man opened the temple before dawn and called the priests and people to make the morning sacrifice. And he did this two or three times. Surely the Lord was referring to this when He spoke of the 'cock' crowing. Each time, Peter was being called to make the sacrifice with Jesus; but instead he denied knowledge of Jesus and the call to the cross which that knowledge entails. The context of the Lord's warnings to Peter about his forthcoming denial was that Peter had insisted he&nbsp;<em>would</em>&nbsp;die with Jesus, sharing in His sacrifice. And the Lord was foretelling that when that call came, Peter would deny the knowledge of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>14:31&nbsp;<em>But Peter said emphatically: Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you-</em>&nbsp;Gk. 'If I must die' or 'If it be necessary that I die, I will'. And yet the Lord had taught that He was going to die on the cross, and that all who would truly follow Him should likewise die with Him. When the Lord stated this in Matthew 16, Peter had earnestly sought to dissuade the Lord from that course of action because He didn't want to die with Him. Peter had a problem accepting the inevitable reality of the cross and its demand that we likewise lose our lives for Him. He considered it the most extreme possibility, rather than an obviously necessary sacrifice which is part and parcel of being a true follower of Jesus. We likewise can consider that extreme self-sacrifice is something we might possibly be called to make. But in fact if we are truly signed up to carrying the Lord's cross, it is exactly such radical self-sacrifice which is indeed required of us. The Lord said that Peter was not yet able to die for Him, he would deny Him rather than follow Him, but one day he would be strong enough, and&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;he would follow Him to the end (<em><a href='B:500 13:36-37'>Joh 13:36-37</a></em>). Peter thought he was strong enough then; for he followed (s:w:) Christ afar off, to the High Priest’s house (<em><a href='B:470 26:58'>Mat 26:58</a></em>). But in ineffable self-hatred he came to see that the Lord’s prediction was right.</p><p><em>"</em>I will not deny you<em>"&nbsp;</em>surely alludes to <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>, where the Lord has urged Peter to accept that he must deny&nbsp;<em>himself</em>&nbsp;and take up the Lord's cross and die with Him. But instead, because Peter didn't want to do that, he would end up denying Jesus. This is the intensity of our choice- if we will not deny ourselves, then we shall deny Jesus. The Lord had clearly taught that whoever denied Him before men would be denied by Him at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 10:33'>Mat 10:33</a></em>), and Paul repeats this (<em><a href='B:620 2:12'>2Ti 2:12</a></em>). Peter stood condemned by that denial, and yet we can be condemned in this life and change the verdict if we repent. It is this which releases such fervency into our lives if we go through the experience of condemnation but perceive that the verdict has been mercifully changed. Peter appealed to Israel to recognize that they had denied Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 3:13-14'>Act 3:13-14</a></em> "You denied Him in the presence of Pilate"); and he made that appeal a stone's throw and only a few weeks after his own denials of Jesus in the presence of all. And yet this was why his appeal was so credible, as was his later appeal to believers not to do the worst imaginable thing, namely to deny the Lord who had bought them- for that was exactly what, as everyone knew, Peter had himself done (<em><a href='B:680 2:1'>2Pe 2:1</a></em>). John speaks of denying Christ as the hallmark of the antichrist (<em><a href='B:690 2:22'>1Jn 2:22</a></em> "He that denies Jesus::. is the antichrist"), and he wrote this knowing full well that Peter was the rock upon whom the early church had been built. His point, therefore, is that even those who had done that, the antichrist, could still repent as Peter had done:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And they all said the same-&nbsp;</em>Mt. "Likewise also", using two words are used when one would suffice, such is the emphasis upon the fact that they all said the same. Peter was the one who went furthest in seeking to live out his claim, and yet he it is whose failure is the most emphasized. And that is how it is often is amongst God's people. But it is because we are asked to identify specifically with Peter.<br/>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:32- see on <em><a href='B:480 5:1'>Mar 5:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples-&nbsp;</em>The Lord often went to this garden (<em><a href='B:500 18:2'>Joh 18:2</a></em>), but the record at this point emphasizes its name, meaning 'oil press', a common metaphor for judgment. There the Lord as it were passed through His judgment, and there the disciples had their judgment- and ran away into the darkness condemned. Even though through repentance they were later saved out of that condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Sit here while I pray</em>- The Greek can equally mean 'stay here'. The separation between the Lord and His people, to go away and pray with His senior followers with Him, clearly was based upon Moses going up into the mountain to pray to God, taking Joshua with him, leaving Israel behind. And like Israel, the disciples failed miserably, and were met with the Lord's rebuke on His return from prayer. The Lord is clearly making the point that He now replaces Moses, and that the new Israel were comprised of those 11 mixed up men of weak faith and very limited understanding. The Greek text here has the Lord saying to the disciples: “Sit in this place&nbsp;<em>kathisate autou</em>&nbsp;until going away, I pray there”, and then He takes along with him&nbsp;<em>paralambanein</em>&nbsp;Peter. These are the very words used in the Genesis 22 LXX account of Abraham taking Isaac to ‘the cross’. Jesus is seeking to encourage Peter to see himself as Isaac, being taken to share in the cross. Now whether Peter discerned this or not, we don’t know. But the Lord gave him the potential possibility to be inspired like this. &nbsp;</p><p>He was seeking to help them perceive the similarity with Moses going away to pray, hence His warnings for them&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;to</em>&nbsp;give way to temptation were asking them to consciously make the effort to not be like the Israel whom Moses left behind when he went away to pray. Of course the Lord could have baldly drawn the similarities between Himself and Moses, but He acted in this way in order to provoke in them the association with Moses, and to realize that they were as Israel, tempted to fall away. And this is His style to the present day. Instead of flashing red lights and words dropping from Heaven, instead we find ourselves set up in situations which recall Biblical situations, and appeal to us to perceive ourselves within that history. That is why daily Bible reading and continual familiarity with the recorded histories of the Bible is so essential, it is all part of the Lord's way of working with us.</p><p>The whole structure of Mark's Gospel seems designed for memorization- the material is arranged in triplets, and the sections have chiastic structures e:g. material arranged in the form ABA, ABCBA, ABCDCBA. Even within the triplets, themes often occur in triplets- the three experiences in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:480 14:32-42'>Mar 14:32-42</a></em>), Peter's three denials (<em><a href='B:480 14:66-72'>Mar 14:66-72</a></em>), three wrong answers about the identity of Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 6:14-16'>Mar 6:14-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:28'>Mar 8:28</a></em>). The use of triplets and tripilisms is common in folk stories- to aid memorization. We shouldn't be unduly phased by the idea of the early Christians memorizing the Gospels. Even today in the Islamic world, students in religious schools are expected to memorize the entire Koran, which is roughly the same size as the entire New Testament. There are reports of this even being achieved by a seven year old.</p>


text:
<p>14:33&nbsp;<em>And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled</em>- As Moses took Joshua with him:&nbsp;AV: "He was amazed". The amazement was perhaps because He came to realize that His subconscious hopes for a deliverance, akin to Isaac’s at the last minute, were not going to come true. This element of surprise is reflected later in His desperate question “Why have You forsaken Me?”. This crisis of understanding contrasts strongly with His calm assurance and assumption that He must now die and resurrect. And yet to be tempted just as we are, He had to go through the experience of things not working out as expected, of crisis and desperate desiring to understand. For these things are what are at the root of our hardest human experiences.</p>


text:
<p>14:34&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: My soul is exceeding sorrowful even to death-</em>&nbsp;This was the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em>, "a man of sorrows", an intensive plural, implying 'great sorrow'. The fact He 'began' to feel this suggests that the prophecy of Isaiah 53 is specifically about the Lord in His time of sufferings, rather than generally in His life. It was there, at the end, that there was no beauty that He should be desired. And yet <em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em> defines those 'sorrows' as the sorrows of our sins. His sorrow was therefore in that He felt His identification with our sins, our sorrows. And He felt that identification very intensely as He prayed. Likewise the weight He felt, in that He began to feel heavy, refers to the weight of human sin which He felt Himself carrying.</p><p>The Lord’s psychological struggle was so intense that it was almost killing Him. Yet Peter had said that he was ready to go with the Lord even unto death (<em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>). But he failed to perceive that the Lord’s death involved huge psychological suffering- and Peter opted out of that by falling asleep. To physically die was not so much the issue as sharing the psychological trauma of carrying the cross.</p><p>The fullness of the Lord's humanity is of course supremely shown in His death and His quite natural fear of that death. Perhaps on no other point do human beings show they are humans than when it comes to their reaction to and reflection upon their own death. I would go further and suggested that the thought of suicide even entered the Lord's mind. It's hard to understand His thought about throwing Himself off the top of the temple in any other way. His almost throw away comment that "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death" (<em>heos thanatou</em>) is actually a quotation from the suicidal thoughts of Jonah (<em><a href='B:390 4:9'>Jon 4:9</a></em>) and those of the Psalmist in <em><a href='B:230 42:5-6'>Psa 42:5-6</a></em>. Now of course the Lord overcame those thoughts- but their very existence is a window into the depth and reality of His humanity.</p><p><em><a href='B:650 5:7-8'>Heb 5:7-8</a></em> clearly refer to the Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane. The Lord had a quite genuine "fear of death" (<em><a href='B:650 5:8'>Heb 5:8</a></em>). This "fear of death" within the Lord Jesus provides a profound insight into His so genuine humanity. We fear death because our human life is our greatest and most personal possession::. and it was just the same with the Lord Jesus. Note that when seeking here to exemplify Christ's humanity, the writer to the Hebrews chooses His fear of death in Gethsemane as the epitome of His humanity. <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em> comments that&nbsp;Christ prayed "with strong crying and tears". These words are certainly to be connected with <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>, which speaks of Christ making intercession for us now&nbsp;with "groanings which cannot be uttered". <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em> says that his groaning is so intense that it cannot be audibly uttered; the physicality of sound would not do justice to the intensity of mental striving. The point is that the same agonizing depth of prayer which the Lord achieved for us is what he now goes through as he intercedes for us with the Father.</p><p>Oscar Cullmann translates <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em>: "He was heard in his fear (anxiety)". That very human anxiety about death is reflected in the way He urges Judas to get over and done the betrayal process "quickly" (<em><a href='B:500 13:28'>Joh 13:28</a></em>); He was "straitened until it be accomplished" (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>). He prayed to God just as we would when gripped by the fear of impending death. And He was heard. No wonder He is able therefore and thereby to comfort and save us, who lived all our lives in the same fear of death which He had (<em><a href='B:650 2:15'>Heb 2:15</a></em>). This repetition of the 'fear of death' theme in Hebrews is surely significant- the Lord Jesus had the same fear of death as we do, and He prayed in desperation to God just as we do. And because He overcame, He is able to support us when&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;in our turn pray in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;"time of need"- for He likewise had the very same "time of need" as we have, when He was in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>). Death was "the last enemy" for the Lord Jesus just as it is for all humanity (<em><a href='B:530 15:26'>1Co 15:26</a></em>). Reflection on these things not only emphasizes the humanity of the Lord Jesus, but also indicates He had no belief whatsoever in an 'immortal soul' consciously surviving death.</p><p><em>"</em>Exceeding sorrowful" uses the same word used about the exceeding sorrow of the men of the world (Herod- <em><a href='B:480 6:26'>Mar 6:26</a></em>; the rich young man, <em><a href='B:490 18:23-24'>Luk 18:23-24</a></em>). Those who will be rich pierce themselves through with sorrows, they go through the crucifixion pains for the sake of this world (<em><a href='B:610 6:10'>1Ti 6:10</a></em>). So it's a cross either way, and it may as well be in identification with the Lord, leading unto eternal life, than unto eternal death. The same point is made in <em><a href='B:540 7:10'>2Co 7:10</a></em>, where the same word translated "sorrowful" is found- the sorrow of the world leads to death, but Godly sorrow leads to salvation. The disciples fell asleep, and yet by pure grace the record says that they slept for "sorrow" (<em><a href='B:490 22:45'>Luk 22:45</a></em>), using a related but less intense word as used here for the Lord's&nbsp;<em>exceeding</em>&nbsp;sorrow; and the Lord attributes such "sorrow" to them repeatedly at this time (<em><a href='B:500 16:6'>Joh 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:20-22'>Joh 16:20-22</a></em>). But the point is that His sorrow was of an altogether more intense and higher order than theirs, and yet by grace they are counted as having some part in His sorrow. We speak and read of our sharing in the Lord's sufferings, and yet our sufferings are nothing compared to His; yet by grace they are counted as a sharing in those sufferings.</p><p><em>Stay here</em>- This is&nbsp;<em>meno</em>, the word the Lord has just used multiple times in the upper room discourse, translated "abide". Now He leads them out of the upper room into the real world, and gives them the concrete outworking of abiding in Him- to enter into His struggles, to watch and pray with Him, to share His intensity with the Father. And they fell asleep:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And watch</em>- The Greek means to literally keep awake, but is used about watching in prayer. The fact the disciples physically fell asleep, and three times, is a clear statement of their failure. And it is used by the disciples here in their own account and preaching of the Gospel, of which the Gospel records are transcripts, as if to emphasize their own failure, and on that basis appeal to others to likewise accept the Lord's forgiveness and salvation by grace. It is the same word used repeatedly by the Lord in appealing for watchfulness in the very last days before His coming (<em><a href='B:470 24:42-43'>Mat 24:42-43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em> etc:), as if the disciples in Gethsemane were going through their judgment, their last days. Likewise the sufferings and experiences of the very last generation will give them the opportunity to uniquely identify with the Lord's crucifixion sufferings. Seeing that generation will never taste of death, this identification with His death will be necessary for them as for no other generation, and the tribulation will be designed to elicit that identification. We are therefore invited to enter into Gethsemane and not repeat the failures of the disciples- the same words are used by Paul in encouraging us all to 'pray and watch' (<em><a href='B:580 4:2'>Col 4:2</a></em>). "Let us not sleep as others, but let us watch" (<em><a href='B:590 5:6'>1Th 5:6</a></em>) could be asking us to not be as the disciples there, but rather to learn from their failure and watch. And yet the comfort of grace is that whether we watch s:w. or sleep, we shall be accepted by Him (<em><a href='B:590 5:10'>1Th 5:10</a></em>), just as the disciples were saved by grace despite their failure. Likewise we are asked to watch and keep our garment (<em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>), unlike the disciple present in Gethsemane who did not watch and fled naked having lost his garment (<em><a href='B:480 14:52'>Mar 14:52</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>14:35&nbsp;<em>And he went forward a little-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:490 22:41'>Luk 22:41</a></em> “About a stone’s cast”, pointing us back to David’s conflict with Goliath as a type of the Lord’s final conflict with sin.</p><p><em>And fell on the ground, and prayed-&nbsp;</em>Paul's description of himself on the Damascus road falling down and seeing a Heavenly vision, surrounded by men who did not understand, is framed in exactly the language of Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:510 22:7'>Act 22:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>); as if right at his conversion, Paul was brought to realize the spirit of Gethsemane. His connection with the Gethsemane spirit continued. He describes himself as "sorrowful" (<em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>), just as Christ was then (<em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>). His description of how he prayed the same words three times without receiving an answer (<em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em>) is clearly linked to Christ's experience in the garden (<em><a href='B:470 26:44'>Mat 26:44</a></em>); and note that in that context he speaks of being “buffeted” by Satan’s servants, using the very word used of the Lord being “buffeted” straight after Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:67'>Mat 26:67</a></em>).</p><p>To fall on the face is used in the Old Testament to describe men like Abraham and Moses falling on their face in the visible presence of God, e:g. before an Angel (<em><a href='B:10 17:3'>Gen 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:4'>Num 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a></em>). Yet there was no visible manifestation of God’s presence at this time; so we are to assume that the Lord Jesus intensely perceived the Father’s presence even though there was no visible sign of it. It could be that the Angel from Heaven strengthening the Lord had already appeared, but this appears to come&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;the Lord had fallen on His face.</p><h4>The Lord had foreseen how He must be like the grain of the wheat (note the articles in the Greek) which must fall to the ground and die, and then arise in a glorious harvest (<em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>). But soon after saying that, the Lord fell to the ground (same Greek words) in prayer and asked the Father if the cup might pass from Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>). It seems to me that He fell to the ground in full reference to His earlier words, and asked desperately if this might be accepted as the falling to the earth of the grain of the wheat, i:e. Himself, which was vital for the harvest of the world. Don’t under-estimate the amount of internal debate which the Lord would have had about these matters. The spirit of Christ in the prophets testified Messiah’s sufferings “unto Christ" (<em><a href='B:670 1:11'>1Pe 1:11</a></em> RVmg:), but He still had to figure it all out. And this enabled an element of doubt, even though in the end He knew “all the things that were coming upon him" (<em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>). To doubt is not to sin. Another Messianic Psalm had foretold: “In the multitude of my doubts within me, thy comforts delight my soul" (<em><a href='B:230 94:19'>Psa 94:19</a></em> RVmg:). This aspect heightens the agony of His final crisis, when He unexpectedly felt forsaken.</h4><p><em>That, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him</em>- See on <em><a href='B:490 22:46'>Luk 22:46</a></em>. This may not simply mean 'If it's possible, may I not have to die'. The Lord could have meant: 'If&nbsp;<em>it</em>- some unrecorded possible alternative to the cross- is&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;possible, then let&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;cup pass'- as if to say 'If option A is possible, then let the cup of option B pass from me'. But He overrode this with a desire to be submissive to the Father's preferred will- which was for us to have a part in the greatest, most surpassing salvation, which required the death of the cross. “Such&nbsp;<em>great</em>&nbsp;salvation" (<em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em>) might imply that a lesser salvation could have been achieved by Christ, but He achieved the greatest possible. "He is able also&nbsp;<em>to save them to the uttermost</em>&nbsp;that come unto God by him" (<em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>) may be saying the same thing. Indeed, the&nbsp;<em>excellence</em>&nbsp;of our salvation in Christ is a major NT theme. It was typified by the way Esther interceded for Israel; she could have simply asked for her own life to be spared, but she asked for that of all Israel. And further, she has the courage (and we sense her reticence, how difficult it was for her) to ask the King yet another favour- that the Jews be allowed&nbsp;to slay their enemies for one more day, and also to hang Haman's sons (<em><a href='B:150 9:12'>Ezr 9:12</a></em>). She was achieving the maximum possible redemption for Israel rather than the minimum. Paul again seems to comment on this theme when he speaks of how Christ became obedient, "<em>even</em>&nbsp;to the death of the cross" (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>), as if perhaps some kind of salvation could have been achieved without the death&nbsp;<em>of the cross</em>. Perhaps there was no theological necessity for Christ to die&nbsp;<em>such</em>&nbsp;a painful death; if so, doubtless this was in His mind in His agony in the garden.</p><p>The Lord had taught more than once that “with God all things are possible” (<em><a href='B:470 19:26'>Mat 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>), and yet He inserts here a condition: “If it be possible”. He recognized that God’s plan was possible of fulfilment by any means, and yet He recognized that there was a condition to that. This issue is not really resoluble, at least not by any intellectual process. If, or rather when, we struggle with these issues, this balance between God’s ultimate possibility and the fact there appear to be terms and conditions attached- then we are there with the Lord in Gethsemane. But we need to note that it was God who was being pushed to the limit here as well- for literally all things are indeed possible to Him, and He could have saved the world any way He wished. In His allowing of this chosen method we see the degree to which the cross was indeed His plan that He so wanted to see worked out.</p><p>Matthew records the Lord's prayer that the cup might pass from Him; here, that the hour might pass. Paul uses the same Greek term "from me" in describing how also three times he asked for the thorn in the flesh to “depart&nbsp;<em>from me</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em>). He saw his prayers and desires as a sharing in the Lord’s struggle in Gethsemane, just as we can too.</p>


text:
<p>14:36&nbsp;<em>And he said: Abba, Father, all things are possible for You; remove this cup from me-&nbsp;</em>"We cry Abba, Father" (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>), as our Lord did then (<em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em>). We can, we really can, it is possible, to enter into something of our Lord's intensity then. Paul saw his beloved brother Epaphroditus as "heavy" in spirit (<em><a href='B:570 2:26'>Phi 2:26</a></em>), using a word only used elsewhere about the Lord in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:33'>Mar 14:33</a></em>):&nbsp;Luke and other early brethren seemed to have had the Gethsemane record in mind in their sufferings, as we can also do (<em><a href='B:510 21:14'>Act 21:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em>).</p><p><em>However, not as I will but what You will</em>- Trinitarians need to note that the Lord’s will was not totally the same as that of His Father.</p>


text:
<p>14:37- see on <em><a href='B:480 14:72'>Mar 14:72</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he returned and found them sleeping, and said to Peter: Simon, why do you sleep?- "</em>Comes… and finds" are the very words used of the Lord’s coming in judgment to ‘find’ the state of His people (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em> “whom his Lord when He&nbsp;<em>comes</em>&nbsp;shall&nbsp;<em>find</em>&nbsp;so doing”; <em><a href='B:490 18:8'>Luk 18:8</a></em> “When the Son of Man comes, shall He find faith…?”). And His ‘coming’ to the disciples found them asleep and unprepared. This was exactly the picture of <em><a href='B:480 13:36'>Mar 13:36</a></em> (and <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>), using the same Greek words: “Watch… lest coming suddenly, He find you sleeping”. We can be condemned in this life, as Peter was when he denied his Lord, and yet be saved out of it by repentance.</p><p>There are good reasons for thinking that Mark’s Gospel record is actually Peter’s; and in his preaching of the Gospel he makes ample reference to his own failures he contains the most detailed account of the denials of all the Gospels and to the misunderstanding of his fellows. Both Matthew and Luke record that the Lord asked the three disciples ‘Why are you plural sleeping?’ (<em><a href='B:470 26:40'>Mat 26:40</a></em>). It is only Mark who says that the Lord asked this of Peter personally, in the singular (<em><a href='B:480 14:37'>Mar 14:37</a></em>). And compare Matthew’s “Could you plural not watch with me?” with <em><a href='B:480 14:37'>Mar 14:37</a></em> to Peter: “Could you not singular watch?”.</p><p><em>Could you not watch one hour?</em>- Peter later urged his converts to “be watchful” (<em><a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a></em> RV), watching unto prayer as the end approaches (<em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>), as Peter had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;been watchful in the garden and had earned the Lord’s rebuke for going to sleep praying (<em><a href='B:470 26:40-41'>Mat 26:40-41</a></em>). They were to learn from his mistake. Their watchfulness was to be because the devil was prowling around, seeking whom he could desire (<em><a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a></em>). This was exactly the case with Peter: Satan desired to have him, he should have prayed for strength but didn’t do so sufficiently (<em><a href='B:490 22:31'>Luk 22:31</a></em>). He was warning his brethren that they were in exactly the situation he had been in, a few hours before he went into that fateful High Priest’s house:&nbsp;Paul was deeply moved by the Gethsemane record: <em><a href='B:590 5:6-7'>1Th 5:6-7</a></em> = &nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 26:40-41'>Mat 26:40-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:18'>Eph 6:18</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>; Matthew 1 <em><a href='B:510 22:7'>Act 22:7</a></em>= <em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:44'>Mat 26:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em> = &nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>14:38- see on <em><a href='B:510 20:29-30'>Act 20:29-30</a></em>.</p><p><em>Watch and pray so that you do not fall into temptation-&nbsp;</em>The relationship between prayer and temptation may not simply be that the Holy Spirit will be provided to fortify us against temptation if we pray. If we are in prayer, in the Father's presence, then we are less likely to just give in to temptation. However, the connection between prayer and strength against temptation is proof enough that Bible reading is not the only strength against temptation. So much more help and succour of the Holy Spirit is available (<em><a href='B:650 4:15-16'>Heb 4:15-16</a></em>). The repeated emphasis upon their lack of watching contrasts with the Lord’s stress upon the need to watch in the last days, and how lack of watching would lead to condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 24:42-43'>Mat 24:42-43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>). Their lack of watching meant they were condemned- and yet they were redeemed by their recognition of their state, as evidenced in the Gospel records:&nbsp;<em>"</em>That you do not fall into<em>"&nbsp;</em>isaddressed to Peter in the singular, and yet the “you” here is plural. The Lord is telling Peter that he is no different to the rest of the disciples, despite his assertion that even if they all denied the Lord, he would not do so. Peter’s sense of spiritual superiority was especially displeasing to the Lord.</p><p>Each statement of the apparently simple model prayer needs careful reflection. The Lord told the disciples in Gethsemane to earnestly pray the simple saying: “Pray not to fail in the test” (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> cp. 6:13). The prayer that they could gabble mindlessly must be prayed with intense attention to every phrase. They presumably did pray as directed, but the Lord later warns them: “Why do you sleep? Get up and pray, so that you will not enter into temptation”. He intended them to keep on praying, as He spent an hour praying the same words; and not just rattle off a few words and think we have done our praying. Just as the tribulation of the last days seems to be conditional upon our faith, so the Lord may imply that entering into the time of trial or testing was avoidable by their prayer and faith. Again we see the final time of tribulation as reflective of the Lord’s sufferings, enabling the very last generation to identify with the Lord’s death so that they might share in His resurrection.</p><p><em>The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak</em>- The Lord took a very positive view of his struggling, stuttering followers, especially in the run up to His death. His teaching had throughout emphasized the importance of the heart, and how thought and action are linked. Yet He appears to have made a temporary exception when He generously excused His disciples’ sleeping in Gethsemane: “The spirit mind truly is ready, but the flesh is weak” (<em><a href='B:480 14:38'>Mar 14:38</a></em>). The theoretical willingness of the mind does not usually excuse fleshly weakness, according to the Lord’s teaching. It seems to me that this statement of His, which for me gets harder to interpret the more one ponders it, is simply the Lord’s generous, justifying impulse towards His weak followers. And He was feeling like this towards them at the very time when, in symbol and in essence, they had condemned themselves. For He ‘comes’ to them, finds them asleep, like the sleepy virgins in His recent parable, they were dumbfounded and unable to answer Him, just as the rejected will be at judgment day, and then they fled, as the rejected likewise will (<em><a href='B:480 14:40-41'>Mar 14:40-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:51'>Mar 14:51</a></em>). If these were His generous feelings for them, then… what comfort it is to know we follow the same Lord. &nbsp;<br/>14:40 The disciples’ sleepiness is excused in the statement “for their eyes were heavy" (<em><a href='B:480 14:40'>Mar 14:40</a></em>), even though their falling asleep at that time was utterly shameful. Luke’s record excuses them by saying they slept for sorrow- which isn’t really possible. It’s the grace of inspiration covering up for them. Yet He kindly says that their spirit is willing but their flesh was weak (<em><a href='B:480 14:38'>Mar 14:38</a></em>); although elsewhere, the Lord rigorously demonstrates that mental attitudes are inevitably reflected in external behaviour, and therefore the difference between flesh and spirit in this sense is minimal.</p><p>The question is whether the Lord is making a general observation about human nature, or whether He is specifically criticizing them for being spiritually weak at that specific time. He could be saying that they underestimated the power of human nature, and needed to pray that they would not enter into the temptation posed by their own flesh, their humanity. This is a clear demonstration of the source of spiritual weakness- our own flesh, rather than any superhuman being. Or it could be that the Lord has in view the specific weakness of the flesh- to disown Him in the face of opposition and the risk of arrest and death.</p><p>The word "weak" is often used about spiritual weakness. Paul describes all of us as having been saved although we were weak, using the same word used about the disciples asleep in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> “weak” = <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em> “without strength”). He saw the evident similarity between them and us, tragically indifferent in practice to the mental agony of our Lord, failing to share His intensity of striving- although we are so willing in spirit to do this. And yet, Paul implies, be better than them. Don't be weak and sleepy as they were when Christ wanted them awake (<em><a href='B:470 26:40-41'>Mat 26:40-41</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 5:6-7'>1Th 5:6-7</a></em>). Strive for the imitation of Christ's attitude in the garden (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> = <em><a href='B:560 6:18'>Eph 6:18</a></em>). And yet in Romans 7, a depressed but realistic Paul laments that he fails in this; his description of the losing battle he experienced within him between flesh and spirit is couched in the language of Christ's rebuke to the disciples in Gethsemane (the spirit was willing, but the flesh weak).</p>


text:
<p>14:39&nbsp;<em>And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words</em>- This is saying the same thing twice. We are enabled to imagine the Lord again walking away from them, as if Matthew’s camera is located amongst the disciples and focused upon the rear view of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>14:40&nbsp;<em>And again he returned and found them sleeping. Their eyes were very heavy-</em>&nbsp;It’s clear from all the allusions to the need for watchfulness and the moral failure associated with sleeping, that there was really no adequate excuse for their failure. And yet the record gracefully takes note of the human weakness they were facing. We should not dismiss circumstantial ethics too quickly. Whilst sin remains sin, there is every reason for thinking that God does take circumstance into account in His final judgment of human failures. The only other time the Greek word translated “heavy” occurs in the Gospels is in <em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em>, where again it is used of heaviness with sleep, and again about Peter, James and John sleeping whilst the Lord was involved in active dialogue with the Father about His forthcoming death: “Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep”. <em><a href='B:480 14:40'>Mar 14:40</a></em> adds that “They did not know what to answer Him”, and this likewise was the situation at the transfiguration (<em><a href='B:480 9:6'>Mar 9:6</a></em> s:w:). The events of the transfiguration were to prepare Peter, James and John for the events of Gethsemane; they were supposed to see the similarities, and learn. But they didn’t. Likewise circumstances repeat in our lives, as the Father seeks to teach us, hoping we shall learn from one event which is then in essence repeated later. The way the situation here repeats three times, and each time they fail and fall asleep, is another example of how circumstances repeat in the hope that we will learn.</p><p><em>And they did not know what to answer him</em>- Not only did the Lord Jesus 'answer' to the needs of others, but He Himself was a silent, insistent question that had to be responded to. He came and found the disciples sleeping, and they didn't know what to&nbsp;<em>answer</em>&nbsp;Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:40'>Mar 14:40</a></em>). His look, the fact that when facing super exhaustion and sleep deprivation He endured in prayer::. this was something that demanded, and demands, an answer-&nbsp;<em>even if we can't give it</em>. He responds / 'answers' to us, and we have to respond / answer to Him. This is how His piercing sensitivity, coupled with the height of His devotion, compels the building of real relationship between ourselves and this invisible Man.</p>


text:
<p>14:41&nbsp;<em>And he returned a third time-&nbsp;</em>The three failures of Peter to keep awake were clearly meant to portend his forthcoming triple failure. The Lord was seeking to educate him as to his own weakness. But he failed to perceive it. After each failure he would've urged himself not to fail again, and he would've gone through the same thoughts as time after time he denied his Lord later that night. We gasp with wonder at how the Lord was not so focused upon His own struggles that He had no thought for desperately trying to educate his beloved Peter. This is surely the mark of spiritual maturity- being able to never be so obsessed with our own struggles that we forget our responsibilities to our brethren. So often we reason that we must sort out our own issues before we can help others, but this kind of self-centredness would've meant that the Lord failed Himself to be the One He needed to be, both for Himself and for others.</p><p><em>And said to them: Sleep on now-&nbsp;</em>The Lord spoke this to them whilst they were asleep, because in :42 He asks them to arise. A lesser man than the Lord would've been bitterly disappointed, full of fear that His entire mission was open to failure if the material He had so especially focused upon saving was so incredibly weak. But instead in tenderness He speaks to them as a loving parent speaks to their sleeping children. For this seems the only credible interpretation of His words- for immediately afterwards He tells them to awake:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And take your rest-&nbsp;</em>Seeing the Lord proceeds to immediately awake them from sleep, He must have had some other idea in view apart from taking literal rest. Surely He had in view His earlier invitation to His followers to find rest in Him (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>); He knew that He was dying so that they might have this ultimate rest to their souls:&nbsp;</p><p><em>It is enough. The hour comes-&nbsp;</em>Mt:. 'is approaching'. Perhaps the Lord noticed the approach of Judas and the soldiers. <em><a href='B:480 14:41'>Mar 14:41</a></em> has "the hour is come". 'It is approaching::. it has come' would be an appropriate thing to say in soliloquy as the Lord saw the men approaching closer:&nbsp;<em>Eggizo</em>, “is at hand”, is the very word used specifically about Judas in <em><a href='B:470 26:46'>Mat 26:46</a></em>: “He is at hand that betrays Me”:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners</em>- Remember that the Greek word behind 'betrayal' means simply to be handed over. Earlier the Lord had spoken of being handed over into the hand or power of men (<em><a href='B:470 17:22'>Mat 17:22</a></em>), to the chief priests (<em><a href='B:470 20:18'>Mat 20:18</a></em>), to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:480 10:33'>Mar 10:33</a></em>). But now the Lord introduces a moral dimension- He was to be handed over into the power of sin, but would break that power by His resurrection. For the resurrection of the Lord was not simply a vindication of Himself against men, but against the power of sin. And this is what opens up the path to deliverance for all likewise under the power of sin. Surely <em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em> had this in mind when speaking of how the Lord destroyed "him that had the power of death, that is, the devil"- sin manifested in the powers of Rome and Judaism:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:42&nbsp;<em>Arise Let us be going. He that betrays me is nearby</em>- If this were the simple sense of the Greek, another construction would’ve been used. The sense is definitely ‘Let us lead on’. Although going into the hands of sinners, the Lord was in control, leading Himself to them- for He insisted that His life was not taken from Him, but rather He gave it of Himself. Judas was leading the soldiers (<em><a href='B:490 22:47'>Luk 22:47</a></em>); but the Lord was leading Himself toward them.</p>


text:
<p>14:43&nbsp;<em>And immediately, while he yet spoke, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd-</em>&nbsp;The appearance of Judas is as it were called forth by the Lord, who went to as it were meet Judas before he even appeared (:42). The Lord had set up the whole situation, and Judas was acting according to plan. The repeated use of “Behold” or “Lo” (<em><a href='B:470 26:45-47'>Mat 26:45-47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:51'>Mat 26:51</a></em>) encourage us to play Bible television with these events. The scene was clearly etched upon the memory of the Gospel writers. <em><a href='B:480 14:43'>Mar 14:43</a></em> Gk. puts it all in the present tense: “There comes Judas…”, to encourage us to re-live the incident. The crowd with Judas was a tacit recognition of the fanatic loyalty of the eleven; Judas reckoned that they could put up enough of a fight to require this great multitude.</p><h4><em>From the chief priests and the scribes and the elders bearing swords and staves</em>-&nbsp; This little detail accords well with the reality of the situation. Although the Chief Priests had some authority to use the Roman guards to control difficult situations in the temple area, they surely didn’t have use of Roman soldiers to arrest a civilian in a garden at night. So these were ruffians rustled up by Judas and the Jewish leaders, which explains why they had staves as well as swords. Staves were hardly the military equipment of professional soldiers, but it fits the idea that the leaders gathered together a crowd of hoods to do this dirty work. And it was only later that the Jews handed the Lord over to Gentile power. “Staves” translates&nbsp;<em>xulon</em>, the word meaning ‘stake’ or ‘tree’ which is used about the cross.</h4>


text:
<p>14:44&nbsp;<em>Now he that betrayed him had given them a signal, saying-&nbsp;</em>These are the very words more commonly used together about signs being given to the Jewish world by the Lord. Judas was in every way a fake Christ, acting as the real disciple and the true Christ, when in fact he was the very opposite. This is why he as the “son of perdition” becomes the prototype of the antichrist figure in 2 Thessalonians 2. Note that ‘anti-Christ’ doesn’t mean so much one who is<em>&nbsp;against</em>&nbsp;Christ as one who mimics the real Christ but is in fact a false one and not the original, despite all appearances.</p><p><em>Whomsoever I shall kiss-&nbsp;</em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;literally means ‘to love’. I have mentioned several times the essential similarity between the betrayals of Judas and Peter that same night. When the Lord later asks Peter whether Peter has<em>&nbsp;phileo</em>&nbsp;for Him (<em><a href='B:500 21:17'>Joh 21:17</a></em>), He is as it were asking ‘Do you kiss Me, as Judas did?’. He is probing Peter to see the similarities between himself and Judas, and to recognize that he was not in fact more loyal and devoted to Jesus than any of the others as Peter had once claimed- and that included even Judas.</p><p><em>That is he. Take him and lead him away safely</em>- The Lord was a well known public figure, having taught openly in Jerusalem in the presence of huge crowds. The need to identify Him indicates that the crowd of hoods being used didn’t know who He was, because they were not the types to attend teaching sessions in the temple, or perhaps they weren’t locals, or maybe not even Jews. Again we find the ring of truth in how these records are written; if they were anything other than Divinely inspired, there would be all manner of lack of congruence in the details and information given.</p>


text:
<p>14:45&nbsp;<em>And when he arrived, immediately he came to him and said: Master, Master; and kissed him</em>- But why did Judas address Him in this way? It could be that the crowd of armed men were still hidden, and he came alone to make this act of identification of Jesus- again suggesting that the crowd of hired hoods were unclear as to which one of the group of disciples was Jesus. This is why :46 says that after the kiss, "then came they"- Judas was alone when he first approached the Lord. Although the Lord later protests that He had been with 'them' in the temple teaching, presumably that comment was directed only at the leadership of the group. Or perhaps it was simply because in the darkness it was not clear who was who, and Judas needed to make the identification for that reason. He needed to be alone to make that identification- he would've been unable to do it if he had approached Jesus and the disciples with the crowd of men next to him.</p>


text:
<p>14:46&nbsp;<em>And they arrested him</em>- The Lord uses the same expression about the sufferings of the faithful in the very last generation (<em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>), as He seeks to bring them to know the essence of His death, seeing that that generation will not taste of death but be given immortality at the judgment seat:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And took him away</em>- Literally, they had power over Him. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em> about how the Lord overcame the 'devil' who had the 'power' of death. They had the power, apparently, externally. But the paradox was that by willingly giving Himself over to it, He had power over the 'devil' of sin, both abstractly as sin, and also in all forms of its political manifestation, in this case, the Roman and Jewish authorities.</p>


text:
<p>14:47&nbsp;<em>But one of the disciples that was standing nearby drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear</em>- Perhaps the detail is provided as backdrop for the Lord’s response- that whoever&nbsp;<em>takes</em>&nbsp;the sword shall perish by it (<em><a href='B:470 26:52'>Mat 26:52</a></em>). Peter did indeed take the sword- but by grace was saved from the consequence. He clearly aimed to strike off the man's head, but he ducked and Peter only caught his ear.</p><p>The material from Mark is about the same as in Matthew, but Luke and John add various details. Here is Matthew’s account of the arrest in the Garden, with the details from Luke 22 and John 18 (on which see commentary) added in square brackets:</p><p>“The hour is at hand and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise Let us be going. He that betrays me is nearby. And while he yet spoke, Judas, one of the twelve, came; and with him a great crowd with swords and staves, from the chief priest and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he. Take him. <em><a href='B:490 22:47-48'>Luk 22:47-48</a></em> He drew near to Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said to him: Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? And immediately he came to Jesus, and said, Greetings, Rabbi; and kissed him. And Jesus said to him: Friend, do what you came to do. Luke 22 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said: Lord, shall we strike with the sword?. Then they came. <em><a href='B:500 18:4-9'>Joh 18:4-9</a></em>&nbsp;Jesus knowing all the things that must come upon him, went forward and said to them: Whom do you seek? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them: I am he (Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing with them). When he said to them: I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them: Whom do you seek? And they said: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered: I told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way- that the word might be fulfilled which he spoke: Of those whom you have given me I lost not one. then they laid hands on Jesus and took him. And one of those with Jesus John 18 Simon Peter stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear John 18 his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus to him: No more of this <em><a href='B:490 22:51'>Luk 22:51</a></em> Put away your sword into its place, into its sheath, John 18 for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Do you think I cannot ask my Father and He shall, even now, send me more than twelve legions of Angels? <em><a href='B:500 18:11'>Joh 18:11</a></em> The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it? <em><a href='B:490 22:51'>Luk 22:51</a></em> And he touched his ear and healed him. But how then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way? In that hour Jesus said to the mob: Have you come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching and you did not take me. Luke 22 But this is your hour, and the power of darkness. But all this is happening so that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him and fled. Luke 22 And they seized him and led him away, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed from a distance”.</p>


text:
<p>14:48&nbsp;<em>And Jesus said to them: Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?</em>- The same word used about Jesus and the disciples ‘going out’ from the Upper Room to Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:30'>Mat 26:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:1'>Joh 18:1</a></em>), and Jesus ‘going forth’ to meet the crowd of armed men (<em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>). The impression is given of a head on meeting between the forces of light and darkness.</p>


text:
<p>14:49&nbsp;<em>I was daily with you in the temple teaching and you did not arrest me-&nbsp;</em>The Lord was addressing the leadership of the group, who had sat daily in the temple over the past week and heard Him. They knew what He looked like, He had sat&nbsp;<em>pros humas,&nbsp;</em>"with you" (AV), not so much “with you” as ‘directly facing you’, sitting down in front of them and therefore at close range. Therefore the need for Judas to identify the Lord with a kiss, to prove “that same is He”, was because the mass of armed men didn’t know who He was, and had therefore not sat in the temple. Again we see the Lord recognizing that men are only who they are, the hired thugs were no more than hired thugs acting in ignorance; but the leaders who were present were the ones He wanted to address. This is confirmed by <em><a href='B:490 22:52'>Luk 22:52</a></em> stating that “Jesus said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders that had come against him: Have you come as against a robber, with swords and staves?”. The priests and elders were in that large crowd, and the Lord directly addresses them. So although He addressed “the multitudes”, His message was aimed at specific individuals within the crowd. This is true of much of Scripture; perhaps those parts we personally fail to understand are speaking to a particular group in need of that message, perhaps in a previous age, and it may not be as directly intended for us as it was to them. The correspondence between the narratives is detailed and deeply credible. Uninspired writers would surely not only contradict themselves, but lack this artless congruence between each other which we find in the inspired Gospel records. <em><a href='B:490 22:53'>Luk 22:53</a></em> adds that the Lord continued to say: “But this is your hour, and the power of darkness”. The sense is surely that in broad daylight they dared not lay hold on Him- they had to do it under cover of darkness, because they were of the darkness.</p><p><em>But this is done that the scriptures might be fulfilled</em>- This can be read as part of the Lord’s words, or the comment of Matthew. “Is happening” is translated “was done” in the AV. See on :54; the emphasis upon the fulfilment of Scripture is not merely noting a correspondence between New Testament event and Old Testament scripture. Rather I suggest is the idea that the Lord chose to be obedient to God’s word and will, to make it His own, to the highest possible extent, to the point of total personal identification with it; when by its nature, God’s prophetic word has various possibilities of fulfilments on different levels, some of which would have enabled the Lord to bypass the cross. The specific reference may be to <em><a href='B:230 31:11'>Psa 31:11</a></em>. This refers to how David's family appear to have later disowned him during Saul’s persecution, fleeing from him, as the Lord’s friends also did.</p><p>There is a sense of compulsion associated with the cross. The Greek word&nbsp;<em>dei</em>, translated “must" or “ought", is repeatedly used by the Lord in reference to His death. He spoke of that death as the coming of His hour, as if always and in all things He felt a compulsion that He must die as He was to. Listing the references chronologically gives an impressive list:<br/>“I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures&nbsp;<em>must be fulfilled</em>" (<em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>). Three times in say 30 minutes, the Lord has stressed the compulsion of the cross:&nbsp;<br/>“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;the Son of man be lifted up" (<em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>)<br/>“From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders" (<em><a href='B:470 16:21'>Mat 16:21</a></em>).<br/>“And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; Saying, The Son of man&nbsp;<em>must suffer&nbsp;</em>many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and&nbsp;<em>must&nbsp;</em>be slain, and be raised the third day" (<em><a href='B:490 9:21-22'>Luk 9:21-22</a></em>).<br/>“And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he<em>&nbsp;must suffer&nbsp;</em>many things, and be set at nought" (<em><a href='B:480 9:12'>Mar 9:12</a></em>). These last three references all occurred within a day of each other, if not a few hours. The Lord at least three times was emphasizing how He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;die the death of the cross.<br/>“Nevertheless&nbsp;<em>I must</em>&nbsp;walk to day, and tomorrow, and the day following: for&nbsp;<em>it cannot be&nbsp;</em>that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:490 13:33'>Luk 13:33</a></em>)<br/>“But first i:e. most importantly, not just chronologically<em>&nbsp;must he&nbsp;</em>suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation" (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>).<br/>“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man&nbsp;<em>must be lifted up</em>? who is this Son of man?" (<em><a href='B:500 12:32-34'>Joh 12:32-34</a></em>). When the Lord spoke of “<em>If</em>&nbsp;I be lifted up", there was no doubt about it. The idiom was correctly understood by the people as meaning: “I absolutely&nbsp;<em>must</em>". And for them this was a contradiction in terms: a “son of man" Messiah who&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be crucified:&nbsp;<br/>“Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be killed" (<em><a href='B:490 22:7'>Luk 22:7</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/>“As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also&nbsp;<em>I must&nbsp;</em>bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again" (<em><a href='B:500 10:15-17'>Joh 10:15-17</a></em>). Embedded in the context of prediction of the cross, the Lord described that act as being how He&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;bring His sheep unto Himself:&nbsp;<br/>“But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that&nbsp;<em>thus it must be</em>?::. For I say unto you, that this that is written&nbsp;<em>must yet be accomplished&nbsp;</em>in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me&nbsp;<em>have an end</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 26:54'>Mat 26:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:37'>Luk 22:37</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 24:6'>Luk 24:6</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>14:50&nbsp;<em>And all the disciples left him</em>- Although the Lord had set up the opportunity for them to flee by stunning the armed men and telling them to allow the disciples free exit, they were still forsaking Him by doing so. And it still hurt the Lord. He simply knew their spiritual capabilities, and was giving them a lower level escape route. One size simply doesn’t fit all; He didn’t deal with them on a legalistic level of demanding obedience to a certain standard, failing which they were rejected. Neither does He work like that today. Their forsaking of Him sets the scene for His final agonized cry to the Father: “Why have&nbsp;<em>You</em>&nbsp;forsaken Me?” (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>). His disciples had, the inner circle of ministering women and His own mother had walked away from the cross- and now He felt even the Father forsaking Him, despite earlier having said that “He that sent Me is with Me: the Father has not left Me alone s:w. ‘forsake’” (<em><a href='B:500 8:29'>Joh 8:29</a></em>).</p><p><em>And fled</em>- Their action is emphasized by the usage of both words, forsake and fled. Typically the Gospel writers emphasize their own weakness and failures, all as part of their compelling appeal to others to respond to the message they themselves had been so slow to grasp.</p>


text:
<p>14:51&nbsp;<em>And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him</em>- It is possible to argue that the young man who followed Jesus and then ran away was in fact Peter; it was Peter who "followed him" at this time (<em><a href='B:470 26:58'>Mat 26:58</a></em>). <em><a href='B:480 14:54'>Mar 14:54</a></em> RV tells us after this incident that “<em>Peter</em>&nbsp;had followed him afar off”. Peter describes himself in the third person a few verses previously: “A certain one of them that stood by drew a sword…” (<em><a href='B:480 14:47'>Mar 14:47</a></em> RV). And then we go on to read in v. 51 of “a certain young man” (RV). But when speaking of his denials, Peter records them in the first person- he totally owns up to them. All of <em><a href='B:480 14:27-52'>Mar 14:27-52</a></em> concerns Peter’s part in the story, and then vv. 54-72 likewise. So it is likely that the record of the young man following disguised in a linen cloth is in fact referring to Peter too. So Peter followed, ran back, followed again, then ran away to Galilee, and then followed again. This was how hard it was for him to pick up the cross of identification with Jesus and follow Him. And for us too.</p>


text:
<p>14:52&nbsp;<em>But he left the linen cloth and fled naked</em>- If indeed the man was Peter, then he was demonstrating that he was not in fact prepared to go to prison and death with his Lord, as he had so confidently claimed. He ought to have taken this as a warning against being so confident that he would not deny his lord.</p>


text:
<p>14:53&nbsp;<em>And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and there came together all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes</em>- This recalls Psalms 2; the Gentiles gathered together against the Christ in Jerusalem. Those pious men were no more than Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>14:54&nbsp;<em>And Peter had followed him at a distance-&nbsp;</em>This following of Peter is recorded in the same words by all three Synoptics. It impressed them all as perhaps typical of so much of their ‘following’ the Lord; it was a following, but far off from Him. His challenge to Peter had been to not just physically follow Him, but to pick up His cross and walk behind Him on His way to His cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em> s:w:). Following Jesus in the shadows and avoiding identification with Him was hardly the kind of following which He intended. Yet Peter recognized this, because his appeal for repentance describes his audience as likewise “afar off” (<em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em> s:w:); he is asking them to make the conversion which he did, and he thereby considers his ‘following afar off’ as not really following at all, and being in a ‘far off from Christ’ position from which he repented and thereby ‘came near’ to Christ in conversion. The Greek words for ‘followed’ and ‘afar off’ are also used about how the few remaining disciples stood ‘afar off’ from Christ on the cross. The sense is perhaps that the Gospel writers recognized how far they were from co-crucifixion with Christ, and this sense is one we can identify with. And we are those likewise described in Ephesians as “far off” as Peter was, but are now likewise reconciled.</p><p><em>Right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire</em>- "Into" is the same word used by the Lord in warning Peter not to "enter into" temptation (<em><a href='B:490 22:46'>Luk 22:46</a></em>). And it is used again of how Satan entered into Judas (<em><a href='B:500 13:27'>Joh 13:27</a></em>), again drawing a parallel between the path of both Peter and Judas- the difference finally being simply that Peter believed in the Lord's grace whereas Judas could not.</p><p>Mt:&nbsp;<em>"</em>and sat with the officers". The presence of the definite article suggests that "the servants" the Greek also means "officers" are a group which has already been mentioned, and surely they are the "servants" who comprised the crowd of armed men who arrested Jesus in the Garden. The same word is used three times about them in <em><a href='B:500 18:3'>Joh 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:12'>Joh 18:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>. The risk Peter was taking was considerable, seeing he had visibly been with the Lord in the Garden and had tried to kill one of the servants. We must give due weight to this- his devotion to his Lord was incomplete but all the same must be recognized for what it was as far as it was. So often those who aim higher than others in their spiritual devotions are those who fall the most publicly, and yet their devotion to their Lord should not be forgotten- for it is higher than the mass of other disciples.</p>


text:
<h4>14:55&nbsp;<em>Now the chief priests and the whole council-</em>&nbsp;Gk. 'the Sanhedrin'. All of them participated in desiring or requiring Gk:; AV "sought" false witness against Jesus. And yet within that group was Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews (<em><a href='B:500 3:1'>Joh 3:1</a></em> - and "all" the Jewish leaders condemned Jesus to death, <em><a href='B:470 27:1'>Mat 27:1</a></em>); and Joseph, who is specifically called a member of the Council (<em><a href='B:480 15:43'>Mar 15:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:50'>Luk 23:50</a></em>). Perhaps this is an example of where "all" is used in Biblical languages in a general but not strictly literal sense. <em><a href='B:490 23:51'>Luk 23:51</a></em> says that Joseph had not "consented" with the Council. The Greek can mean specifically to vote, but also to simply 'agree'. Perhaps he voted against their decision; or perhaps his lack of consent was deeply internal. In any case, it seems that it was only after the Lord was pronounced dead that he 'came out' publicly in open identification with the Lord (note "after this::.", <em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em>). We see here the grace of God, in not holding against those men the way that they passively went along with the decision to crucify God's Son. Their strong internal disagreement was noted. We are reminded of how not all Joseph's brothers went along with the plan to kill him, but their silence meant that the plan went ahead. We likewise should show grace to those who go along with decisions which are deeply wrong and hurtful. This is not to say that they were correct in their lack of commitment, but we may well have done the same. And we can take a lesson from the Father's gracious attitude to those who would not immediately stand up and be counted for the Lord's cause. This affects our decision making in terms of disciplining those who do things like responding to military call up, voting under duress or other things which are against the Lord's will, which are failures::. and yet ultimately God may very well extend the same grace to them as He did to Joseph and Nicodemus. And He tends to use circumstances to make a person finally come out in the open about their views, because secret discipleship is an oxymoron and His desire is that we are as a city set on a hill which cannot be hid.</h4><p><em>Sought evidence against Jesus to put him to death, and did not find it</em>- The word is only used elsewhere in the Gospels about the way that the faithful will experience being 'put to death' in the final tribulation (<em><a href='B:470 10:21'>Mat 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:12'>Mar 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:16'>Luk 21:16</a></em>). The sufferings of the tribulation will enable the last generation to identify with the sufferings of Christ, and thus to share His resurrection life.</p>


text:
<p>14:56&nbsp;<em>For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree</em>- This is twice emphasized in this verse. Yet there were many false witnesses made. Presumably their legalistic minds insisted on giving the Lord 'a fair trial'; part of their minds were clouded by hatred and wickedness, and yet another part of their minds was set on strict legalistic obedience to God and the principles of legal integrity. In this we see the schizophrenic nature of the human mind. No matter what heights of devotion and understanding we may reach, we can never assume that we are totally with the Lord. And likewise we should not assume that others are either perfectly, totally spiritual or totally unspiritual. Sadly the human mind is capable of operating in different directions at once:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:57&nbsp;<em>And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying</em>- Mt:- there were two. The semblance of legal integrity they were following required that at least two and preferably three witnesses made the same accusation. The legalism of the Jews is emphasized, not least in their fear of ritual defilement at Passover time (<em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>). They held themselves to legal obedience and integrity, whilst committing the ultimate sin, of condemning the Son of God to a cruel death. The hatred they unleashed upon Him was done by men who were rigorously obedient to commandments; their abuse of Him would therefore have been justified by them as some form of obedience to Divine principle. And this is why religious people can be the most abusive and cruel of any- if the principles they are wedded to are wrong, and if they have not perceived grace.</p>


text:
<p>14:58&nbsp;<em>We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands</em>- They were misquoting Him, and their witness did not agree, each of the two men reported His words differently (<em><a href='B:480 14:59'>Mar 14:59</a></em>). And this lack of agreement between witnesses, "many" of them, was what had delayed proceedings to this point. But finally these evil men gave up all semblance of legal integrity- for time was running out. They thus condemned themselves even by the legal standards they were holding themselves to. The technical reason for His death sentence, therefore, was a supposed plan to destroy the temple, to commit the ultimate sacrilege. But what the Lord had said was that&nbsp;<em>they&nbsp;</em>would destroy the temple, referring to Himself, but after three days He would raise it up (<em><a href='B:500 2:19'>Joh 2:19</a></em>). It was in fact they and not Him who were guilty of the crime of destroying the temple; indeed, the literal temple was finally destroyed exactly because of them. They condemned Him for what they themselves were guilty of. Legalists are so often led by the Lord to positions wherein they condemn themselves by their own standards, words and demands. The trial of Jesus is the ultimate expose of legalism.</p>


text:
<p>14:59&nbsp;<em>But not even then did their testimony agree</em>- The utter weakness of the case is emphasized. They could not even agree amongst themselves as to what false story to give.</p>


text:
<p>14:60&nbsp;<em>And the high priest stood up in their midst and asked Jesus-</em>&nbsp;As a judge arises to give the verdict.</p><p><em>Do you answer nothing?-&nbsp;</em>One reason for the Lord's silence was in order to allow them to condemn themselves. But His self-control at His trials caused marvel amongst those who observed it, and it should to us too. For when justice and truth are so obviously not being upheld, all that is within us as humans cries out against it. Campaigns against injustice always gather mass support- it's very much a part of our human nature. But the Lord in this context said nothing. He let the unjust condemn themselves:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>What is this that these witnesses say against you?</em>- The Greek could equally be translated 'Who are these that these testify against you?'. We wonder whether one of them was Judas, and whether the other was some other former disciple. The High Priest's point would therefore have been 'Come on, these are Your own men who are testifying You said this. And you remain silent?'. The pain of betrayal would have been intense. Surely the deal with Judas had involved his being a legal witness at the trial. But the fact his witness did not agree with the other man’s witness showed yet again that their careful plans simply didn’t work out; see on <em><a href='B:470 26:5'>Mat 26:5</a></em>. The Lord Jesus freely gave His life, rather than having it taken from Him by the working out of carefully laid clever plans. Those plans failed. But He gave His life.</p>


text:
<p>14:61&nbsp;<em>But he held his peace and said nothing-&nbsp;</em>The High Priest 'answered' to this silence, according to Matthew. Silence is itself a statement, a word. <em><a href='B:290 57:11'>Isa 57:11</a></em> reasons with Israel that despite their sins, God had 'held His peace' in not judging them, and yet they still did not respect Him. Perhaps the Lord held His peace because all He could really speak in response was judgment against them. And He did not want to do that overmuch, He wanted to give them the maximum time for repentance before having to speak the inevitable judgment upon them. The answer He finally gives is not an answer to the accusations, but rather a pronouncement of judgment. And this is why, it seems to me, that He 'held His peace'- in order to give them the maximum opportunity to repent, and He was counting almost every second now. This desire for human repentance is a fundamental part of the Lord, as it should be part of our basic personality in Christ. This same Lord works moment by moment with us likewise, to bring us to repentance. This is His earnest desire.</p><p><em>Again the high priest questioned him, saying: Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?</em>- The technical reason for condemning Him was a supposed plot to destroy the temple building, but now the judge moves on to make another accusation, the issue which was most important to him and the Jews, but which was not of itself a criminal accusation which could be then transferred to Roman judgment with a request for a death penalty. But&nbsp;<em>contra</em>&nbsp;this there is the possibility that because Caesar declared himself to be the son of God and the anointed one, any man claiming to be that could be reported to the Romans and be condemned to death. In terms of legal procedure, their behaviour was wrong. The accusation shifted from one count to another, reflecting the clear desire of the judge to secure a condemnation regardless of procedure or witnesses. If this line of thought is correct, then it follows that confession of faith in any person as being "the Christ, the Son of God" was a criminal offence worthy of death. The crucifixion of the Lord for making this claim was therefore creating a legal precedent for the death by crucifixion of anyone else who believed there was such a person alive within the Roman empire. And the Gospels are studded with examples of confession of faith in "the Christ, the Son of God" (16:16; <em><a href='B:490 4:41'>Luk 4:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:27'>Joh 11:27</a></em>). The whole intention of the Gospel records was to bring people to make that same profession of faith in "the Christ, the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:480 1:1'>Mar 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>). Those parchments and the rehearsing of them would therefore have been forbidden material. In our age it may appear painless to confess faith in "the Christ, the Son of God", but it is no less radical in the separation it requires from the spirit of the societies in which we live.</p>


text:
<p>14:62- see on <em><a href='B:470 24:28'>Mat 24:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Jesus said: I am, and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven</em>-</p><p>The allusion is clearly to Daniel's vision of the Son of Man coming in glory to judge the Gentile world. And the Lord is saying that those hyper religious Jews were effectively condemned Gentiles before God. But those men to whom He spoke died in their beds. Lifespans were short in first century Palestine, most males were dead by 40. Most of them wouldn't even have lived to experience the calamity of AD67-70. They will only therefore "see the Son of Man sitting::." at His return, when they are resurrected and see Him in His glory. And this will be of itself their condemnation- to see Him there enthroned in glory, and themselves not in His Kingdom. This was exactly His teaching to them in <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>: "You shall not see Me from this time forward, until you shall say: Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord". They will then bless Him- but all too tragically late.</p><p>At His trial, the Lord warned them that He would come again as judge (<em><a href='B:470 26:64-65'>Mat 26:64-65</a></em>), as if He realized that they were living out a foretaste of the final judgment. The thief likewise understood the Lord's presence as being the presence of the judge who would finally judge him (<em><a href='B:490 23:44'>Luk 23:44</a></em>). Harry Whittaker points out that the cross divided men: there were women who followed and mourned insincerely, and the women who really followed. There were soldiers who gambled over the Lord's clothes, and one who really repented. There was a thief who repented and one who wouldn't. There were those who mocked and others who watched and believed.</p>


text:
<p>14:63&nbsp;<em>And the high priest tore his clothes and said-&nbsp;</em>Declaring the end of his priesthood, to be replaced by the Lord Jesus. The Lord was crucified for blasphemy; this was the charge on which He was found guilty at His trial by the Jews, and the basis upon which they demanded His crucifixion. The Mishnah claims that this was only possible if someone actually used the Yahweh Name:&nbsp;<em>Sanhedrin</em>&nbsp;7:5 outlines the protocol for condemning someone for this, in terms which have accurate correspondence with the Lord’s trial: “The blasphemer is not guilty until he have expressly uttered the Name::. When the trial is over::. the judges stand up and rend their clothes" (Quoted in F:F. Bruce,&nbsp;<em>The Spreading Flame (</em>Grand Rapids: Eerdmans<em>,&nbsp;</em>1995 ed:), p. 53). So when the Lord responded to their question as to His Messiahship by saying “I am", and went on to appropriate the Messianic words of <em><a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 110:1'>Psa 110:1</a></em> to Himself, He must have explicitly used the Yahweh Name about Himself. This is why they were so quick to accuse Him of blasphemy, and why the High Priest rent his clothes. The Lord died because He declared the Yahweh Name, unashamedly, knowing that His declaration of it would take Him to the cross. Our declaration of the essence of Yahweh, by truthfulness, forgiveness::. this may cost us, although maybe not so dearly. Yet we can be inspired by the Lord’s example:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>What further need have we of witnesses?</em>- Again, legal procedure, which they had tried so carefully to follow, was made a mockery of. They began with a conviction of plotting to destroy the temple buildings, then turned that into an accusation that He was a "Christ, the Son of God", a rival to Caesar; and now they jump on the charge of blasphemy, for which they gave Him the death penalty. And yet the Jews had no legal power to execute people; they had to present their case to the Roman authorities. And blasphemy was not a capital offence under Roman law. Their careful attempts to follow legal integrity broke down in pathetic collapse, and thereby they condemned themselves. The same word,&nbsp;<em>blasphemeo</em>, is then used of how the Jews "reviled" or blasphemed the Lord as He hung on the cross (27:39; <em><a href='B:490 22:65'>Luk 22:65</a></em>). They had earlier accused the Lord of blasphemy at least twice during His ministry (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:36'>Joh 10:36</a></em> s:w:). So they should have thought of that earlier in the trial, seeing they themselves were the witnesses of that supposed crime. We are left with the impression of a judge and jury increasingly desperate to find the Lord guilty, progressively throwing their integrity and legalism to the winds in their obsession to make Him guilty of death. Little wonder that Pilate later remonstrated with them that Jesus was simply not legally guilty of any capital offence. But the more he made that point to them, the more they screamed for His death:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:64&nbsp;<em>You have heard the blasphemy. What think you?-&nbsp;</em>The spiritual culture of Almighty God is shown by the way in which although&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Council (<em><a href='B:480 14:64'>Mar 14:64</a></em>), including Joseph, condemned Christ to death by crucifixion, God overlooks Joseph's lack of boldness in not contesting this, and speaks of him in such glowing spiritual terms. His 'not consenting unto' Christ's death was deep within him. I would be inclined to say: 'The&nbsp;<em>least</em>&nbsp;you could have done was to have abstained from the vote'. But the record is far more positive than that. No note is made of Joseph or Nicodemus speaking out against it. The mob ruled, despite all the appearances of jurisprudence, spiritual and legal integrity. And yet the record speaks so positively of those two men. Perhaps this is because the Gospel records were encouraging those who had offered a pinch of incense to Caesar, or in some other way been silent in the Roman world when they should have stood up and been counted, that God's grace was still with them- even though ultimately, providence tends to overrule circumstances so that we do have to stand up openly.</p><p><em>And they all condemned him to be worthy of death</em>- The Lord had earlier taught that whoever calls their brother 'Raca', worthless, would be "guilty" s:w. before "the Council", the Sanhedrin (<em><a href='B:470 5:21-22'>Mat 5:21-22</a></em>). He had in mind that the Sanhedrin of the Jews was not the ultimate court of judgment for God's people, but rather the Heavenly council of Angels, presided over by God Almighty. The Lord must surely have been aware of this as the men of that human Sanhedrin condemned and abused Him. Human committees, courts or even groups of friends and family members are not the ultimate Sanhedrin; judge us as they may, the ultimate court is in Heaven. The same word for "guilty" is found in <em><a href='B:530 11:27'>1Co 11:27</a></em>, where Paul urges us to self-examination at the Lord's table lest we be guilty of His body and blood. The allusion shows that we as baptized believers can be no better than those evil men- unless we perceive Him and His death for what they really are.</p>


text:
<p>14:65&nbsp;<em>And some began to spit on him and to cover his face-&nbsp;</em>This was done by men who just minutes beforehand had been carefully upholding some isolated principles of Divine law and general legal integrity. Their appearance of culture vanished. They only could have been so crude and cruel if they first justified it in terms of their religion; spitting and beating would have been justified by them as the punishment due to a heretic. But here we see how they were justifying their own natural anger and jealousy by taking a tiny shard of Biblical precedent- for only in <em><a href='B:50 25:2'>Deu 25:2</a></em> do we have any justification for legal beating, and once it was finished, then there was to be no other punishment. The beating was to be on his back and not on his face; and there was no talk of spitting. But the Jews took that and used it to justify spitting in the Lord's<em>&nbsp;face</em>, beating Him with their fists and then further condemning Him to death. The only command to spit in the face of a man was if he refused to raise up children for his dead relative (<em><a href='B:50 25:9'>Deu 25:9</a></em>); but this was totally irrelevant to the Lord Jesus. He in any case was the ultimate example of a man who did build up His Father's house. There is anger in each of us, and religious people at times give full vent to that anger by justifying it as righteous anger, grabbing hold of the vague implication of some Bible verse and taking it way beyond the obvious meaning of the verse. In doing so, they are behaving no better than these the very worst of men who have ever lived, committing the worst ever crime ever committed in the cosmos. The face of Jesus shone at times with God's glory; He was the face of God to men. And they spat in that face, and beat it. The wonder was that the Lord had specifically foreseen this- He had predicted that they would spit at Him (<em><a href='B:480 10:34'>Mar 10:34</a></em>). He foresaw how they would fuel their anger against Him with their persuasion that He was a heretic:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Striking him-&nbsp;</em>Slapping Him. A Semitic insult to a heretic. Again, their anger was fuelled by and excused by their religious convictions. This slapping (whilst He was blindfolded, <em><a href='B:490 22:64'>Luk 22:64</a></em>) was connected to their question: "Prophesy to us, you Christ Who is he that struck you?" (:68). Clearly they were seeking to test His claim to be the Christ. They thought that the Christ could demonstrate supernatural knowledge; and He had already demonstrated that multiple times. They clearly had in mind a section from the uninspired Psalms of Solomon, where false Messiahs were to be tested in this way. The warning to us is to never allow fragments of Scripture or our religious tradition or beloved writings to justify us in expressing our anger in this way:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And saying to him: Prophesy-&nbsp;</em>They had blindfolded Him, and were challenging Him to exercise the prophetic gift of discernment by saying the name of the soldier who had struck Him. We note that 'prophesy' is not to be understood solely as the prediction of future events. The fact is, the Lord did know who had struck Him. They were clearly alluding to the fact that the Jews had concluded the Lord was a false prophet and false Christ and were punishing Him as such.</p><h4><em>And the guards took him and beat him with their hands</em>- Men smote “the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek" (<em><a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a></em>). The RVmg. of <em><a href='B:480 14:65'>Mar 14:65</a></em> says that the Lord was hit with “strokes of rods". Perhaps it was in this sense that the rod comforted Messiah (<em><a href='B:230 23:4'>Psa 23:4</a></em>) in that He saw immediately that prophecy was being fulfilled in Him. Our darkest moments likewise can be our greatest encouragement if only we perceive them as we should. As men mocked Him and smote Him, thus they were treating their judge at the time of judgment. In His time of dying, the Lord Jesus was the judge of Israel. This explains why when we come before the cross, not only at the breaking of bread but&nbsp;<em>whenever</em>&nbsp;we come into contact with Him, or reflect upon Him and His death, we are in some sense coming before Him in judgment.</h4>


text:
<p>14:66&nbsp;<em>And as Peter was downstairs in the courtyard, there came-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em> says that the girl was keeping the door and let Peter through. As the door keeper she would have looked carefully at his face in the light of a torch. And then she came to him as he was sitting by the fire (Lk:), say some minutes later, as she realized who he was. This again has the ring of congruence about it, indicating how perfectly the records dovetail:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>One of the maids of the high priest</em>- Gk. 'a servant girl', "one of the servant girls of the High Priest" (<em><a href='B:480 14:66'>Mar 14:66</a></em>). Her claim that "You also were with Jesus" may specifically refer to Peter's presence with Jesus in Gethsemane, for”&nbsp;the servants" of the High Priest had been there. Perhaps she was one of them. She describes Peter as being&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>Jesus "you were with Jesus", and the same phrase&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>Jesus is used to described the disciples being&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>Jesus in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:36'>Mat 26:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:51'>Mat 26:51</a></em>). Or since the Lord was a public figure in Jerusalem, it would be likely that Peter was known as one of those ever to be seen hanging around Him. <em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em> gives further information about her: "The maid keeping watch at the door said to Peter: Are you also one of this man's disciples? He said: I am not". The only other time we read of a servant girl who was a door keeper is in <em><a href='B:510 12:16'>Act 12:16</a></em>, where the servant girl s:w. called Rhoda was the door keeper at the home of the disciples in Jerusalem, and is thrilled when she realizes that it is Peter knocking at the door asking her to let him in. Note that "door keeper" is likely a technical term, a kind of profession. This heightens the similarity between the two characters. The similarities with the scene in <em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em> are too strong to be passed off as unintentional; for here Peter has to have the door to the courtyard opened by the servant girl, and it is at the gate that she recognizes him. Peter's failure, his denials, were the basis of his successful appeals for Israel to follow his pattern of repentance. Thousands heard him make those appeals in Jerusalem, for if a few thousand were baptized in one day, we can be sure that many others heard the message and didn't act upon it. It's highly likely that that servant girl was in the crowd, and was one who responded. I suggest that Rhoda was that servant girl, converted by Peter's failure, repentance and experience of forgiveness. She converted from serving the Jewish High Priest to serving the Heavenly High Priest, the Lord Jesus; from being one of the crowd who went out to arrest Jesus, to being one who glorified His resurrection:&nbsp;</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Matthew</td><td>Mark</td><td>Luke</td><td>John</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accusation 1</td><td>Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a maid came to him, saying: You also were with Jesus the Galilean.</td><td>And as Peter was downstairs in the courtyard, there came one of the maids of the high priest:&nbsp; And seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said: You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus</td><td>And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat among them. And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire and looking earnestly upon him, said: This man also was with him.</td><td>Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest; and he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest:&nbsp; But Peter was standing outside the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept watch at the door. The maid keeping watch at the door said to Peter: Are you also one of this man's disciples?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denial 1</td><td>But he denied before them all, saying: I do not know what you say.</td><td>But he denied it, saying: I neither know, nor understand what you say; and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.</td><td>But he denied it, saying: Woman, I do not know him.</td><td>He said: I am not</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accusation 2</td><td>And when he went out to the entrance, another maid saw him and said to the bystanders: This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.</td><td>And the maid saw him and began again to say to them that stood by: This is one of them</td><td>And after a little while another person saw him and said: You also are one of them.</td><td>Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals. For it was cold, and they were warming themselves; and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself::. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him: Are you also one of his disciples?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denial 2</td><td>And again he denied with an oath: I do not know the man.</td><td>But he again denied it.</td><td>But Peter said: Man, I am not.</td><td>He denied and said: I am not</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accusation 3</td><td>And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter: Of a truth you also are one of them, for your dialect makes you known.</td><td>And after a little while, again they that stood by said to Peter: Of a truth you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.</td><td>And after the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying: Of a truth, this man also was with him. For he is a Galilean.</td><td>One of the servants of the high priest, being a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said: Did I not see you in the garden with him?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denial 3</td><td>Then he began to curse and to swear: I do not know the man And immediately the cock crowed.</td><td>But he began to curse and to swear under oath: I do not know this man of whom you speak. And immediately the second time the cock crew</td><td>But Peter said: Man, I do not know what you say. And immediately, as he spoke, the cock crew.</td><td>Peter denied again; and immediately the cock crew.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Peter's response 1</td><td>And Peter remembered the words which Jesus had said: Before the cock crows, you shall deny me three times.</td><td>And Peter remembered what Jesus had said to him: Before the cock crows twice, you shall deny me three times.</td><td>And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord that he had said to him: Before the cock crow this day, you shall deny me three times:&nbsp;</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Peter goes out</td><td>And he went out and wept bitterly.</td><td>And as he thought upon it, he wept.</td><td>And he went out and wept bitterly.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p>14:67<em> And seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said: You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus- </em>This has the ring of circumstantial truth to it. The light from the fire would have drawn attention to the features of Peter’s face. He would have been well known in Jerusalem as the Lord’s right hand man. We see here another hint at the simplicity and lack of wisdom in Peter. And yet he was the one the Lord used so powerfully<em>.</em></p>


text:
<p>14:68&nbsp;<em>But he denied it, saying-</em>&nbsp;Matthew stresses the denial was before them all. Peter was living out the scene of condemnation at the last day, where the verdict likewise will be manifest "before all". The Lord had used the same word in saying that whoever denied Him "before men" cp. "before all", He will deny before the Father at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 10:33'>Mat 10:33</a></em>). Peter appealed for Israel to repent on the basis that they had "denied" Christ (<em><a href='B:510 3:13-14'>Act 3:13-14</a></em> s:w:)- he is appealing for them to realize that they had done what he had done, and yet they could repent, convert and experience the same grace he had done. His appeal, made a stone's throw from where the denials were made and only 6 weeks later, was therefore so powerful. Peter likewise used his failure in his pastoral work with his converts, warning them that to even deny the Lord who redeemed us is the worst possible thing we can do (<em><a href='B:680 2:1'>2Pe 2:1</a></em>). Likewise <em><a href='B:690 2:22-23'>1Jn 2:22-23</a></em> speaks of denying Christ as being the characteristic of the AntiChrist. And John wrote in the context of the early church having Peter as its first leader, and John of course was fully aware of Peter's failure that night.</p><p>Peter in this life denied his Lord&nbsp;<em>in front of men</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>)- and the record of his failure intentionally looks back to the Lord's warning that whoever denies Him&nbsp;<em>before men&nbsp;</em>will be denied by Him at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 10:33'>Mat 10:33</a></em>). He sinned, and in the court of Heaven was condemned. There is a passage in <em><a href='B:240 24:11-12'>Pro 24:11-12</a></em> which has a strange relevance to Peter's self-condemnation. Having spoken of those being led away to death (the very context of Peter's denial), we read: "If thou sayest, Behold we know not this man: doth not he that weigheth the hearts consider it? And shall not he render to every man according to his works?". This last phrase is quoted in <em><a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a></em> about the final judgment. Paul seems to consciously link Peter’s church hypocrisy and legalism with his earlier denials that he had ever known the Lord Jesus. He writes of how he had to reveal Peter’s denial of the Lord’s grace “before them all” (<em><a href='B:550 2:14'>Gal 2:14</a></em>), using the very same Greek phrase of <em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>, where “before them all” Peter made the same essential denial.</p><p><em>I neither know, nor understand what you say; and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew</em>- Again, Peter was acting as the condemned, to whom the Lord will say "I know you not" (<em><a href='B:470 25:12'>Mat 25:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). The whole idea of ‘I don’t know Him’ must, sadly, be connected with the Lord’s words in <em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>, where He tells the rejected: “I never knew you”. By denying knowledge of the Saviour, Peter was effectively agreeing that the verdict of condemnation could appropriately be passed upon him:&nbsp; In one of his many allusions to the Gospels, Paul wrote that “If we deny him, he also will deny us” (<em><a href='B:620 2:12'>2Ti 2:12</a></em>). Peter in this life denied his Lord&nbsp;<em>in front of men</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>)- and the record of his failure intentionally looks back to the Lord’s warning that whoever denies Him&nbsp;<em>before men&nbsp;</em>will be denied by Him at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 10:33'>Mat 10:33</a></em>). He sinned, and in the court of Heaven was condemned; and yet he could change the verdict by repentance.</p><p>Bible minded Peter must surely have later reflected that he had said those very words: 'I know not this man'. He "went out" from the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>) and then some minutes later further "went out and wept bitterly" (<em><a href='B:490 22:62'>Luk 22:62</a></em>), living out the very figure of condemnation- and yet he was able to repent and come back. Peter's self condemnation is brought out in yet finer detail by considering what he meant when he thrice denied that he either knew nor understood about Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>). By that time, everyone had heard about Jesus- after all, the trial of Jesus was going on, and all Jerusalem were waiting with bated breath for the outcome. And there was Peter, standing by the fire in the High Priest's house, with everyone talking about the Jesus affair. Peter hardly would've meant 'Jesus? 'Jesus' who? Never heard of him. Dunno who you're talking about'. What he therefore meant, or wished to be understood as meaning, was that he didn't 'know' Jesus in a close sense, he wasn't a disciple of Jesus, he didn't know nor understand Jesus, i:e:, he wasn't a follower of Jesus. When Peter tells the maid: "I know not, neither understand what you say about this Jesus" (<em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>), the other records interpret this as meaning that Peter said that he didn't know Jesus. So we may have to interpret the form of speech being used here; for Semitic speakers don't answer questions in the same way and form as we may be accustomed to. The "what you say" was about Jesus; and therefore Peter is saying that he neither knows closely nor understands this Jesus. And yet time and again, Peter's Lord had taught that those who did not or would not 'know and understand' Him were those who were "outside", unknown by Him, rejected. And Peter was saying, to save his skin, 'Yes, that's me'. And yet::. Peter repented, and changed that verdict. Mark’s record of the Lord’s trial is not merely a historical account. It’s framed in terms of our need to testify for our faith too. The Lord’s example in His time of suffering was and is intended to be our example and inspiration, in that we are to in a very practical sense enter into His sufferings. Mark records the Lord’s prediction that His people would have to witness before both Jewish and Gentile authorities (<em><a href='B:480 13:9-13'>Mar 13:9-13</a></em>)- and then Mark goes on in the next chapter to describe Jesus doing just this. The Lord asked His suffering followers not to prepare speeches of self-defence- perhaps exemplified and patterned for us in the way that He remained silent before His accusers. Peter is recorded as denying Christ three times- just as the Romans interrogated Christians and asked them to three times deny Christ. The Christians were also asked to curse, or&nbsp;<em>anathematizein</em>, Jesus. And when we read of Peter’s cursing, the same word is used. We’re left with the impression that Peter actually cursed Christ. And so Mark, who was likely writing the Gospel on Peter’s behalf, is showing that Peter, the leader of the church, actually pathetically failed to follow his Lord at this time. And yet the Gospel of Mark was being distributed to Christians who were being dragged before Jewish and Roman courts. The idea was surely to give them an example and encouragement from Peter’s failure, rather than portray a positive example of a man overcoming the temptation to curse and deny Christ. But this was how the Lord used Peter- as an example from failure for all of us:&nbsp;<br/>"Went out" is the language of Judas going out (<em><a href='B:500 13:30'>Joh 13:30</a></em>), Cain '"went out" (<em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>), as did Zedekiah in the judgment of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:300 39:4'>Jer 39:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 52:7'>Jer 52:7</a></em>). Esau went out from the land of Canaan into Edom, slinking away from the face of his brother Jacob, sensing his righteousness and his own carnality (<em><a href='B:10 36:2-8'>Gen 36:2-8</a></em>). Even in this life, those who leave the ecclesia 'go out' after the pattern of Judas, condemning themselves in advance of the judgment by their attitude to the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 15:24'>Act 15:24</a></em>). The unrighteous flee from God now, as they will then (<em><a href='B:350 7:13'>Hos 7:13</a></em>). The ungrateful servant "went out" and condemned his brother- thus condemning himself (<em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>). Yet Peter in this life "went out" from the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>) and then some minutes later further "went out and wept bitterly" (<em><a href='B:490 22:62'>Luk 22:62</a></em>), living out the very figure of rejection at the judgment-&nbsp; and yet was able to repent and come back. In this life we can be judged, condemned, weep:::but still repent of it and thereby change our eternal destiny. But at the final judgment: it will be just too late. That 'judgment' will be a detailed statement of the outcome of the ongoing investigative <em><a href='B:720 1:1'>Jud 1:1</a></em> gment which is going on right now:&nbsp;<br/>Mark’s Peter’s Gospel omits many incidents, but also uses the device of repetition to stress what the writer considers significant. In <em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em> he records himself as having said: “I know, neither understand I what thou sayest”. He stresses the nature of his own rejection of knowledge of the Lord. A similar awareness of the weakness of the flesh is found in 7:21: “From within, out of the heart of man::.".</p>


text:
<p>14:69&nbsp;<em>And the maid saw him and began again to say to them that stood by: This is one of them</em>-&nbsp; Peter overheard her talking to the men about him, and jumped in with a denial. This is absolutely psychologically credible:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>14:70&nbsp;<em>But he again denied it. And after a little while, again they that stood by said to Peter-&nbsp;</em>John says that a group of men made the second accusation; see the parallel texts at the commentary on :66. Luke says that Peter replied to the second accusation which Matthew says was made by a<em>&nbsp;woman</em>&nbsp;by saying “<em>Man</em>, I am not”. Clearly the accusations and denials were in groups- the second ‘denial’ involved a number of people a man, a woman and plural men making accusations and Peter denying them all. If we put together the various records of Peter’s three denials, it seems clear that a number of accusations were made, and he replied slightly differently each time. But there were three groups of accusations and denials. We can imagine the scene- there was a whole group of men and women present, all within earshot, and once one person made the accusation, others would’ve chimed in. But the account is stylized to group the denials in three groups, and Peter obviously perceived this after his final oath of denial. But in fact it seems that each denial was a series of separate denials. Indeed the tense of the verb “denied” suggests he kept on and on denying.</p><p><em>Of a truth you are one of them; for you are a Galilean</em>-&nbsp;<br/>From the larynx of a Palestinian Jew there came the words of Almighty God. And yet He spoke them in the accent of a rural Galilean. We know this because Peter was identified as being one of the Lord's close disciples because of His accent (<em><a href='B:470 26:73'>Mat 26:73</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:70'>Mar 14:70</a></em>). The dialect of Aramaic used in Galilee was a permanent topic of sarcasm in Jerusalem circles. There is a story in the Mishnah (bErubin 53b) which mocks how the Galileans pronounced words which began with a guttural deep-throat consonant. It ridicules how a Galilean in Jerusalem tries to buy something in a market but is mocked by the merchant: "You stupid Galilean, do you need something to ride on&nbsp;<em>hamair</em>- a donkey, or something to drink&nbsp;<em>hamar</em>- wine, or something to make a dress with&nbsp;<em>'amar</em>- wool, or something for a sacrifice&nbsp;<em>immar</em>- lamb". What an essay in God's preference for using the things which man despises- that He should arrange for His Son to speak His words in the most humanly despised dialect of the ecclesia. In this context, it is interesting to note the debate over the original text of <em><a href='B:480 5:41'>Mar 5:41</a></em>, where the Lord is recorded as saying the Aramaic words&nbsp;<em>Talitha kum in</em>&nbsp;the oldest manuscripts, but it seems this has been changed to the more grammatically correct&nbsp;<em>Talitha kumi</em>&nbsp;in later codices:&nbsp;<em>Kum</em>&nbsp;would apparently have been the slovenly Galilean way of speaking, whereby the masculine form of the imperative is joined to a feminine subject. It could be that the Lord spoke in the Galilean way, technically incorrect grammatically- as a Londoner might say 'We was waiting for a bus' rather than 'we were waiting:::'; or an Ulsterman 'how are yous all?' rather than using the more correct 'you' for 'you' plural. If this is so, we have another window into the person of Jesus. There was a naturalness about Him, an expression of the ultimate image of God in totally human form, which was so attractive.</p>


text:
<p>14:71&nbsp;<em>But he began-</em>&nbsp;The implication could be that he began to call down the curses of eternal condemnation and rejection at judgment day upon himself, but the crowing of the rooster made him stop.</p><p><em>To curse and to swear under oath: I do not know this man of whom you speak</em>- Not an expletive, but rather a Jewish oath. Many of them wished condemnation on the person making the oath if it were not true. Again, Peter is entering into condemnation, signing himself up for condemnation. James wrote to the very early church, probably to the Jerusalem ecclesia, who were clearly led by Peter. He urged them “Above all things, my brethren, swear not… neither by any other oath” (<em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>). He was clearly saying, in effect: ‘Don’t be like Peter’. The weakness of Peter, and the way he had repented and been forgiven, was the basis of his success as a preacher and also of his special commission to feed the lambs of the early flock. He did not present himself as the flawless pastor, and neither did his fellow elders like James present him as such. But as with his Lord, it was his humanity which was the basis of his exaltation. This can be read as meaning that Peter actually cursed Christ, as well as taking an oath that he didn't know Him. Commenting on the verb form of&nbsp;<em>anathematizein&nbsp;</em>there, Raymond Brown comments: "it should be taken transitively with 'Jesus' understood as the object: Peter cursed Jesus and took an oath that he had no personal acquaintance with him" - R:E. Brown,&nbsp;<em>The Death Of The Messiah</em>&nbsp;(Garden City: Doubleday, 1994) p. 605. I find it significant that the most awful detail about Peter's denials is provided in Mark's record, which I have suggested elsewhere is in fact Peter's record of the Gospel, written up by Mark.</p><p><em>"</em>This man" suggests he didn't even know Jesus' name. He protested too much, for Jesus was a well known public figure in Jerusalem at the time (<em><a href='B:490 24:18-19'>Luk 24:18-19</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>14:72&nbsp;<em>And immediately the second time the cock crew. And Peter remembered what Jesus had said to him: Before the cock crows twice, you shall deny me three times. And as he thought upon it, he wept</em>- It is only Mark who records the two cock crowings at the time of Peter’s denial. Peter wished to quietly emphasize the exactness of fulfilment of the Lord’s words about his denial. Mark / Peter likewise record Peter’s words as: “I neither know nor understand what you mean”. The ‘what’ can apply to both Jesus personally as well as the general ‘being with’ Jesus. Peter is admitting that He had denied having any understanding at all of the Lord- the Lord whose knowledge he now preached. One can imagine Peter’s voice quivering as he recounted his Gospel story. Note how Luke says that all the disciples slept in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:490 22:45'>Luk 22:45</a></em>); but Mark Peter records how only Peter, James and John slept (<em><a href='B:480 14:37'>Mar 14:37</a></em>).</p><p>"Peter remembered" the Lord's words.<em>&nbsp;</em>The letters of Peter urge his readers to “be mindful of the words which were spoken before” (<em><a href='B:680 3:2'>2Pe 3:2</a></em>). Yet this is evidently alluding to the frequent references to the disciples being slow to “remember” s:w. “mindful” the words which their Lord had “spoken before” (<em><a href='B:490 24:6'>Luk 24:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:8'>Luk 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:17'>Joh 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:22'>Joh 2:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em>). Indeed, the same word is used about Peter ‘remembering’ s:w. “be mindful” all too late, the words which his Lord had “spoken before” to him (<em><a href='B:470 26:75'>Mat 26:75</a></em>). So Peter was aware that his readers knew that he had not ‘remembered’ the words his Lord had “spoken before” to&nbsp;<em>him</em>- and yet, knowing that, he exhorts his readers to ‘remember’ or ‘be mindful’ s:w. of words which had been previously spoken. His readers likely had memorized the Gospels by heart. And yet Peter asks them to learn from his mistake, not to be as slow to remember as the disciples had been, and he especially. This is the basis of powerful exhortation- a repentant life, not an appearance of sinlessness:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:1&nbsp;<em>And immediately in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole council, made their decision and bound Jesus and took him away and delivered him up to Pilate</em>- Trying a man through the night was hardly transparent or in accordance with the most basic standards of integrity. And yet on some issues, at this very same time, those men sought to carefully uphold their integrity and obedience to Divine principles. In this we see the tragic, cruel dualism of the human mind- and we understand again the call of God’s word to give ourselves to Him with our&nbsp;<em>whole</em>&nbsp;heart.</p><p>Israelites binding a man and delivering him over to Gentiles sounds very much like what Israel did to Samson. The Lord must’ve reflected how easily He likewise could have burst those bands and destroyed them all. The similarity with Samson is surely to remind us that He had those possibilities, but He was consciously choosing to give His life. The great paradox was that by accepting those bonds, He was thereby binding the strong man of sin and sin as manifested in the Jewish system (<em><a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a></em>). For "Took Him away" see on <em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Led Him away.</em></p>


text:
<p>15:2&nbsp;<em>And Pilate asked him: Are you the King of the Jews?-&nbsp;</em>Out of the various Jewish accusations against the Lord, this was the only one which directly affected the Romans, and was the technical reason for Pilate agreeing to the death penalty; it was this reason which was written over the Lord’s head on the cross. The irony of the situation must have rubbed hard upon the Lord; He was dying as the King of a people, not one of whom would openly show loyalty to Him. In any suffering we may have because of feeling utterly alone, betrayed, having lived life to no end, not being shown loyalty by those we expect it of- we are connected with the spirit of the cross.</p><p><em>And he answering said to him: So you say</em>-&nbsp;<em>&nbsp;</em>Jesus before Pilate said just one word in Greek; translated "You say it". It is stressed there that Jesus said nothing else, so that Pilate marvelled at His silent self-control. Yet Paul speaks with pride of how the Lord Jesus "before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession" (<em><a href='B:610 6:13'>1Ti 6:13</a></em>). You'd expect him to be alluding to some major speech of Jesus. But it seems, reading his spirit, Paul's saying: 'Lord Jesus, your self control, your strength of purpose, was great. I salute you, I hold you up to Timothy as the supreme example. Just one word. What a witness'. &nbsp;As He witnessed in His ministry, so must we (<em><a href='B:520 2:19'>Rom 2:19</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 4:16'>Mat 4:16</a></em>). As He witnessed before Pilate, so must we witness (<em><a href='B:610 6:12-13'>1Ti 6:12-13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>15:3&nbsp;<em>And the chief priests accused him of many things</em>- The accusations were of course false (as Pilate himself pointed out, <em><a href='B:490 23:14'>Luk 23:14</a></em>), making the chief priests and Jewish system the 'devil', the false accuser. In my&nbsp;<em>The Real Devil</em>&nbsp;I demonstrated at length that the terms 'satan' and 'devil' often refer specifically to the Jewish system in the first century. The paradox was that it was those very Jews who were standing in the dock before God, accused by the writings of Moses (<em><a href='B:500 5:45'>Joh 5:45</a></em>). And yet we must give <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em> its due weight- many of the chief rulers believed in Jesus as Christ but were fearful of the Pharisees and exclusion from the synagogue. So it has so often been- fear of religious excommunication leads believers to crucify their Christ brethren. Their behaviour is explained by the repeated descriptions of the Jews ‘gathering together’ to take their decisions about killing the Lord. In company, men adopt positions far beyond those they personally hold, and even strongly against their own personal convictions. Reading the account of Jewish treatment of Jesus, it seems incredible, at first blush, that some or even “many” of those men “believed in Him”. But this is the power of group think and the fear of appearing strange to others, or being rejected by others, especially from their religious fellowship.</p><h4><em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em> speaks of the Lord at this time as being uncannily silent: " as a sheep before&nbsp;<em>her&nbsp;</em>shearers is silent”. The LXX has: “Because of his affliction he opens not his mouth", as if the silence was from pure fear as well as a reflection of an internal pain that was unspeakable. Job’s experience had foretold that the cross would be what the Lord had always “greatly feared". The Passover Lamb, so evidently typical of the Lord as He approached death, was to be&nbsp;<em>male</em>. And yet <em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em> conspicuously speaks of a female sheep. Why such an obvious contradiction? Was it not because the prophet foresaw that in the extraordinary breadth of experience the Lord was passing through, He was made to empathize with both men&nbsp;<em>and&nbsp;</em>women? He felt then, as He as the seed of the woman stood silent before those abusive men, as a woman would feel. This is not the only place where both the Father and Son are described in feminine terms. It doesn't mean, of course, that the Father is a woman; what it means is that He has the ability to appreciate and manifest feelings which a male would not normally be able to. Through His experience and zeal for our redemption, the Lord Jesus came to the same ability as His Father in these areas. Those who have suffered most are the most able to empathize. And yet somehow the Lord exceeded this principle; it was true of Him, but&nbsp;<em>such</em>&nbsp;were His sufferings and such His final empathy that this isn't a fully adequate explanation as to&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;He got to that point of supreme empathy and identity with us that He did:&nbsp;<em>Exactly</em>&nbsp;how He did it must surely remain a mystery; for God was in Him, reconciling the world unto Himself by that fully and totally representative sacrifice. The female element in Old Testament sacrifice pointed forward to the Lord’s sacrifice, as a sheep before her shearers. His identity with both male and female, as the ultimate representative of all humanity, meant that He took upon Himself things that were perceived as specifically feminine. The mother was the story teller of the family; when people heard the Lord tell parables and teach wisdom, it would have struck them that He was doing the work of the matriarch of a family. “Typical female behaviour included taking the last place at the table, serving others, forgiving wrongs, having compassion, and attempting to heal wounds", strife and arguments. And yet the woman was to be silent::. as Christ was. All this was done by the Lord Jesus- especially in His time of dying and the lead up to it. He was in many ways the idealized mother / matriarch. His sacrifice for us was very much seen as woman’s work. And this is why the example of his mother Mary would have been a particular inspiration for Him in going through the final process of self-surrender and sacrifice for others, to bring about forgiveness and healing of strife between God and men. In a fascinating study, Diane Jacobs-Malina develops the thesis that a psychological analysis of the Gospels shows that the Lord Jesus played his roles like “the wife of the absent husband". And assuming that Joseph disappeared from the scene early in life, His own mother would have been His role model here- for she was indeed the wife of an absent husband. You’d have to read Jacobs-Malina’s study to be able to judge whether or not you think it’s all valid. But if she’s right, then it would be yet another tribute to the abiding influence of Mary upon the character of the Son of God.</h4>


text:
<p>15:4&nbsp;<em>And Pilate again asked him: Have you no answer to make?-&nbsp;</em>The implication was 'Are you deaf?'. The Lord was fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies that Messiah would be as deaf before His accusers (<em><a href='B:230 38:13'>Psa 38:13</a></em> "I as a deaf man don't hear"; <em><a href='B:290 42:19'>Isa 42:19</a></em> "Who is blind, but My servant? Or who is as deaf as My messenger whom I send? Who is as blind as he who is at peace, and as blind as Yahweh’s servant?"). The quotation from Psalms 38 is from one of the Psalms David wrote concerning his failure with Bathsheba and subsequent sufferings. Many other of these Psalms, especially Psalms 22, 69, are full of material relevant to the Lord's sufferings. We observe therefore that through suffering for his sin, David came to know the sufferings of his future Messiah. We marvel at how God works through sin. He doesn't ignore it, nor simply punish men for the sake of needing to punish them. Those sufferings and the very experience of sin are somehow worked through by God in order to bring men to His Son and to His cross. We likewise should not turn away from sinners but rather seek to work with them to bring them to know Christ, knowing that this is indeed God's game plan with them too. The allusion to <em><a href='B:290 42:19'>Isa 42:19</a></em> must be understood likewise in the context of that passage. The preceding verse has appealed to the blind and deaf within Judah at that time: "Hear, you deaf, and look, you blind" (<em><a href='B:290 42:18'>Isa 42:18</a></em>), and then goes on say that sinless Messiah likewise was deaf and blind. We see here a principle that was to be worked out throughout the Lord's passion- He identified with sinners. They were deaf and blind, and He now acted as deaf and blind, He identified with sinners to the point that He felt as a sinner. His silence to the accusations was therefore also capable of being understood as the silence of a guilty man before His accusers. Not that the Lord was guilty, but He identified with sinful man to the extent that He felt that way, and this all came to its final term in His genuine feeling that He had been forsaken even by God (:46). Not that He was, for God only forsakes sinners and never forsakes the righteous (see notes on :46). But He so identified with sinners that the Lord felt as one of us, although He was not a sinner. Yet as the Lord stood before His accusers silent, He knew great peace; so <em><a href='B:290 42:19'>Isa 42:19</a></em> assures us: "Who is blind, but My servant? Or who is as deaf as My messenger whom I send? Who is as blind as&nbsp;<em>he who is at peace</em>, and as blind as Yahweh’s servant?".</p><p><em>See how many accusations they make against you</em>- The Greek is used only four times in the New Testament; here and twice in the comment of the High Priest at the Lord's earlier trial (<em><a href='B:470 26:62'>Mat 26:62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:60'>Mar 14:60</a></em>). Circumstances repeated. The Lord learnt silence at the first trial, and there was the same reaction from the judge; and now the situation repeated itself, although Pilate had not been present at the first trial. He overcame that first test, and repeated the victory. We have seen how in contrast to this, Peter was given various tests which he failed the first time and then subsequent times when they were repeated (e:g. the three failures to keep awake in Gethsemane, and the triple failure to not deny the Lord later that evening).</p><p>A theme of the whole record is that the Lord gave His life of His own volition. This must be remembered as we reflect upon the background to the crucifixion. His refusal to answer Pilate meant that Pilate had to pronounce Him guilty (<em><a href='B:480 15:4'>Mar 15:4</a></em>)- hence his marvel at the Lord's silence, as if the Lord was willingly allowing Himself to be condemned.</p>


text:
<p>15:5&nbsp;<em>But Jesus made no further answer; so that Pilate marvelled</em>- This is the same response by the judge as at the Lord's earlier trial (<em><a href='B:470 26:62-63'>Mat 26:62-63</a></em>; see on <em><a href='B:470 27:13'>Mat 27:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They testify against you</em>). Pilate had presided over many such cases of men being falsely accused. He was astounded at how a man in the face of such blatantly false accusation could be so self-controlled. This, in spiritual terms, was our Lord at one of His most supreme moments. He sets a supreme example to all those falsely accused. Pilate was also staggered at how the Lord had a good human chance of getting off the hook by answering what was blatantly false. But the Lord's mission was to give His life- it was not taken from Him, He gave it. And therefore He made no attempt to get Himself off.</p><p>Do we feel that our conscience is so dysfunctional and our heart so hardened in some places that nothing much can touch us and motivate us like it used to? The cross can touch and transform the hardest and most damaged heart. Apart from many real life examples around of this, consider the Biblical case of Pilate. Jewish and Roman historians paint a very different picture of Pilate than what we see in the Biblical record. Philo describes him as “ruthless, stubborn and of cruel disposition", famed for “frequent executions without trial". Josephus speaks of him as totally despising the Jews, stealing money from the temple treasury and brutally suppressing unruly crowds. Why then does he come over in the Gospels as a man desperately struggling with his conscience, to the extent that the Jewish crowds manipulate him to order the crucifixion of a man whom he genuinely believed to be innocent? Surely because the person of the Lord Jesus and the awfulness of putting the Son of God to death touched a conscience which appeared not to even exist. If the whole drama of the death of Jesus could touch the conscience and personality of even Pilate, it can touch each of us. Just compare the words of Philo and Josephus with how Mark records that Pilate was “amazed" at the self-control of Jesus under trial (<em><a href='B:480 15:5'>Mar 15:5</a></em>); how he almost pleads with his Jewish subjects for justice to be done: “Why, what evil has he done?" (<em><a href='B:480 15:14'>Mar 15:14</a></em>). Compare this with how Philo speaks of Pilate as a man of “inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition", famous for “abusive behaviour… and endless savage ferocity". <em><a href='B:470 27:25'>Mat 27:25</a></em> describes how Pilate washes his hands, alluding to the Jewish rite based in Deuteronomy, to declare that he is innocent of the blood of a just man. But Josephus records how Pilate totally despised Jewish religious customs and sensibilities, and appeared to love to commit sacrilege against Jewish things. And in Luke’s record, Pilate is recorded as pronouncing Jesus innocent no less than three times. I so admire the way the Lord attempted even as He faced death in the face, to appeal to Pilate's conscience. I'd paraphrase <em><a href='B:480 15:2'>Mar 15:2</a></em> like this: 'Pilate: 'You are King of Israel?'. Jesus: 'You're saying it''. Why did the Lord put it like that? Surely because He knew that Pilate, in his conscience, did actually know that Jesus was King of Israel, and the very words in the original 'You are King of Israel' came out of his lips, as a kind of psychological slip. This small incident not only indicates how the suffering Jesus could touch even Pilate's conscience; but that the Lord was eagerly seeking the response of men, even the toughest and unspiritual, right to His very end. And He is the same today. May our feeble responses give Him pleasure and glory.</p>


text:
<p>15:6&nbsp;<em>Now at the feast he was accustomed to releasing one prisoner to them-&nbsp;</em>The Greek is also translated 'to forgive', and there was within the 'release' the idea that the crime had been forgiven. This was not, therefore, completely appropriate for the Lord Jesus, who had done no wrong. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:510 2:24'>Act 2:24</a></em> of how God "loosed" Jesus from the pangs of death. The Lord's temptation would have been to hope against hope that each of the human possibilities of release would come true. But He had resolutely decided to do God's will unto the end, and therefore He knew that the only ultimate release would be in resurrection, and that would be performed by the Father rather than by any human power. The language of loosing or releasing s:w. is used about what the Lord achieved by His death (He 'loosed' the works of the devil, <em><a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a></em>; loosed the middle wall of partition, <em><a href='B:560 2:14'>Eph 2:14</a></em>; loosed the seals on the book of life, <em><a href='B:730 5:5'>Rev 5:5</a></em>). As ever, the paradox was that this release, this form of salvation, falsely appeared to be in the power of those who crucified the Lord. But the Lord saw through it all. Likewise, they appeared His judges and He appeared the guilty; when the opposite was the case.</p><p><em>Whomever they requested</em>- Or, "wanted" (Mt:). In essence, they had made their choice earlier. The Lord had used the same word in <em><a href='B:470 12:7'>Mat 12:7</a></em>: "But if you had known what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not s:w. "wanted" have condemned the guiltless". The Lord perceived that the essence of the cross, the essence of all that was happening to Him, had already happened during His ministry. They had already condemned the guiltless. This would have helped Him not to hang too intensely on the possibility of the outcome of events changing suddenly at the last minute through some failure in their legal process. And we perceive too that there was no great divide between His final intense sufferings, and what He went through during His life. Our carrying of the cross likewise is a daily matter, rather than a few moments of intense choice which occur during our lives. The same Greek word translated "wanted" occurs three times in describing how they 'wanted' to condemn Jesus and 'wanted' Barabbas (<em><a href='B:470 26:15'>Mat 26:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:17'>Mat 26:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:21'>Mat 26:21</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 23:25'>Luk 23:25</a></em> concludes the section by saying that Pilate "delivered Jesus to their will". It is the same word which the Lord had agonized over in Gethsemane- "Not as I&nbsp;<em>will</em>, but as You&nbsp;<em>will</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>). Even though it appeared that the will of evil, conniving men was being done, it was in fact the Father's will. And we can take similar comfort when it appears that the will of evil men is being done. Ultimately, there is the Father's will far over and above them, working on a far higher level, although we cannot see the final picture of His purpose in specific moments. It can be painless of itself to pray the Father's will be done (<em><a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a></em>), but this is what it meant for the Lord. It took Him an hour long enough for the disciples to fall asleep to pray for the Father's will to be done, and not His (<em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>). In the Lord's ministry, He had sought to do not His own will but the Father's (<em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>), and this came to its ultimate moment in His situation in Gethsemane facing the cross. Again we see that the essence of Gethsemane and of the Lord's choice to die on the cross was not simply in these final intense moments, but was an outflow of a life daily lived by that principle, in which to do the Father's will was the food He ate and the air He breathed (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>). John doesn't record the Lord's struggle in Gethsemane concerning doing the Father's will rather than His own will, but as so often John has made the same point in other ways earlier in his Gospel; John has shown the Lord making this choice throughout His life, and inviting His followers to do likewise (<em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>). This is John's way of showing that the essence of Gethsemane and the cross was to be found throughout the Lord's life.</p>


text:
<p>15:7&nbsp;<em>And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man named Barabbas</em>- Son of Abba, the father. This man was clearly an anti-Christ, a fake Christ, a man set up in appearance as the Christ, the son of God, when he was the very opposite. And Israel chose him. His similarity with the Lord is made even more interesting by the fact that some early manuscripts (such as the Caesarean, the Sinaitic Palimpsest and the Palestinian Syriac) here read ‘Jesus Barabbas’ (Referenced in Craig A. Evans,&nbsp;<em>Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary)&nbsp;</em>(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012 p:&nbsp;453:). The four gospel records only occasionally all record the same incident. When they do all mention the same thing, it seems that the Spirit intends us to see an especial significance in this. The fact that the crowd chose Barabbas rather than the Lord of glory is one of those aspects of the Passion which is recorded by all four writers. There is much information given about Barabbas, emphasizing the kind of criminal he was (<em><a href='B:470 27:16'>Mat 27:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:7'>Mar 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:19'>Luk 23:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:40'>Joh 18:40</a></em>). That men would reject the righteousness of God, the Spotless Lamb of God, for such a man::. this is the tragic story of our race and our nature. And it was the ecclesia of those days which made this dastard choice, and crucified the Lord Jesus. The same nature, the same blindness, is in us all.</p>


text:
<p>15:8&nbsp;<em>And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them</em>- They hated the Lord and wanted to see Him crucified. So they were coming to ask for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus. But Pilate is so desperate to get the Lord off, so screaming was his conscience, that he misread the situation and grasped at this tradition of releasing a prisoner, hoping the Jews would want their King released and not crucified. Actually his offer only fomented their passions the more. According to <em><a href='B:490 23:16'>Luk 23:16</a></em>, Pilate attempted to take the decision out of their hands by saying that Jesus was to be the prisoner to be released; and this also had the effect of piquing their desire for His crucifixion the more. For nobody, especially a mob, likes to feel railroaded out of their desired outcome at the last moment.</p>


text:
<p>15:9&nbsp;<em>And Pilate answered them saying: Will you have me release to you the King of the Jews?</em>- This word for "release" is used of how Paul could have been released or "let go" because after examination by the Romans, "there was no cause of death in me" (<em><a href='B:510 28:18'>Act 28:18</a></em>). Paul's trials are full of connection with those of the Lord, and Paul (like us) took special comfort in any similarity between the Lord's sufferings and his own. For this is indeed why we have such a mass of detail about the Lord's final sufferings- we are to see endless points of connection between His experiences and our own. And as Paul says, if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him. It was to this process which we signed up to at baptism, in which we dedicated ourselves to a life of dying and living with Him.</p>


text:
<p>15:10&nbsp;<em>For he knew that because of envy the chief priests had delivered him up</em>- Pilate was encouraging them to choose Barabbas over Jesus so that the guilt of Jesus' crucifixion would be upon them and not him. Bible critics have pointed out that this was unusual behaviour for Pilate, renowned as he was for being a brutal and apparently conscienceless man. Indeed he was that- but the point is that the Lord Jesus in His time of dying can touch even the person whose conscience appears to be otherwise untouchable. This was and is the power of the cross of Christ. I suggest we are mistaken in reading this as if Pilate wanted them to choose Jesus for release and was mystified they chose Barabbas. He asked them to choose, knowing they had delivered Jesus to him out of envy. He wanted them to take the choice, in an attempt to assuage his own conscience.</p><p><em><a href='B:660 4:5'>Jas 4:5</a></em> reminds us that "The spirit that dwells in us lusts to envy" (s:w:). Envy is a basic human tendency which we must restrain. In the whole process of the Lord's betrayal, abuse and crucifixion we see the end result of basic human tendencies when they are let go unrestrained. The crucifixion of God's Son is where they lead. This is the shocking message of the whole process the Gospels record concerning the Lord's death at the hands of the Jews. The point is that we have the same nature, and unrestrained, we shall end up in essence doing the same.</p>


text:
<p>15:11&nbsp;<em>But the chief priests stirred up the crowd, that instead he should release Barabbas to them</em>- The idea is not so much that Pilate wanted to release Jesus&nbsp;<em>but</em>&nbsp;the priests worked against that. Pilate knew they envied Jesus and were intent on having Him executed, and wished to place the decision as far as he could in their hands in order to not have the Lord’s blood on his hands. Such were his attempts to ease his conscience.</p><h4>It could be that the Jewish leadership also had an uneasy conscience. Pilate wanted to shift the responsibility onto them, and they in turn wanted the crowd to be the ones who made the decision. Because it seems that the person to be released at Passover was not usually chosen by mass decision or request, rather the decision was made by Pilate. But in this case, he gets the Jewish leadership to choose between Jesus and Barabbas. And they in turn get the crowd involved in the choice, just as they kept ‘consulting together’ before each decision regarding Jesus. This all indicates how conscience was being touched in all those concerned. It is a powerful insight into the degree to which the Lord Jesus and His death can touch the most hardened conscience; and even those who appear to have absolutely no conscience do in fact have one, which can be touched by Christ. We see too the fickleness of the crowd- those who once welcomed Jesus as Messiah just a few days before, were so soon turned around against Him. And then turned back again a few weeks later by Peter’s preaching.</h4>


text:
<p>15:12&nbsp;<em>And Pilate again answered and said to them: What then shall I do to him whom you call the King of the Jews?</em>- This is asking an obvious question, seeing that the record has noted that Pilate knew they had delivered Jesus to him out of envy, and they had made it abundantly clear that they sought the death penalty for Him. Pilate asked the question knowing full well the answer they were going to give. But he wanted to elicit from them in clear, specific and public terms that it was&nbsp;<em>their&nbsp;wish</em>&nbsp;that Jesus be crucified. See on <em><a href='B:470 27:21'>Mat 27:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Which of the two do you want me to release to you?&nbsp;</em>It was all part of an extended psychological game Pilate was playing with them, leading them to so clearly take the blame for the Lord's crucifixion. But he only bothered doing this because his conscience was troubling him, and in this we see a powerful insight into the way the Lord's death can touch the hardest of consciences. This is the very reason why reflection upon the Lord in His time of dying leads on naturally to true self-examination. And in this lies the connection between self-examination and the breaking of bread service.</p>


text:
<p>15:13&nbsp;<em>And they cried out again: Crucify him</em>- When people are pressed for a reason for their unreasonable positions and behaviours, they simply say the same thing again, but more loudly (in various ways). This is the classic example- they repeated their cry "Let Him be crucified". Surely Pilate knew that they would respond like this, and I see him as stage managing the entire crowd, purposefully leading the crowd to cry out ever louder, in order to set the stage for his public washing of his hands. But he played this elaborate game because he had a conscience, and wanted to try to separate himself from the decision to crucify the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>15:14&nbsp;<em>And Pilate said to them: Why? What evil has he done? But they cried out exceedingly: Crucify him</em>- We see here Pilate's persuasion of the Lord's sinlessness; and how he discounted even the talk about the Lord seeking to stop tribute being given to Caesar and to start a revolution. Pilate knew that they had delivered Jesus to him from envy, and that there was no legitimate reason for the death sentence. I suggest he is not so much seeking to change their minds, but rather purposefully seeking to elicit from the Jews a clear statement that they wanted Him crucified.</p>


text:
<p>15:15&nbsp;<em>And Pilate, wishing to calm the crowd, released to them Barabbas and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified</em>- As soon as the sentence was pronounced: You shall be crucified, the victim was stripped naked and fastened to a post about as high as the waist and then flogged. Josephus twice mentions that the body was stripped naked and flogged until the flesh hung down in shreds. 13 stripes were against His breast, 26 on the back. They probably chanted them. He may have had a slab of iron between His teeth to grit against. Men were known to have bitten their tongues in two during the whipping. John Pollock explains that the victim was stretched with hands above his head, whipped by naked slaves with a device of three leather thongs laced with pieces of sharpened bone, whilst a clerk stood with a slab on which to take down confessions. Scourging was usually "accomplished by tying the victim's wrists to an iron ring set about knee level, so that he would be bent over; or, facing or backed to a column, the wrists would be tied overhead. There were probably two scourgers, standing on each side, each with whips five or six feet long ending in two leather thongs tipped with metal. As the scourging whips fell across the victim's back they would wrap around his body at times lacerating his body front and back, so that scourge marks soon covered all of his body except the head, feet, and forearms::. It was uncommon for the Romans to both scourge and crucify a person. Why was it done to Jesus? It has been conjectured by some scholars that Pilate thought by excessive scourging and beating of Jesus the Jewish council would be satisfied. They weren't". All men usually screamed out something, anything, in the hope that the lashing would therefore be shortened. The Lord's silence at this time would have been yet one more thing which awed His tormentors. There were runnels, Pollock says, in which the blood drained away. The scourging would already have been done twice for the thieves. The Angel watchers of the skies would have peered down into that blood, as they did in cherubic form into the blood on the mercy seat. The blood of the Son of God was treated by men as something ordinary, thoughtlessly mixed with that of criminals, and was trodden under foot. Perhaps it was to this aspect of the Lord's sufferings and insult that <em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em> refers to, in describing the crucifixion (and the Lord's&nbsp;<em>re-crucifixion</em>&nbsp;by fallen believers) as counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and thereby treading underfoot the Son of God (cp. <em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em> RV mg “<em>while&nbsp;</em>they crucify the son of God", suggesting that once this ongoing re-crucifixion stops, men can be forgiven). The despising and treading under of that blood in a literal sense only occurred at the scourging. It was observed by some first century writers that the length of time it took a crucifixion victim to die was related to the severity of the scourging. The Lord's relatively quick death may therefore (although not necessarily) reflect the brutality with which He was treated at this time. When Peter speaks of how we are healed by Christ's "stripes" (<em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>), uses an especially intense word to describe the scourging. It could be that he somehow saw or heard about the scourging, and saw it as parallel to Christ suffering for us "on the tree". The Lord's bloody sweat in Gethsemane has been identified as hemohidrosis, an extreme nervous state in which there is haemorrhage into the sweat glands, and therefore the skin becomes fragile and tender. This would have meant that flogging, the carrying of the cross and the constant friction between His back and the rough wood would have been agonizing. Hemohidrosis also produces severe chills. The Lord would have been shivering in the cold darkness of His final hours, with every involuntary movement causing agony to the nerves which the nails purposefully transfixed.</p>


text:
<p>15:16&nbsp;<em>Then the soldiers led him away into the hall called Praetorium, and they called together the whole battalion</em>- We wonder how many of those soldiers later converted to the Lord's side. Because surely their degrading of Him was done with strong quirks of bad conscience.</p>


text:
<p>15:17&nbsp;<em>And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on him</em>- The thorns would have penetrated the scalp into the network of blood vessels there, producing a flow of blood onto the mock-kingly garment. We see here human nature at its most raw and primitive. That is one feature of the crucifixion accounts. They were also motivated by a desire to test His claims to royalty. He had made it clear that His Kingdom was not of this world; His teaching about the Kingdom, largely in the parables, was about life lived now under domination of the Father's principles. And yet they willingly overlooked that and focused on mocking Him as a king. We note that Babylon too is arrayed in purple (<em><a href='B:730 17:4'>Rev 17:4</a></em> s:w:), making her a veritable anti Christ, a fake imitation of Him.</p><p>The thorns were growing between the cobbles of the courtyard? Or were they using thorns on their courtyard fire? The thorns on the head would have reminded Him that He was being temporarily overcome by the result of the curse in Eden. As with several aspects of His mocking, His tormentors unknowingly gave Him spiritual stimulus by what they did. His mind was certainly in Eden, for He spoke of the Kingdom as "paradise", with evident allusion to Eden (<em><a href='B:490 23:43'>Luk 23:43</a></em>). Note that the Lord was beaten up at least three times: by the Jewish guards, by Herod's men and by the Roman soldiers. In a literal sense He was bruised for our iniquities, and chastised for us to obtain the peace of sin forgiven (<em><a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a></em>). And the Father surely foresaw all this back in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>, where the promised seed was to be&nbsp;<em>bruised</em>. He willed (<em>not</em>&nbsp;"pleased", as AV) this bruising, and this putting to grief (<em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>). The parallel here between the bruising, beating and putting to grief may suggest that the beatings up ('bruisings') really grieved the Lord. And note that the final sacrifice of which Isaiah 53 speaks was not&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;achieved by the hours spent hanging on the cross. This earlier beating and abusing was just as much a part of His final passion, as, in essence, His whole life was a living out of the principles of the cross. It has been suggested that the crown of thorns was not only a mockery, but a significant part of the physical torture of crucifixion. If the net of nerves and veins under the skin of the scalp are pierced, profuse bleeding and stunning head ache would occur. His hair would therefore have been bloody. It would have been a wreath, a&nbsp;<em>stephanos</em>&nbsp;similar to that worn by Tiberius. The mock homage to the crowned Saviour-Lord was surely in the Lord’s mind at His ascension, when all the Angels of God bowed before Him in true worship (<em><a href='B:650 1:6'>Heb 1:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>15:18&nbsp;<em>And they began to salute him: Hail, King of the Jews</em>-&nbsp;<em>"</em>Hail" is literally, 'Be happy'. J:D. Crossan mentions a Jewish tradition, quoting Mishnah passages to support it, that the bruised scapegoat had scarlet wool tied to it, and that the Jews spat on the scapegoat in order to place their sins upon it (J:D. Crossan,&nbsp;<em>Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography&nbsp;</em>(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994)). It could be that the Roman soldiers were doing all this in mockery of this tradition. It would have given the Lord something more to fill His holy mind with. He knew that He was actually doing what they were mockingly suggesting- carrying Israel’s sins. God worked even through the spitting and mocking of men to work out the finest details of our redemption. The spitting is in the context of their mocking His Kingship. “Hail, King of the Jews “was in parody of ‘Ave, Caesar’. It was customary to give a kiss of homage to royalty. Their parody of this was to spit at Him, in the face, according to the type of <em><a href='B:220 30:10'>Job 30:10</a></em>. Earlier, at the trial, the Jews had spat in His face (<em><a href='B:470 26:67'>Mat 26:67</a></em>). Now He tasted Roman spittle. And this was the face from which the glory of God had shone (<em><a href='B:480 9:15'>Mar 9:15</a></em>?). One of the themes of the crucifixion records is that the same abuse and suffering was repeated to the Lord. Hence the frequent usage of the continuous tense. During the trial by Pilate, the Lord underwent mock worship and spitting (<em><a href='B:500 19:3'>Joh 19:3</a></em>). Then later it was mock worship, spitting, hitting on the head (<em><a href='B:470 27:29-30'>Mat 27:29-30</a></em>). And then hitting on the head, spitting, mock worship (<em><a href='B:480 15:19-20'>Mar 15:19-20</a></em>). It seems they alternated bruising / spitting on Christ with bruising / kneeling before Him in mock homage. The reed was used as a mock diadem, although instead of touching His shoulder with it they hit Him on the head with it. They put it in His hand as a sceptre and then snatched it back to hit Him on the head with it. Wave after wave of the same treatment. Notice how many times the word “again" features in the Greek text (<em>palin</em>). This is the essence of our temptations. And it was a big theme in the Lord's final human experience. Likewise a comparison of the records shows that "Come down::." was clearly said more than once, the continuous tenses notwithstanding (<em><a href='B:470 27:40'>Mat 27:40</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 15:30'>Mar 15:30</a></em>). However, it is worth cataloguing the use of continuous tenses in this part of the record: The crowd&nbsp;<em>kept on&nbsp;</em>crying out (as demons did), "Crucify him" (<em><a href='B:470 27:23'>Mat 27:23</a></em>); the soldiers&nbsp;<em>kept on</em>&nbsp;clothing Him (<em><a href='B:470 27:28'>Mat 27:28</a></em>),&nbsp;<em>kept on&nbsp;</em>coming to Him and kept on saying::. (<em><a href='B:500 19:3'>Joh 19:3</a></em> Gk:), Pilate&nbsp;<em>kept on seeking</em>&nbsp;(imperfect) to deliver the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 19:12'>Joh 19:12</a></em>), thereby agitating the tension in the Lord's mind. They&nbsp;<em>kept on&nbsp;</em>kneeling (<em><a href='B:470 27:29'>Mat 27:29</a></em>),&nbsp;<em>kept on&nbsp;</em>spitting (v:30),&nbsp;<em>kept on&nbsp;</em>passing in front of Him on the cross and&nbsp;<em>kept on</em>&nbsp;shaking their heads (v. 39),&nbsp;<em>kept on&nbsp;</em>saying ":::save thyself",&nbsp;<em>kept on&nbsp;</em>mocking and asking Him to come down from the cross (vv. 40,41), the soldiers&nbsp;<em>kept on</em>&nbsp;coming to Him and offering Him their vinegar in mock homage (<em><a href='B:490 23:36'>Luk 23:36</a></em>), they&nbsp;<em>kept on</em>&nbsp;offering Him the pain killer. They&nbsp;<em>kept on and on and on</em>. This is an undoubted theme.</p>


text:
<p>15:19&nbsp;<em>And they hit his head with a rod and spat upon him, and kneeled down in homage to him</em>- The question is to why Gentile soldiers would unleash such hatred upon Jesus, when the crucifixion of a Jew was just another job for them to do. We somehow do not imagine them doing this to the thieves or other crucifixion victims. I conclude that there was something in the Lord which forced men to either respond to Him, or go the other way in assuming that unless He was as He claimed, then He must be the worst of all and worthy of all hatred. We see the same effect upon men today, even if social norms mean that we express the passions both for and against Him in less dramatic and more restrained terms.</p>


text:
<p>15:20&nbsp;<em>And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple cloak and dressed him in his own garments-&nbsp;</em>The record that they put the Lord's own clothes on Him and then led Him to crucifixion conflicts with contemporary records of the victim being led out naked, or certainly without his own outer clothes. Christ was revealed, or 'revealed himself' (Gk:) on the cross, when He took away our sins (<em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em>). This may be John referring to how he had witnessed Christ crucified naked. Yet we know that the Lord wore His outer robe right up to the impaling. It may be that the whipping and abuse He had suffered was far beyond what the soldiers had the right to minister. There were special directives concerning the need for the victim to die by crucifixion, not at the hands of the soldiers. It may be that they wanted to cover up the illegal marks on the body by making the Lord go to the cross fully dressed. In which case, again we see how He suffered the very&nbsp;<em>worst</em>&nbsp;of man's machinations. The Lord having His own clothes put back on Him meant that He would have been dressed in blood sprinkled garments for the walk to Golgotha. Again His holy mind would have been on the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah 63 about a Messiah with blood sprinkled garments lifted up in glorious victory. Or perhaps He saw the connection to <em><a href='B:30 8:30'>Lev 8:30</a></em>, where the priests had to have blood sprinkled garments in order to begin their priestly work. This would have sent His mind to us, for whom He was interceding. Likewise when He perceived that His garment would not be rent, He would have joyfully perceived that He was indeed as the High Priest whose garment was not to be rent (<em><a href='B:20 39:23'>Exo 39:23</a></em>).</p><p><em>And they led him out to crucify him</em>- The Greek word translated "led away" is used about 10 times in the Gospels for the leading away of Jesus to death. It occurs in another context, in <em><a href='B:470 7:13-14'>Mat 7:13-14</a></em>, where the Lord spoke of how wide and common is the way that 'leads away to' destruction compared to the way which 'leads away to' eternal life. He was being led away to destruction; He was sharing the path of all condemned sinners. This is a great theme of the crucifixion accounts- that the Lord identified totally with the position of condemned sinners. The logic is that by living the life of the flesh, we are led away to destruction; and yet by being led away to destruction with the Lord, in sharing His death, we are in fact being led away to life.</p><p>Tradition has it that the victim had to hold their hands out to receive the stake, which they then had to carry. The Lord's prophecy of Peter's crucifixion thus describes it as Peter stretching out his hands and being led to his death (<em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>). Yet the Lord emphasized in His teaching that we must&nbsp;<em>take up</em>&nbsp;the cross, as He did (<em><a href='B:480 8:34'>Mar 8:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:21'>Mar 10:21</a></em>). This might just suggest that in line with the Lord's willing death, giving up of His life rather than it being taken from Him, He bent down and picked up the stake before the soldiers had the chance to offer it to Him. I imagine doing this in a deft manner. The deftness of the way He broke that bread apart and held the cup comes out in <em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>. He knew what that breaking of bread was going to mean. His willingness would have been such a contrast to the unwilling hesitation of the thieves and other victims. The soldiers must have been blind indeed to still mock Him, despite all these indications that He was more than mere man. That piece of wood that was laid upon Him by the Father, however the Lord physically took it up, represented our sins, which were laid upon Him (<em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>); your laziness to do your Bible readings early this morning, my snap at the woman in the bus, his hatred of his mother in law::. that piece of wood was the symbol of our sins, every one of them. This is what we brought upon Him. It was our laziness, our enmity, our foolishness,&nbsp;<em>our weak will</em>::. that necessitated the death of Jesus in this terrible way. He went through with it all "to make an end of sins" (<em><a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a></em>). Will we do our little bit in responding? The marks of His sufferings will be in Him eternally, and thereby we will be eternally reminded of the things we now only dimly appreciate (<em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 13:6'>Zec 13:6</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/>The walk from the courthouse to Golgotha was probably about 800m (half a mile). One of the soldiers would have carried the sign displaying the Lord's Name and crime. The thieves were probably counting the paces (maybe the crowd was chanting them?). You know how it is when doing a heavy task, 'Just three more boxes to lug upstairs::. just two more::. last one'. But the Lord was above this. Of that I'm sure. Doing any physically strenuous task that takes you to the end of your strength, there is that concentration on nothing else but the job in hand. Hauling a heavy box or load, especially in situations of compulsion or urgency, it becomes irrelevant if you bump into someone or crush a child's toy beneath your heavy feet. But the Lord rose above. He turned and spoke to the women. Luke as a doctor knew that suffering makes one self-centred. It is perhaps because of this that he especially seems to concentrate on the wonder of the way in which the Lord looked out of His own agony to be so concerned with that of others. A:D. Norris has commented (<em>The Gospel Of Mark</em>): "It is he who reports the Lord's prayer for Simon Peter (<em><a href='B:490 22:31'>Luk 22:31</a></em>); who recounts the Lord's sympathetic warning to the women of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 23:27-31'>Luk 23:27-31</a></em>); and who speaks of the Lord's forgiveness for His crucifiers, and remission for the penitent thief (<em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:43'>Luk 23:43</a></em>)”.</p>


text:
<h4>15:21&nbsp;<em>And they compelled a passer-by to carry his cross, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the countryside, the father of Alexander and Rufus</em>- Cyrene was where there was a strongly orthodox Jewish community (cp. <em><a href='B:510 6:9'>Act 6:9</a></em>). Simon was probably dark skinned, a countryman, a simple man, who had perhaps come up to Jerusalem in his zeal to keep Passover. What a comfort it was to the Lord to see a black man carrying His cross; for He had earlier said that&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;His true followers would carry the cross behind Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>). The Hebrew writer seemed to see Simon as typical of us all when writing of how we must go out of the city with the Lord, "bearing his reproach" (<em><a href='B:650 13:12-13'>Heb 13:12-13</a></em>, probably using 'reproach' as a parallel to 'the cross'). He would have seen in Simon a prototype of all His future, suffering, humiliated followers; "impressed" by the predestined calling, almost against our will, to carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em> RV mg:). And was it accident that this prototype was almost certainly a black man, when perhaps ultimately it may appear that a large proportion of the faithful body of the Lord Jesus will have been black people? If indeed Simon was a black Jew (cp. modern Falashas) who had come up to keep the Passover, it would have been annoying beyond words for him to be made unclean by the blood of the Lord, which was inevitably on the stake after His first attempt at bearing it after His flogging. Not to mention the shame for a zealous Jew in having to carry the cross of this Jesus of Nazareth. Yet it would seem that he was later converted, and he in turn converted his wife and son (<em><a href='B:480 15:21'>Mar 15:21</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 16:13'>Rom 16:13</a></em>). Mark rarely records proper nouns, but he makes a special effort to mention that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus. It would therefore seem that these men were well known in the early church. Simon may be the "Simeon called Niger" ('the black one') of <em><a href='B:510 13:1'>Act 13:1</a></em>. He is listed there next to Lucius, who was also from Cyrene. The thief and the centurion were likewise converted, and the faith of Joseph, Nicodemus and probably others was brought out into the open by the cross. Like Samson, the Lord won victories even in His death. The spiritual turn-around in Simon is a type of what is experienced by all whom the Lord compels to carry His cross. He was passing by, going somewhere else, full of his own plans, going about to establish his own righteousness::. and then, out of the blue, he was called to what he much later realized was the greatest honour a man could be called to: to accompany the Son of God and carry His cross, right to the end. We are left to imagine him plonking it down, as if to say to Jesus 'Now you've got to do the rest', and then slipping off into the crowd.</h4><p>Another reading of Simon is possible. Simon is a Greek name, and the names of his sons are Greco-Roman. The way he is described as “coming out of the field" (<em><a href='B:490 23:26'>Luk 23:26</a></em>) could imply that he was working, doing what was improper on a feast day, because he was a Gentile. It could be that he simply lived and worked near Jerusalem, he wasn’t a religious guy, and like Saul out looking for lost cattle, he was going some place else…until the Lord as it were arrested him with the message of the cross.</p>


text:
<p>15:22&nbsp;<em>And they brought him to the place named Golgotha, which means, Place of the skull</em>- See on <em><a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a></em>. John says that the Lord went out bearing His cross. Luke says that Simon was asked to carry the hinder part of the cross behind Him. Matthew and Mark say Simon carried the cross. <em><a href='B:480 15:22'>Mar 15:22</a></em> (Gk:) says that the soldiers carried Jesus to Golgotha. J:B. Phillips renders it: "They got him to a place Golgotha". It would seem that the Lord collapsed, perhaps fainting. If He was crucified on an olive tree (excavations of crucified men suggest this is what was used), it would not have been simply because of the weight of the stake. Take a picture of Him lying there, with the face that was marred more than the children of men pressed into the hot dust of that Jerusalem street. And some human fool probably said something like 'Come on, get up' (doubtless with embellishments). If indeed He did faint, there would have been that sense of 'coming round', the "Where am I?”, the memory and consciousness flooding back. "Have I died and been resurrected?" No, as some nameless soldier kicked Him and told Him to get up.</p>


text:
<p>15:23&nbsp;<em>And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not accept it</em>- To give strong drink to those ready to perish was a well-known custom at crucifixion. The fact victims survived two or three days was only because they were given drink. The Lord didn't simply refuse the pain killer. He took it, tasted it, and then refused it. Why did He first taste it? Surely He knew the custom, and He knew what it was. Various alternatives arise in the mind, each a source of devotional inspiration:</p><p>- Was it that His eyesight was damaged by the punches and He didn't see what it was until He tasted it? "When Jesus therefore saw his mother::." may suggest that He didn't initially recognize her. The Messianic Scriptures mention the affliction of eyesight in Messiah's final suffering. Early crucifixion art shows the Lord with His right eye damaged (as does the Turin shroud). The mucous membrane (the thin slippery tissues which lubricate the human body) would have dried so that “they rip layers of tissues from the eyes every time the pupil is moved or blinked" (C:M. Ward):&nbsp;<br/>- Maybe He realized as He had the cup on His lips that they were giving this to Him in the spirit of <em><a href='B:300 23:15'>Jer 23:15</a></em>: to show that He was a false prophet. In this case, for the sake of His respect for the implications of Holy Scripture, He endured a far higher degree of pain.<br/>- Another explanation is that He wanted to speak out loud, saying (several times?) "Father, forgive them", and to perhaps recite Psalms 22. He was so parched from thirst (He had lost body fluid in Gethsemane) that He knew He couldn't speak out loud without some liquid. The dehydration would have made His tongue thicken so that speech was eventually almost impossible. But He only drank enough to moisten His throat, not to deaden any pain. This shows the majestic self-mastery within the Lord; He knew just when to stop, even though it must have been so tempting to keep on drinking.<br/>- Taking the pain killer would not have been a sin, neither would it have theologically damaged the atonement. Perhaps the Lord took it, as doubtless the others did, and then had the self-control to think better of it and give it back. Such was His devotion to the absolute height of identity with us. It makes His action all the more poignant if He first tasted and then refused, rather than just refusing outright.</p><p>He was&nbsp;<em>repeatedly</em>&nbsp;offered the pain killer, the tense implies. Men offering Him myrrh in (mock) homage would have sent His mind back to the story dear Mary had told Him about the wise men bringing myrrh. And inevitably her tortured mind would have gone back there too. But I have another suggestion. When we read that “someone" offered him a sponge with wine mixed with myrrh (<em><a href='B:480 15:36'>Mar 15:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:48'>Mat 27:48</a></em>), we recall the use of myrrh in preparing bodies for burial (<em><a href='B:480 14:3'>Mar 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:56'>Luk 23:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:39'>Joh 19:39</a></em>). Pliny (<em>Natural History</em>&nbsp;14:15:92,107) records: “The finest wine in early days was that spiced with the scent of myrrh… I also find that aromatic wine is constantly made from almost the same ingredient as perfumes, from myrrh". This alerts me to the real possibility that the unnamed bystander who did this was Mary Magdalene. Earlier she had anointed the Lord’s body with myrrh “to the burial". And now she has prepared the most expensive form of wine as some sort of pain killer. Perhaps the Lord was so touched by this that He accepted it, but didn’t drink it. His doing this is otherwise very hard to understand. Her love was on one hand inappropriate, and yet the Lord still accepted it, even though He couldn’t use it. He could have felt angry with her for tempting Him to the easier way. But He didn’t. And in so doing He showed her that the essence of the cross is that there is no easy way. The principles of all this are to be reflected in our cross carrying.</p><p>Another alternative presents itself from the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:230 69:21'>Psa 69:21</a></em>: “They gave me also gall". The Hebrew can stand the translation ‘poison’ (see RSV). Given the extended, agitated torture of crucifixion, there was a custom for close friends to get close enough to the cross to lift up a poisonous substance which the crucified would lick, and thereby die quickly. It is just possible that a friend (or even his mother?) or a sympathetic soldier did this. Again, in this case it would seem that the Lord chose the highest level; our salvation would surely have been theologically achievable if He had taken it. But He chose to attain for us not only salvation, but “such&nbsp;<em>great&nbsp;</em>salvation" (<em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em>) by always taking the highest level. He became obedient not only to death, but “even the death of the cross".</p><p>One feels that the Lord would have been justified in accepting the pain killer that was offered Him in His final agony; but He refused it, it seems to me, in order to achieve the&nbsp;<em>greatest&nbsp;</em>salvation for us. He never once used what I have called the principle of Jephthah's vow. In the same spirit, some faithful men of old refused legitimate deliverance from torture so that they might obtain "a better resurrection" (<em><a href='B:650 11:35'>Heb 11:35</a></em>). The record of the cross is full of examples of where the Lord in physical terms rejected legitimate comforts in His final hours. Yet throughout His life, He was ever ready to concede to the weakness of those who would genuinely follow Him. The way He spoke about demons without giving His hearers a lecture about the folly of such belief is proof of this. He could have insisted, as we do, on the rejection of such superstitions. But this was not His way. I am not suggesting that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;have the right to make such concessions in our preaching and baptizing. But He did:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>15:24&nbsp;<em>And they crucify him and part his garments among themselves, casting lots for them to determine what every man should take</em>- There seems to have been something unusual about the Lord’s outer garment. The same Greek word&nbsp;<em>chiton</em>&nbsp;used in <em><a href='B:500 19:23-24'>Joh 19:23-24</a></em> is that used in the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:3'>Gen 37:3</a></em> to describe Joseph’s coat of many pieces. Josephus (<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;3:7:4,161) uses the word for the tunic of the High Priest, which was likewise not to be rent (<em><a href='B:30 21:10'>Lev 21:10</a></em>). The Lord in His time of dying is thus set up as High Priest, gaining forgiveness for His people, to ‘come out’ of the grave as on the day of Atonement, pronouncing the forgiveness gained, and bidding His people spread that good news world-wide. The robe was not to be torn,&nbsp;<em>schizein</em>. There was to be no schism in it. Ahijah tore his garment into twelve pieces to symbolize the division of Israel (<em><a href='B:110 11:30-31'>1Ki 11:30-31</a></em>). The Lord’s coat being unrent may therefore be another reflection of how His death brought about unity amongst His people (<em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21-22'>Joh 17:21-22</a></em>). Before Him, there, we simply cannot be divided amongst ourselves. Likewise the net through which the Lord gathers His people was unbroken (<em><a href='B:500 21:11'>Joh 21:11</a></em>). Note how all these references are in John- as if he perceived this theme of unity through the cross.</p><p>It is likely that the Lord was crucified naked, thereby sharing the shame of Adam's nakedness. The&nbsp;<em>shame</em>&nbsp;of the cross is stressed (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 31:17'>Psa 31:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:6-7'>Psa 69:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:12'>Psa 69:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:19-20'>Psa 69:19-20</a></em>). And we are to share those sufferings. There&nbsp;<em>must</em>, therefore, be an open standing up for what we believe in the eyes of a hostile world. Preaching, in this sense, is for all of us. And if we dodge this, we put the Son of God to a naked shame; we re-crucify Him naked, we shame Him again (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). He was crucified naked, and the sun went in for three hours. He must have been cold, very cold (<em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>). Artemidorus Daldianus (<em>Oneirokritika&nbsp;</em>2:53) confirms that the Romans usually crucified victims naked. Melito of Sardis, writing in the 2nd century, writes of “his body naked and not even deemed worthy of a clothing that it might not be seen. Therefore the heavenly lights turned away and the day darkened in order that he might be hidden who was denuded upon the cross" (<em>On the Pasch</em>&nbsp;97). The earliest portrayals of the crucified Jesus, on carved gems, feature Him naked. There is reason to think that the Jews put the Lord to the maximum possible shame and pain; therefore they may well have crucified Him naked. T. Mommsen&nbsp;<em>The Digest Of Justinian&nbsp;</em>48:20:6 reports that “the garments that the condemned person is wearing may not be demanded by the torturers"- the fact that they gambled for His clothes shows that the Lord was yet again treated illegally (quite a feature of the records) and to the maximum level of abuse. We not only get this impression from the Biblical record, but from a passage in the Wisdom of Solomon (2:12-20) which would have been well known to them, and which has a surprising number of similarities to the Lord’s life amongst the Jews (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>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) p. 68):</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".</p><p>The idea of the Lord being subjected to the maximum pain and mocking must, sadly, be applied to Seneca’s description of how some victims of crucifixion were nailed through their genitals (<em>Dialogi</em>&nbsp;6:20:3). In this sense the paradox of Isaiah 53 would have come true- through losing His ability to bring forth children, the Lord brought forth a huge multitude of spiritual children world-wide. It’s an honour to be one of them:&nbsp;<br/><em>By casting lots</em>- Did they throw the die on top of His outer garment? Note the focus of the soldiers upon the dividing up of the clothes, whilst the Son of God played out the ultimate spiritual drama for human salvation just a metre or so away from them. And our pettiness is worked out all too often in sight of the same cross. As those miserable men argued over the clothes at the foot of the cross, so when Israel stood before the glory of Yahweh at Sinai, they still suffered “disputes" amongst themselves (<em><a href='B:20 24:12'>Exo 24:12</a></em> NIV cp. <em><a href='B:650 12:29'>Heb 12:29</a></em>). So pressing and important do human pettinesses appear, despite the awesomeness of that bigger picture to which we stand related.</p><p>The sheer and utter reality of the crucifixion needs to be meditated upon just as much as the actual reality of the fact that Jesus actually existed. A Psalm foretold that Jesus at His death would be the song of the drunkards. Many Nazi exterminators took to drink. And it would seem almost inevitable that the soldiers who crucified Jesus went out drinking afterwards. Ernest Hemingway wrote a chilling fictional story of how those men went into a tavern late on that Friday evening. After drunkenly debating whether “Today is Friday", they decide that it really is Friday, and then tell how they nailed Him and lifted Him up. ''When the weight starts to pull on 'em, that's when it gets em::. Ain't I seen em? I seen plenty of 'em . I tell you, he was pretty good today". And that last phrase runs like a refrain through their drunken evening. Whether or not this is an accurate reconstruction isn't my point- we have a serious duty to seek to imagine what it might have been like. Both Nazi and Soviet executioners admit how vital it was to never look the man you were murdering in the face. It was why they put on a roughness which covered their real personalities. And the Lord’s executioners would have done the same. To look into His face, especially His eyes, dark with love and grief for His people, would have driven those men to either suicide or conversion. I imagine them stealing a look at His face, the face of this man who didn’t struggle with them but willingly laid Himself down on the wood. The cross struck an educated Greek as barbaric folly, a Roman citizen as sheer disgrace, and a Jew as God's curse. Yet Jesus turned the sign of disgrace into a sign of victory. Through it, He announced a radical revaluation of all values. He made it a symbol for a brave life, without fear even in the face of fatal risks; through struggle, suffering, death, in firm trust and hope in the goal of true freedom, life, humanity, eternal life. The offence, the sheer scandal, was turned into an amazing experience of salvation, the way of the cross into a possible way of life. The risen Christ was and is just as much a living reality. Suetonius records that Claudius expelled Jewish Christians from Rome because they were agitated by one Chrestus; i:e. Jesus the Christ. Yet the historian speaks as if He was actually alive and actively present in person. In essence, He was. All the volumes of confused theology, the senseless theories about the Trinity. would all have been avoided if only men had had the faith to believe that the man Jesus who really died and rose, both never sinned and was also indeed the Son of God. And that His achievement of perfection in human flesh was real. Yes it takes faith- and all the wrong theology was only an excuse for a lack of such faith.</p><h4>Several crucifixion victims have been unearthed. One was nailed with nails 18c:m. long (7 inches). A piece of acacia word seems to have been inserted between the nail head and the flesh:&nbsp;<em>Did the Lord cry out in initial pain and shock?</em>&nbsp;Probably, as far as I can reconstruct it; for He would have had all the physical reflex reactions of any man. But yet I also sense that He didn't flinch as other men did. He came to offer His life, willingly; not grudgingly, resistantly give it up. He went through the panic of approaching the pain threshold. The nailing of the hands and feet just where the nerves were would have sent bolts of pain through the Lord's arms every time He moved or spoke. The pain would have been such that even with the eyelids closed, a penetrating red glare would have throbbed in the Lord’s vision. Hence the value and intensity of those words He did speak. The pulling up on the nails in the hands as the cross was lifted up would have been excruciating. The hands were nailed through the 'Destot gap', between the first and second row of wrist bones, touching an extra sensitive nerve which controls the movement of the thumb and signals receipt of pain. They would not have been nailed through the palms or the body would not have been supportable . It has been reconstructed that in order to breathe, the crucified would have had to pull up on his hands, lift the head for a breath, and then let the head subside. The sheer physical agony of it all cannot be minimized. Zenon Ziolkowski (<em>Spor O Calun</em>) discusses contemporary descriptions of the faces of the crucified, including Jehohanan the Zealot, whose crucifixion Josephus mentions. Their faces were renowned for being terribly distorted by pain. The Lord's face was marred more than that of any other, so much so that those who saw Him looked away (<em><a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a></em>). That prophecy may suggest that for the Lord, the crucifixion process hurt even more. We suggest later that He purposefully refused to take relief from pushing down on the 'seat', and thus died more painfully and quicker. Several of the unearthed victims were crucified on olive trees. So it was perhaps an olive tree which the Lord had to carry. He would have thought of this as He prayed among the olive trees of Gethsemane (perhaps they took it from that garden?). I would not have gone through with this. I would have chosen a lesser death and the achieving of a lesser salvation. I would have had more pity on myself. But the Lord of all did it&nbsp;<em>for me</em>, He became obedient&nbsp;<em>even</em>&nbsp;to death on a cross (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>), as if He could have been obedient to a lesser death, but He chose this ultimately high level. I can only marvel at the Father's gentleness with us, that despite the ineffable trauma of death, the way He takes us is so much more gentle than how He allowed His only begotten to go.</h4><p>Presumably there were many soldiers around. The temple guard which was seconded to the Jews (<em><a href='B:470 27:65'>Mat 27:65</a></em>) was doubtless there in full force, lest there be any attempt to save Jesus by the crowd or the disciples. And yet <em><a href='B:500 19:23'>Joh 19:23</a></em> suggests there were only four soldiers, each of whom received a part of His clothing. This must mean that there were four actually involved in the crucifixion: one for each hand and foot. He had signs of nails (plural) in His hands. We are left to meditate as to whether He was nailed hand over hand as tradition has it (which would have meant two very long nails were used); or both hands separately.</p><p>Despite much prior meditation, there perhaps dawned on the Lord some 'physical' realizations as to the nature of His crucified position: the utter impossibility of making the slightest change of position, especially when tormented by flies, the fact that the hands and feet had been pierced in the most sensitive areas; the fact that the arms were arranged in such a way so that the weight of the body hung only on the muscles, not on the bones and tendons. The smell of blood would have brought forth yelping dogs, circling birds of prey, flying insects…an incessant barrage of annoyances, things to distract the Lord’s mind. As we too also face. He would have realized that the whole process was designed to produce tension in every part of the body. All His body, every part of it, in every aspect, had to suffer (and He would have realized the significance of this, and seen&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;of us as suffering with Him). The muscles were all hopelessly overworked, cramps due to the malcirculation of blood would have created an overwhelming desire to move. All victims would have writhed and wriggled within the few millimetres leeway which they had, to avoid a splinter pushing into the back lacerated from flogging::. But my sense is that the Lord somehow didn't do this. He didn't push down on the footrests for relief (see 54), He didn't take the pain killer, He didn't ask for a drink until the end, when presumably the others accepted. Every muscle in the body would have become locked after two hours or so. Every part of His body suffered, symbolic of how through His sufferings He was able to identify with every member of His spiritual body- for "we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones" (<em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em>). He had perhaps foreseen something of all this when He likened the killing of His body to the taking down of a tent / tabernacle- every bone and sinew, like every pole and canvass, had to be uprooted, 'taken down' (<em><a href='B:500 2:19'>Joh 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:21'>Joh 2:21</a></em>).</p><p>The moment of lifting the stake up vertical, probably amidst a renewed surge of abuse or cheering from the crowd, had been long foreseen and imagined by the Lord. "If, if I be&nbsp;<em>lifted up</em>::." (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>). He foresaw the physical (and spiritual) details of the crucifixion process in such detail. Recall how He foresaw that moment of handing over to death. And yet still He asked for the cup to pass, still He panicked and felt forsaken. If the theory of the cross was so hard to actually live out in practice for the Lord, then how hard it must be for us. The Lord's descriptions of Himself as being 'lifted up' use a phrase which carried in Hebrew the idea of exaltation and glory. As He was lifted up physically, the ground swaying before His eyes, His mind fixed upon the Father and the forgiveness which He was making possible through His sacrifice, covered in blood and spittle, struggling for breath::. He was 'lifted up' in glory and exaltation, to those who have open eyes to see and hearts to imagine and brains to comprehend.</p><p>Imagine yourself being crucified. Go through the stages in the process. The Lord invited us to do this when He asked us to figuratively crucify ourselves daily. Consider all the language of the sacrifices which pointed forward to the final, supreme act of the Lord: poured out, pierced, parted in pieces, beaten out; the rock smitten::. and this is the process which we are going through, although the Father deals with us infinitely more gently than with His only Son.</p><p>It is one of the greatest internal proofs of inspiration that this climactic act is recorded by each of the Gospel writers as a participial or subordinate clause. The concentration is on the splitting up of the clothes, which happened, of course, after the impaling. It is as if the record at this point is from the perspective of the soldiers. Get the job done, and&nbsp;<em>then</em>, on with the important bit- the dividing of the clothes No human author would ever have written like this. It's rather like the way Mary thinks that the risen Lord is a gardener. There is something artless and utterly Divine about it all. The record is full of what I would call spiritual culture. It has the hallmark of the Divine. This may be why some of the 'obvious' fulfilments of prophecy aren't mentioned, e:g. <em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em> concerning the Lamb dumb before her shearers. Likewise there is no record of the faithful women weeping, or moaning as the body was taken down.</p>


