# comment

text:
<p>10:37&nbsp;<em>He that loves father or mother more than me is-&nbsp;</em>This is the language of Levi (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>), encouraging the disciples that they, secular men that they largely were, must consider themselves the new priesthood by whom Israel were to be taught and saved.</p><p><em>Not worthy of Me-</em>&nbsp;We must supply something for the “Me”; the idea is surely that we are not worthy of His love and death for us, of&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>family, if we love&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;family members more than Him. The contrast is between “Me” and our earthly families. ‘Worthiness’ was an idea associated in the first century mind with families. We cannot be worthy of membership in His family if we choose to identify ourselves as members of our natural family first and foremost. On one hand we are never worthy of Christ, and yet He implies here that He does consider us worthy of Him&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;we respond. This is not the same as salvation by works in the sense that Paul later decries; it is salvation by grace through faith, but faith without works is dead. There must be some response. The idea that we can never be worthy of Christ is therefore quite simply wrong, or at best poorly worded and inadequate. He speaks here of being worthy of Him by sacrificing family relationships; and being not worthy of Him by refusing to sacrifice them.</p><p><em>And he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me</em>-&nbsp;<em>Huper</em>&nbsp;Christ means just that in the accusative, “more than” Him. But the idea of&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;in relation to the Lord is used many times in the NT concerning His death “for” or&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;us. It would seem likely that the Lord had His death for us in mind at this point, for He goes straight on to speak of how we are to take up our cross and follow Him to His death on Golgotha (:38). The shift of thought towards the cross in :38 is more natural if we perceive that He is already thinking of it in :37 when speaking of our being worthy of ‘Him’, i:e. His death for us.</p>


text:
<p>10:38&nbsp;<em>And he that does not take his cross</em>- The context is about the preaching of the Gospel. It is not at all glamorous. We should be ready to die a martyr's death. That is the clear teaching here. The context before and after this teaching about the cross is of preaching the Gospel and suffering persecution and broken relationships because of it. This, then, is the sense in which the Lord foresaw many of us suffering for His sake. We are bidden carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:12'>Gal 6:12</a></em>), and yet also our own cross (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>). In our cross-experiences, those times when there is no other Christian option but to shoulder it:::&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;we know something of the cross of the Lord, and then He is actively aware of that small kindred between His cross and ours. He remembers how it was, and sees the commonality of feeling which we have attained.</p><p><em>And follow after me, is not worthy of me</em>-&nbsp;Reflect on a Gospel parallel to see the huge importance of being a disciple of Jesus. In <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em> the Lord says that whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow after Him, “is not worthy of me”. In <em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em> we have the same words, but concluded with “… the same cannot be my disciple”. To be a disciple of the Lord is to be worthy of Him. To seek to walk as He walked, to follow behind Him, is to be worthy of Him. The important thing is to follow, for all our stumblings, but at least to be in the way behind Him<em>:&nbsp;</em>I have made the point that the instructions regarding witnessing here have their equivalent in the Olivet prophecy, and they may particularly refer to our preaching just before the Lord’s return. At that time especially, "a man's foes shall be they of his own household", and therefore "he that takes not his cross (then), and follows after Me, is not worthy". Our response to our trials then during the tribulation will effectively be our judgment seat:&nbsp;</p><p>Consider the contexts in which the Lord spoke of taking up His cross:<br/>(1) In <em><a href='B:490 9:23-26'>Luk 9:23-26</a></em> He tells the crowds that they have come to His meetings because of the intriguing miracles of the loaves and fishes. The Lord is saying: 'Don't follow me because of the loaves and fishes; take up my cross'!<br/>(2) The rich young man was willing to be obedient in everything apart from parting with his wealth. In this context, of asking the most difficult thing for him to do, the Lord spoke of taking up His cross - in the man's case, giving up his wealth.<br/>(3) The command to take up the cross in <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em> is in the context of the Lord's description of the family problems which would be caused by responding to His word. Presumably some were willing to follow Christ if they didn't have to break with their families; but He asks them to take up the cross in this sense.</p><h4>In all of these cases people were willing to follow the Lord - but only insofar as it didn't hurt them. They were unwilling to take on board the idea of consciously deciding to do something against the grain of their natures and immediate surroundings. Yet this is what taking up the cross is all about, and it is vital for our identification with our Lord. It is very easy to serve God in ways which reinforce the lifestyles we choose to have anyway; it is easy to obey Divine principles only insofar as they compound our own personality. By doing so we can deceive ourselves into thinking that we are spiritually active when, in reality, we have never walked out against the wind, never picked up the cross of Christ.</h4>


text:
<p>10:39&nbsp;<em>He that finds his life</em>- The Lord must surely mean us to read in an ellipsis: ‘Thinks he has found the meaning of life without Me’. For the Lord has just called the unsaved audience of His preachers “the lost” (<em><a href='B:470 10:6'>Mat 10:6</a></em> s:w:).</p><p><em>Shall lose it</em>- The Lord has just spoken of how God will “destroy” (s:w. “lose”) the “soul” (s:w. “life”) of those rejected at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>). So here in :39 He is surely thinking of destruction of the ‘soul’ / “life” at the last day. Only those responsible to judgment will appear at the day of judgment; so the Lord’s teaching here concerns those who have known Him, who are responsible to Him, but who are not totally committed to Him; those who think that despite their knowledge of Him, they can ‘find their lives’ without Him. See on <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>lose it</em>.</p><p><em>And he that loses his life for my sake-&nbsp;</em>The same Greek word is translated to destroy, to die, to mar, to cause to perish. Once again, this is not what we wish to hear- that we must do real damage to our human life, crucify it, if we are to share in the life of Jesus. <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em> has just spoken of the destroying / losing of life in condemnation; perhaps the ‘loss / destruction of life’ is in self-condemnation. This would continue a major theme of the Lord’s teaching- that those who condemn themselves in this life shall be saved from condemnation at the last day.</p><p><em>Shall find it-&nbsp;</em>As we go up the spiral of spiritual growth, we will find the true life- perceive, see, realize (<em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em> Gk:) the real, spiritual life, as the wayward son "came to himself", he found himself, when he repented. The Lord had laboured the point that whoever seeks shall&nbsp;<em>find&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 7:7-8'>Mat 7:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em>), and the context clearly is of spiritual things and salvation. The Lord spoke in Matthew 7 of&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;and finding, here He speaks of&nbsp;<em>losing life</em>&nbsp;in order to find it. The language of seeking and losing suggests a process, rather than some finely spoken, albeit genuinely intended, momentary statement of commitment to the Lord. The more we<em>&nbsp;seek</em>&nbsp;the things of the Kingdom, the more we will naturally lose our fleshly life. The loss of life the Lord has in view is clearly a process of “seeking” the things of His Kingdom- rather than the death of martyrdom. The taking up of the cross in the previous verse is the epitome of losing life… but the Lord intended it to be understood as a way of life, a sharing of the same road as Him [“following” Him], upon which dying is literally a way&nbsp;<em>of</em>&nbsp;life as well as the way&nbsp;<em>to</em>&nbsp;life. What in practice does it mean to ‘lose life’? Issues concerning where we live, careers, food, the pleasures of this life, all become eclipsed by the mission before us- of consciously dying,&nbsp;<em>in His service</em>. For the entire context here is about serving the Lord by sharing the Gospel with others, engaging fully with the mission the Lord intends for us. The context of the Lord giving His people work to do would suggest that the life which is ‘found’ is not only the life eternal at the last day, but is the life in His service. This kind of life will be eternally lived, and it is in that sense that we can understand the Lord’s words elsewhere that those who follow Him right now begin living the eternal life, the kind of life in His service which they will eternally live. If we are ever seeking to balance and arrange things so that we can apparently live our fleshly life as well as ‘His’ life, then we have failed to grasp the entire point of His teaching. Total surrender, absolute and eager, willing submission, is what He is about.</p>


text:
<p>10:40&nbsp;<em>He that receives you receives me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me</em>- The Lord is speaking of ‘receiving’ His preachers and materially supporting them (:13). He’s saying that every act of support given to them is done as it were directly to Him. He has the same idea in <em><a href='B:470 25:35-45'>Mat 25:35-45</a></em> - whatever was done to “the least of these My brothers” was done to Him. His “little ones”, the disciples / preachers in their immaturity (:42), were all the same His, and whatever was done to them was done to Him and to His Father. We note that Matthew 25 speaks of material support of food, clothing, hospitality to the unknown and visiting in prison- all exactly in the context of the preaching mission He sent His disciples on. Whatever more general reference there may be in <em><a href='B:470 25:35-45'>Mat 25:35-45</a></em>, clearly the primary reference was to the Lord’s future judgment of those who claimed to be His (who had accepted John the Baptist’s message), in accordance to whether or not they had materially supported the disciples on their preaching mission. Luke’s version of this teaching records that the Lord said that “He that&nbsp;<em>hears&nbsp;</em>you, hears Me” (<em><a href='B:490 10:16'>Luk 10:16</a></em>). The ‘receiving’ was therefore of the message and therefore receiving the disciples personally (10:14 “receive you… hear your words”). We are the voice and face of Jesus to people- it’s a concept colossal in its implications. Our attitude to receiving or accepting each other is our acceptance or rejection of Jesus personally. Hence Paul tells the Galatians that they had “received me… as Christ Jesus” (<em><a href='B:550 4:14'>Gal 4:14</a></em>), surely alluding to the Lord’s teaching here. We are to “receive one another, as Christ also received us” (<em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>).</p><p>The idea of&nbsp;<em>shaliach</em>, whereby someone’s representative was seen as them, was well known in Judaism; the Lord is almost quoting it here, and He does the same in the next verse. Realizing this is going on is a key to correct interpretation of the next verses.</p>


text:
<p>10:41<em>&nbsp;He that receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he that receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward-&nbsp;</em>This is a quotation of well-known Jewish thinking. I have shown multiple times in this commentary that the Lord was seeking to encourage His followers that they were no less than Moses, the prophets and the “righteous men” of the Old Testament. The context here is encouraging them that they are worthy labourers, worthy to receive material support from those they stay with. The ‘receiving’ of them on their preaching mission (:13) is the ‘receiving’ the Lord now has in view. His idea is that just as those who received Old Testament prophets will receive a prophet’s reward at the last day, possibly ‘from the prophet’ as the Greek could mean- so just as much those who materially support the disciples will be rewarded. Such supporters will in no wise lose their reward (:42) – just as surely as those who supported Old Testament prophets will be rewarded, to no lesser extent, those who supported the disciples would likewise be rewarded.</p>


text:
<p>10:42&nbsp;<em>And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple; truly I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward-&nbsp;</em>Giving a cup of cold water to the little ones doesn’t necessarily refer to sticking banknotes in a collection for Oxfam. The Hebrew writer took it as referring to our love for Christ's little ones, within the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> = <em><a href='B:650 6:10'>Heb 6:10</a></em>). And the context says the same:&nbsp;The Lord was inviting the disciples to see themselves as none less than the likes of Elisha, who were supported in their work by various well-wishers:&nbsp;</p><p>According to the interpretation of :41, these “little ones” refer to the disciples. But why “<em>these</em>&nbsp;little ones” and not “you”? I suggest that verse 42 is effectively a soliloquy, perhaps spoken out loud in the presence of the disciples, but all the same, it is Jesus speaking to Himself.</p>


text:
<p>11:1<em>&nbsp;And it came to pass when Jesus had finished commanding his twelve disciples</em>- Vine feels that the&nbsp;<em>dia&nbsp;</em>in&nbsp;<em>diatasso</em>&nbsp;["commanding"] suggests "a distributive force: giving to each his appropriate charge". In this case we see the initial application of the parables about the servants being each given a specific work to do. That work was to preach to specific people whom the Lord intended for each of the disciples. Those parables apply to us- perhaps in that we are each intended to take the Gospel to specific individuals. If we fail in that work, there is no guarantee that the Lord will give that work to others; the harvest will simply not be gathered as it could have been.</p><p><em>He departed from there to teach and preach in their cities</em>- Without their presence (as they were away on their preaching tour), the Lord went to their home areas. He showed by this how He saw out witness amongst those whom we know and our families to be of the utmost importance- and He was and is willing and eager to back up our credibility in such witness.</p>


text:
<p>11:2&nbsp;<em>Now when John heard about the works of the Christ while in prison, he sent word by his disciples-&nbsp;</em>AV "Sent two of his disciples". It can’t be insignificant that John sends two disciples out just after the Lord had sent out&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;disciples two by two in Matthew 10. Surely this is a literary device to set up John in negative contrast to the Lord at this time; John sent out his pair of disciples in response to his crisis of faith. He knew Jesus was to do mighty works- but he had heard of them only by report. Those he sent out had already heard and seen the Lord’s miracles (:4), and yet John sends them to Jesus to ask if He is Messiah. It all reads rather negatively about John. It could even be that he died at a low point in his faith, and yet the Lord’s positive comment about Him surely suggests that He saw John as being ultimately saved. The records of the Kings of Israel and Judah, along with various passages in Ezekiel 18, place great emphasis upon how a man&nbsp;<em>finishes</em>&nbsp;his spiritual journey, and yet there are also Biblical examples of faithful men dying at low ebb spiritually; this will not necessarily exclude from the Kingdom, and John the Baptist may be another example.</p>


text:
<p>11:3&nbsp;<em>And said to him: Are you he that comes</em>- The emphasis may be on the word “you”. The coming one was a well-known term for Messiah, based upon <em><a href='B:230 118:26'>Psa 118:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>Or look we for another?</em>- Despite John’s clearly stated belief that Jesus was the promised bridegroom, the lamb of God and Son of God (<em><a href='B:500 1:29-34'>Joh 1:29-34</a></em>), it seems things had not gone according to the prophetic program John had imagined- and he now had doubts about Jesus. For a man claiming (at least implicitly) to be Messiah, it would’ve been an unnecessary question to ask Him ‘Are you Messiah?’. It could be inferred that John still believed in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, but had begun to wonder if He was only the&nbsp;<em>herald</em>&nbsp;of “another” whom they should be looking for in order to establish the Kingdom. It could be that John’s understanding of himself as the Elijah prophet had led him to expect that all Israel would repent, and then Messiah Himself would come and establish His Kingdom immediately. For this is indeed how the prophecies of Isaiah 40 and Malachi 4 could be read. Perhaps John was full of such self-doubt that he wondered if he really had been the Elijah prophet, and was thinking that maybe he had just heralded the Elijah prophet, Jesus, who was in turn to herald “He that should come”. This is the problem with holding a dogmatic view of prophetic sequences- when they prove wrong, either because our interpretation was faulty or because human lack of response means they are to come true in another way than ideally planned, then often peoples’ faith in Christ Himself is damaged. If we have an open ended view of prophecy, whereby we understand it to state possibilities which may have other ways of fulfilment than what is ideally intended, then such crises don’t arise. “Look we for another?” doesn’t sound as if John was simply asking for a sign, in the spirit of Gideon. He had major questions about the whole prophetic program, sensing that something had changed; the word for “another” is also translated “altered” (<em><a href='B:490 9:29'>Luk 9:29</a></em>). In this sense, his question may not necessarily reflect a crisis of faith in Jesus personally, but rather an earnest desire to know the new details of the revised prophetic program.</p><p>So even John the Baptist, whose teaching had prepared most of the twelve to accept Jesus, seems to have not been altogether clear about what we might consider fundamental things. He speaks here of Jesus as “the one to come”, a commonly understood description of the Elijah prophet, based on the phrase being used about him in <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em> - and not of Messiah Himself. Thus John the Baptist anticipated that this “one to come”, his cousin Jesus, would be a refining fire (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>)- which is exactly Malachi’s language about the Elijah prophet (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a></em>). This would explain why John the Baptist had apparent ‘doubts’ whilst in prison as to whether Jesus really was the Messiah. And it would also explain why the disciples expected Jesus to act like Elijah in <em><a href='B:490 9:52-56'>Luk 9:52-56</a></em>. It was not until the baptism of Jesus that John the Baptist came to understand Jesus as the “one to come”; so the preparatory work which he had done with the disciples must have had what we would call a flimsy doctrinal basis. When Jesus called them to follow Him, and they so quickly obeyed, it is often assumed that John the Baptist had prepared them for this. But that preparation must at best have been very shallow and incomplete, given John’s own admission that he did not recognize Jesus for who He was until His baptism. Why, however, was John’s misunderstanding recorded in the Gospel records? Or the misunderstanding of his father Zacharias, that John was in fact the promised Messiah, “the prophet”, the one would bring forgiveness of sins and freedom from the Romans (<em><a href='B:490 1:71-79'>Luk 1:71-79</a></em>)? Perhaps for the same reason as the language of demons is used, especially to describe the miracles at the beginning of the Lord’s ministry. He didn’t correct this. But over time it became evident that the sheer power of the Son of God meant that in practice, demons didn’t exist. Likewise, as the ministry of Jesus unfolds to us in the Gospel records, it becomes apparent that He was Son of God, the Messiah- and not merely an Elijah prophet:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:4&nbsp;<em>And Jesus answered and said to them: Go and tell John-&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;They had already told him once- the same word is used for how they initially had told John these things (<em><a href='B:490 7:18'>Luk 7:18</a></em>). There is definitely the sense that John needed to work through the implications of what he was hearing, rather than having some specific explanation from the Lord.</p><p><em>The things which you hear and see</em>- The request that John ‘hear’ these reports more carefully begs connection with the Lord’s frequent comment that the Jews heard but did not really hear (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 13:13-17'>Mat 13:13-17</a></em>). John’s lack of understanding appears to be in some sense culpable and at best disappointing to the Lord. The Lord is seeking to assure John that if he just thinks about the evidence, it’s clear that Jesus is indeed Messiah, and as John had earlier preached- Son and lamb of God, who saves His people from their sins. He seems to be saying that that was so wonderful and fundamental, that the rearrangement of the prophetic timetable is in a sense irrelevant compared to that. Whether or not the timing or chronology of events surrounding the Kingdom comes true as we expect, or whether or not we discern how God has re-planned the fulfilment of prophecy- is all irrelevant compared to the wonder of knowing Jesus as the Christ and personal Saviour.</p>


text:
<p>11:5<em>&nbsp;The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear and the dead are raised up-&nbsp;</em>The teaching of Jesus included frequent quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament. When we go back and read around the contexts of the passages He quoted, it becomes apparent that He very often omits to quote the negative, judgmental, or conditional aspects of the blessings which He quotes. Consider the way He quotes <em><a href='B:290 29:18'>Isa 29:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:5-6'>Isa 35:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em> in <em><a href='B:470 11:5-6'>Mat 11:5-6</a></em>. These are all talking about Messianic blessings. But they are embedded amidst warnings of judgment and the conditionality of God’s grace. Likewise Luke records how Jesus read from <em><a href='B:290 61:1-2'>Isa 61:1-2</a></em>, but He stopped at the very point where Isaiah’s message turns from promise to threat. None of this takes away from the terrible reality that future failure is a real possibility, even tomorrow. We can throw it all away. We may do. We have the possibility. And some do. There is an eternity ahead which we may miss. And each one who enters the Kingdom will, humanly speaking, have come pretty close to losing it at various points in his or her mortal life. But the Lord’s positivity is a powerful example.</p><p><em>And the poor have good tidings preached to them</em>- This was as remarkable and significant as the previous miraculous signs, of the blind seeing etc. There was a deep impression that religion was for the middle class or wealthy. Teachers didn’t bother preaching to the poor because there was no possibility of financial support coming from them. Yet the Lord opened His manifesto in the Sermon on the Mount by saying that His message was especially intended for “the poor” (<em><a href='B:470 5:3'>Mat 5:3</a></em> s:w:). In many Christian circles, the same is true today. Churches need money (or, they think they do), and so their focus is not on taking the Gospel to the poor but rather to the potential tithers. The disciples were amazed that the rich wouldn’t be saved (<em><a href='B:470 19:24-25'>Mat 19:24-25</a></em>), so deeply ingrained was this idea that spirituality and wealth were somehow supposed to go together. The Lord was teaching the opposite. There’s no doubt that the Gospel is designed for the poor; and that if one were to bring “the poor”&nbsp;<em>en masse</em>&nbsp;into many churches / ecclesias today, the existing membership would up and go somewhere else. The Spirit was clearly upon the Lord Jesus exactly&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He preached the Gospel to the poor (<em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>). Our preaching attitude to “the poor” is a reflection of our spirituality. “The poor” in the immediate context were the disciples, for the Lord had just looked upon them in love and commented: “Blessed are you poor” (<em><a href='B:490 6:20'>Luk 6:20</a></em>). In the response of “the poor” to Him, the Lord saw a Divine confirmation of His ministry. And it is the same with us. Our ministry is to take the Gospel to the unbelieving poor, and not to get middle class Christian religionists to shift churches and allegiance to our group. <em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em> is clear that God chooses the poor&nbsp;<em>more than&nbsp;</em>the rich to be heirs of His Kingdom; so in this case, our preaching focus should be specifically towards them.</p>


text:
<h4>11:6&nbsp;<em>And blessed is he, whoever shall find no cause to stumble over me-</em>&nbsp;Clearly the Lord saw John as likely to be about to stumble. As explained earlier, the cause of stumbling was [and is to this day] that the Lord at times makes changes in the outworking of His prophetic program. Because things haven’t gone just as mere humans imagined it, because they can’t get their heads around God’s huge sensitivity to human repentance and choices, nor His subsequent willingness to change His timetable to accommodate that… therefore people stumble at Christ. The Lord encountered a similar situation in Nazareth, where people again were “offended in Him” (<em><a href='B:470 13:57'>Mat 13:57</a></em>) because His Messiahship was not as they supposed it ought to be. Likewise the death of the Messiah by crucifixion caused even the disciples to be offended- it was simply not how they had imagined Messiah’s salvation. They were “offended” exactly because He was ‘smitten’ (<em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>), even though the Lord had warned them ahead of time about His death so that they would not be offended (<em><a href='B:500 16:1'>Joh 16:1</a></em>). The cross was therefore a rock of offence to many (<em><a href='B:530 1:23'>1Co 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:11'>Gal 5:11</a></em>). So often we see the process- people come to Jesus with preconceived notions of how things should be, and fit those notions into the structure of their ‘Christianity’. But the Christ’s most fundamental teachings may in fact outlaw their beloved notions and favourite suppositions. And because their imagination of Jesus doesn’t fit in with who He actually is- they stumble. It’s like falling in love with an idea of a person, rather than with the person as they actually are. God’s word presents Jesus as He actually is, and it is this which we must accept, allowing it thereby to jettison all preconceived notions we have of Him. The parable of the sower taught that persecution leads to people being offended (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>), and John was certainly undergoing persecution for the word there in prison. But persecution leads to spiritual stumbling largely because of the dashed expectations- that with Christ, all shall go well for us, and we in this life shall be delivered from problems. But the Lord is stressing throughout His teaching that that Jewish conception of Messiah and Messiah’s Kingship over men was simply incorrect. Those who followed Him would suffer and die, in one form or another, the death of the cross.</h4><p>The Lord tried not to offend people (<em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em>) and yet people were indeed offended in Him. But in <em><a href='B:470 18:6-9'>Mat 18:6-9</a></em> He makes offence of others a serious sin. In this connection of thought we see an example of where there are some things which can be said of Jesus, some things He could do, which we simply cannot do. In forgiving others, we are often challenged to forgive&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;the Lord does. Not all that He does can be replicated by us, nor indeed is it possible. Thus for us, forgiveness is usually a process, whereas for the Father and Son it appears to be more instantaneous.</p>


text:
<p>11:7&nbsp;<em>And as these went their way, Jesus began to say to the crowds concerning John: What did you go out into the wilderness to see?-&nbsp;</em>The crowds whom the Lord was addressing were therefore eager listeners of John, even perhaps in a sense his disciples. We see her the fulfilment of John’s commission- to prepare&nbsp;<em>in the wilderness</em>&nbsp;a smooth way for the coming of the Messianic King of glory. But the crowds didn’t respond, and Messiah didn’t come in His glorious Kingdom. I suggested on <em><a href='B:470 10:11'>Mat 10:11</a></em> that the mission of the disciples was initially to those who had responded to John the Baptist’s teaching; and now whilst they were away on their preaching tour doing such follow up work, the Lord was doing the same, addressing a crowd who had also responded to John enough to trek out into the wilderness to hear him.</p><p><em>A reed shaken with the wind?-</em>&nbsp;The reference is probably to the reeds growing in the Jordan where John baptized. Just as the people didn’t go there to look at the reeds but at John as God’s prophet, so the Lord is hinting that they should not look on John’s weakness but upon who he essentially was. When John the Baptist had this crisis of faith, the Lord spoke of John to the multitude as if he was a strong believer, no reed shaken in the wind of doubt. And yet He didn’t just paper over John’s doubts and forget them, pretending He hadn’t seen. The message He returned to John encouraged him to look back to the Isaiah prophecies of Messiah, and to remember especially the way that the weak, doubting ones would be made strong. The Lord evidently sought to strengthen the weak John by this allusion. The language of being&nbsp;<em>shaken</em>&nbsp;by&nbsp;<em>wind</em>&nbsp;is used elsewhere by the Lord in describing the process of condemnation at the last day (both Greek words are found in <em><a href='B:470 7:25'>Mat 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:27'>Mat 7:27</a></em>). The Lord’s idea may therefore be: ‘Sure, John is wavering at this very moment. But when you saw him in the wilderness, he wasn’t; and in God’s eyes, even now, he’s not shaking in the wind, he’s not going to be condemned at the day of judgment- even though, as you’ve just heard, he has his doubts and weaknesses’. Perhaps the Lord had John in mind when He soon afterwards spoke of how He would not condemn even a broken reed (s:w:- <em><a href='B:470 12:20'>Mat 12:20</a></em>), but rather still use it as a channel for the oil of the Spirit. The whole situation with John is helpful in coping with others who clearly are passing through times of trial which is resulting in their faith wavering. Think positively of who they were, have been, and still essentially are…</p>


text:
<p>11:8&nbsp;<em>But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments?</em>- The allusion is surely to Herod and Herodias, who had imprisoned John. John’s clothing was rugged, not soft (<em><a href='B:470 3:4'>Mat 3:4</a></em>).</p><p><em>Those that wear soft garments are in king's houses-</em>&nbsp;The Lord is drawing a contrast between John and Herod who imprisoned him. Herod Antipas had minted coins with a reed on them to celebrate the building of Tiberias. Perhaps the Lord is saying: 'OK, so John is weak for the moment, there in prison. But just think of the man he was when he was free, and how in God's eyes he compares so favourably against Herod who imprisoned him'. In His gracious way, the Lord is teaching that the overall sum of a man's spiritual life must be considered, and not whether he ends it with some element of weakness. This approach is also to be found in the way the inspired record appears to comment upon some of the kings of Israel and Judah- weakness at the end didn't necessarily scribble God's overall judgment of their lives.</p>


text:
<p>11:9&nbsp;<em>But what did you go out to see?-</em>&nbsp;Three times in :7-9 the Lord reminds them of their trek out into the wilderness to hear John; His point is that the respect they once had for him should remain, despite his wavering under extreme suffering. God's overall impression of Job appears similar, and it is a good teaching for we who are all too inclined to too harshly judge a good believer for a temporary period of weakness. The Greek phrase ‘go out to see…’ is used in classical Greek about going out to a spectacle or show. The Lord is suggesting that perhaps that was all their interest in John might have been, just as today likewise, it’s quite possible to visit the truest church and hear the truest teaching, yet unperceived by those who are merely ‘going to church’.</p><p><em>To see a prophet? Yes! And I say to you, much more than a prophet!</em>- The idea is 'the greatest prophet'. Judaism had various theories about who had been the greatest of the Old Testament prophets. The Lord was saying that actually, the greatest of them was that man who was now sitting in the grim prison cell in Machaerus Fort, having a crisis of faith and understanding.</p>


text:
<p>11:10&nbsp;<em>This is he-&nbsp;</em>The emphasis is on the word "is". He&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;the prophet who came to herald Messiah. And yet John had denied that he was Elijah, nor "that prophet" (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>), surely a reference to the Elijah prophet; even though he later stated that he had been 'sent before' Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>), and was the voice of the Isaiah 40 prophet crying in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:500 1:23'>Joh 1:23</a></em>). The Lord is saying 'Actually, John&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;that prophet. He initially denied it in his humility, but he really was and is "that prophet". Now again his humility has led him to self-denial, he's wondering whether in fact I am the Elijah prophet and the Messiah Himself is yet to be 'looked for'. But take it on My authority- he really was the Elijah prophet, even though his humility leads him to self-doubt at times'. See on :14&nbsp;<em>this is Elijah</em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Of whom it is written: Listen</em>- AV "Behold". An invitation to perceive, and the Lord was asking them to perceive in that imprisoned man a great prophet, to see beyond his temporary, surface-level crisis of John, to perceive that "this&nbsp;<em>is&nbsp;</em>he".</p><p><em>I send my messenger before your face; he shall prepare your way before you-&nbsp;</em>The pronouns are somewhat different from the original in <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em>: "Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before [My face] ::. says Yahweh of Armies". Jesus, as the face and presence of God to men, interpreted the words of His Father as being spoken personally to Him. The way was prepared before God's face, according to Malachi, but God's Son applies that to Himself. That is not to say that Jesus was God in any Trinitarian sense. He was the supreme manifestation of God, and He quotes Malachi 3 in such a way as to teach that to those with ears to hear. We have a window here onto how the Lord Jesus read Scripture; passages about His Father were applied by Him to Himself, but that is no claim by Him to be God Himself in person.</p><p>The Lord is reminding the crowds who had gone out to hear John in the wilderness that&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were the way which John had tried to prepare, and He was now the face of Yahweh standing before them. But they had become side-tracked from the essence of personal transformation by a worry about the credibility and humanity of the messenger; and again, this is a principle which badly needs our attention in our own path. So often believers leave the path, the way prepared, because of the perceived weakness or plain humanity of the one who taught them.</p><p>The Hebrew text being quoted in <em><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a></em> has a word play here. "Prepare" translates&nbsp;<em>panah</em>, meaning to turn the face (s:w. <em><a href='B:10 18:22'>Gen 18:22</a></em> where the Angels "turned their faces"), and "Before [your face]" translates&nbsp;<em>paniym</em>. The idea is that the messenger would turn the faces of people towards the face of God. The height of the calling was hard for Jewish minds, indeed for any human mind, to take on board; that the God whose face even Moses could not see can be seen face to face, thanks to the work of John the "messenger" turning men's faces to the face of Christ, who is the image of God. No wonder the people so easily became distracted from the height and wonder of the invitation, by focusing upon the fact that a depressed and humble prophet awaiting death in a dark prison cell had some crisis of Biblical interpretation. And so, so often the wonder of our calling likewise is eagerly forgotten by us and eclipsed by petty gossip and speculation about the faith and possible spiritual status of another man.</p>


text:
<p>11:11- see on <em><a href='B:470 20:11'>Mat 20:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>Truly I say to you, among those that are born of women-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus was Himself the greatest of all born of women (<em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em>), but in His humility He adds no rider to the effect 'John was the greatest of all born of women, Myself excepted, of course'. How we love Him for His humility.</p><p><em>There has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist. Yet he that is the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he-&nbsp;</em>The little ones were the disciples, according to what the Lord had recently said in <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> (s:w:). He was urging them, yet again, to see their exalted status and to get over Judaism's attitude that the prophets were icons to whom the rank and file of God's people should never pretend. The Lord is using hyperbole here to make the point- that His immature 'little ones' were going to be far greater than even John, the greatest prophet. Or He could be implying that there will be some element of rank in God’s future Kingdom- ruling over different numbers of cities, one star differing from another in glory. And the least in that age will be far greater than John was&nbsp;<em>in this life</em>. And yet Jesus was proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom in the sense of the breaking in of God’s principles in the lives of men. He could mean that John was the greatest under the old system, but the least of those within the new system were greater than John. Oscar Cullmann made a case for translating&nbsp;<em>mikroteros</em>&nbsp;here as “the youngest”, with reference to the Lord being younger than John the Baptist and yet greater than him (see <em><a href='B:500 3:30'>Joh 3:30</a></em>).</p><p>Note the present tense in "is greater". The following verse speaks of preaching the Gospel of that Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>), perhaps implying that by responding to Christ's Gospel of the Kingdom we are associated with the Kingdom, and are thereby "greater" than the message which John preached.</p><p>Luke adds: “But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized by him” (<em><a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a></em>). God will fulfil His purpose for us- if we align ourselves with it, and thus see in everything that happens in our lives&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;will being forwarded. We can choose to not align ourselves with His will. The Pharisees rejected the purpose of God against themselves by not being baptized by John (<em><a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a></em> ESV). His will is not that we should sit around doing Sudoku, watching movies, bantering on the internet, trying to get as much money as possible to finance our nice meals, expensive coffees and designer clothes. His will, as expressed in His very Name, is that He ‘will be’ grace, love, care, justice, salvation, righteousness, all over the world and to every man and woman. If these things are our focus, our mission, our purpose, our passion, our underlying heartthrob, if&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;will is behind&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;will… then everything somehow comes together for us in a dynamic and fulfilling existence, both in this world and in the life eternal.</p>


text:
<p>11:12&nbsp;<em>And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and men of violence take it by force</em>- This can be seen as constructing a parable from the idea of Roman storm troopers taking a city. And those men, the Lord teaches in his attention grabbing manner, really represent every believer who responds to the Gospel of the Kingdom and strives to enter that Kingdom. The same word translated 'take by force' is used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>: "The Kingdom of God is preached, and every man&nbsp;<em>presses into</em>&nbsp;it"; true response to the Gospel of the Kingdom is a struggle. Entering the Kingdom is a fight (<em><a href='B:610 6:12'>1Ti 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:7'>2Ti 4:7</a></em>). We either violently snatch / take the Kingdom by force (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>), or the devil of our own nature will snatch us away (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). The choice before us is that pointed: fight or fall. The Lord graciously and generously saw the zeal of the mixed up, uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going. The cause of the Kingdom must be forcefully advanced by “violent men”. This was the sort of language the Lord used. He wasn’t preaching anything tame, painless membership of a comfortable community. The Lord saw the zeal of the uncertain, misunderstanding disciples as storm troopers taking the city of the Kingdom of God by force- knowing exactly where they were coming from and where they were going.</p><p>However, there are other alternatives in interpretation. It’s been suggested that ‘the violent ones’ may have been a term used to describe Jesus and His followers by His opponents; in which case the Lord would be alluding to this and saying that the enthusiasm of His people was in spiritual and not physical terms. Another option would be that the Lord is alluding to the Zealots and other groups who were trying to bring the Kingdom of God about by political, violent action; and the Lord would then be lamenting that since John’s time, there were men who had misunderstood his message of the Kingdom by trying to bring it about by force. And there is a telling double meaning in the Greek for ‘take it by force’; it could also mean that the Kingdom is under attack by these violent men. In this case, the real meaning and progress of the Kingdom as God intended, in terms of His spiritual dominion in human life, was being hindered by those who were trying to establish it by force. This suggestion is re-enforced by the use of the same word in <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>, where the mistaken multitudes wanted to 'take [Christ] by force' and make Him King there and then. And this would explain the context- the imprisonment of John by the violent Herod would then be the basis for this saying. The violent were attacking and taking by force the Kingdom preachers like John.</p>


text:
<p>11:13&nbsp;<em>For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John-</em>&nbsp;The sentence begins with “For…”. This is an explanation of the cut-off point between the time of the Kingdom, and the period of the law and prophets. It was as if their work was being done up until John. The&nbsp;<em>law</em>&nbsp;prophesied until John in the sense that in the Messiah whom John proclaimed, the law’s prophecies were fulfilled. Note that the law just as much as the prophets is to be seen as prophesying. And yet other changeover points or boundaries are suggested within the New Testament. The law would ‘pass’ when all was fulfilled, which seems to hint at the ‘finishing’ of all when the Lord cried “It is finished!” on the cross. The law would not pass&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;this point (<em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em>, using the same word as in <em><a href='B:470 11:13'>Mat 11:13</a></em> “until”). The Lord’s death was clearly a major ending point for the old system. And yet <em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em> speaks of the old system as decaying and becoming old, and being about to vanish away- surely in the destruction of the temple in AD70. There are other hints in the NT that the old system somehow operated with some level of acceptance from God until AD70. Why the different potential changeover points? Presumably because the hope and intention was that John would successfully prepare the way, and the Messianic reign would be ushered in by Israel’s acceptance of their Messiah. And yet they killed Him. That point in itself was the theological changeover moment. But still not all Israel accepted the apostolic preaching of repentance for the crucifixion. And so in practice, the changeover point came when the temple was destroyed and any serious obedience to the old covenant was thereby rendered impossible. In all this we see God’s amazing grace and desire continually to work with people, factoring in the possibility of their repentance.</p>


text:
<p>11:14- see on 21:32.</p><h4><em>And if you are willing to receive it-&nbsp;</em>The same word was used earlier in this section, when the Lord spoke of the apostles being ‘received’ by those who had initially responded to John’s teaching (<em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:40-41'>Mat 10:40-41</a></em>). If Israel would receive it, John the Baptist was the Elijah prophet. The course of fulfilment of prophecy was conditional upon whether John succeeded in turning the hearts of Israel back to the fathers or not; on preparing them for the great and terrible day of the Lord. The Kingdom&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>have come in the 1st century had Israel received John as Elijah. But they would not. And so another Elijah prophet is to come in the last days and prepare Israel for her Messiah. “If ye are willing to receive him, this is Elijah which is to come” (RVmg:) says it all. The Elijah prophet who was to herald the Messianic Kingdom&nbsp;<em>could have been</em>&nbsp;John the Baptist- if Israel had received him. But they didn’t, and so the prophecy went down another avenue of fulfilment. It could be that <em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em> implies that there is still the possibility that even the latter day Elijah ministry may not be totally successful- for the earth / land is to be smitten with a curse unless he succeeds in turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and there is no lack of evidence that the land may well be ‘smitten’ in the last days:&nbsp;</h4><p>Some prophecies are fulfilled according to the acceptance of their fulfilment by believers, and therefore have their fulfilments in different ways at different times. Thus for those who received it, Malachi’s ‘Elijah’ prophecies were fulfilled in John the Baptist, for those who accepted him (<em><a href='B:470 11:14'>Mat 11:14</a></em>). The implication is that for those who didn’t, those prophecies weren’t fulfilled. When the Lord stood up and read from Isaiah, He commented that “this day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” (<em><a href='B:490 4:21'>Luk 4:21</a></em>). He didn’t mean that His reading those words in a synagogue had fulfilled them. He speaks of “your ears” as standing for ‘your correct perception / understanding’ in <em><a href='B:470 13:16'>Mat 13:16</a></em>. What He was surely saying was that for those of them who perceived who He was, Isaiah’s words were ringing true. For those who rejected Him, of course, they weren’t fulfilled, and therefore their complete, universal acceptance&nbsp;/ fulfilment would be delayed until a future day; just as it was with the ‘Elijah’ prophecy.</p><p>The “it” in "receive it" could refer to the prophetic message of the Law and prophets- hence GNB offers “and if you are willing to believe their message…”. It was taken as assumed that every Jew received / accepted the Law and the prophets, but the Lord’s point was that if they really received it, then they would accept John’s message and now accept Him as Messiah. Likewise the Lord challenges the Jewish scribes as to whether they had ever really read the Old Testament (<em><a href='B:470 21:16'>Mat 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:25'>Mar 2:25</a></em>)- when they spent their days doing so (<em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em> RV):&nbsp;</p><p><em>This was Elijah that has to come</em>- See on :10. John in humility and self-effacement had denied being the Elijah prophet (<em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>), and he now had a similar doubt, wondering whether in fact Jesus was the Elijah prophet and the Messiah was still to be looked for. The Lord is saying that John was who he was, the Elijah prophet, despite John's self-doubt. And we again have an example- we are to treat our brethren as whom God sees them as being, notwithstanding their temporary weaknesses and self-doubt. The use of “this” rather than “he” could be because the Lord had in mind the Elijah prophet’s ministry, and not just John personally. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:15&nbsp;<em>He that has ears to hear, let him hear</em>- The Lord often uses this phrase, the idea seems to be that not all have the capacity to really hear, but if we do, then, we still have to exercise a choice as to whether we do or not. That would also be true to observed experience, because that is indeed how it seems- some people have no interest in God’s word, something is not ‘given’ them, so that they never ‘get it’; and those to whom it is given, there must still be a conscious choice exercised. For those who decide rightly, it becomes true that to him who has, more is given (<em><a href='B:470 13:12'>Mat 13:12</a></em>). That verse in 13:12 begs the question ‘Has what?’. The answer is surely given here in 11:15: ‘ears to hear’. The hearing or listening which the Lord refers to is listening to the message of John- for the next verses liken John’s ministry to calling out to people to respond, although most choose to be non-responsive. Maybe the idea is ‘Despite John having a temporary crisis of faith and understanding, that is no excuse for not hearing his message’. Perhaps the tension is being developed between the need to&nbsp;<em>hear</em>&nbsp;John, whereas it is thrice stressed that this crowd had gone out into the desert to&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;John (11:7-9), as if they were going to a show- a powerful challenge that echoes down to our generation of churchgoing and churchianity.</p>


text:
<p>11:16&nbsp;<em>But unto what shall I liken this generation?</em>- The Lord several times spoke of that entire generation as sinful and unresponsive to the Gospel. Yet the context here is talking of John the Baptist’s work. This therefore was a tacit recognition that John’s ministry had been unsuccessful in terms of converting all Israel, and therefore clearly&nbsp;there was to be a change in the prophetic program. As noted earlier in commentary on this chapter, it was this change in the prophetic program which was worrying John, even though unnecessarily in terms of his own salvation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>It is like children sitting-&nbsp;</em>John’s ministry was like children wanting to play funerals, and taking the initiative by beginning with mock weeping- but not getting any response. The Lord’s ministry was as children wanting to play weddings, piping to the other children, who would not respond by dancing. Note that in <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em> the Lord has likened His preachers to little children. Children were considered non-persons in society, and yet the Lord uses children in this parable as representative of His preachers. We note that although He likened them to children, He had to sternly warn them that they still needed to be converted and become&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;children (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>). We see Him so often imputing status to His followers which they had not in reality attained. This is to help us appreciate how He can impute righteousness to we who are not righteous. The parable of preaching here pictures children appealing to children. The commonality between us and our audience is very attractive and persuasive. We are humans reaching out to humans, indeed, children to children; the children called out (cp. calling out the Gospel) to “their&nbsp;<em>fellows</em>”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>In the market places, who call to their fellows</em>- The town square. The Lord uses the same word in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>, where the call of the Gospel comes to men who are standing idle in the market place (s:w:). The picture is perhaps of society getting on with its existence, but the weak labourers and the children being left to one side, excluded from standard adult social and economic life. And it is to these that the call of the Gospel comes, in the midst of human busyness:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:17&nbsp;<em>And say: We piped to you and you did not dance. We wailed and you did not mourn-&nbsp;</em>The Old Testament as well as the New is written in such a way as to encourage memorization, although this is often masked by the translation. There are several devices commonly used to assist in this. Not least is alliteration, i:e. similarly sounding syllables. "We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced (<em>orchee-sasthe</em>); we have mourned unto you and ye have not lamented (<em>ekop-sasthe</em>)" (<em><a href='B:470 11:17'>Mat 11:17</a></em>) could be dynamically rendered: 'We piped for you, and you never&nbsp;stept; we dirged for you, and you never&nbsp;wept". We note that the Lord parallels the work of the children John’s ‘children’ or disciples, and his. Although both of them were somewhat negative about each other, the Lord saw both groups of children as doing the same work, despite a different culture and even doctrinal emphasIs. The division in the town square was between the children begging the others to respond, and the children of this world who didn’t want to, in the midst of those who didn’t even have ears to hear and were just getting on with their worldly business and never ‘heard’ the invitation from either group of children.</p><p>The Lord was speaking this whilst the disciples were away on their preaching tour. He could say that just as John’s preparation of the way had not been responded to on the level of the whole “generation” or society, neither had His more upbeat and joyful invitation been accepted. Note that the call of the Gospel is a call to engage with the preacher, to dance in response to the tune piped. Community and fellowship are all part of response to the Gospel; it’s not about delivering truths to an individual who then accepts them and has no further relationship with the preacher. This is why the father-son analogy is used for preaching and conversion later in the NT. There is the implication too that the initial preacher continues to call the tune, to direct the dancing of the convert, even after initial acceptance of the invitation.</p><p>Remember that the Lord is addressing those who had gone out to hear John preach (:7-9). He is implying that they had no actually responded to his call to them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:18&nbsp;<em>For John came neither eating nor drinking and they say he has a demon-</em>The Gospels give the impression that there was mass response to John’s preaching, but according to the Lord’s reasoning here, He felt that “this generation”, society as a whole, had rejected John’s message and slandered him as in league with demons. Exactly the same was said about the ministry of Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 8:48'>Joh 8:48</a></em> uses the same term about Jesus- “He has a demon”). Surface level interest in the message, even applauding it and making a great effort to go out into the desert to hear it preached, was and is not the same as responding in real repentance.</p>


text:
<p>11:19&nbsp;<em>The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they say, Look, a gluttonous man and a drunkard-&nbsp;</em>The Lord was accused of being a drunkard, a glutton, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners (<em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:34'>Luk 7:34</a></em>). This is all language reminiscent of the commands for the parents to slay the 'rebellious son' of <em><a href='B:50 21:18-21'>Deu 21:18-21</a></em>. It's conceivable that one of the reasons why His death was demanded was because of this. Hence His relatives sought to take Him away out of public sight. It's also been claimed that the Jews' complaint that Jesus 'made Himself equal to the Father' (<em><a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a></em>) is alluding to a rabbinic expression which speaks of the 'rebellious son' of Deuteronomy 21 as being a son who makes himself equal to his father. The shame of being Jesus' mother eventually wore off upon Mary, or so it seems to me. Just as the shame of standing up for Christian principles can wear us down, too. In passing, note that the prodigal son is likewise cast in the role of the 'rebellious son' who should be killed; the correspondence suggests that the Lord Jesus can identify with sinners like the prodigal because He was treated<em>&nbsp;as if</em>&nbsp;He were a sinner, a rebellious son; even though He was not in actuality.</p><p>The criticisms of the Lord here were all related to His drinking, eating and table company. Jesus showed by His fellowship with “the poor in spirit” that He meant what He said. He, as God’s Son, extended His Father’s fellowship to them in the here and now of this life. Luke seems to have been especially perceptive of the fact that Jesus often accepted invitations to eat with those whom others despised (<em><a href='B:490 5:29'>Luk 5:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:36'>Luk 7:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:38'>Luk 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:37'>Luk 11:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a></em>). In 1st century Palestine, to eat with someone was a religious act:&nbsp; The host blessed and broke the bread and then broke off a piece for each guest, thus binding together all present. This was why the many sects of Judaism carefully limited their table fellowship (notably the Pharisees and Essenes). Thus it was the Lord’s desire to share table fellowship with the very lowest (apparently) within the community of God that brought Him such criticism (<em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:16'>Mar 2:16</a></em>). His teaching also made it plain that He saw table fellowship with Him at a meal as a type of the future Messianic banquet, to be enjoyed in His Kingdom at His return, when redeemed sinners will again sit and eat with Him (<em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em>). To accept the gift of the bread of life at the breaking of bread is to symbolize our acceptance of the life that is in Him. If we believe what we are doing at the memorial meeting, we are showing our acceptance of the fact that we will be there, and that what we are doing in our humble breakings of bread is in fact a true foretaste of the Kingdom experience which awaits us.</p><p><em>A friend of tax collectors and sinners!</em>- The Lord was ‘fond’ [<em>philos</em>] of sinners; He liked them and their company. In this we see His greatness, for most spiritual people admit to finding the company of the unspiritual somewhat of a burden. But the Lord’s spirituality was beyond that. Truly He is the sinners’ friend. And Matthew as a tax collector is testifying to this personally.</p><p><em>But wisdom is justified by her children-&nbsp;</em>Appreciating the inter-relation between 'doctrine' and practice will result in our seeing through the fallacy that because someone's deeds are good, therefore it doesn't matter too much about their doctrine. The spiritual fruit which God seeks is that which is brought forth by the seed of His word, the Gospel. To&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;understand the basic Gospel with one's heart is to bring forth fruit, to be converted. True wisdom is justified by the works she brings forth (<em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>). This is why true conversion involves understanding and perceiving, and not merely hearing doctrinal truth (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>). Yet the counter argument would be that there are people who know God’s truth who behave poorly, and there are those who know little of it who act well. This is why the Lord speaks of “wisdom”, not “truth”; for wisdom is God’s truth applied in practice:&nbsp;<br/>On another level, we see here the Lord’s response to slander, both of Himself and John. Wisdom is justified of her children- in the end. The “children” are those of Himself and John, who have just featured in His parable of the preachers, His children, meeting lack of response in the town square. Even if there is lack of response to the invitation, the Lord was confident that both His ‘children’ (the “little ones” of <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em>) and John’s would be the justification of the truth and wisdom which they were teaching. This is all a comfort to those undergoing slander. In the end, if we are on the side of wisdom, we shall be justified.</p>


text:
<p>11:20&nbsp;<em>Then he began to chastise the cities-</em>&nbsp;The Lord also upbraided the disciples for their unbelief (<em><a href='B:480 16:14'>Mar 16:14</a></em> s:w:). Again we see the Lord being positive towards His disciples in the eyes of the world, and yet privately challenging them with the same language of criticism which He had for the unbelieving world. His imputation of righteousness to us doesn’t mean He is blind to our weakness.</p><p><em>Wherein most</em>- Gk. ‘the majority’. We must give this word its full weight. The majority of the Lord’s miracles were done in three tiny villages- Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. We have just learnt that whilst the disciples were away on their preaching tour, He had gone to preach in their home villages (<em><a href='B:470 11:1'>Mat 11:1</a></em>). Perhaps some time had elapsed between verses 19 and 20. He had had little response. Philip, Andrew and Peter were all from Bethsaida, the ‘home of fishermen’ (<em><a href='B:500 1:44'>Joh 1:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:21'>Joh 12:21</a></em>). We sense that the Lord had a specific plan in mind for His preaching work. He made a particular focus upon Galilee and the home villages of His disciples- and Galilee was of course His own home area. We see in this policy a desire by Him for us to witness in our own immediate environment and family situations. <em><a href='B:480 8:22-26'>Mar 8:22-26</a></em> records the only miracle the Gospels record as performed in Bethsaida, and the Lord told the cured blind man not to tell anyone in Bethsaida about the miracle- presumably because the people there had already seen ample miracles and had not repented:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Of his mighty works had been done, because they had not repented-</em>&nbsp;Here we see the purpose of the healing miracles. They were not simply to alleviate human suffering for the sake of it- they were specifically designed to lead people to repentance. God’s goodness is intended to lead to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). The doing of Christian ‘good works’ can’t be criticized in itself, but it needs to be observed that they often seem to be performed ‘for the sake of it’, whereas the Lord’s works were always within a wider plan and aim of bringing people to spiritual healing:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:21&nbsp;<em>Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have-&nbsp;</em>God likewise looks down upon our lives today, seeing all possibilities, and how unbelievers would respond so much more to Him than His own dear people. It's the pain of the parent, knowing that other children would respond so much more to their love than their own beloved offspring. The Lord Jesus had something of this when He commented that Tyre and Sidon would've repented had they had His message preached to them; but Israel would not. To know all possible futures must make experiencing human life and poor decision making all the harder and more tragic for the Father and Son.</p><p><em>Repented-</em>&nbsp;Here we see that the intention of the miracles was not merely healing in itself, as a good to humanity- but rather to invite people to repentance. Hence the connection between healing and forgiveness in the account of the healing of the paralyzed man:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Long ago in sackcloth and ashes</em>- Made of camel and goat hair, therefore very similar to the clothing of John the Baptist- which is the context here (<em><a href='B:470 11:8'>Mat 11:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:22&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you-</em>&nbsp;Tyre and Sodom were major Gentile cities. The Lord clearly believed their inhabitants would be resurrected and appear at the future day of judgment. Seeing that knowledge is the basis of responsibility to judgment, it follows that there was some witness made to them. Ezekiel’s prophecies of condemnation against Tyre can therefore be seen as conditional prophecies, like the prophecy of Nineveh’s destruction- they could have repented in response to them. The witness to Sodom was presumably through the witness of Lot’s righteous life. The extent of human responsibility to Divine judgment would appear to be far greater than we might suspect. Those who live in the presence of believers are surely responsible to judgment, according to the pattern of Sodom. Clearly there will be degrees of punishment at that day- and for the home villages of the disciples, their suffering will be ‘intolerable’. The implication is that if the witness of Ezekiel, Lot etc. had been backed up by the kind of miracles the Lord was performing, then this would’ve tipped the balance- and they would’ve repented:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:23&nbsp;<em>And you Capernaum, shall you be exalted to heaven? -&nbsp;</em>Here we have another example of the Bible being written from the perspective of men. Capernaum was exalted in her own eyes, the people there were spiritually proud and exalted in their own eyes. Likewise “the wise” in :25 refers to those who thought they were wise.</p><p><em>You shall go down to hades-</em>&nbsp;The prophecy against Babylon of Isaiah 14 is here applied to the towns of Israel. The point is that the condemnation of the wicked Gentiles will come upon those of God’s people who act like them. Likewise the punishment of Babylon was to be cast as a millstone into the sea, but this is applied by the Lord to those of God’s people who make their brethren stumble (<em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:21'>Rev 18:21</a></em>).</p><h4><em>For if the mighty works-&nbsp;</em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;also has the sense of ability, possible power. The miracles, to which the “mighty works” clearly refer, had potential power to bring the people to repentance, but they were content to just accept the temporal blessings of knowing Jesus rather than being moved by those blessings to repentance.</h4><p><em>Had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes-&nbsp;</em>The Lord knew that cities like Tyre and Sidon would have responded to the Gospel in the first century; had it been preached to them. But the message was taken to Jewish villages like Chorazin and Bethsaida instead. Such was God’s love, His especial and exclusive love for Israel. Sodom likewise would have repented if the message of Lot had been backed up by miracles; but, that extra proof wasn’t given. But such a concession was made to Israel through the ministry and miracles of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>11:24&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you</em>- The Greek for "tolerable" could suggest ‘endurance’, hinting at a period of suffering rather than an eternal state of suffering. The suffering will be the sense of regret for what could have been, how they could have responded. This sense will be so acute that it is described in figurative terms as Gehenna fire, gnashing of teeth etc. Time and again we must remind ourselves of this, so that day by day we ‘grasp the moment’ and proceed in life with no ultimate cause for spiritual regret.</p>


text:
<p>11:25&nbsp;<em>At that time Jesus answered-</em>&nbsp;Often the Gospels record that Jesus "answered and said::.". Yet it's often not clear whether anyone had asked a question, or said anything that needed a response (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:1'>Mat 22:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:24'>Mar 10:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:51'>Mar 10:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:14'>Mar 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:22'>Mar 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:33'>Mar 11:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 12:35'>Mar 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:2'>Mar 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:48'>Mar 14:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:22'>Luk 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:40'>Luk 7:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:50'>Luk 8:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:2'>Luk 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:3'>Luk 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:17'>Luk 17:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:51'>Luk 22:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:50'>Joh 1:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:19'>Joh 5:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:70'>Joh 6:70</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:32'>Joh 10:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:23'>Joh 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:30'>Joh 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:31'>Joh 16:31</a></em>). If you go through this list, you will see how Jesus 'answered' / responded to peoples' unexpressed fears and questions, their unarticulated concerns, criticisms, feelings and agendas. This little phrase reveals how sensitive Jesus was. He saw people's unspoken, unarticulated needs and responded. He didn't wait to be asked. For Jesus, everybody He met was a question, a personal direct challenge, that He responded to. And of course this is how we should seek to be too. And yet here in <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em> He could be responding to His own question and reflection upon why so few responded and why only the immature disciples seemed to understand anything at all? We see here a window into the very internal thought process of the Lord, something which could only come from a Divinely inspired record.</p><p><em>I thank You O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth-</em>&nbsp;This is language taken directly from the&nbsp;<em>Hodayot</em>, the Qumran “Thanksgiving Psalms”. There is reason to think that in his years in the Qumran area, John the Baptist became familiar with the Qumran community, and may have passed on some of their style and culture to his converts. The multitudes addressed here by the Lord had initially responded to John (<em><a href='B:470 11:7'>Mat 11:7</a></em>). So it would seem that the Lord is bridge building with them, speaking to them in terms known and accessible to them, and yet leading them further and away from the legalism and extremes of Qumran thought. Note how there is a juxtaposition of God’s Almightiness, as Lord of Heaven and earth, with His closeness to us as “Father”.</p><p><em>That You did hide these things from the wise</em>- Those who think they are wise in their own eyes- see on “exalted” in :24.</p><p><em>And prudent-</em>&nbsp;Again we see the Lord’s grace, for the disciples themselves weren’t ‘understanding’ (s:w:) of everything at this time (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 13:51'>Mat 13:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 6:52'>Mar 6:52</a></em> they considered / understood not; <em><a href='B:470 8:17'>Mat 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 8:21'>Mat 8:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:34'>Luk 18:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:45'>Luk 24:45</a></em>). Yet to them was revealed the Truth which others had hid from them.</p><p><em>And did reveal them to-</em>&nbsp;This continues the thought of 11:15, that only some have ears to hear. The word is used in <em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em> of how the truth of Christ was revealed to Peter, one of the “babes”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Babes</em>- An essay in the serious immaturity of the disciples, and yet the Lord’s love of them all the same. They are the ‘little ones’ of <em><a href='B:470 10:42'>Mat 10:42</a></em>, the little children in the town square of <em><a href='B:470 11:16'>Mat 11:16</a></em>:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em>. Paul saw the simplicity of the Corinthian believers as the sort of thing Christ referred to in <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>11:26&nbsp;<em>Yes Father, for so it was well-pleasing in Your sight</em>- We have the same kind of thing in Revelation, where Angels as it were take a breath and praise the Father for His wisdom in the judgments which they have just executed. We have here one of the few times when we get the record of the Lord's actual words to God in prayer. We note that He repeatedly addresses Him as "Father"; and through receipt of the Spirit, His relationship with the Father becomes ours. And "Father" ought surely to be our most common form of address to God.</p>


text:
<p>11:27&nbsp;<em>All things have been delivered to me by my Father-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'were delivered'. The “all things” may be the power of salvation for all men:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And no one knows the Son save the Father. Neither does anyone know the Father</em>- Gk. 'to know fully'. Nobody, the disciples included, to whom the Father had ‘revealed’ repentance, fully knew the Son nor the Father. There is a parallel to be observed here between ‘knowing the Father’ and repenting; for the context speaks of how the majority had not repented despite the Lord’s miracles. The little ones, the babes, the disciples, had repented- but this had been ‘revealed’ to them by the Father (:25). Now, the Lord speaks of how the Son ‘reveals’ the Father. The life of repentance is the life of knowing the Father. To know God is to know our sinfulness and repent. And this is the “rest” from sin which the Lord speaks of in :28:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Save the Son-&nbsp;</em>Whether or not Joseph died or left Mary by the time Jesus hit adolescence, the fact was that Joseph wasn’t His real father. He was effectively fatherless in the earthly sense. As such, this would have set Him up in certain psychological matrices which had their effect on His personality. He could speak of His Heavenly Father in the shockingly unprecedented form of ‘abba’, daddy. He grew so close to His Heavenly Father because of the lack of an earthly one, and the inevitable stresses which there would have been between Him and Joseph. A strong, fatherly-type figure is a recurrent feature of the Lord’s parables; clearly He was very focused upon His Heavenly Father. He could say with passionate truth: “No one knows a son except a father, and no one knows a father except a son” (<em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:22'>Luk 10:22</a></em>).</p><p><em>And to whomsoever</em>- The idea is not that the Lord Jesus had a list of humanity and chose a few from that list. He has earlier spoken of the freedom of choice to ‘receive’ (:14) God’s message, and He was urging all men to do so. Although all men are potentially delivered to Him, the Father is revealing Himself to only some of them. The Father is revealed in the Son, as John’s Gospel makes clear. It’s not that some people are chosen by the Son to have this revelation; rather is it a statement of fact, or method- the knowledge of the Father is through the Son revealing Him. And this is why He goes straight on in :28 to urge people to come to Him. The ideas of coming to Him and ‘whomsoever’, anyone, are very much the language of John’s Gospel and the Revelation, which concludes with an appeal to ‘whosoever will’ to ‘come’ to Christ and salvation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The Son wishes to reveal Him</em>- This revealing is by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:5'>Eph 3:5</a></em>). It was not flesh and blood that revealed the Lord to Peter (<em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em>). As noted on <em><a href='B:670 1:21'>1Pe 1:21</a></em>, relationship with God is predicated upon relationship with the Son; He is the only way to the Father. Academic Bible study, consideration of the apparent evidence of apologetics, will not reveal God as Father to men. It is the Son who reveals Him. If we take the jump of faith in accepting Him, only then will He reveal the Father to us:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:28&nbsp;<em>Come to me all you that labour and are</em>- See on :27 “whomsoever”. The Lord may be urging the audience to come unto&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;in the same way as they had come out to hear John preaching (:7-9). The invitation at the last day to “Come” into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em> s:w:) is heard even now in the invitation to come after Him. The preceding verses share with us a beautiful insight into the mind and inner prayer of the Son to the Father. He meditated upon why apparently so few were responding, and went on to marvel at the Father’s wisdom in revealing only to some, and to the immature ‘little ones’ of His disciples. But arising out of that time of prayer and meditation, the Lord goes on to make a public appeal to whosoever will to come to Him. And this is the exact pattern which our public witness and appeal to others should follow.</p><p><em>Heavy laden</em>- The context is a lament that because people are wise, prudent and exalted in pride, they will not come to the Father and Son. But this way of life and thinking is in fact a hard way to live. Hence the Lord commends His own humility to those proud people. Whilst the arrogance and self-assurance of modern man seems an impossible barrier to the Gospel, we must be aware that actually they are struggling with it and are laden down with it. The word is only elsewhere used about the lawyers lading people with heavy burdens (<em><a href='B:490 11:46'>Luk 11:46</a></em>)- not only of guilt, but also of pride in having kept irrelevant laws. David found his sins associated with Bathsheba "as an heavy burden::. too heavy for me::. I am (thereby) bowed down greatly" (<em><a href='B:230 32:4'>Psa 32:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a></em>). Surely our Lord was thinking back to David when he invited all of us: "Come unto me, all you who labour and are heavy laden (with sins), and I will give you rest::. for My::. burden is light" (<em><a href='B:470 11:28-30'>Mat 11:28-30</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And I will give you rest-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus invites those who follow Him to accept the “rest” which He gives (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>). He uses a Greek word which is used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, for the Sabbath rest. Jesus was offering a life of Sabbath, of rest from trust in our own works (cp. <em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>). We shouldn’t, therefore, keep a Sabbath one day per week, but rather live our whole lives in the spirit of the Sabbath:&nbsp;</p><p>The Pharisees were the ones burdening the people (<em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:46'>Luk 11:46</a></em>), so this could be read as a fairly direct appeal to quit respecting the religious leaders of the day and follow the teaching of Jesus instead. Legalism and obedience to the Law is likened to an unbearable yoke (<em><a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:1'>Gal 5:1</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>11:29&nbsp;<em>Take-&nbsp;</em>The same word is used in the challenge to "take up" the cross. To take up Christ's cross, to take on His yoke, is to learn of Him, to come to know Him. Yet do we sense any&nbsp;<em>pain</em>&nbsp;in our coming to know Christ? We should do, because the cross was the ultimate symbol of pain, and to take it up is to take on the yoke, the knowledge, of Christ. Clearly the knowledge of the Father and Son is so much more than knowing theological propositions about them.</p><p><em>My yoke</em>- The yoke metaphor was commonly used at the time to speak of a career or profession / daily occupation. Our 'career' is to be in His service, and any human yoke or career is to not be seen by us as our defining situation in life. We can't be 'career people' in the sense that many are in this world- for our career is with the Lord. And yet the yoke was also understood as ‘teaching’; for <em>Sir_51:26</em> has the sage inviting students to put their necks under his yoke and learn his teaching. The Lord Jesus is a yoke- He unites men together, so that the otherwise unbearable burden of the spiritual life is lighter (<em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em>). If we do not let our fellowship with others lighten our load, then we basically have not been brought under Christ. To be in Him, under His yoke, is to put our arms around our brethren and labour together. The Lord paralleled "Come unto&nbsp;<em>Me</em>" with taking His yoke upon us, in order to have a light burden (<em><a href='B:470 11:28-30'>Mat 11:28-30</a></em>). A yoke is what binds animals together, so that they can between them carry a burden which otherwise would be too great for them individually. The invitation to come unto Jesus personally is therefore an invitation into a community- to be lined up alongside another, and have a yoke placed upon us. Without submitting to this, we can't actually carry the heavy burden laid upon us. This heavy burden laid upon the believer must surely have some reference to the cross we are asked to share in and carry. We can't do this alone; and perhaps it happened that the Lord Himself couldn't even bear His own cross without the help of another, in order to show us the point. We can't claim to have come personally unto Jesus, somehow liking the idea of the Man Jesus, intellectually accepting His teachings on an abstract level- and yet keep our distance from our brethren. It seems increasingly true that human relationships are almost impossible to maintain at an intimate level- without Christ. He is the yoke which enables the psychological miracle of people pulling together, for life, in order to carry His cross. The most essential “law of Christ” is to bear one another’s burdens (<em><a href='B:550 6:2'>Gal 6:2</a></em>). Paul had this in mind when he described his brethren as 'yokefellows' (<em><a href='B:570 4:3'>Phi 4:3</a></em>). For Paul, his joy and crown would be to see his brethren accepted into God's Kingdom at judgment day. David had the same spirit when he wrote of how he longed to "see the prosperity of Your chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of Your nation, that I may glory with Your inheritance" (<em><a href='B:230 106:5'>Psa 106:5</a></em>). His personal vision of God's Kingdom involved seeing others there; there's no hint of spiritual selfishness in David. And he goes straight on to comment: "We have sinned with our fathers, we have committed iniquity::. our fathers understood not::." (<em><a href='B:230 106:6'>Psa 106:6</a></em>). David felt himself very much at one with the community of God's children, both in their failures and in their ultimate hope. Life with God simply can't be lived in isolation from the rest of His people. Our salvation in that sense has a collective aspect to it, and if we want 'out' with the community of believers in this life, then we're really voting ourselves out of their future glory.</p><p>The reference to having a heavy yoke lifted recalls the servant song which spoke of the need to “undo the bands of the [heavy] yoke” (<em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em>). Paul takes passages from Isaiah’s servant songs and applies them to us. The servant who suffered and witnessed to the world was evidently the Lord Jesus. And yet Isaiah is also explicit that the servant is the whole seed of Abraham, “Jacob”, the slowly-developing people of God (<em><a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:1'>Isa 44:1</a></em>). There are many connections within Isaiah between the servant songs, and the descriptions of the people of Israel into which the songs are interspersed. The Saviour-servant was to bring out the prisoners from the dungeons (<em><a href='B:290 42:7'>Isa 42:7</a></em>), so was every Israelite “to let the oppressed go free::. loose the bonds”, and to “undo the bands of the [heavy] yoke” (<em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em>) as Christ does here (<em><a href='B:470 11:28-29'>Mat 11:28-29</a></em>); His work of deliverance is to be replicated by each of us in our witness. Whoever is in Him will by this very fact follow Him in this work. In Isaiah’s first context, the suffering servant was King Hezekiah. Yet all Israel were to see themselves as ‘in’ him, as spiritual Israel are to see themselves as in Christ. “He was oppressed”, as Israel at that time were being “oppressed” by Assyria. As they were covered in wounds and spiritual sickness (<em><a href='B:290 1:5-6'>Isa 1:5-6</a></em>), so the suffering servant bore their diseases and rose again in salvation victory. Significantly, Isaiah 40-53 speak of the one servant, whereas Isaiah 54-66 speak of the “servants” who fulfil in principle the work of the singular servant. When the Lord speaks of a change of yokes for the weary and a granting of rest in Him (<em><a href='B:470 11:28-30'>Mat 11:28-30</a></em>), He is using terms taken from Isaiah’s restoration prophecies. The offer of rest was rejected by the exiles then; but is taken up now by all who accept Christ, realizing that they are in the same state as the exiles in Babylon.</p><p><em>And learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart</em>- Vine comments: "The word for the Christian virtue of humility was not used before the Christian era, and is distinctly an outgrowth of the Gospel". To be able to say in genuine humility that one knows the state of their own heart, and that it is humble, is an essay not only in humility but in the acute self-knowledge of the Lord. The Greek translated “lowly” definitely means cast down, depressed, implying a bringing down from a superior position (s:w. <em><a href='B:540 7:6'>2Co 7:6</a></em>). This helps us understand the language of <em><a href='B:570 2:5-11'>Phi 2:5-11</a></em>, which speaks of the progressive humiliation of Christ, culminating in the death of the cross. Even at this point in His ministry, the Lord felt that He had been brought down in mind- He felt the progressive nature of His humility. And in that passage, the appeal is to allow that kind of mind and process to be in us, which was in Christ:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And you shall find</em>- The yoke is&nbsp;<em>given</em>&nbsp;but we still have to&nbsp;<em>find</em>&nbsp;it by accepting the potential enabled by the Lord.</p><p><em>Rest for your souls-&nbsp;</em>He assures us that if we come to Him, we will find “rest” (<em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em>); but the same word is only used elsewhere about the&nbsp;rest / comfort which our brethren give us (<em><a href='B:530 16:18'>1Co 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:7'>Phm 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:20'>Phm 1:20</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>11:30- see <em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>For my yoke is easy</em>- A poor translation. The cross of Christ is anything but "easy"; the idea is more that it is helpful for service; the relationships He enables between believers is what makes it easier for us to carry the heavy loads of His service, i:e. the cross. Even if we still insist on the translation “easy”, we reflect that the way to the Kingdom is easy relative to the wonder of what is in store for the faithful (<em><a href='B:540 4:17'>2Co 4:17</a></em>); and yet from our human perspective it is hard indeed, a life of self-crucifixion (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:14'>Rev 7:14</a></em>). “Easy” translates&nbsp;<em>chrestos</em>, which sounds very like the ‘Christ’. By this word play the point is being made that Christ&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;His yoke. One of the most essential things about Christ is that those in Him are bound together with each other. Any view of ‘Christ’ which excludes those in Him is therefore fundamentally flawed. Paul therefore teaches avoidance of any who cause division contrary to the teaching of Christ which we have “learned”- using the same word used here about Christ’s uniting yoke being ‘learning’ of Him (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>). See on&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>And my burden is light-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:400 2:3'>Mic 2:3</a></em>&nbsp;reminded Israel that they will be under the yoke of judgment if they reject Yahweh’s yoke. The Lord spoke of His servants having a light yoke. The Bible minded among His hearers would have thought back to the threatened punishment of an iron yoke for the disobedient (<em><a href='B:50 28:48'>Deu 28:48</a></em>). 'It's a yoke either way', they would have concluded. But the Lord's yoke&nbsp;<em>even in this life</em>&nbsp;is light, and has promise of the life which is to come! The logic of taking it, with the restrictions it inevitably implies (for it is a yoke), is simply overpowering. Note that the Greek for ‘light’ essentially means ‘able to be carried’- which connects with the idea of ‘taking up’ the yoke and cross (see on <em><a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a></em>). The point is- it is doable. The cross can be carried, the yoke can be worn- if we learn of Christ and thereby learn to take our place with others in carrying it.</p>


text:
<h4>12:1&nbsp;<em>At that time, on the Sabbath day, Jesus went through the grainfields, and his disciples were hungry</em>- The very poor were allowed to do this by the Law (<em><a href='B:30 19:9'>Lev 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:24-25'>Deu 23:24-25</a></em>), and so we see in this a picture of the deep poverty of the Lord’s followers; He later parallels the urgent hunger of David’s men at the time of 1 Samuel 21 with that of His followers. It would seem that He Himself did not make use of the concession, because the criticism was focused upon His disciples rather than Himself. W:D. Davies lists evidence that Judaism forbad fasting on the Sabbath (Jubilees 50:12) (W:D. Davies&nbsp;<em>Matthew&nbsp;</em>p. 312 (<em>op cit.</em>)). In this case, the record is showing how the legalism of the time would’ve condemned the disciples- and the poor generally- either way: for fasting on the Sabbath, or for ‘threshing’ on the Sabbath to get food so as not to fast. The Lord therefore takes the whole argument to a level far above such petty legalism.</h4><p><em>And began to pluck ears of grain to eat</em>- The only point in mentioning this would presumably be because the Pharisees came and stopped them. This shows how closely the Lord and His men were under the critical eyes of others, even from a distance.</p>


text:
<p>12:2&nbsp;<em>But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said to him: Look, your disciples do what is unlawful on the Sabbath</em>- A constant concern with the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 19:3'>Mat 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:17'>Mat 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:6'>Mat 27:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:10'>Joh 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:31'>Joh 18:31</a></em>). The Lord's attitude here was to show that the Old Testament itself envisaged situations where true spirituality was above law. The parable of <em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em> brings the point home- the generous employer justified his pouring out of grace, giving the weak and lazy the same penny a day as the hard workers, on the basis that 'It is lawful for me to do what I wish'.</p>


text:
<p>12:3&nbsp;<em>But he said to them: Have you not read-</em>&nbsp;Of course they had, many times. But the Lord here and several times elsewhere challenges them (and us) as to whether we have really read what we have. The Lord could have legitimately answered them: ‘It is lawful to pick corn whilst passing through a field, the Law allows for this if one is poor, and my followers are indeed poor. There is nothing in the Law which stipulates this permission doesn’t operate on the Sabbath’. But as always, the Lord was prepared to meet people where they were, and to take them to a higher level. He seeks to teach by general principle that the extent of His Lordship meant that He and His men were free to do as they pleased on this kind of matter. He reasoned that ‘OK, let’s assume you’re right, but David and&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;men broke the law because they were about God’s business, this over-rode the need for technical obedience’. The Lord Jesus wasn’t constantly correcting specific errors of interpretation. He dealt in principles much larger than this, in order to make a more essential, practical, useful point.</p><p><em>What David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him-</em>&nbsp;The Lord’s reasoning depends upon drawing a parallel between Himself and David, and David’s warriors and the disciples. Again, He is encouraging them to see themselves as no less than the warriors of David who later became the governors of Israel. Aaron’s sons were the ones who were intended to eat the showbread (<em><a href='B:30 24:5-9'>Lev 24:5-9</a></em>)- and again the Lord is inviting His secular disciples to see themselves as a new priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>12:4&nbsp;<em>How he entered into the house of God</em>- For non-Levites to enter the Sanctuary was also not 'lawful', quite apart from eating the bread which only the priests could lawfully eat. This prepares the way for the Lord's later parable about God urging unclean street people to 'enter [His] house' because Israel had rejected the invitation (the same words are used- <em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>). The psychological magnitude of the Lord's new system of thinking is hard to appreciate. Non-Levites could now enter it- and even the worst of the Gentiles. But the magnitude of the new thinking in Christ for anyone, not least secular people of the 21st Century, is no less.</p><p><em>And ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?<br/></em>- The Lord defended the non-observant Judaism of the twelve as being due to their joy that He, the bridegroom, was with them (<em><a href='B:490 5:33-34'>Luk 5:33-34</a></em>). When they ‘ground corn’ on the Sabbath, the Lord defended them to their critics by saying that they were like David’s men eating the showbread. Those guys were just walking through a cornfield rubbing ears together as their manner was, as they had done on many a Sabbath day, but not realizing that this time there was some Scribe out with his binocular vision scrutinizing them. They surely weren’t doing it because their minds were on the incident of David’s men eating the showbread. The Lord had asked them to obey the Scribes, who sat in Moses’ seat, over this kind of trivia. But He doesn’t rebuke them. Rather, He defends them to others, imputing far more spiritual perception to them than they had (<em><a href='B:490 6:1-4'>Luk 6:1-4</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>Clearly the Lord is suggesting that His ragtag crowd of disciples and questionable ministering women were the new priesthood of a new Israel.</p>


text:
<p>12:5&nbsp;<em>Or have you not read in the law, that on the Sabbath day-</em>&nbsp;We need to reflect upon the implications of the fact that the vast majority of the early Christians were illiterate. Literacy levels in first century Palestine were only 10% at the highest estimate. Some estimate that the literacy level in the Roman empire was a maximum of 10%, and literacy levels in Palestine were at most 3%. Most of the literate people in Palestine would have been either the wealthy or the Jewish scribes. And yet it was to the poor that the Gospel was preached, and even in Corinth there were not many educated or “mighty” in this world within the ecclesia. Notice how the Lord said to the Pharisees: “Have you not&nbsp;<em>read</em>?” (<em><a href='B:480 2:25'>Mar 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:4'>Mat 19:4</a></em>), whilst He says to those who responded to Him: “You have&nbsp;<em>heard</em>” (<em><a href='B:470 5:21'>Mat 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:27'>Mat 5:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:33'>Mat 5:33</a></em>). His followers were largely the illiterate:&nbsp;As the ecclesial world developed, Paul wrote inspired letters to the ecclesias. Those letters would have been&nbsp;<em>read</em>&nbsp;to the brethren and sisters. Hence the great importance of ‘teachers’ in the early churches, those who could faithfully read and transmit to others what had been written.</p><p><em>The priests in the temple</em>- The rabbis taught that “Temple service takes precedence over the Sabbath” (W:D. Davies&nbsp;<em>Matthew&nbsp;</em>p. 313 (<em>op cit.</em>)). Thinking through the logic of the Lord’s argument, He clearly has the view that His disciples are about the work of the temple, walking through that cornfield. Otherwise His appeal to the rabbinic dictum had no sense. Again, He is encouraging His followers to see themselves as far more than secular, not very spiritual people who are personally attracted to the teachings of Jesus and are awed by His miracles. He’s saying that actually they are as priests, professionally committed to serving God actively.</p><p><em>Profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?-&nbsp;</em>The Lord (<em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>) said that the priests "profaned" or ‘desecrated’ the Sabbath; He didn't say that because they kept the spirit of it, that was OK. By using a word as extreme as "profaned" He seems to be even emphasizing the point of paradox within God’s self-revelation.</p><p>Having accepted the Bible as the source of authority, we find that the Bible does not categorically list what behaviour is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Even within the Law of Moses, to obey some commands meant breaking others. And it is a common dilemma of sincere believers that they find themselves having to break one principle to keep another. The Bible is written in such a way as to give clear instruction to those who love and respect it, and yet to confuse those who do not fundamentally accept it into thinking that their faulty understanding is in fact the will of God. This is why it is true, on a surface level, that you can prove what you like from the Bible. Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh&nbsp;<em>et al</em>&nbsp;all managed to 'prove' the most bizarre things from the Bible- and persuade others to genuinely think that to do evil was in fact doing righteousness. So the fact that someone thinks that they are correctly interpreting the Bible does not thereby justify them, however sincere their conscience may be. And it does not mean that the church must therefore accept them, just because their conscience is clear and they think the Bible justifies their behaviour. The opposite of love isn’t so much hatred, as indifference. To be indifferent to the real welfare of our fellows in this world, and of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;our own brethren, is perhaps our most common sin. The Lord taught us that we should have a sense of urgency in our response to others. The Lord showed by His example that it is better to meet the hunger of human need than to keep the letter of Sabbath law (<em><a href='B:480 2:25-26'>Mar 2:25-26</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>urgency,&nbsp;<em>God’s&nbsp;</em>urgency,&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>consequent urgency… all means that when even Divine principles appear to come into conflict, we are to be influenced above all by the urgency of others’ need.</p>


text:
<p>12:6&nbsp;<em>But I say to you, that one greater than the temple is here</em>- AV "in this place". Sacred space was a big idea within Judaism. The Lord is directly challenging it by stating that He as a person was more holy and significant than the temple. The way He ate with sinners and touched the ritually unclean likewise reflect a redefinition of the holy. The implication could be that the Lord was standing at the edge of a cornfield (He was not within the synagogue- :9)- and He declared everywhere touched by Him to be holy.</p>


text:
<p>12:7&nbsp;<em>But if you had known what this means</em>- This continues the challenge of :3- "Have you never read?". They&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;read, but without understanding. They had read without perceiving meaning- and it led them to "condemn the guiltless". Without unduly exalting intellectualism for its own sake, this is a sobering thought- that the crucifixion of God's Son was the result of a chronic lack of understanding of God's word. To pay lip service to Biblicism is not enough; the meaning in the words, the whole issue of interpretation, is crucially important; getting it wrong can lead to crucifying the Son of God afresh. The Greek&nbsp;<em>esti</em>&nbsp;translated 'means' is basically the verb 'to be'- if they had known what the Scripture 'is' they would've have condemned the guiltless. The Bible 'is' its true interpretation, and this idea comes to its ultimate term in the declaration of Jesus as being 'the word':&nbsp;</p><p><em>I desire mercy</em>- <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em> says that Yahweh "desires mercy". These two Hebrew words sound similar to each other- mercy / grace is so identified with God's passion and desire. The same Hebrew words are to be found in the statements that He desires / delights in grace / mercy (<em><a href='B:300 9:24'>Jer 9:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 7:18'>Mic 7:18</a></em>). If&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;delights in forgiveness and grace, then we should also; His passion should be ours. This of itself outlaws the critical eyes of the Pharisees, noticing the disciples' infringement of a law and feeling the need to 'take up the matter' with them. And it will be the same with us. The human tendency to observe others with eyes of criticism and sensitivity to their weaknesses will be displaced if we simply delight in mercy. The Hosea passage goes on to condemn the Jewish religious leadership in language which the Lord clearly used in constructing the parable of the good Samaritan: "As troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent" (<em><a href='B:350 6:8'>Hos 6:8</a></em>). But there's a subtle twist- the priest in the Lord's story passed by on the other side and simply did nothing. That inaction is paralleled with being as bad as the thieves themselves. The priest was returning from having offered sacrifice, but he didn't show mercy- and God wants mercy and not sacrifice. Note that the passage in <em><a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a></em> is perhaps purposefully ambiguous. It could mean 'I want to see you showing mercy, and not [so much offering] sacrifice'; or it could mean 'I myself want / love / delight in [showing] mercy rather than [receiving] sacrifice'. The ambiguity is because God's will / love / delight should be ours. And we can read the quotation of that passage here in <em><a href='B:470 12:7'>Mat 12:7</a></em> with the same double meaning. His passion for grace must be ours, and this precludes looking critically at others, eager to perceive their breaches of our perceptions of God's law.</p><p><em>And not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless</em>- Who exactly did the Lord have in mind? He has just used the same word when stating that the priests work on the Sabbath and are “blameless”. By condemning the disciples, the Pharisees were thus condemning the priests too. This argument of course supposes that the Lord’s secular, spiritually ragtag followers were in fact priests- the priests of the new system He was bringing in. The ultimately guiltless was of course the Lord Himself, and He foresaw their final condemnation of Him, perceiving that in essence it had already happened. For whoever condemns His followers condemns Him, so deeply is He associated with them. But how would the Pharisees have avoided condemning the guiltless disciples by appreciating that God wants mercy and not sacrifice? I suggest that the Lord is again meeting them on their own level: ‘You consider the disciples are guilty. OK, that’s not what the Law says, but OK, let’s assume they are. But if you simply&nbsp;<em>loved</em>&nbsp;showing mercy as God does, then you would not have condemned them anyway. You would’ve overlooked the incident’.</p>


text:
<p>12:8&nbsp;<em>For the Son of man is Lord-</em>&nbsp;Here as elsewhere we see the juxtaposition of the Lord's humanity and His Lordship. His exaltation is precisely because He was human; He has authority to judge us because He was Son of man (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>). The Lordship of Jesus was predicated upon His obedience to death and exaltation (<em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>), and yet Jesus was calmly confident that this would be achieved by Him; to the point that He could reason that He already was "Lord" and thereby able to abrogate the Sabbath and act as the ultimate temple.</p><p><em>Of the Sabbath-</em>&nbsp;The “of” is supplied as guesswork by the translators; it could equally be left unsupplied, giving the sense of “the Lord the Sabbath”; or, “Lord&nbsp;<em>on</em>&nbsp;the Sabbath”. Mark adds that the Lord went on to teach that God's law was made for man, rather than man being built in such a way as to easily fit in with God's word (<em><a href='B:480 2:27'>Mar 2:27</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>12:9<em>&nbsp;And he departed from there and-&nbsp;</em>Luke’s record adds that this was on another Sabbath- at least the next week.</p><p><em>Went into their synagogue</em>- The point is that the Lord was&nbsp;<em>outside</em>&nbsp;the synagogue when He declared that the "place" where He was then standing, in or near a cornfield, was holy ground; see on :6. It was "their" synagogue, just as the temple was "the temple of the Jews", and the feasts of Yahweh had been hijacked to become "the feast of the Jews".</p>


text:
<p>12:10&nbsp;<em>Behold</em>- AV. I have suggested that this word is best understood by likening Matthew to a cameraman shooting a movie, who now zooms in on an encounter.</p><p><em>And saw a man having a withered hand. And they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?</em>-His right hand, according to Luke. His own strength and ability to act was withered:&nbsp;</p><p><em>So that they might accuse him</em>- A legal term. They wanted to get Jesus in court over this issue. But there’s no evidence they actually did, and there was no recorded mention of Sabbath breaking in His final trial- so well and profoundly did He answer them.</p>


text:
<p>12:11&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Which of you, if having only one sheep</em>- A poor man, who had only one sheep- as in the parable Nathan told David. The Lord saw the man with the withered hand as His sheep- His only sheep. Here we have an insight into an old problem: ‘Seeing we are many and Jesus is one, how can it be that He feels so uniquely towards me, when He has so many other people to think about and relate to?’. It is possible for God and His Son to have emotional and psychological capabilities which we do not have. The Lord seems to be teaching here that He identifies with the poor, who has only&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;sheep; but He feels to each of us as if we are all that He has. Likewise in the parable of the woman who lost one of her dowry coins; they were all she had. We are all Jesus has. He has no other group on another planet in another dimension- we here on earth, we with all our dysfunction and poor response to His love, are all He has. And further-&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;are all He has. The man had been sick for some time, but the Lord saw his situation as if it had only just happened, that Sabbath day, and felt an urgency to respond. The&nbsp;<em>urgency</em>&nbsp;is a key issue- for the issue wasn’t healing, it was why Jesus couldn’t wait a few hours until the end of the Sabbath to heal. The Mishnah taught that the Sabbath could be broken if life was in immediate danger (m. Yoma 8:6). The Pharisees obviously reasoned that this wasn’t the case- a paralyzed hand could wait a few hours for healing. But Jesus was perhaps making the point that to Him, human need is urgent and cannot wait. We must remember His sense of urgency when we struggle with His apparent slowness to respond. The spirit of urgency comes through the Gospel records and also the Acts.</p><p><em>And it falls into a pit on the Sabbath day</em>- The Law specifically foresaw such a situation, pronouncing judgment against the person responsible for leaving a pit open so that animals might fall into it (<em><a href='B:20 21:33-34'>Exo 21:33-34</a></em>). The Lord's point was that there was not a moment to lose once this happened- there was an urgency to save the animal, and that urgency was far more important than seeking to condemn the person who had breached the law. And this was how the Lord saw that man with a "withered hand"; the need was the call, and to Him there was an urgency about the situation that was far more important than any concern about legalistic obedience to laws- be they real or imagined.</p><p><em>Will not grab hold of it</em>- This apparently unnecessary detail is included because the same word is used about the Lord's touching or grasping of people before He healed them (<em><a href='B:470 9:25'>Mat 9:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:31'>Mar 1:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 5:41'>Mar 5:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:27'>Mar 9:27</a></em>). As they would urgently lay hold upon a lost sheep and lift it out of a pit, so the Lord laid hold upon people and healed them. Reflect on how the Lord 'took hold' of people before healing them. This feature of the miracles demonstrated His desire to fully take hold of our human experiences, thereby identifying Himself with us- and on that basis, healing us. The same idea, although a different word, is to be found in the language of <em><a href='B:650 2:16'>Heb 2:16</a></em>, speaking of the Lord Jesus taking hold upon humanity by having our nature.</p><p><em>And lift it out?</em>- The same word is used for people 'rising up' after being healed by the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 8:15'>Mat 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:5-6'>Mat 9:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:25'>Mat 9:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:5'>Mat 11:5</a></em>):&nbsp; Jewish people would’ve thought of the rescue of Joseph and Jeremiah from pits. The healing of this man, like so many of the healing miracles, had a spiritual intention- it was in order to save him from the pit of death. We saw on 11:20 that the purpose of the miracles was to lead people to repentance, not simply to alleviate human need for the sake of it.</p>


text:
<p>12:12&nbsp;<em>How much then is a man of more value than a sheep!-</em>&nbsp;The Lord favourably compares men to animals (to birds, <em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>; sparrows, <em><a href='B:470 10:31'>Mat 10:31</a></em>; and again in <em><a href='B:490 12:7'>Luk 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:24'>Luk 12:24</a></em>). Whilst in the manner of our death we are as "the beasts of the field", the Lord seems to be at pains to ensure we realize the value and meaning of the human person, made as we are in God's image. If we treat people as animals, we have failed to perceive something of God which is uniquely in humanity:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>Therefore</em>- Again, the Lord doesn't base His argument around the obvious misunderstanding of the Law which the Pharisees had. He avoids a tit-for-tat expositional battle over semantics by introducing higher principles- the sheer value and need of the human person transcends any issue of legalistic obedience to any law, be it God's laws or the interpretation of them. This is a principle which legalistic churches need to bear in mind to this day in their decision making.</h4><p><em>It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day</em>- Mark records that He developed this point- if He had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;performed the miracle, He would have been actively committing “evil”, even ‘killing’. When the Lord taught that it was right to break the Sabbath because they were in the business of saving life (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>), His words were purposefully alluding to how the Maccabees had pronounced that it was acceptable for Jewish soldiers to break the Sabbath in time of war, in order to save lives through their fighting (<em>1Ma_2:32</em>). He intended His people to live as active soldiers on duty, at war in order to save the lives of God’s people. Indeed, so frequently, the whole language of the future judgment is applied to us right here and now. We are living out our judgment now; we are standing as it were before the final judgment seat, and receiving our judgment for how we act, speak and feel and are. Thus if He had omitted to heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, this would have been 'doing evil' and even 'killing' (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>). That's how seriously He took omitting to do good when it's in our power to do it. He had a choice of saving life or destroying life, were He to prefer to keep the Sabbath laws above the need for preserving life. Clearly He saw failing to act to save life as tantamount to destroying life. We must give our Lord's words their due weight here in our decision making. To not act to save life, to excuse ourselves for whatever reason, is effectively destroying life, or, as Mark's record puts it, “to kill" (<em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:9'>Luk 6:9</a></em>). We can't therefore be passive in this matter. The context of the Lord's statement was in response to questions about whether something was "lawful" or not; it was the age old question, 'Is it is a sin to do X, Y or Z?'. His answer was as ever in terms of a principle- that our guiding principle must be the saving and healing and preservation of human life. The attitude of the Pharisees was that the Lord was infringing a letter of the law and therefore was guilty of death. They murdered Him on the Sabbath days; and thus they chose to destroy life rather than save it. The word for “to kill" in <em><a href='B:480 3:4'>Mar 3:4</a></em> is so often used in the Gospels about the killing of Jesus. They failed to take His exhortation. The crucifixion of God's Son was thus a result of legalism; it was because of His attitude to the man with the withered hand that the Pharisees first plotted to kill Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 6:11'>Luk 6:11</a></em>). Whatever our individual conscience, let us not "be filled with madness" as the Pharisees were at the fact the Lord approached human behaviour in terms of principles, rather than reducing everything to a common right / wrong scenario. The principle is clearly the saving and preservation and enriching of others' lives. Surely we should each allow each other to articulate this fundamental issue as we each have occasion to do so:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:13&nbsp;<em>Then said he to the man: Stretch out your hand-</em>&nbsp;Matthew uses the same word to describe how the Lord Himself stretched forth&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;hand in order to heal, save and welcome (<em><a href='B:470 8:3'>Mat 8:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:49'>Mat 12:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>). Again we are encouraged to perceive a sense of mutuality between the Lord and His people:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And he stretched it out and it was restored whole, as the other-</em>&nbsp;This detail is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is another touch of the eye witness- the man would've held out both his hands and everyone would've looked from the one to the other, observing they now looked so similar:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:14&nbsp;<em>But-&nbsp;</em>AV "then":&nbsp;Here we see the common human feature of doing evil in response to the experience of grace. Even amongst believers, and even at judgment day, there is the possibility of the eye becoming evil because of His goodness and grace to others (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>). We see the principle in both secular and church life. Grace shown to others can elicit the worst evil from religious people. We shouldn't be surprised at this phenomenon; but it is the very surprise at encountering it which causes so many to become disillusioned with the church and ultimately with the Lord.</p><p><em>The Pharisees went out</em>- Again, an emphasis on physical movement. We imagine Matthew's camera covering their departure from the synagogue.</p><p><em>And took counsel against him, how they might destroy him</em>- S:w. "a consultation". Nothing formal is necessarily implied by the word. Perhaps we are to imagine them gathering in a tight circle somewhere outside the synagogue.</p>


text:
<p>12:15&nbsp;<em>And Jesus perceiving it-</em>&nbsp;Were there sympathizers for Jesus within the Pharisees who told Him this? Or is this another case of Him perceiving the minds of men?</p><p><em>Withdrew from there; and many followed him and he healed them all</em>- Several times we read of the Lord withdrawing from the public, or at least trying to (<em><a href='B:470 4:12'>Mat 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:13'>Mat 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:21'>Mat 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:7'>Mar 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:15'>Joh 6:15</a></em>). We get the impression that He made public appearances, did some healing and teaching, and then 'withdrew'. The Gospel records focus much on the last week and months of His ministry. The first three years has relatively little recorded- but there is a lot of information about some very long, action packed days. We can assume too easily that these recorded days were typical. But perhaps they were not. There are probably no more than 20 days' events recorded- out of the three and a half years of the Lord's ministry. One possibility is that the rest of the time, or much of it, He spent simply teaching the disciples. If the Lord maintained the same tempo and intensity of His recorded activity throughout the three and a half years, it surely would've been almost impossible to have avoided His being propelled to political power by the masses. This suggestion of limited public activity makes better sense of the note we made on <em><a href='B:470 11:20'>Mat 11:20</a></em>, that the majority of His miracles were performed in three small villages in Galilee. That also must provide some context to the comment here that He healed 'all' the multitudes on this occasion; He healed 'all' amongst the crowds who were in need of healing, not every member of the crowd.</p><p>Mark adds that the Lord withdrew grieving for their hard hearts. The way the Lord didn’t just ignore the Jewish leaders, as we might ignore trouble makers at a public meeting or correspondence course students who ask endless questions::. this is really quite something. He grieved for the hardness of their hearts (<em><a href='B:480 3:5'>Mar 3:5</a></em>), and finally broke down and wept over Jerusalem, in an agony of soul that they would not respond. The apparently foolish catch questions of <em><a href='B:480 3:21-29'>Mar 3:21-29</a></em> are answered in some depth by the Lord, and He concludes with pointing out that they are putting themselves “<em>in danger&nbsp;</em>of eternal damnation” (although, notice, not yet condemned). One senses the urgency with which He put it to them. He was angry [i:e. frustrated?], “being grieved for the blindness of their hearts” (<em><a href='B:480 3:5'>Mar 3:5</a></em>). Are we just indifferent or evenly smugly happy that men are so blind…? Or do we grieve about it to the point of angry frustration? Remember how Moses and Paul would fain have given their eternal life for the conversion of Israel, this is how they felt for them.</p>


text:
<p>12:16&nbsp;<em>And charged them that they should not make him known</em>- It was predicted of the Lord’s preaching that He would not “strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice [raised up in this way] in the streets”. And for this reason He asked His converts not to “make him known” in this way; He wanted them to witness&nbsp;<em>as He witnessed</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 12:16'>Mat 12:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:19'>Mat 12:19</a></em>). This is quite something, the more we reflect upon it. He rebuked the self-righteous, restored peoples’ dignity, alleviated their poverty and sicknesses to give them a foretaste of the future blessings of His Kingdom on earth, opposed legalistic and corrupt religious practices, and ultimately gave His life to show that even His enemies were encompassed in His love. This is the pattern for us, especially in our seeking to do these things in the lives of those who respond to the Gospel.</p><p>But the same words (“<em>make Him known</em>”) are used about how later, He was made known by the church (<em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:10'>1Jn 3:10</a></em>). It could well be that as so often with Semitic languages, we must read in an ellipsis- 'Not make Him known [immediately, right then, at that time]'. The implication could be that they were indeed to make Him known- but later. The great commission, to take the knowledge of Christ to all men everywhere, could then be comfortably read in this context; the commission signalled the end of the relative silence which the Lord called for. In line with our comments on how and why the Lord withdrew Himself from the crowds in the preceding verse (:15), it would seem that the Lord was constantly concerned on a practical level that His ministry would be badly impaired if the masses of Palestine rose up out of His control and made Him King. He wanted above all to teach and personally model the Kingdom, and being at the centre of a political uprising thrusting Him forward would not enable that:&nbsp;<em>Phaneros</em>, "known", is only elsewhere used in Matthew in the Lord's teaching about what would happen "openly" (s:w:) at the establishment of the Kingdom at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 6:4'>Mat 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:18'>Mat 6:18</a></em>). The Lord didn't want them trying to establish the Kingdom there and then in their own strength, and especially whilst so seriously misunderstanding the nature and essence of the Kingdom- for they still thought it was all about military victory against Rome. So it could be that the idea of 'to make known' may mean far more than 'Don't tell anyone'; it was psychologically impossible to expect that multitudes of people who had seen healings would literally not breathe a word to anyone else. It was obvious that healings had been done- people came home healed. To 'not make known' doesn't have to mean 'Don't tell a word of this to anyone', indeed the Lord's parables and other teachings suggest that such telling of others is an inevitable part of response to Him. I suggest it means more of the flavour of 'Don't declare Me publicly as King'.</p>


text:
<p>12:17&nbsp;<em>That it might be fulfilled-</em>&nbsp;This is often stated as the reason why the Lord did and said things. He was consciously seeking to be 'the word made flesh' and consciously tried to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies. Despite strong resistance to this idea by some expositors, Harry Whittaker particularly, it seems to me the most natural understanding of the phrase and the force of the word "That::.":&nbsp;</p><p><em>Which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying</em>- The implication could be that Isaiah publicly spoke these words, directing Israel's attention to a "servant" figure of his own time, who all the same failed to be Messianic as intended, meaning that the prophecy had its fulfilment reapplied in Jesus. Or perhaps it was because the Lord was addressing people who had largely only&nbsp;<em>heard</em>&nbsp;Isaiah being read. Literacy was only a few percent in first century Palestine, and nobody had the Old Testament scrolls at home. Therefore the Lord speaks in terms of Isaiah&nbsp;<em>speaking</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>saying</em>, rather than writing and us reading:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:18<em>&nbsp;Look at My servant whom I have chosen, My beloved in whom My soul is well pleased. I will put My Spirit upon him-&nbsp;</em>The focus was to be upon beholding Jesus personally, and not listening to endless tales of miracles, inevitably exaggerated as they were passed around. If this is the reason for the quotation, then the stress would be upon&nbsp;<em>beholding</em>&nbsp;Him, appreciating Him, rather than seeking to get temporal benefit from His healing miracles:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles-</em>&nbsp;The Lord didn't want the crowds getting so maxed out on His miracles and other physicalities that they paid no attention to His message; for the purpose of His being amongst men was primarily to "show justice". And that justice was to be shown to&nbsp;<em>Gentiles</em>- they were to be shown justice and salvation, not slain so that a Kingdom of God open to Jews only could be established upon Gentile corpses. This was the kind of false view of the Kingdom which the Lord didn't hold and didn't want given credibility by associating Himself and His miracles with it. But&nbsp;<em>krisis</em>, translated "justice", can also mean judgment in the sense of future judgment to come. Yet these same Gentiles who were to be shown (according to that reading) judgment to come, were to be given the opportunity to trust in the Messiah's Name (:21). And justice [s:w:] was to be "cast out" in victory- i:e. victory against judgment. In Christ, mercy was to triumph against judgment, rejoicing against it as if after a bitter contest which was won by mercy (<em><a href='B:660 2:13'>Jas 2:13</a></em>). But to appreciate that good news, the Gentiles firstly had to realize what "judgment" really was. These were the things the Lord wanted to teach, but to get the points over, He needed the crowds to not be so hyped up by His miracles and to stop all talk of establishing a political Kingdom at that time:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord's showing judgment to the Gentiles and not publicly striving or crying in his preaching (<em><a href='B:470 12:18-21'>Mat 12:18-21</a></em>) primarily fulfilled the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 42:1-3'>Isa 42:1-3</a></em>. Note how His gentle, low pressure attitude to preaching will be the same in the Kingdom as it was in the first century. In the same way <em><a href='B:290 54:13'>Isa 54:13</a></em> concerning the future preaching of the Gospel in the Kingdom is quoted about Christ in <em><a href='B:500 6:45'>Joh 6:45</a></em>.</p><p>As in :21, the purpose of the healing was to show something to the Gentiles. But there were no Gentiles mentioned as being in the audience. Are we to infer that there were some present? More likely, as this whole incident occurred in a Jewish synagogue (:9), the Lord’s point was that the unbelieving amongst God’s people are no better than Gentiles. The Lord's miracles showed forth God's judgment principles; in them He showed judgment to the Gentiles, and sent forth God's judgments (<em><a href='B:470 12:18-20'>Mat 12:18-20</a></em> quotes <em><a href='B:290 42:1-3'>Isa 42:1-3</a></em> concerning how the Lord will do this at the events of the second coming).</p>


text:
<p>12:19<em>&nbsp;He shall not strive, nor cry aloud, neither shall anyone hear his voice in the streets-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:290 42:1-2'>Isa 42:1-2</a></em> concerning Christ's witness to the&nbsp;<em>Gentiles</em>&nbsp;is quoted in <em><a href='B:470 12:19'>Mat 12:19</a></em> regarding His witness to an apostate Israel. Those among God's people who break their covenant with Him, He sees as the world. Israel were to be made like “the top of a rock” just as Gentile Tyre would be (<em><a href='B:330 24:7'>Eze 24:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 26:4'>Eze 26:4</a></em>). “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers”, the Lord said to Israel (<em><a href='B:470 23:32'>Mat 23:32</a></em>)- yet He was alluding to how the Gentile Amorites filled up the cup of God’s judgments and then had to drink it. Pharaoh's heart was hardened to bring about God's glory, but Paul uses the very same language, in the same context, to describe what was happening to an apostate, Egypt-like Israel (<em><a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a></em>). Korah and his company were swallowed by the earth, using the very language which Moses so recently had applied to how the Egyptians were swallowed by the earth at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 15:12'>Exo 15:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>Not strive-</em>&nbsp;This is quoted from the servant song of Isaiah 42, and the Lord is applying it to all those who follow Him. If&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;is not to strive or clamour in the streets, then neither are those who follow Him to do so. For all that is true of Him is true of them. Paul makes the same point in stating that "the servant of the Lord must not strive" (<em><a href='B:620 2:24'>2Ti 2:24</a></em>). The "servant" is ultimately the Messianic servant of Isaiah's servant songs, but the point is that all that is true of that Servant is true of all those in Him.</p><p><em>The streets-&nbsp;</em>The Lord didn’t shout out in the streets who He was. He wished His followers to follow His example in&nbsp;<em>showing</em>&nbsp;the message to the world just as He did- in who He was (<em><a href='B:470 12:18'>Mat 12:18</a></em>). Christ's instruction to His recent converts not to spread the Gospel in an unseemly way, because it was written about&nbsp;<em>Him personally&nbsp;that</em>&nbsp;“he shall not strive nor cry; neither shall any man hear&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;voice in the streets". In other words, the true preacher of Christ is solidly identified with Him by the very act of preaching. Truly "we are ambassadors for Christ" (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>) in our witnessing. His voice is our voice.</p>


text:
<p>12:20&nbsp;<em>A bruised reed he shall not break and a smoking wick he shall not quench</em>- The Hebrew words used in <em><a href='B:290 42:3'>Isa 42:3</a></em> suggest this is a reference to the candlestick; the words respectively mean a shaft / stem, and a wick. Little strength, little light (if the reference is to the reed which took oil to the lamps of the candlestick), little heat- but all the same, the Lord seeks to fan it into life rather than walk away in disappointment; and by doing so, sets a challenging example to many of us, whose most frequent complaint is the weak state of the brotherhood's members. If the reference is to a damaged and smoky candlestick, this becomes the more poignant- for the candlestick was a clear symbol of Israel and then of the ecclesias (<em><a href='B:730 1:12-13'>Rev 1:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:1'>Rev 2:1</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>When judgment is finally cast out by mercy at the last day, then the dysfunctional candlestick will be quenched or destroyed in condemnation. Note how the metaphor of quenching a fire is used here for condemnation; but in another metaphor, condemnation is spoken of as the very opposite- unquenchable fire. This is sure proof that we are not to read 'unquenchable fire' as literal.</p><p><em>Until</em>- The Lord's patience with the useless candlestick of Israel and the weakness of the ecclesia will be "until" His final victory over judgment. That happened in one sense on the cross, but in another sense it will only happen when death is swallowed up in victory at the day of judgment. Until then, both He and us are to patiently bear with the damaged and dysfunctional ecclesial candlestick. But in that day, those elements of the candlestick which refuse to give light to the house will be "broken", the Greek meaning 'broken in pieces'- the language of condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 21:44'>Mat 21:44</a></em>).</p><p><em>He sends forth judgment to victory-&nbsp;</em>Gk. to cast out, thrust out. See on 12:19&nbsp;<em>show justice</em>. Judgment is cast out&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, "in", victory.</p>


text:
<p>12:21&nbsp;<em>And in his name shall the Gentiles hope</em>- Mark's record adds what Matthew strangely omits- that the great crowds whom He charged to not "make Him known" included Gentiles (<em><a href='B:480 3:6-8'>Mar 3:6-8</a></em>). This makes sense of why the Lord healed "all" in the crowd (:15)- the sense is not that He healed every person in the crowd, as not all of them were in need of healing; perhaps rather the stress on "all" is to show that the sick Gentiles who were present were&nbsp;<em>also</em>&nbsp;healed. Note that "In His Name shall the Gentiles trust" is a quotation from the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 42:4'>Isa 42:4</a></em> and not the Masoretic Text, which reads "The isles shall wait for His law". The ready acceptance of the LXX by the inspired NT writers, even preferring it over the Hebrew, has many implications. One of them is that the genealogies as found in the LXX do not support the idea of Adam being 4000 years before Christ, which is essential to those who believe that the six day / thousand year periods ended in 2000 AD and the Millennium must now be established.</p>


text:
<h4>12:22&nbsp;<em>Then was brought to him one</em>- The Greek is used about bring an offering. We recall how the conversion of individuals is spoken as offering them as a sacrifice in <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>. Bringing people to the Lord is offering them to Him because they are to present themselves, or be presented, as living sacrifices in His service (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). There may therefore be a connection with the use later in this verse of&nbsp;<em>thereapeuo</em>&nbsp;for "healed", as this word is also translated "worship" in the sense of Divine worship. The Lord had just cured large numbers of people, but then withdrew from them. Now they find Him again and bring just one sick person for healing. The people were "amazed" (:23) at this one healing- whereas the Lord had healed many sick people in :15. We are left with the impression of how deeply "amazed" the crowds must have been, if there was so much amazement at just one cure, there must have been super amazement at the mass healings.</h4><p><em>Possessed with a demon, blind and dumb, and he healed him, so much so that the dumb man spoke and saw-</em>&nbsp;The Greek strictly means to be exercised or controlled by a demon. This is the language used at the time for explaining medical situations which today we would diagnose differently. Blindness and deafness are explicable in medical terms. The verse states that the Lord 'healed' the man and therefore, because of that healing, the blindness and deafness left him. The language of healing of persons is not what we would expect if the Lord instead engaged in battle with demonic entities in Heaven or at least, outside of the man.</p>


text:
<p>12:23&nbsp;<em>And all the crowds were amazed, and said</em>- See on 12:22&nbsp;<em>brought</em>. This is a strong word, meaning utterly astonished, and even used about madness (<em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:13'>2Co 5:13</a></em>).</p><p><em>Can this be the son of David?-&nbsp;</em>The people made a direct connection between the ability to do miracles and being Messiah. Yet earlier in this commentary I have pointed out that generally the Lord worked with an economy of miracle, and the number of miracles He did appear to have decreased as His ministry progressed. His understanding of <em><a href='B:290 42:1-3'>Isa 42:1-3</a></em> just quoted was that Messiah should be 'beheld', be understood and appreciated on a spiritual level, rather than be a miracle worker whipping up mass support because of that. And yet He appreciated the strong connection in peoples' minds between Messiahship and miracles, and He therefore conceded to this by doing miracles.</p>


text:
<p>12:24&nbsp;<em>But when the Pharisees heard it, they said: This man does not cast out demons but</em>- Their comment appears to have been made in very hot blood, for it was logically contradictory to claim that someone who cast out demons must therefore be in league with the prince of the demons; because their own sons (either literally or in the sense of their disciples) claimed to cast out demons (:27). And if Jesus was actually on the side of the prince of demons, why then was he as it were fighting for the other side by casting out demons. Such gaping error in logic was exactly what the Pharisees were constantly careful to avoid; but their intense jealousy of the Lord led them to make this logical error. Again we note that the Lord's style was not so much to directly state the errors of his opponents, but to work on the assumption that their beliefs were correct- and to then follow those beliefs to their logical conclusions, thus showing how those positions contradicted themselves to the point they could not be true. This is one explanation for the use of the language of demons in the Gospels, even though demons don't in fact exist.</p><p><em>By Beelzebub-&nbsp;</em>By the instrumentality of Beelzebub. They were driven to assume that the Lord was in league with some higher power in order to perform His miracles. If it wasn't the Holy Spirit of God- it had to be by some other power, and the only option in their theology was some form of the Satan myth. Their logical desperation is a reflection of the undeniable nature of the Lord's miracles (as in <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>). Any who claim to be able to do miracles through the Holy Spirit should likewise be producing healings which even their most sceptical opponents cannot deny are miracles; but that feature is not seen in many claims of healings today. When accused of being in league with ‘satan’, the Lord didn’t read them a charge of blasphemy. He reasoned instead that a thief cannot bind a strong man; and likewise He couldn’t bind ‘satan’ unless He were stronger than Satan (cp. <em><a href='B:480 3:23-27'>Mar 3:23-27</a></em>). He doesn’t take the tack that ‘Satan / Beelzebub / demons’ don’t exist; He showed instead that He was evidently stronger than any such being or force, to the point that belief in such a concept was meaningless. Faith must rather be in Him alone.<br/><br/>The Jews accused the Lord of being in league with the prince of the demons, Beelzebub. His comment was that if the family / house of Satan was so divided, then Satan “has an end” (<em><a href='B:480 3:26'>Mar 3:26</a></em>). His approach was ‘OK you believe in demons, Beelzebub etc. Well if that’s the case, then according to the extension of your logic, Satan will soon come to an end, will cease existence. That’s the bottom line. As it happens, I am indeed ‘binding the strong man’, rendering Satan powerless, making him ‘have an end’, and so whichever way you look at it, believing in demons or not, the bottom line is that My miracles demonstrate that effectively Satan is powerless and not an item now’. The way the New Testament is written reflects the same approach. When the Lord was alone with His disciples, He explained further: “If they have called the Master of the House [i:e. Jesus] ‘Beelzebub’, how much more shall they call them of his household?” [i:e. the disciples] (<em><a href='B:470 10:25'>Mat 10:25</a></em>). By saying this, the Lord was clarifying that of course He didn’t&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>mean that He was part of the Satan family, working against Satan to destroy the entire family. Rather was He and His family quite separate from the Satan family. But He didn’t make that clarification to the Jewish crowds – He simply used their idea and reasoned with them on their own terms. Note in passing how the Jews actually thought Jesus was Beelzebub, or Satan. This would be one explanation for their mad passion to kill Him; for those labelled ‘Satan’ were hunted to their death in such societies, as seen later in the witch hunts of the middle ages. The Jews say Jesus as a false miracle worker, a false Messiah, a bogus Son of God – all characteristics of their view of ‘Satan’. Some centuries later, the Jewish sage Maimonides described Jesus in terms of the antichrist: “Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavour to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretences to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah” (<em>Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen</em>). It’s been suggested that the way the Jewish rabbinical writings call Him&nbsp;<em>Yeshu</em>&nbsp;is an acronym for the Hebrew expression&nbsp;<em>yemach shemo vezichro</em>&nbsp;– “May his name and memory be obliterated”). This was the very Jewish definition of Satan. They saw Jesus as Satan himself; hence they were so insistent on slaying Him. Yet by the deft twist of Divine providence, it was through the death of Jesus that the&nbsp;<em>real&nbsp;</em>Devil (i:e. the power of sin) was in fact slain (<em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em>). To those with perceptive enough minds to see it, yet once again the Jewish ideas had been turned back upon them to reveal the real nature of the Devil to them, within their own frames of reference and terminology. Likewise Beelzebub means literally ‘the lord of the house’; and the Lord Jesus alludes to this in describing Himself as the Master of the House of God:&nbsp;</p><p>Judaism had taken over the surrounding pagan notion of a personal ‘Satan’. And the Lord Jesus and the Gospel writers use this term, but in the way they use it, they redefine it. The parable of the Lord Jesus binding the “strong man” – the Devil – was really to show that the “Devil” as they understood it was now no more, and his supposed Kingdom now taken over by that of Christ. The last Gospel, John, doesn’t use the term in the way the earlier Gospels do. He defines what the earlier writers called “the Devil” as actual people, such as the Jews or the brothers of Jesus, in their articulation of an adversarial [‘satanic’] position to Jesus.</p><p><em>The Prince of the demons</em>-&nbsp;<em>Archon</em>, "the first", would imply that Beelzebub was also a demon, the "first" or leading one. Thus the fallacy of their argument is the more apparent- if Beelzebub really existed, why would he cast out his own fellow demons?</p>


text:
<p>12:25&nbsp;<em>And knowing their thoughts, he said to them-</em>&nbsp;But they had "said" these things (:24). Perhaps they said these things within their own minds. Or maybe the contrast is to highlight the upcoming teaching that thoughts are as good as words (:34-37). To hear their words was to know their thoughts.</p><p><em>Every kingdom-</em>&nbsp;Again the Lord accepts their position for one moment as true, and yet takes it forward to its logical implication. If Beelzebub was fighting against his own side, then all the same, Satan's Kingdom was divided against itself and would soon crumble into self-destruction. Therefore what Jesus had done ought to be seen as a presage of Satan's Kingdom ending and, by implication, the soon triumph of God's Kingdom.</p><p><em>Divided against itself</em>- The Lord Jesus framed His parable about Satan's kingdom rising up and being divided against itself in the very language of the Kingdom of Israel being "divided" against itself by Jeroboam's 'rising up' (<em><a href='B:110 12:21'>1Ki 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 13:6'>2Ch 13:6</a></em>)- as if Israel's Kingdom was Satan's kingdom.</p><p><em>Is brought to desolation-</em>&nbsp;The Lord only uses the Greek word elsewhere with regard to latter day Babylon's destruction as a result of her followers rising up against her (<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>). This typically been how God destroyed Israel's enemies in the Old Testament- by them turning upon themselves. It follows another great Biblical theme- that those who ultimately will be condemned are in practice self-condemned and bring about their own condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And every city or house divided against itself shall not stand-</em>&nbsp;The Lord is teaching that the breakup of a Kingdom, even Satan's, must start on the household level and progress higher. Perhaps this is a hint at the growth of&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;kingdom beginning with the household conversions and house churches with which Christianity started.</p>


text:
<p>12:26&nbsp;<em>And if Satan-</em>&nbsp;Mark adds that the Lord spoke all this "in parables" (<em><a href='B:480 3:23'>Mar 3:23</a></em>). 'Satan' was a parable and is being used here in a non-literal sense. The Lord reasons with them on their own ground, assuming for a moment that their wrong ideas were true- hence "<em>if</em>&nbsp;Satan::.". The one who cast out Satan / demons was of course Jesus personally. Their false logic and theology had led them to label a good man as Satan just because He did a good work of healing. So quickly, false logic and theology drives jealous people along a path of demonization, negative labelling of others and religious hatred:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Casts out Satan-</em>&nbsp;But the argument is about casting out of&nbsp;<em>demons</em>&nbsp;(:27). One thing we learn from this use of language is that beliefs about 'Satan', demons and the casting out of demons were very vague and poorly defined. And that is how it is to this day with those who believe in the literal existence of 'Satan' and demons. When pressed for definition and a more connected theology, they flounder.</p><p><em>He is divided against himself. How then shall his kingdom stand?-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:330 17:14'>Eze 17:14</a></em> uses this language about how Old Testament kingdom of Judah no longer 'stood' because of their disobedience. The true Kingdom of God would 'stand' for ever (<em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>). The Lord may be hinting that Israel was no longer God's Kingdom and was in fact therefore Satan's kingdom- for the true Kingdom of God would always stand. It is Satan's Kingdom which falls, not God's.</p>


text:
<p>12:27&nbsp;<em>And if I</em>- Three times in succession the Lord uses the "if::. " clause. Logic and consequence of position is therefore significant to Him. If it were not, it would totally not matter what we believed about anything.</p><p><em>By Beelzebub-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a></em> clearly tells us that Beelzebub was a false god of the Philistines. Jesus did not say, ‘Now look, <em><a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a></em> says Beelzebub was a false god, so your accusation cannot be true’. No, He spoke as if Beelzebub existed, because He was interested in getting His message through to His audience. So in the same way Jesus talked about casting out demons – He did not keep saying, ‘actually, they do not exist’, He just preached the Gospel in the language of the day.</p><p><em>Cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?</em>- The miracles claimed by the Jews would've compared poorly with the Lord's, rather like the attempts by the Egyptian magicians to imitate the miracles of Moses. The Lord never makes that point directly. He accepts that these people claimed to 'cast out demons' and reasons as if that is true- in order to clinch the greater point, that their whole belief system was deeply flawed. It seems to me that this is one reason why the NT writers go along with the idea of demons- to demonstrate by colossal implication that either they do not exist, or they are utterly powerless.</p><p><em>Therefore shall they be your judges-</em>&nbsp;Their own sons who had claimed to do miracles would be presented at the day of judgment when their lives were examined. The point would be made that they had condemned Jesus for something which their own sons did, and yet they had not condemned&nbsp;<em>them</em>, and therefore they would be condemned / judged at the hands of their own sons. Likewise the Lord reasoned that the presence of the Queen of Sheba at judgment day would be a condemnation for some in first century Israel (<em><a href='B:470 12:42'>Mat 12:42</a></em>). Judgment day will not be a mere yes / no encounter. Our lives will be laid bare, specific incidents raised and the implications of them discussed, with the persons involved or implicated standing there giving testimony; or at least, this is how it shall be for the rejected. There is a colossal importance to life and living, to justice, to the implications of actions. It’s no good just shrugging and hoping for the best, allowing the passage of time to work a kind of pseudo-atonement, whereby we forget the implications of our actions.</p><p>The fact the Pharisees' children cast out demons condemned the Pharisees. Noah's very example was a condemnation of his world (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>); the very existence of believing Gentiles judges the Jews as condemned (<em><a href='B:520 2:27'>Rom 2:27</a></em>); and the very existence of the repentant Ninevites condemned first century Israel (<em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>). The faithful preaching of the Corinthians would judge an unbeliever (<em><a href='B:530 14:24'>1Co 14:24</a></em>). Noah's very act of righteousness in building the ark condemned / judged those who saw it and didn't respond (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). This is why the rejected will be shamed before the accepted; they will bow in shame at their feet (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). Perhaps it is in this sense that "we shall judge angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>)- rejected ecclesial elders, cp. the angels of the churches in Revelation 2, 3? The point is, men's behaviour and conduct judges others because of the contrast it throws upon them. And this was supremely true of the Lord. No wonder in the naked shame and glory of the cross lay the supreme "judgment of this world".</p>


text:
<p>12:28&nbsp;<em>But if I by the Spirit of God-</em>&nbsp;One reason the Lord did miracles was to try to drive people towards a final decision about Him- see :30. Either He did them by the Spirit, and was therefore attested at God's Messiah and providing a true foretaste of the Messianic Kingdom- or, as the Pharisees claimed, the source of power He was clearly tapping into must be from 'the other side', from evil. The population were therefore faced with a deep choice- either He was who He claimed, or He was an agent of Satan. There was no middle position. It was clear that Jesus, a manual worker from Nazareth, had access to some cosmic power on a scale previously unknown in the earth. The Bible clearly teaches that there is no power but of God. And there is only one God. Those teachings alone make redundant any concept of a personal cosmic Satan and demons. If I had faced off against first century Palestinians deeply persuaded of demonic forces, I think I would've gone down the road of arguing that the God of Israel is omnipotent, quoting <em><a href='B:290 45:7'>Isa 45:7</a></em> etc. But the Son of God did it differently. He demonstrated beyond doubt, even by his fiercest enemies, that He had access to superhuman power. He was happy to bear with their idea that there were two 'powers' in the cosmos- of good (from Yahweh) and evil (from Satan). But He then argued that seeing He was doing good, He must therefore have access to that good power. He must, therefore, have unique relationship with Yahweh. Those who clung on to their beliefs in Satan and the power of evil were left with no option but to accept that either He was of Satan, or of God. And seeing His works were&nbsp;<em>good</em>&nbsp;(as they grudgingly admit in <em><a href='B:500 10:33'>Joh 10:33</a></em>), they really had to accept He was of God. And clearly His power was such that effectively, the supposedly 'evil force' was of no account. The next verse goes on to develop the point- that these miracles were a plundering of the palace of 'Satan', so therefore the power of Jesus was such that He had effectively subdued this being and left 'him' powerless. This was a far more effective path to take than a point blank denial of the existence of any evil power or Satan figure. A comparison of <em><a href='B:470 12:28'>Mat 12:28</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 11:20'>Luk 11:20</a></em> shows that “the finger of God” and “the spirit of God” are parallel - God in action is His spirit.</p><p><em>Cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>phthano</em>&nbsp;can carry the idea of to anticipate or precede; it is translated "go before" in <em><a href='B:590 4:15'>1Th 4:15</a></em>. The Lord's miracles were a foretaste of how the Kingdom of God on earth will be, with no sickness and total healing, spiritually and physically. In the ministry and person of Jesus we see a foretaste of how the Kingdom of God will actually be; and 'the Kingdom' was a title of Christ, so closely was He personally the epitome of that time (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). If we want to know what the future Kingdom of God on earth will be like- look at the person and actions of Jesus. He was in Himself the proclamation and essence of that Kingdom. The descriptions of a renewed earth in Isaiah focus very much on the physicalities of that time, and at best describe the situation during the initial part of God's Kingdom. But the ultimate spiritual essence of life in eternity is to be found in Jesus as a person.</p>


text:
<p>12:29&nbsp;<em>Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man and ruin his goods-</em>&nbsp;'Beelzebub' can mean 'Lord of the house'. The 'strong man' is clearly 'Satan' in the parable the Lord is creating here (<em><a href='B:480 3:23'>Mar 3:23</a></em>). See on :28&nbsp;<em>by the Spirit</em>. And note the allusions to Samson (<em><a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a></em>):&nbsp;The strength of sin, and thereby the extent of the Lord’s victory, is brought out by another unreal element in the Lord’s picture of “a strong man fully armed [guarding] his own court” (<em><a href='B:490 11:21'>Luk 11:21</a></em> RV). This householder is fanatic; he wanders around fully armed to protect his own courtyard and his goods, rather than getting servants or guards to do it. The Lord being “stronger than he” through the cross was therefore indeed strong:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Except he first bind the strong man?-&nbsp;</em>The binding of the strong man was already in process, for the Lord's miracles were proof that his goods were being spoiled and he was powerless to stop it. But the ultimate binding of the enemy was in the Lord's death- and several times the records of the Lord's passion use the word to describe how He was 'bound'. Surely He was encouraged by the intended paradox- that through His binding, the power of sin was being bound. The binding of the strong man in the parable was done by the death of Christ. One of the spoils we have taken from his house is the fact we don't need to keep the Mosaic Law (<em><a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a></em> = <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>).</p><h4>The idea of Christ binding satan (the "strong man"), stealing his goods and sharing them with His followers is a picture of His victory on the cross. It is full of allusion to <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>, which says that on account of the fact that Christ would pour out His soul unto death and bear our sins, "he shall divide the spoil with the strong (Heb: 'those that are bound')”. With the same thought in mind, Paul spoke of how through the cross, Christ "<em>spoiled</em>&nbsp;principalities and powers" (<em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>). It may be that this is one of many examples of the New Testament writers thinking in a Hebrew way, despite writing in Greek. "Principalities and powers" is perhaps an intensive plural, referring to the&nbsp;<em>great&nbsp;</em>principality and power, i:e. Satan. The way He 'triumphed over them in himself' (Gk. + AVmg:) would certainly make more sense if they referred to the Biblical devil / satan which was overcome within Christ (cp. the language of <em><a href='B:650 2:14-18'>Heb 2:14-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:560 2:15-16'>Eph 2:15-16</a></em> appears to be parallel to <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>. It speaks of how Christ "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments::. for to make&nbsp;<em>in himself</em>&nbsp;of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby". <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em> speaks of the Lord on the cross as the victorious champion, killing "principalities and powers" and then triumphing over them by sharing their spoils with his soldiers. <em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em> speaks of Christ on the cross "slaying the enmity" (the Biblical Devil) and achieving peace and reconciliation for all those within His body. Yet in the immediate context, the Lord is offering an explanation of why His miracles proved He was the Messiah. He hadn't yet died on the cross; but He was doing the works which were possible as a result of the binding of Satan which He would then achieve. This is yet another example of the Lord's confidence that He would overcome, and God going along with Him in this. The Lord's miracles were a physical foretaste of the great spiritual blessings which would be made available as a result of the binding of Satan by Christ's death and resurrection.</h4><p><em>And then he will ruin his house-&nbsp;</em>AV "Spoil his goods<em>":&nbsp;</em>The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em> of how the Kingdom of God is being "taken by force" by those entering into it. The "spoils" of Satan are those things which he has taken away; surely the spoils taken from Satan by Christ refer to the righteousness which our nature takes away from us. <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em> adds another detail to the story. The "armour" of Satan which he depends upon is taken away by Christ on the cross, and then Satan is bound, and his spoils shared out. The armour of Satan is the antithesis of the armour of righteousness (<em><a href='B:560 6:11'>Eph 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:13'>Eph 6:13</a></em>). As the Kingdom of God has a God who dwells in darkness, a Prince, an armour, a Christ, a dominion, a will and spirit, fruits, rewards etc:, so does the kingdom of (the personified) Satan. The armour of righteousness is the fruit of the Spirit, the righteous characteristics of the Spirit. The armour of Satan is the fruits of the flesh nature. These have been taken away by Christ, He has bound Satan, and therefore what Satan has robbed us of, the fruits of righteousness, his spoils, can be taken at will by the Lord Jesus. We have shown that Christ was alluding to <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>, which says that through the cross, Christ divides the spoil with the bound ones, i:e. us. In this lies a paradox. Binding is associated with sin (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 1:14'>Lam 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>). We are bound, in many ways, intrinsically limited by our own natures. Only at the second coming will Satan be bound, i:e. the Lord's personal achievement will be physically shared with the world (<em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). Yet we, the bound ones, are given the goods which the Lord personally took away from the bound Satan. Those goods are the righteous attributes which our natures stop us possessing as we should. The dividing of the spoils to us by the victorious Lord (<em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>) recalls how the Lord divided&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;His goods between His servants (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>), the dividing of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Father's goods between the sons (representing the good and bad believers, <em><a href='B:490 15:12'>Luk 15:12</a></em>).<br/>We have elsewhere shown that these goods refer to the various aspects of the supreme righteousness of Christ which are divided between the body of Christ. The spoils divided to us by the Lord are the various aspects of righteousness which He took for Himself from Satan. The picture of a bound strong man having his house ransacked before his eyes carries with it the idea of suspense, of daring, of doing something absolutely impossible. And so the idea of Christ really taking the righteousness which the Satan of our very natures denies us, and giving these things to us, is almost too much to believe. It is normally the fellow-soldiers who share the spoils (cp. <em><a href='B:650 7:4'>Heb 7:4</a></em>). But we didn't even fight; the spoils are divided amongst the bound ones (<em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em> Heb:). Satan in general is still unbound (cp. <em><a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a></em>). Christ bound the Satan within Himself personally, and took the spoils of victory for Himself. <em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em> says that Christ "spoiled" as a result of His victory on the cross; and the Greek specifically means 'to completely divest&nbsp;<em>for oneself</em>'. He is being painted as the lone hero who took it all for Himself; of the people there was none with Him in His great battle on the cross (<em><a href='B:290 63:3'>Isa 63:3</a></em>). And indeed, He was the lone hero. But the point is that He has shared with us the spoils of righteousness which He took for Himself as a result, even though we are not worthy to receive them. Seeing the teaching of the Lord is just outline principle, it is evident that through His death He gained possession of absolute righteousness, and then shared this with us. In the first century, the outward demonstration of this was in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. "He led captivity captive (more language of the heroic victor), and gave gifts unto men", the miraculous gifts, in the first century context (<em><a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:11'>Eph 4:11</a></em>). But what was taken away from Satan was not only power over illness. If this was the main meaning of Satan being bound and his spoils shared with us, then it would follow that the effect of Christ's binding of Satan was only in the first century; for those miraculous gifts of the Spirit are no longer available; illness still triumphs over God's people. The spoils of Satan refer to the righteousness which Satan limits and denies. It is this which has been taken from him, and divided to us all as a result of the cross. The miracles of the first century were a physical reflection of this, just as the rending of the temple veil and resurrection of some dead saints was a physical foretaste of the spiritual possibilities opened up by the Lord's death. There are many references to the spiritual blessings which are even now mediated to us (as the whole body of Christ) on account of the Lord's death; we (as a community) are given peace and "eternal life" (<em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:2'>Joh 17:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:11'>1Jn 5:11</a></em>), knowledge (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>), wisdom (<em><a href='B:560 1:17'>Eph 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:15'>Jas 1:15</a></em>), peace (<em><a href='B:600 3:16'>2Th 3:16</a></em>), understanding (<em><a href='B:530 2:12'>1Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:7'>2Ti 2:7</a></em>), love in our hearts (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>), grace (<em><a href='B:560 4:7'>Eph 4:7</a></em>), comfort (<em><a href='B:600 2:16'>2Th 2:16</a></em>), righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 5:16-17'>Rom 5:16-17</a></em>), confidence (<em><a href='B:620 1:7'>2Ti 1:7</a></em>), sexual self-restraint (<em><a href='B:530 7:7'>1Co 7:7</a></em>). All the different aspects of the 100% righteousness of our Lord,&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;His goods, the spoils He personally took from Satan, are divided up amongst ourselves, some having spiritual possibilities in one area, others in another. As a community we are counted as if we have overcome the world, overcome Satan, as Christ did, although on a human level we are still bound (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:690 2:13-14'>1Jn 2:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:4'>1Jn 5:4</a></em>). Only at the day of judgment will we have overcome all (<em><a href='B:730 21:7'>Rev 21:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 11:22'>Luk 11:22</a></em> s:w:), but we are treated as if we have already done so:&nbsp;<br/><em>Goods-</em>&nbsp;If indeed sickness was caused by Satan's power, then the Lord's miracles were a spoiling of his goods. The language here is clearly parabolic- including the reference to 'Satan'. But the miracles were an invitation to others to come and share in the victory the Lord Jesus had won over the 'strong man'; and this provides the context for the 'gathering' of the next verse.</p>


text:
<p>12:30&nbsp;<em>He that is not with Me is against Me</em>- The original is memorable- either&nbsp;<em>meta</em>&nbsp;Me, or&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;Me. The Lord is speaking here from&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;perspective. For He Himself observed that Judas 'ate&nbsp;<em>with Me</em>', but lifted up his heel '<em>against</em>&nbsp;Me' (<em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>). It's simply not so that all those who claim to be with the Lord are therefore with Him and on the same side as we who know we are in truth 'with' Him. He is simply observing an ultimate truth- that finally, there will be (and therefore is not now) any middle position in relation to Him. It's not therefore for us to insist that anyone who claims to be 'with Him' is so merely because they say so. Let His words sink in to you personally: “He who is not with me is against me… he that is not against us is for us” (<em><a href='B:470 12:30'>Mat 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:40'>Mar 9:40</a></em>). We may think we are not against the Lord’s cause, even if we’re not as committed to it as we might be; many an unbaptized young person has told me this. But to be ‘not against’ Jesus means we must be&nbsp;<em>with Him</em>. Nobody can be passively ‘not against’ Jesus. If we’re not whole heartedly with Him, we’re against Him. That’s how His demanding logic goes. A relationship with Him demands the whole person;&nbsp;<em>you</em>, your very heart and essence.</p><p><em>And he that does not gather with me scatters-</em>&nbsp;In connection with the gathering of spoil from the strong man's house in :29. There is a tendency to use this verse as a general statement of principle, but the surrounding context is specifically about the Lord's healing miracles being part of the spoil He has plundered from the 'Lord of the house', Beelzebub / Satan. We saw on :28 that people were faced with the choice of accepting the Lord's miracles were performed using either God's power, or Satan's. The whole issue pushed the audience to a crucial choice- of accepting of Jesus as God's special Son, or as Satan. The miracles were proof that the Lord Jesus had bound the power of Satan- the power which people believed was behind illness. If you didn't want to go and gather the spoil, then you were actively scattering it abroad. This hyperbole was used to force all the cautious people who remained undecided to realize that ultimately, there is no such thing as agnosticism. If you are not eagerly gathering the spoil the Lord has now released, then you are actively working against Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:31&nbsp;<em>Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men</em>- His simple claim that God can forgive men all sins was radical (see the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:28'>Mar 3:28</a></em>)- for the Rabbis had a whole list of unforgivable sins, like murder, apostasy, contempt for the Law, etc. But the Lord went further. His many words of judgment weren’t directed to the murderers and whores and Sabbath breakers; they were instead directed against those who condemned those people, considering themselves righteous. He calls those who appeared so righteous a ‘generation of vipers’. The publican, not the Pharisee, finds God’s acceptance, according to Jesus. And again, the Lord is making a telling point- because Rabbis held that repentance for publicans was almost impossible, because it was impossible for them to know exactly all the people they’d cheated. Very clearly, the Lord’s message was radical. He was out to form a holy people from whores and gamblers, no-good boys and conmen. And moreover, He was out to show that what God especially judges and hates are the things that humanity doesn’t think twice about: hypocrisy, self-righteousness, judgmentalism, exclusion of others… See on <em><a href='B:470 10:29'>Mat 10:29</a></em>.</p><p><em>But the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven</em>- The exposition offered above suggests that people were forced to a choice. Jesus of Nazareth had access to superhuman power, far more than anyone had ever had. Which power was it, within the framework of their dualistic view of the cosmos- of Satan or God? Was He God's supreme agent on earth- or Satan's? There was no middle ground. All had to choose. The miracles were good. Therefore, it was Satan who had been bound. Jesus was therefore of God. To insist He was from Satan was to wilfully refuse to believe the evidence God had placed before them. There was no forgiveness for this choice- whilst it continued. If anyone wanted to repent and accept that Jesus was of God, to gather with Him, to be with Him rather than against Him- then that was always possible. Note that there is no statement that&nbsp;<em>repentance</em>&nbsp;is impossible, rather that&nbsp;<em>forgiveness</em>&nbsp;is impossible whilst a person is in the position of so strongly rejecting Christ as God's Son. For those who did accept Christ as of God rather than of Satan, then "all manner of sin" could be forgiven them, including even at times speaking against Him personally (:32). From one viewpoint, the only way we cannot be saved is to wilfully refuse to participate in the new covenant. The Lord laboured the point that the "unforgivable sin" was to "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:480 3:28-30'>Mar 3:28-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:31-37'>Mat 12:31-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:10'>Luk 12:10</a></em>). But it's been demonstrated that this is a reference to Jewish writings and traditions such as Jubilees 15:33 "where not circumcising one's child is unforgivable, because it is a declaration that one does not belong to the covenant people".</p>


text:
<p>12:32&nbsp;<em>And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man</em>- See on :31. The sin of stating that Jesus was Satan's agent rather than God's could not be forgiven whilst it continued to be the position of a person- although repentance was always possible. For those who had accepted Jesus as God's unique agent, they can be forgiven all manner of failure (:31), including speaking "a word" against Him. Maybe the Lord foresaw the situations in which persecution could be avoided for an apparently few words calling Him accursed. And He, along with Matthew, wanted to assure those who would do this in the weakness of a moment that in fact they had&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;blasphemed the Spirit and were not beyond forgiveness. The 'speaking against' is clearly parallel to 'blaspheming'. Blaspheming the name of Jesus was and is required by various anti-Christian regimes such from Judaism through the Roman empire to fundamentalist Islamic states today. Surely the Lord had this in mind. And the encouragement is that this is forgivable. But to decide He is not the Son of God but the embodiment of evil is a situation for which there is no forgiveness because it is wilfully continued in. The Lord has just stated that whoever is not with Him is against Him (:30), but here He foresees a situation when one of those who is ultimately 'with Him' will speak 'against Him'- and yet be forgiven. Because that moment of failure was not the overall position of a man's life. The denials by Peter, replete with curses / blasphemy, would surely be the parade example.</p><p>The “son of man” here could refer to Jesus, but it could just as comfortably mean ‘human beings’. One angle on this passage is to remember that the Gospels were written as a means of preaching to Jewish people at some point after the Lord’s resurrection. The message may be: ‘Whatever sin you committed against Jesus, even to the point of crucifixion, is forgivable. But now the Holy Spirit is witnessing to you through the apostles to repent and accept His forgiveness. If you refuse&nbsp;<em>that</em>, then there will [obviously] be no forgiveness for you’. The Lord foresaw the situation as it would be in the lives of his audience, and that explains His language here.</p><p><em>It shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him</em>- Whenever we sin, we are judged by the court of Heaven as deserving condemnation. Yet now is our day of opportunity; the verdict really is given, but we can mercifully change it. Consider the implications of the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:29'>Mar 3:29</a></em>: "he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness but is in danger of&nbsp;<em>eternal</em>&nbsp;damnation". Not being&nbsp;<em>ever</em>&nbsp;forgiven is paralleled with having&nbsp;<em>eternal&nbsp;</em>damnation. The implication is that when we sin and are unforgiven, we are condemned. But in this life we can be forgiven, and therefore become uncondemned. Abimelech was "but a dead man" for taking Sarah (<em><a href='B:10 20:3'>Gen 20:3</a></em>), as if although he was alive, for that sin he was in God's eyes condemned and dead. But that verdict for that case was changed by his change of the situation:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Neither in this age, nor in the age to come</em>- This is not suggesting that there is some kind of forgiveness in this world and another kind of forgiveness in the world to come, the Kingdom age. Rather is the simple point being made that the forgiveness granted or not granted now is directly related to "the world to come". The judgment is as it were ongoing now. The positions we adopt now are those we shall eternally hold.</p>


text:
<p>12:33&nbsp;<em>Either make</em>- In their interpretation of Jesus they had to see Him as either good or bad, and He urged them to make a choice. The miracles were good fruit- therefore He was good, and working by God's Spirit rather than being an agent of Satan. The fruit of the tree equals the words (as in <em><a href='B:240 12:14'>Pro 12:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 13:2'>Pro 13:2</a></em>); a corrupt man will speak corrupt words. And these will be the basis of his condemnation. By contrast "the fruit of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;lips" should be praise (<em><a href='B:650 13:15'>Heb 13:15</a></em>). "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth" (<em><a href='B:560 4:29'>Eph 4:29</a></em>) refers to this passage- the corrupt fruit is corrupt words. But the idea is that we bear the fruit<em>&nbsp;now</em>- our words&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;are our fruit:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree corrupt-</em>&nbsp;The Lord had taught in the Sermon on the Mount that it was a fundamental principle with Him that true spirituality cannot be hidden; what is within is openly revealed, even in this life. Good fruit means a good tree. His works were the good fruit. The Pharisees were claiming that His fruits, His works, were corrupt, and therefore He was corrupt. The Lord is asking everyone, especially the disciples, to decide one way or the other- either He is a good man doing good works, or an evil man doing evil works. There is no half way position, as He made clear in :30 (“He that is not with Me is against Me”). They were to ‘make’ or consider, decide, about Him one way or the other.</p><p><em>And its fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by its fruit-&nbsp;</em>As so often, the Lord is repeating the principles of His opening manifesto in the Sermon on the Mount (cp. <em><a href='B:470 7:17-18'>Mat 7:17-18</a></em>). The fruit of a man's life reflects who he essentially is; the good fruit of the Lord's miracles was clear proof He was not of Satan but God's Son and supreme agent:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:34&nbsp;<em>You offspring of vipers</em>- A clear allusion to the Jews as the seed of the serpent of <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> who would be the ones who would be in conflict with the seed of the woman, the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>How can you-</em>&nbsp;Because of the principle that who we are internally is ultimately reflected by our external actions and words (:33), it was impossible that their 'good words' could be sincere because the other fruit of their lives showed they were rotten within. "How can you::."&nbsp; doesn't mean that they could not change. It means that given their present internal condition, they could never speak good things. The 'good word' which the context has in view is the confession that Jesus of Nazareth is God's Son; the evil word was that He was Satan's agent. This wrong judgment of Jesus' identity was because of their evil heart. Their doctrinal mistake was a reflection of their internal fleshly thinking. The Lord said that the Jews were evil, and therefore good things could not come from them (<em><a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:17-20'>Mat 7:17-20</a></em>). And yet He also said, presumably with the same audience in mind, that although they were evil, they potentially knew how to give good things, e:g. to their children; and therefore how much could God give them good things if they repented (<em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em>).</p><h4><em>Being evil speak good things-</em>&nbsp;This may be an intensive plural, 'the good thing'. The good thing to be spoken was the confession that Jesus was Son of God. John's Gospel emphasizes this, and <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em> suggests that a verbal confession of Jesus as Lord was required in the conversion process: "if you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation". This confession was likely made at baptism, as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. We must ever remember that Matthew's gospel is the transcript of his preaching of the Gospel; it was a missionary document, intended to bring forth the confession that Jesus is Lord and Son of God. This is not to say that the Lord's teaching here does not establish basic principles regarding the connection between thought and speech. It does. But the specific context is of confessing that He is Lord rather than of Satan:&nbsp;</h4><p><em>For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks-</em>&nbsp;Gk. 'that which remains'. The idea may be that a certain amount of human thought is taken up with basic human functioning, but that which remains over and above that, the part of our thinking which we can consciously control, is what must be controlled- for it is that part of our thinking which controls the words and actions which are the fruit on the tree of a man's life (:33).</p>


text:
<p>12:35&nbsp;<em>The good man</em>- The good man is as the good tree. His good fruit or works is because of a good mind within- and vice versa. The Lord as always took the issue to its deepest essence- which was within the deepest heart. He was the ultimate “good man” and good tree. His good works came forth from deep within Him, they were a reflection of His mind.</p><p><em>Out of his good treasure brings forth good things-</em>&nbsp;The heart is our wealth. This is the real gold and silver, the core value of a man's life- what we are thinking about. Spiritual mindedness is the essence of Christianity.</p><p><em>And the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth</em>- The Lord uses the same word to speak of "this evil (AV "wicked") generation" in :45. The problem with Jewish society as a whole was how they thought. This is the Biblical emphasis- sin comes from our thinking, and not because society is controlled by a personal cosmic 'satan' figure.</p><p><em>Evil things</em>- The words of blasphemy accusing Jesus of being Satan's agent.</p>


text:
<p>12:36&nbsp;<em>And I say to you, that every idle word that men shall speak-</em>&nbsp;Gk. lazy, unproductive. At first blush, this seems a strange word to use in the context of explaining that the words of blasphemy the Jews had uttered would be judged at the last day. We expect a word to be used which carries the sense of blasphemy or proactive aggression. Instead, the Lord uses this word for "idle". His point was that what is ultimately wrong with blasphemy is what is wrong with all unspiritual language- it is not creative, not productive, it is a waste of potential resource. We marvel at His insight. Words can be powerful and creative, but we will answer for those which are not. The connection between <em><a href='B:520 14:12'>Rom 14:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em> suggests that Paul recognized that we all speak idle words which we will have to give account of at judgment. Therefore, because of our rampant tongue, we will stand in deep need of grace. So therefore, Paul says, you'd&nbsp;better be soft on your brother now, in this life. Every word will be judged (<em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em>), and in some cases by words we will justified and by our speech we will be condemned. So we must speak as those who will be judged for what we speak (<em><a href='B:660 2:12'>Jas 2:12</a></em>). The man who&nbsp;<em>says&nbsp;</em>to his brother 'Raca' or 'You fool' is in real danger of hell fire (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). The tongue has the power to cast a man into hell fire (<em><a href='B:660 3:5-6'>Jas 3:5-6</a></em>)- some may be condemned for what they have said, perhaps connecting with how the beast is thrown into the fire of destruction because of his words (<em><a href='B:340 7:11-12'>Dan 7:11-12</a></em>). Thus there is a link between the judgment of the unworthy and that of the world. The process of condemnation will remind the wicked of all their hard words and hard deeds (<em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). Yet now, we can speak words all too easily. Yet we talk and speak as those whose words will be taken into account at the last day. This little selection of passages is powerful- or ought to be. There is reason to think that specific record is kept of incidents, and in some form there will be a 'going through' of them. Thus when self-righteous Jews told their brethren "Stand by yourself, come not near me, for I am holier than you", God comments that "This is written before Me::. I will recompense" (<em><a href='B:290 65:5-6'>Isa 65:5-6</a></em>).</p><p><em>They shall give account of it in the day of judgment-</em>&nbsp;For every idle&nbsp;<em>rhema</em>&nbsp;["word"], men shall give a&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;["account"], another word. We shall have to explain the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>, the intention, of idle words. Literally we will have to give a word for a word. This surely suggests that words will be as it were played back to us in that day and we will explain the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;, the intention and inner sense, behind those words. But the Lord of course will know all this anyway. It will be a profound preparation for entry into eternity- to have our idle words played back to us, and our having to give an explanation of what our innermost thought behind them really was. The whole process will elicit self-knowledge to the ultimate extent. The words behind 'give an account' are found elsewhere in NT teaching about judgment. We must give an account of our stewardship of the Lord's goods (<em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>), give an account of our moral lives (<em><a href='B:670 4:3-5'>1Pe 4:3-5</a></em>), give an account of those under our spiritual care (<em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>); and give an account / logos of our idle words. Without doubt, judgment will not be a mere yes / no decision, nor an awards ceremony. It will be a revelation to ourselves of our motives, the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;behind our words and actions.</p>


text:
<p>12:37&nbsp;<em>For by your words you shall be justified and by your words you shall be condemned-</em>&nbsp;In the context, the Lord is referring to how their words regarding Him being an agent of Satan would lead to their condemnation. Yet their words had all started from basic jealousy which ran on unbridled. From their own mouth and words men will be judged (<em><a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:100 1:16'>2Sa 1:16</a></em>). The reference may be to Eliphaz (<em><a href='B:220 15:6'>Job 15:6</a></em>): “Your own mouth condemns you, and not I”; or to <em><a href='B:240 18:21'>Pro 18:21</a></em>: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”. And yet perhaps even now, men are justified by their words before the court of Heaven- for 'justify' means to pronounce righteous, and this pronouncement / justification is therefore given even now. "So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it" (<em><a href='B:110 20:40'>1Ki 20:40</a></em>). It could even be that the Lord cites the condemnatory words of the rejected uttered during their lifetimes and leaves these as their condemnation. Woe, therefore, to he or she who has said unrepentantly that they don't want to be in the Kingdom if brother x or sister y are going to be there. The specific words which some have spoken will be the reason for their condemnation. "Their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue" (<em><a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos 7:16</a></em>)- not so much for their idolatry, their worldliness… but for their uncontrolled and cruel words. By our words we will be acquitted [Gk:] and by our words we will be condemned (<em><a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a></em>)- but it is God who acquits, and therefore nobody but He can condemn us (<em><a href='B:520 8:33'>Rom 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:8'>Isa 50:8</a></em>). Yet how does and how will He do this? Surely on the basis of our acquittal or condemnation of others. The connection in thought surely shows that through our words, we form our own judgment of ourselves, to acquittal or condemnation.</p><p>Our eternal destiny will be&nbsp;<em>ek</em>, from out of, our words. If the Lord had simply meant 'according to, on account of', another word or construction would've been used. The use of&nbsp;<em>ek</em>&nbsp;suggests that the decision on our eternity will not only be on account of our words, but&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;our own words- for it will be&nbsp;<em>out of</em>&nbsp;our own mouths. We think of David's response to Nathan's parable and how his own words were his appropriate judgment. <em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em> is clearest: "Out of [<em>ek</em>] your own mouth will I judge you". The servants&nbsp;<em>thoughts</em>&nbsp;about his Lord are then cited back to him as if they were his spoken&nbsp;<em>words</em>, and he is judged according to those words. There could be no more powerful exhortation as to the significance of spoken words, but the appeal must not be to merely curb the tongue by brute psychological force, but rather to have the new mind and spirit of Christ which simply will not speak words leading to condemnation. The intensity and deeply personal force of the Lord's reasoning was such that that group of Pharisees went silent and brought in another group to raise yet more legalistic and theological issues with Him; but those things were and are to this day simply a way of trying to take the Lord's intense and practical&nbsp;<em>moral</em>&nbsp;pressure off us. It is a common theme that the wicked snare themselves, falling into their own pit, judged by their own words, rather than God specifically snaring them (e:g. <em><a href='B:230 7:15'>Psa 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 9:15'>Psa 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 57:6'>Psa 57:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 26:27'>Pro 26:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 28:10'>Pro 28:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 10:8'>Ecc 10:8</a></em>):&nbsp; From their own mouth and words men will be judged (<em><a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:100 1:16'>2Sa 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 20:40'>1Ki 20:40</a></em>). It could even be that the Lord cites the condemnatory words of the rejected uttered during their lifetimes and leaves these as their condemnation. Woe, therefore, to he or she who has said unrepentantly that they don’t want to be in the Kingdom if brother x or sister y are going to be there. “He that keeps his mouth keeps his life; but he that opens wide his lips [in this life] shall have destruction” at judgment day (<em><a href='B:240 13:3'>Pro 13:3</a></em>). The link between the final verdict and the words we use today is that clear. See on 21:43.</p><p>The words by which men shall be condemned are clear from the context- the words of blasphemy against Jesus, making Him the supreme agent of Satan rather than of God. But this is not to say that a general principle is not also being demonstrated. Words reflect the inner man, the Lord has taught- and so they are a fair index for judgment. This cuts right through the idea that we can harbour evil thoughts and yet cover them in nicespeak. The culture of nicespeak lays revealed for what it is- the Lord is saying that ultimately, our words&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;at some point reflect our thoughts. The whole section began with the explanation in :24,25 that the Jews "said" but Jesus "knew their thoughts". I suggested in the commentary there that perhaps they never actually spoke those words out loud. It is these thoughts for which by which we shall be judged.</p><p>The idea of being "justified" by our words at first sight it could seem that this contradicts Paul's argument for justification by grace alone- and not by the steel willed control of our words. But Romans 1-8 is a unit, and the teaching about justification by grace is on the basis that those in Christ are in a status, "in Christ", under grace- and in that status, the Spirit of God is at work in the human minds of all those who are in that status. And the Lord has made clear here that the words He will judge are those which are a direct reflection of the human heart or spirit:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:38&nbsp;<em>Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Teacher</em>- It would seem these were a different group of Pharisees to those with whom the Lord was in engagement earlier in the chapter; they address Him as "Master". They appear at least to be trying a more subtle approach than the previous group. <em><a href='B:480 3:22'>Mar 3:22</a></em> notes that this group had come from Jerusalem.</p><p><em>We would see a sign from you</em>- The context of the chapter makes it clear that the Lord had been clearly doing signs / miracles. So maybe the emphasis is on&nbsp;<em>we</em>. They were maybe claiming that they personally had not been present when the signs were done, and now they wanted to see one:&nbsp; But <em><a href='B:490 11:16'>Luk 11:16</a></em> adds the detail that they sought a "sign&nbsp;<em>from Heaven</em>". This continues the issue under debate; the Pharisees accepted that Jesus was doing signs / miracles, but they considered them to be from 'Satan'; the Lord has responded by saying that His good works show He is a good man working on God's behalf, and that they would be called to account at the last day for their blasphemy. But it seems this other group of Pharisees continue in the blasphemous position- their response is to assume that the earlier miracles were signs from 'Satan', but now they give the Lord a chance to do a sign / miracle from God ("Heaven"). They repeated this request later (<em><a href='B:470 16:1'>Mat 16:1</a></em>), and again the Lord answered them with "the sign of the prophet Jonah". It's not necessarily wrong to require a sign- Gideon's example comes to mind. The disciples themselves asked for a sign (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>), and the Lord answered them to the effect that there would be "the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). "In" Heaven can mean 'by the instrumentality of [Heaven]'. The similarity of words and concepts is so close that there must be some continuity in meaning. It could be that the sign of the Son of Man given by Heaven in the last days is the sign of Jonah- the successful preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles and the resurrection from the dead.</p>


text:
<p>12:39&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said to them: An evil and adulterous generation-</em>&nbsp;The Lord may have in mind female adultery, alluding to the Old Testament passages which liken Israel to an adulterous wife. The parallel is between self-righteous Jewish society of the first century and sexually immoral but penitent Nineveh of previous centuries:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Seeks after a sign, and there shall no sign be given it</em>- The idea could be 'no&nbsp;<em>further</em>&nbsp;sign', as if the Lord was saying that He would do no further dramatic miracles to seek to persuade the Pharisees. In this case, the allusion would be to the Egyptians not believing the signs given them (<em><a href='B:20 4:9'>Exo 4:9</a></em>), resulting in their final destruction. Unbelieving Israel are no better than Egypt / the world, and will "be condemned with the world". Note that here as often we have to read in an ellipsis: 'No&nbsp;<em>more</em>&nbsp;sign'. For He had been doing signs / miracles in abundance. Or perhaps, seeing that He did continue doing miracles: 'No sign&nbsp;<em>greater than</em>&nbsp;[that of Jonah]'.</p><p><em>Except the sign of Jonah the prophet-&nbsp;</em>The ‘resurrected’ Jonah was a type of the Lord- and he was a ‘sign’ to the Ninevites presumably in that he still bore in his body the marks of a man who had been three days within a fish. It could be that the fish beached itself, and vomited Jonah out of its stomach in its death throes (this is how beached whales meet their end). In this case, the fish would have drawn the attention of the local population, as would have the man with bleached hair and strange skin who walked away from it. We too as witnesses of Christ will have something about us that is unintentionally striking in the eyes of those with whom we mix. There was no human chance that Jonah would be listened to when he came to preach judgment against Nineveh. Some guy standing on the edge of town, saying ‘You’re all gonna be destroyed’. People would have laughed, ignored him, or told him to shut up. But there was something about him that was gripping and arresting. He was living proof that the judgment of God is real, and that His mercy is just as real. Presumably Jonah must have said far more than “Nineveh is going to be destroyed”.</p><p>It is a worthwhile speculation that for Jonah to be a sign to the Ninevites by reason of being three days in the whale (<em><a href='B:470 12:38-40'>Mat 12:38-40</a></em>), he must have borne in his body the marks of his experience for all to see, as our Lord did. Being inside the fish for that period may have made his flesh change colour or bear some other physical mark so that he could be a sign to them of what had happened. Doubtless he recounted his story to them- so that they were encouraged by the fact of God's love to the resurrected Jonah to repent and likewise throw themselves on God's mercy. In all this we see Jonah as a type of Christ. They would have looked upon that man as we look upon Jesus, to see the love of God manifested in him; they responded by repenting in sackcloth, casting off their materialism, and living in a way that showed their complete belief that " the judge stands before the door”. What is our response to Jonah/Jesus?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:40&nbsp;<em>For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth</em>- Matthew’s Gospel doesn’t seem to teach a literal 72 hours for Jesus in the grave. But a ‘day’ can mean ‘part of a day’- as in <em><a href='B:110 20:29'>1Ki 20:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:190 4:16'>Est 4:16</a></em> to <em><a href='B:190 5:1'>Est 5:1</a></em>. The term is surely used to highlight the connection with Jonah’s experience.</p><p>As Jonah was three days in the whale and then came up out of it to preach to the Gentiles, so the Lord would be three days in the grave and then would rise- as a sign to the Jews. But how was His resurrection a sign to them, seeing they never saw His risen body? Yet the Lord’s reasoning demands that His resurrection be a sign to them, just as tangible as the re-appearance of the drowned Jonah. But, the Jews never saw Him after the resurrection:::? The resolution must be that in the preaching of the risen Jesus by those in Him, it was as if the Jews saw Him, risen and standing as a sign before them, every bit as real as the Jonah who emerged from the whale after three days.</p>


text:
<p>12:41&nbsp;<em>The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall</em>- Again we must read in an ellipsis, ‘[the people of] this generation’. For individuals and not entire generations will be judged. 'Standing up' is possibly an allusion to the resurrection of the responsible at the last day, but more likely the figure is of a judge arising in judgment to state the verdict; which in this case, is condemnation. The Lord in :27 has spoken of how the children of the Jews would judge those Jews in the last day. The Lord clearly seems to envisage the judgment process as having a public dimension to it. The fact one person was spiritually responsive, given a similar or harder set of circumstances than what another has had who did not respond, will therefore as it were be the judgment of the person who didn’t respond. It clearly won’t be merely an awards ceremony nor a yes / no decision, but rather will context and precedent from others be taken into account. ‘If&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;responded and&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;did not, given similar circumstances, then&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;will condemn&nbsp;<em>you</em>’- that seems to be the Lord’s reasoning.</p><p><em>Condemn it</em>- The truly righteous among the remnant "shall tread down the wicked::. (as) ashes under the soles of your feet" (<em><a href='B:460 4:3'>Mal 4:3</a></em>). "The wicked" are those of <em><a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 4:1'>Mal 4:1</a></em> - the unspiritual element amongst the latter-day Jewish 'remnant' in Jerusalem:&nbsp;This implies that in some way the spiritual Jews acceptable to Jesus will mete out judgment on the rejected ones:&nbsp;Perhaps in similar fashion the men of Nineveh will condemn the first century Jews at the judgment, and we will judge Angels (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>):&nbsp;In this way the righteous remnant shall " discern (judge) between the righteous and the wicked" (<em><a href='B:460 3:18'>Mal 3:18</a></em>). The men of&nbsp;Nineveh will condemn first century Israel, just as the folly of the rejected will be made manifest unto all men (<em><a href='B:620 3:9'>2Ti 3:9</a></em>). This is not so as to simply humiliate the rejected. It is so that the faithful&nbsp;<em>learn&nbsp;</em>something too. This was all foreshadowed in the way that Israel experienced their judgments in the sight of the nations, so that God's principles would be taught even to the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:330 5:8'>Eze 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 5:15'>Eze 5:15</a></em>). Indeed, the idea of God executing judgment on His people&nbsp;<em>in the sight</em>&nbsp;of others is quite common (e:g. <em><a href='B:330 5:8'>Eze 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:41'>Eze 16:41</a></em>). But we can learn the principles of God's judgments right now, from His word.</p><h4><em>For they repented-</em>&nbsp;The Lord is going to soon claim that initially the people had responded to John’s message- the demon had been as it were cast out and the house of Israel left swept and cleaned (:43,44). But both John and Jesus appealed for repentance, in the very same words: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (<em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:17'>Mat 4:17</a></em>). But they had not really repented; they had responded to a religious message but not really repented. And the challenge comes down to us- as to whether our repentance, along with any spiritual act, is indeed the real thing or a mere appearance.</h4><p><em>At the preaching of Jonah; and, behold, one greater than Jonah is here!-</em>&nbsp;This effectively is a noun, referring to "the preaching" as in the message of Jonah. What he preached was judgment to come, and the Ninevites repented on hearing it. The Lord was teaching not only judgment to come, but was making specific the call to repentance implicit within that message, and urging people to accept God's grace. Hence those who heard Him were even more guilty before the Ninevites. Jonah's preaching occurred&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;he had been three days within the whale; after the Lord had been three days in the earth, He too would preach mightily, through the ministry of those 'in Him' who were effectively His representatives and appealed on His behalf. But He reasons as if that appeal was already being made- as if in essence He had already passed through the cross and resurrection. This is not the only time He reasons in this way; in proclaiming Himself Lord, the serpent lifted up on the pole, the One who had already "overcome the world", He reasoned as if the successful outcome of His death had already occurred. Such was His faith that He would come forth triumphant.</p>


text:
<p>12:42&nbsp;<em>The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment</em>- “Rise up” translates&nbsp;<em>egeiro</em>&nbsp;whereas “rise up” in :41 translates&nbsp;<em>anistemi</em>. The Ninevites will “rise in judgment”, as a judge arises to pronounce a verdict; whereas the Queen of the South arises “in&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;judgment”, with the article. The difference may be because the Queen of the South is being portrayed as being resurrected along with the people of the Lord’s generation. The reference is perhaps more to resurrection than to arising in judgment.</p><p><em>With this generation and shall condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, one greater than Solomon is here!-</em>&nbsp;If Sheba is at the very end of 'the earth', we have another confirmation that the 'earth' or land in Scripture often refers to the land promised to Abraham, and not the entire planet. The point is that she made a huge effort to come to hear Divine truth, whereas Christ as "the wisdom of God" stood before their eyes and they refused to believe and repent. The parallel is between the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites, who repented. We may be able to infer that she likewise repented upon hearing Solomon's wisdom. The whole theme in this section is of the need to make an abiding repentance upon hearing God's Truth as spoken by His Son.</p>


text:
<p>12:43<em>&nbsp;When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none-&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>The ministry of the Lord Jesus was a follow up to that of John the Baptist, and that theme is never far from us in Matthew's Gospel. The unclean spirit was cast out of Israel due to their surface level response to John's preaching- this was the sweeping of the house. But it returned and that generation became more evil than before. This lays the basis for the parable of the sower, which was told the same day (13:1)- the seed initially experienced some growth, but then the 'evil one', the Jewish system, stunted that growth.</p><p>Demons supposedly didn’t like water (as in <em><a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Mat 8:28-34</a></em>). Again we find the Lord using the language of the day without correcting it. The reference is also to the Jews going into the wilderness to hear John’s preaching.</p><p>The Lord has just given an invitation to come to&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;and find "rest" (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em> s:w:). Hebrews may allude here when suggesting that Moses and Joshua could not give Israel "rest", only Messiah could (<em><a href='B:650 4:8-10'>Heb 4:8-10</a></em>). John's work gave Israel a desire for this "rest" and pointed them to Jesus as the One who could give it- but they were refusing to take it. And so the (parabolic) unclean spirit was returning to the house of Israel and would make them worse than before.</p>


text:
<p>12:44&nbsp;<em>Then it says: I will return-</em>&nbsp;The Greek word is elsewhere translated to convert (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>). Israel's rejection of Jesus was effectively a re-conversion away from John's message. The same word is used of how John was to convert Israel to their God (<em><a href='B:490 1:16-17'>Luk 1:16-17</a></em>).</p><p><em>To my house from which I came out</em>- The same word is used thrice about that generation going out into the wilderness to hear John (<em><a href='B:470 11:7-9'>Mat 11:7-9</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order</em>- The only other usage of the word "swept" is in the Lord’s self-description of His ‘sweeping’ the house of Israel in order to find the lost (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>). The house of Israel had been swept- but the nation had not been ‘found’ because they would not come to Jesus in repentance.</p>


text:
<p>12:45&nbsp;<em>Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation</em>- “State” is an addition from the translators. “The last” was the state of condemnation which that generation ended up in. The Lord’s comments that the first would be “last” (<em><a href='B:470 20:16'>Mat 20:16</a></em>) could therefore be taken as a reference to the final condemnation of the Jewish religious leadership, “the first”. However, “the last”, the&nbsp;<em>eschatos</em>, could refer to their status at the judgment of the last day. But the essence of judgment is now, and the Lord saw them as already in that state. It “<em>is</em>&nbsp;worse” and yet thus ‘it&nbsp;<em>shall&nbsp;</em>be’ for that generation.</p>


text:
<p>12:46&nbsp;<em>While he was yet speaking to the crowds-</em>&nbsp;The same word for "speaking" is used later in the verse, in reporting that His mother and brothers wished to talk / speak with Him. The impression is given that He was talking, but they wanted to talk to Him rather than to listen.</p><p><em>His mother and his relatives stood outside, seeking to speak to him</em>- <em><a href='B:470 12:46-50'>Mat 12:46-50</a></em> five times repeats the phrase “his mother and his brethren”, as if to link her with them. In the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:31-35'>Mar 3:31-35</a></em> we read of how “his own” family thought He was crazy and came to talk to Him. Then we read that it was His mother and brothers who demanded an audience with Him, perhaps linking Mary with her other children. Their cynicism of Jesus, their lack of perception of Him, came to influence her- for He effectively rebuffs her special claims upon Him by saying that His mother and brethren are all who hear God’s word. Clearly the brothers, who didn’t believe in Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 7:5'>Joh 7:5</a></em>) influenced her. When He speaks of how His real family are those who hear the word of God and do it, the Lord is alluding to <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>, where we have the commendation of Levi for refusing to recognize his apostate brethren at the time of the golden calf: “Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren… for they [Levi] have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant”. The last sentence is&nbsp;the essence of the Lord’s saying that His true family are those who keep God’s word and do it. The strong implication of the allusion is that the Lord felt that His mother and brethren had committed some kind of apostasy. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>12:47&nbsp;<em>And someone said to him: Look, your mother and your relatives wait outside, wanting to speak to you</em>- Note how in the parallel <em><a href='B:480 3:32'>Mar 3:32</a></em> we read that “thy mother and brethren seek for thee”, and in <em><a href='B:480 1:37'>Mar 1:37</a></em> the same word occurred: “all men seek for thee"; and also in <em><a href='B:490 2:45'>Luk 2:45</a></em>, of how Mary sought for Jesus. The similarity is such that the intention may be to show us how Mary had been influenced by the world's perception of Him. And we too can be influenced by the world’s light hearted view of the Lord of glory. It’s so easy to allow their patterns of language use to lead us into blaspheming, taking His Name in vain, seeing His religion as just a hobby, a social activity…&nbsp; In passing, it was not that the Lord was insensitive or discounted her. It is in <em><a href='B:470 12:46'>Mat 12:46</a></em> that Mary wanted to speak with Him, and presumably she did- but then He goes to His home town, back to where she had come from (<em><a href='B:470 13:54'>Mat 13:54</a></em>), as if He did in fact pay her attention.</p>


text:
<p>12:48&nbsp;<em>But he answered and said to him that told him: Who is my mother? And who are my relatives?-</em>&nbsp;These terms are repeated three times in :48-50. In a fiercely family based society, such radical redefinition of family was remarkable, and the Lord was labouring His radical point lest there be any misunderstanding. He was creating a new family, based around hearing and doing His Father's will; there was a new Father, God, and those who did His will were His children. The nature of the scene portrayed here seems to suggest that in His case, as in so many others afterwards, the new spiritual family was separate from the family of origin; for they were here outside the house. And we must bear in mind that 'house' meant not only a building but a family. This gives new meaning to the way that Paul and James (especially James) so love to address their brethren as "my brothers" (<em><a href='B:660 1:2'>Jas 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:16'>Jas 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:19'>Jas 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:14'>Jas 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:1'>Jas 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:10'>Jas 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:12'>Jas 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:10'>Jas 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>). Their brethren in Christ were really their new family. And it should be the same for us. The divided state of the body of Christ today is surely a result of over-familiar, over-privileged believers failing to grasp the wonder of the fact that others have come into the family by conversion into Christ. In believing communities comprised of first generation converts, there is generally a far greater sense of brotherhood.</p>


text:
<p>12:49&nbsp;<em>And he stretched out his hand towards his disciples, and said: Behold, my mother and my relatives!-</em>&nbsp;Another mark of an eyewitness account is found in this reference to His stretching out His hand. Given the loss of family many had experienced, this visual image would've remained in their memories, to be drawn upon in the hard times of rejection by family of origin. The Greek&nbsp;<em>epi</em>&nbsp;translated "toward" could strictly mean 'over'- as if the disciples were sitting near to Him. For it was they, rather than the general audience, whom He knew were doing the Father's will.</p><p>The Lord implied that those who did God’s will were closer to Him than His physical mother or sister or brother (<em><a href='B:470 12:48-50'>Mat 12:48-50</a></em>). It has been observed that “in a kinship-oriented society like Israel, it must have been startling for people to hear of a bond that was even deeper than that of the natural family”. And so it is in many parts of the world today.</p>


text:
<p>12:50&nbsp;<em>For whoever shall please my Father who is in heaven-&nbsp;</em>Or, "Do the will of"- another allusion back to the crunch line of the Sermon on the Mount, that the true community would be comprised of those who did the will of the Father in Heaven. The Lord spoke of Himself as 'doing the will' of the Father, supremely in His death on the cross. <em><a href='B:650 10:7'>Heb 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:9'>Heb 10:9</a></em> speaks of the Son 'doing the will' of God in dying on the cross, and the passage then goes on to appeal to us likewise to do that same will (<em><a href='B:650 10:36'>Heb 10:36</a></em>). And it is God who will work in us through the Spirit to empower us to do that will- if we ourselves so wish (<em><a href='B:650 13:21'>Heb 13:21</a></em>).</p><p><em>He is my brother and sister and mother-&nbsp;</em>The very fact the Lord calls us brethren in <em><a href='B:470 12:50'>Mat 12:50</a></em> the Hebrew writer saw as proof of Christ's humanity (= <em><a href='B:650 2:11'>Heb 2:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>13:1&nbsp;<em>On that day</em>- This is programmatic to our understanding of chapter 13. The preceding chapter 12 has recorded how the Lord now changes His position regarding the Jews. Instead of the positive tone of the Sermon on the Mount and the hopeful appeal to Israel, from now on in Matthew there is much talk of condemnation to come, of Israel's rejection of the Gospel, and of how they were an adulterous generation for whom judgment was reserved. From now on, the Lord started using parables- hence the shock of the disciples and their question 'Why parables?' immediately after He had finished the sower parable (:10). And He spoke in parables exactly so that from now on, the masses would&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>understand. The mission of John had been largely unsuccessful, despite the good initial response. The Jewish religious leaders and the hopes for an immediate Kingdom in this world had lead Israel to reject the message, and their last state would be now worse than the first. The parable of the sower speaks of seed which initially grew (Israel's response to John's message) and then went wrong.</p><p><em>Jesus went out of the house and sat by the sea side</em>- He has just spoken of how the house of Israel is being re-inhabited by seven evil spirits. The suggestion could be that He was now dissociating Himself from the house of Israel and was going to the sea of Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>13:2&nbsp;<em>And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd stood on the beach-&nbsp;</em>The Gospel records give more information about the day on which Christ told the sower parable than concerning almost any other in his ministry, with the exception of the crucifixion (compare <em><a href='B:470 12:22'>Mat 12:22</a></em> to <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:27'>Luk 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:10'>Mar 4:10</a></em>). Various types of people heard his words; the immediate context in <em><a href='B:470 13:2'>Mat 13:2</a></em> is that "great multitudes were gathered together unto him". The parable of the differing types of ground which were for the most part unresponsive to the seed therefore refer to the various reception given to Christ's sowing when he first "went forth to sow" in his ministry.</p><p>"Gathered together" is the Greek&nbsp;<em>sunago&nbsp;</em>from whence 'synagogue'. The idea is that there in the open air, on the sea shore, and&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;in a building, was the synagogue- with the Lord as rabbi, sitting in a fishing boat to teach whilst the audience&nbsp;<em>stood</em>&nbsp;instead of sitting (as they did in a Jewish synagogue, <em><a href='B:660 2:2-3'>Jas 2:2-3</a></em>). The whole scene is a radical inversion of orthodox Jewish values and culture. The true synagogue was now in the open air, and beyond the imagination, frames and culture of orthodox religion.</p><p>In Mark we read that Jesus “entered in to a ship, and sat in the sea” (<em><a href='B:480 4:1'>Mar 4:1</a></em>). All else was irrelevant- even the boat He was in. The focus is so zoomed in on the person of Jesus. And Paul in his more 'academic' approach sees Jesus as the very core of the whole cosmos, the reason for everything in the whole of existence. Of course He didn’t literally sit in the sea. But this is how it would have appeared to a spectator sitting on the grassy hillside, hearing Jesus’ voice clearly from a great distance because of the natural amphitheatre provided by the topography. In this case, the Spirit adopts this perspective in order to invite us to take our place on that same hillside, as it were, beholding the Lord Jesus in the middle distance, looking as if He were sitting in the sea. Perhaps the record is implying that listeners were so transfixed by the words and person of Jesus that they stopped seeing the boat and only saw Jesus, giving the picture of a magnetic man with gripping words sitting in the sea teaching a spellbound audience. There’s another example of this kind of thing in <em><a href='B:70 4:5'>Jdg 4:5</a></em>: “The mountains melted [‘flowed’, AV mg:]” – to a distant onlooker, the water flowing down the mountains gave the impression that they themselves were melting; not, of course, that they actually were.</p>


text:
<p>13:3&nbsp;<em>And he spoke many things to them in parables, saying</em>- The Lord in chapter 12 seems to have concluded that the contemporary generation was wicked and bound for condemnation; they had rejected John’s message after having initially responded to it, and had rejected Him. This is now the first time that we read in Matthew of the use of “parables”, and it seems to be in direct context with what He has said to Israelite society at the end of chapter 12. He is now speaking to them in this form so that they will be confirmed in their disbelief. The Kingdom principles which He had so clearly expressed in the Sermon on the Mount now become “mysteries” of the Kingdom (:11); instead of the Kingdom which could then have been established had Israel accepted Jesus as Messiah, the Kingdom principles would work quietly from within until such time as the Kingdom were to be politically established at a far future date. No longer do we read of the Kingdom coming ‘near’ and being ‘heralded’. And the themes of most of His subsequent parables in Matthew include Israel’s rejection of the Gospel. He spoke&nbsp;<em>things</em>&nbsp;to them, but in parables. This of itself suggests that He used parables so that people would&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;understand, as is made explicit in :11,12. His parables were not, therefore, simple stories with an obvious meaning. They may appear that way to us who have some understanding of their interpretation, but that was clearly not how they were understood by most of the initial audience. Even if they thought they understood them, it's made clear in :11 and :12 that they didn't. The change in style is due to His conclusion that that generation were condemned and had refused John's ministry and therefore Christ's message. From now onwards He would not be giving them any more- He was cloaking the message in parables, and explaining them only to the minority who had properly responded.</p><p>The chiasmic structure of Matthew 13 (<em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>) has been observed by several expositors, and it makes the sowing of the weeds by “the enemy” the central point of the entire presentation; the point is, that Israel initial response to the Gospel preached by John had been destroyed by a conscious program to stop the message being accepted, operated by the Jewish enemy / satan:<br/>Sower and the Soils (vv. 1-9)&nbsp;<br/>Question by Disciples/Answer by Jesus (Understanding) (vv. 10-17)&nbsp;<br/>Interpretation of the Sower and the Soils (vv. 18—23)&nbsp;<br/>Tares (vv. 24—30)&nbsp;<br/>Mustard Seed (vv. 31—32)&nbsp;<br/>Leavening Process (v. 33)&nbsp;<br/>Fulfilment of Prophecy (vv. 34—35)&nbsp;<br/>Interpretation of the Tares (vv. 36—43)&nbsp;<br/>Hidden Treasure (v. 44)&nbsp;<br/>Pearl Merchant (vv. 45—46)&nbsp;<br/>Dragnet (vv. 47—48)&nbsp;<br/>Interpretation of the Dragnet (vv. 49—50)&nbsp;<br/>Question by Jesus/Answer by the Disciples (Understanding) (v. 51)&nbsp;<br/>Householder (v. 52)</p><p><em>Listen, the sower went out to sow</em>- The Lord’s teaching in 12:43 that the Jews had not responded to John the Baptist lays the basis for the parable of the sower, which was told the same day (13:1)- the seed initially experienced some growth, but then the 'evil one', the Jewish system, stunted that growth. Who is the sower? The preacher, or the Lord Jesus? Some Greek texts read “<em>a&nbsp;</em>sower” (followed by the AV), others “<em>the</em>&nbsp;sower” (cp. the Diaglott). Perhaps the Lord said both: ‘A sower, the sower, went out:::’. Surely the sower is the Lord Jesus, but in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;work of witness we are&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;witnesses. For we represent Him to the world. This is why “the Spirit (the Lord the Spirit, Jesus) and the bride (the ecclesia) say, Come”; ours is a united witness with Him.</p><h4>"Went out" is the same Greek word has just been used in :1 to describe how Jesus had 'gone forth' out of the house to preach by the lakeshore. Although multitudes were there listening, the Lord knew that only a few would be good ground for the word. The word is several times used of the Lord 'going forth' to teach, and four times He uses it about His 'going forth' to hire workers for His harvest (<em><a href='B:470 20:1'>Mat 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:5-6'>Mat 20:5-6</a></em>). The 'sowing' of the word was therefore not merely a placing of ideas and theology in the minds of men, but in practice it was (and is) a call to go out and work, to harvest others for the Kingdom. The Lord 'came forth' in order to preach (<em><a href='B:480 1:38'>Mar 1:38</a></em> s:w. "::. that I may preach there::. for&nbsp;<em>therefore came I forth</em>"). Note that He didn't 'come forth' from Heaven as a pre-existent person; rather Matthew begins his Gospel by using the word about how the Lord 'came forth' from Bethlehem, His birthplace (<em><a href='B:470 2:6'>Mat 2:6</a></em>). John's Gospel records the Lord as saying that He 'came forth' from God (<em><a href='B:500 16:28'>Joh 16:28</a></em> etc:), but this was in a spiritual sense; this is John's spiritual equivalent of Matthew's statement that He came forth from Bethlehem.</h4><p>The condemned man in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:24-26'>Mat 25:24-26</a></em> complained that the Lord expected to reap where He had not sown. But the parable of the sower makes it clear that the Lord sows, even fanatically, everywhere. We perhaps would've reminded the man of the Lord's parable and His unceasing work of sowing, and reasoned 'That's not true!'. But this isn't the Lord's style. He takes people where they are and uses their own words and reasonings as if they are true- and shows by an altogether higher level of reasoning that they are not true. This explains His approach to the issue of demons. Matthew doesn't record that the Lord made a big issue about the seed- Luke's account records this: "A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed::." (<em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em>). This appears to state the obvious- a sower sows seed. But "his seed" can also mean 'the seed of Him'. There is an obvious connection with the great Messianic promises to the Jewish fathers about their "seed". The seed is God's word, but it is also effectively 'Jesus'. For He personally is the essence of the Gospel message. This parable of the types of ground is explaining to the disciples why the majority of Israel were failing to accept Him, and thus had rejected the ministry and message of John.</p>


text:
<p>13:4&nbsp;<em>And as he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>hodos</em>&nbsp;means simply 'the way'. It is the very word used about John the Baptist seeking to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>). If Israel had responded as envisaged in the Isaiah 40 passage which speaks of this, then the way or road would have been prepared and the glory of Yahweh would have travelled over it to establish God's visible Kingdom in Jerusalem. On one hand, the fact the sower sowed even on the 'way' is an element of unreality in the parable which simply points to the extreme enthusiasm of this sower, casting the seed onto all types of human personality, including those who appear hopeless cases. The seed of God's word would have made the rough way smooth for the King of glory to ride over to Zion. But instead the seed was despised and even condemned, trampled underfoot - an idiom meaning it was despised and even condemned. And then the birds came and took it away altogether. The way was not prepared by response to the seed because of the Jewish leadership stopping others responding. We note the usage of the same word to describe how some despised individuals sitting in 'the way' were in fact persuaded to respond to the Kingdom invitation (<em><a href='B:470 22:9-10'>Mat 22:9-10</a></em>); Bartimaeus was likewise sitting in the way [s:w:] and responded, following Jesus "in the way" (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:52'>Mar 10:52</a></em>). The 'way [side]' could have responded to the seed- but it didn't. Because men came and trampled it under foot, and the birds came and took it away. It wasn't as if there was no chance at all that it could have responded:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the birds came</em>- <em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> adds that first of all, the seed was "trodden down" before the birds came. The impression is given of something, someone or a group of people hindering the growth of the seed- and that is a theme explaining the failure of the seed to grow in the other cases of 'bad ground'. The Lord has in mind the damage done to the growth of the word in the hearts of first century Israel by a group of people- and those people were the Jewish religious leaders. On a wider level, it's true that in practice it is the attitudes and pressures from others, conscious and unconscious, which stops people today from responding to God's word beyond an initial interest. Birds were symbolically understood in Judaism as the Gentiles- and the Lord is applying the symbol to the very religious leaders of Judaism, whom He saw as Gentiles in that they were consciously trying to stop people responding to the seed of God's word of Christ. And yet His later parable in the same chapter speaks of the birds coming and dwelling in the branches of His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:32'>Mat 13:32</a></em>). I see in this His hope, even His fantasy, that His worst opponents would come into His Kingdom. And some did- for some Pharisees did later repent and were baptized, even Saul. And this is a great example to us, of wishing the very best, the Kingdom, for even the worst.</p><p>The picture of fowls coming down to take away the seed is firmly rooted in a host of Old Testament passages which speak of fowls descending on apostate Israel (<em><a href='B:290 18:6'>Isa 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:33'>Jer 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:3'>Jer 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:4'>Jer 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 19:7'>Jer 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 34:20'>Jer 34:20</a></em>). These birds taking away the seed are interpreted as "the wicked one" (the Biblical devil) 'catching away' the word. There must be a thought connection here with Jesus' comment that from him who would not understand the sower parable "shall be&nbsp;<em>taken away</em>&nbsp;even that he hath" (<em><a href='B:470 13:12'>Mat 13:12</a></em>). Those who would not make the mental effort to grapple with Christ's parable had what understanding they did have snatched away by the Jewish devil. "The wicked one" responsible for this easily connects with "the devil" of the parable of the tares which follows; this parable has frequently been interpreted with reference to Jewish false teachers of the first century. "The wicked one::. catcheth away" the seed/word, as the Jewish wolf "catcheth" the sheep (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>). This association of the first century Jewish system with the wolf/ wild beast/ devil/ wicked one is probably continued by some of the beasts of Revelation having a similar Jewish application in the first century.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 8:5'>Luk 8:5</a></em> literally translated speaks of "birds of Heaven". The fowls taking away the unfruitful seed is the first of a number of connections with the true vine parable of John 15, where the ideas of Divine husbandry and fruitfulness due to the word recur. In <em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em> the fruitless branch is taken away by God; in the sower parable, the birds remove the fruitless plant. The conclusion is that God sends 'birds' of various kinds to remove the spiritual deadwood from His ecclesia. It is in this sense that false teaching (e:g. the Judaist "fowls" of the first century) is allowed by God. parable of the sower connects the Devil with the fowls which take away the Word from potential converts, stopping their spiritual growth. This would aptly fit the Judaizers who were leading the young ecclesias away from the word, and the Jews who “shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men::. neither suffer ye them that are entering (young converts) to go in” (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). The Devil takes away the word of the Kingdom, “lest they should believe and be saved” (<em><a href='B:490 8:12'>Luk 8:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>And devoured it</em>- The same word is used of how the Pharisees "devour[ed] widows houses" (<em><a href='B:470 23:14'>Mat 23:14</a></em>) and of how the Judaist fifth column within the fledgling church 'devoured' some (<em><a href='B:550 5:15'>Gal 5:15</a></em>). The sober fact is that we can be barriers to the response of others to the word of Jesus, the word which is&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;seed- Jesus. One lesson we can take from the parable is that spiritual growth involves resisting other influences in order to respond to the Lord Jesus personally through His word.</p>


text:
<p>13:5&nbsp;<em>And others fell upon the rocky places where they had not much earth</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>petrodes</em>&nbsp;is a form of&nbsp;<em>petra</em>. The Lord had taught that the wise man who heard and did His sayings developed his spiritual house upon a&nbsp;<em>petra</em>, a rock (<em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>). And of course Peter was the&nbsp;<em>petra&nbsp;</em>upon which the church would be built (<em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>). So again we see that it was not impossible for the seed on the rock to prosper. The problem was that some who began their growth upon rocks stopped growing because of persecution and tribulation (:21)- which in the first instance was from the Jews.</p><p><em>And immediately</em>- There is nothing wrong with this, indeed this is as response to the word should be; and Matthew often notes the immediacy of response. When you perceive an opportunity to do the Lord's service,&nbsp;<em>respond immediately</em>. See it as another opportunity for "redeeming the time". This is a major Biblical theme. Israel were not to delay in offering their firstfruits to God (<em><a href='B:20 22:29'>Exo 22:29</a></em>), lest their intentions weren't translated into practice. The disciples&nbsp;<em>immediately</em>&nbsp;left the ship, simply put their nets down and followed (<em><a href='B:470 4:20'>Mat 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:22'>Mat 4:22</a></em>); Matthew left his opened books and queue of clients in the tax office and walked out never to return (<em><a href='B:490 5:17-18'>Luk 5:17-18</a></em> implies). There is a marked theme in the NT of men and women hearing the Gospel and&nbsp;<em>immediately</em>&nbsp;responding by accepting baptism. In this spirit Cornelius immediately sent for Peter (<em><a href='B:510 10:33'>Act 10:33</a></em>), and the Philippian jailer was immediately baptized, even though there were many other things to think about that night (<em><a href='B:510 16:33'>Act 16:33</a></em>). Joseph was twice told in dreams to “arise” and take the child Jesus to another country:&nbsp; Both times he “arose” in the morning and just did it, leaving all he had, responding immediately (<em><a href='B:470 2:13-14'>Mat 2:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:20-21'>Mat 2:20-21</a></em>). Paul and Luke immediately went to preach in Macedonia after seeing the inviting vision (<em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>); Paul "straightway" preached Christ after receiving his vision of preaching commission (<em><a href='B:510 9:20'>Act 9:20</a></em>). Indeed, the records of the Lord's ministry are shot through (in Mark especially) with words like "immediately", "straightway", "forthwith", "as soon as::.". He was a man of immediate response, Yahweh's servant&nbsp;<em>par excellence</em>. He dismissed the man who would fain follow Him after he had buried his father, i:e. who wanted to wait some years until his father’s death and then set out in earnest on the Christian life. The Lord’s point was that we must immediately respond to the call to live and preach Him, with none of the delay and hesitancy to total commitment which masquerades as careful planning. Note how the Lord told another parable in which He characterized those not worthy of Him as those who thought they had valid reason to delay their response to the call (<em><a href='B:490 14:16-20'>Luk 14:16-20</a></em>). They didn't turn Him down, they just thought He would understand if they delayed. But He is a demanding Lord, in some ways. What He seeks is an immediacy of response. If we have this in the daily calls to service in this life, we will likewise respond immediately to the knowledge that 'He's back' (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>, cp. the wise virgins going immediately, whilst the others delayed). And whether we respond immediately or not will be the litmus test as to whether our life's spirituality was worth anything or not. All this is not to say that we should rush off in hot-headed enthusiasm, crushing the work and systematic efforts of other brethren and committees under foot. But when we see the need, when we catch the vision of service, let's not hesitate in our response, dilly dallying until we are left with simply a host of good intentions swimming around in our brain cells. Instead, let's appreciate that one aspect of the seed in good soil was that there was an&nbsp;<em>immediacy of response&nbsp;</em>to the word, a joyful and speedy 'springing up' in response (<em><a href='B:480 4:5'>Mar 4:5</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>They sprang up</em>- The idea is that they germinated. The seed of the Gospel began to grow- the multitudes had begun to respond to John's message. The same word is used in the next verse to describe how the sun then 'sprung up'. After response to the word begins, there will be trouble and testing. Just as Israel's Red Sea baptism was immediately followed by tribulation and testing. The sun arising and withering the seed is a symbol of tribulation arising in the life of the believer (<em><a href='B:480 4:6'>Mar 4:6</a></em>). But the sun arising is also a clear symbol of the day of the Lord’s return. Thus whenever we encounter tribulation, our response to it is in some sense a preview of our response to the Lord’s coming in judgment. Trials and reproofs from God are Him “entering with thee into judgment”, here and now (<em><a href='B:220 22:4'>Job 22:4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Because they had no deepness of earth</em>- John perhaps explains the 'depth' in his account of the woman at the well. The salvation in Christ was brought from the 'deep' [s:w:] well (<em><a href='B:500 4:11'>Joh 4:11</a></em>). These people had only a surface level interest and did not really grasp the deep reality of Christ and His work.</p>


text:
<p>13:6&nbsp;<em>And when the sun had risen</em>- See on 13:5&nbsp;<em>sprung up</em>.</p><p><em>They were scorched</em>- Literally, burnt. John the Baptist had presented a powerful logic- either baptism by fire by the Jesus whom he preached, or being burnt up with [figurative] fire at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 3:10-12'>Mat 3:10-12</a></em>). The Lord clearly has that in mind here- those who had refused John's message about Him were even now burnt up, for judgment in its essence begins now, according to our response to the word of Christ:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And because they had no root, they withered away-&nbsp;</em>The same word used by the Lord about how Israel were the fig tree who had once had promise of fruit (in their initial response to John) but was now withered (<em><a href='B:470 21:19-20'>Mat 21:19-20</a></em>). Those who initially accept Christ but do not abide in Him are likewise "withered" (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). John's emphasis upon 'abiding' in Christ likely has reference to the need to accept John's message about Christ and abide in it, rather than wandering off and back to Judaism. Both James and Peter seem to allude to this point of the parable in their teaching that the word of God stands forever, whereas flesh withers away (<em><a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:24'>1Pe 1:24</a></em>). As we will note on 13:22, the seed is to become the person. Those who do not wither are those who have the seed within them, the power of eternal life which endures. "Because they had no root, they withered away" (<em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em>) is alluded to in <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em> concerning the branches of the vine withering as a result of God's word not abiding in them. The connection between the plants of the sower parable and the branches of the vine is further evidence that the sower parable mainly concerns the response to the word of those&nbsp;<em>within</em>&nbsp;the ecclesia.</p>


text:
<p>13:7&nbsp;<em>And others fell upon the thorns</em>- This of itself didn't mean that growth was impossible. The Lord's next parable makes that clear- the good sees brings forth fruit, clearly alluding to the 'good ground' of the sower parable,<em>&nbsp;despite</em>&nbsp;being surrounded by "tares", weeds, within which category are thorns (13:26). The point of the later parable would therefore be to make the point that fruit can be brought forth&nbsp;<em>despite</em>&nbsp;a spiritual environment in which we have to grow and fruit next to thorns. "Thorns" were defined by the Lord as&nbsp;<em>people</em>- those who do not bring forth good fruit, even though they may claim to be true believers (<em><a href='B:470 7:16'>Mat 7:16</a></em>). <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em> likewise speaks of 'thorns' as people ("He that bears thorns::. is rejected"). The later interpretation in :22 is that the thorns are the deceitfulness of riches and the cares of "this world"- and yet these abstract things operate upon the believer through persons, through people devoted to them. For we all 'are' the principles which we live by; and our example and influence upon others is more significant than we realize. Those people in the first instance were Jewish people in first century Palestinian society who strangled the growth of the seed in the hearts of people by their attitudes and the pressure of their example. We note that "this world" in the first instance referred to the&nbsp;<em>aion</em>&nbsp;around Jesus- which was the Jewish world. Especially in John's Gospel the phrase carries that meaning in most occurrences:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the thorns grew up and choked them</em>- The next parable explains that both good and bad seed 'spring / grow up' (:26); the point is that the good seed continues to bear fruit despite this. They intertwined with the roots of the crop beneath the ground, and later kept light from reaching the plants. Again the suggestion is that there was a specific group of people [the Jewish religious leadership] who were damaging the growth of seed which had begun to grow [in response to the preaching of John]. And yet the interpretation is that the thorns represent the worry of the world, and wealth (:22). We can understand these things in the context of the Jews loving wealth and the whole system of Judaism, the Jewish ‘world’, making them worry about appearances to the point that the real seed of the word grows no more. The same can be seen in legalistic forms of Christianity today, where appearance to others becomes all important and thereby real spirituality goes out of the window.</p><p><em>"</em>Choked" is again language more relevant to persons. The same word is found in the Lord's description of the man who initially accepted forgiveness from God and then went and 'choked' or 'took by the throat' his brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>). That man who was initially forgiven and then finally condemned speaks in the primary context of those who responded to John's message of forgiveness, but ended up condemned because of their aggression towards their brother- the Christians. Again, those who choked the response of others to the word are the members of Jewish society. The parable of the sower can be interpreted as fulfilling every time we hear the word sown in us. Thus some seed is "choked with cares" (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>)- exactly the same words used about Martha being "cumbered" with her domestic duties so that she didn't hear the Lord's word at that time (<em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>). We bring various attitudes of mind- stony, receptive, cumbered etc:- to the word each time we hear it. And it is our attitude to it which determines our response to it.</p>


text:
<p>13:8&nbsp;<em>And others fell upon the good ground and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty-</em>&nbsp;The next parable is clearly related to this parable of the sower. There, the same word is used for the "good seed", the "children of the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 13:24'>Mat 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>). The ground refers to the hearts of people; but in the parable of the good seed, the seed itself is paralleled with the person. The word had become flesh in them, as it was in the Lord Himself (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). John the Baptist had preached about the need to be a "good" plant bearing good fruit, or else face condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>, and repeated by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-19'>Mat 7:17-19</a></em>). The appeal was for the audience to be as John intended, to follow where his teaching led. They had initially accepted that teaching but had failed to follow where it led. And this was to be their condemnation:&nbsp;</p><h4><em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em> adds the significant detail that it was the&nbsp;<em>fruit</em>&nbsp;that the plant yielded which "sprung up and increased". The picture is of a plant bringing forth seeds which themselves germinate into separate plants and bear fruit. This can be interpreted in at least two ways:&nbsp;<br/>1) True spiritual development in our lives is a cumulative upward spiral; successfully developing spiritual fruit leads to developing yet more.<br/>2) The new plants which come out of our fruit refer to our converts, both from the world and those within the ecclesia whom we help to yield spiritual fruit. There is another link here with the parable of the vine bearing fruit: "I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should&nbsp;<em>go</em>&nbsp;and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain" (<em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). This connects with Christ's command to them to&nbsp;<em>go</em>&nbsp;into the world preaching the Gospel and thereby making converts. In this sense our spiritual fruiting is partly through our bringing others to glorify God through the development of a God-like character. It is in this context of using the word for preaching and personal spiritual development that we receive the glorious encouragement "that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he (will) give it you" (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>). Every believer who truly strives to bring forth fruit to God's glory, both in preaching to others and in personal character development, will find this promise constantly true.<br/>God works like this because He is prepared to accept that different people will make something different of His Truth. The parable of the sower shows this in that the "good ground" brings forth 30, 60 or 100 fold. Some believers respond three times as actively to the Gospel as others; yet they will all be accepted at the end. I see a connection between this parable and Christ's words to the rich, righteous young man: '"If thou wilt be&nbsp;<em>perfect</em>::." sell what you've got; and then you'll receive&nbsp;<em>100 fold</em>&nbsp;in this life, and eternal life in the Kingdom' (<em><a href='B:470 19:12'>Mat 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em>). Presumably, that man at that time was (say) in the 30 or 60 fold category. Christ wanted him in the 100 fold category. But if that man didn't sell all that he had, it doesn't necessarily mean that Christ would have rejected him ultimately. In this context, He says: " Many that are first (in this life) will be last (least- in the Kingdom); and the last shall be first" (<em><a href='B:470 19:30'>Mat 19:30</a></em>). Those who don't sell all that they have will be in the Kingdom, but least in it. The poor of his world, rich in faith, will be great in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em>). We need to ask ourselves whether we really accept the parable of the sower; whether we are strong enough to let another brother be weak, to accept that even if he's in the 30 fold category, he's still acceptable to his Lord, just living on a different level. Indeed, it isn't for us to go very deeply at all into how exactly Christ sees others; because we can't know. The point to note is that God wants us to rise up the levels of commitment. Paul was persuaded that the Romans were “full of goodness, filled with all knowledge”, but he prayed they would be filled yet further (<em><a href='B:520 15:13-14'>Rom 15:13-14</a></em>).</h4><p>I have shown in the commentary above that growth was in fact possible on each type of ground, and the New Testament contains examples of where this happened. I suggest that in fact there are only three types of ground- the way side, the rocky and the thorny. These three types of ground would then match the three types of good ground- which gave 30,60 and 100 fold increase. Putting the gospel records together, the Lord's description of the good ground contains elements of the initially good response from the three bad types of ground. The good ground represents a good state of mind- for the ground is clearly to be understood as the heart of those receiving the word. This category therefore refers to those on the three other types of ground who&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;respond to the end, who overcame the pressures upon them not to respond further. This also removes the moral problem which is otherwise presented- in that it would appear that the seed of the word is spread, but the good ground people can do nothing else but respond, and the bad ground people can do nothing but not ultimately respond because of who they are by nature and where they are situated in life. The good ground category had to 'keep the word' (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>)- they didn't let men tread it underfoot nor birds take it away. Given their position in life, even by the wayside, they still responded by keeping the word. There was an element of choice and human effort required- rather than some categories being inevitably unable to keep the word because of their location in life and surrounding influences upon them. In this we see huge encouragement in our cluttered lives today, subject as they are to negative spiritual influences which at times seem too strong to resist. And we are further encouraged in our own sowing of the seed- nobody is incapable of response, from the deepest room in a strict Moslem family to sharing a one room apartment in Europe surrounded by materialistic, unGodly people.</p><p>Jeremias claims that a yield of tenfold was considered good in first century Palestine (Joachim Jeremias,&nbsp;<em>The Parables of Jesus</em>&nbsp;(New York: Scribner’s, 1972) p. 150). Even if that is somewhat conservative, the point is that the seed on good ground yielded amazingly. This element of unreality speaks of how each person in the ‘good ground’ category will experience growth and blessing out of proportion to their tiny spiritual beginnings. The parable of the mustard seed makes the same point. Amazing harvests is the language of the Messianic Kingdom, both Biblically and in Judaism. The beginning of the Kingdom experience is in our response to God’s word in this life. The one hundred fold response is huge- but then so is the loss. It’s as if the Lord is trying to encourage the disciples after the conclusions drawn about the general failure of the ministry of John- and therefore the Lord’s also. His point is that despite all the failure,&nbsp;<em>some</em>&nbsp;will respond, and their response and blessing will be so huge that this more than counterbalances all the failure of others. If we can bring one person towards eternity, this is so wonderful that all the rejection of our message is worthwhile:&nbsp;</p><p>Note how the three types of wasted seed and poor ground are matched by three types of response on the good ground. This feature of triads (features occurring in threes) may not necessarily have any meaning, but it may simply be part of a structure designed to aid memorization- which was the initial usage of the Gospel records.</p><p>In Palestine, sowing precedes ploughing. The sower sows on the path which the villagers have beaten over the stubble, since he intends to plough up the path with the rest of the field. He sows amongst thorns because they too will be ploughed in. And it has been suggested that the rocky ground was land with underlying limestone which barely shows above the surface. Even if some preaching work appears not to bear fruit, this shouldn't discourage us from the essentially outgoing spirit we should have in spreading the word far and wide. Many of the parables have an element of unreality about them, designed to focus our attention on a vital aspect of teaching. The sower parable has 75% of the seed sowed on bad ground, due to the almost fanatic way the sower throws the seed so far and wide, evidently without too much attention to whether it lands on responsive soil or not. His emphasis was clearly on broadcasting the seed far and wide. We should desire to see the spread of God’s ways, His Truth, His will, the knowledge of the real Christ, to as many as possible:&nbsp;<br/>The word / seed which fell into good ground produced fruit. This connects with <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>, which says that the branches of the vine bring forth fruit through the word abiding in them. Likewise the good ground keeps the word and continually brings forth fruit (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). It is common for us to learn something from the word, apply it for a few days, and then forget it. Yet surely the implication is that if our hearts are truly open to the word, it will have permanent effects upon us, if the word abides in us. For this reason it is necessary to pray at least daily for our minds to be good ground for the word, and to retain what we already comprehend. Those on the good ground who hear and understand in <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em> are described as those who hear and keep the word (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>). True understanding of the word's teaching is therefore related to an ongoing practical application of it. We may read a human book and understand it at the moment of reading; understanding God's word is quite a different concept. Truly understanding it means keeping it in our heart and therefore in our lives. The seed fell on good ground, "sprang up, and bare fruit"; indeed, it kept on bearing fruit (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). The plant being sown was therefore a repeating crop. True response to the word will lead to wave after wave of spiritual progression. Again, we see that the sower parable is describing an ongoing response to the word- it keeps on being sown by the believer keeping the word, and fruit is continuously brought forth.</p>


text:
<p>13:9&nbsp;<em>He that has ears, let him hear</em>- Seeing that the next verses show the Lord considered Israel generally to no longer have ears to hear (see on :1 also), this would seem an appeal to the disciples to perceive what He is saying, even though the majority of Israel cannot. Therefore He asks them later to “<em>Hear</em>&nbsp;the parable” (:18)- for He knows they do have ears to hear. But even they had to make a conscious effort to hear- those with ears are asked to hear. Understanding, in the sense Jesus uses the idea, doesn’t come naturally but requires effort.</p><p>Luke adds: “As he said these things, he cried: He that has ears to hear, let him hear” (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>). The Lord so wanted their response. "As he said these things, he&nbsp;<em>cried</em>, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:500 7:37'>Joh 7:37</a></em>). The very muscles of the Lords face, His body language, would have reflected an earnest,&nbsp;<em>burning</em>&nbsp;care and compassion. The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost; He put His whole personality into the task. And we beseech men “in the face of Christ" (<em><a href='B:540 2:10'>2Co 2:10</a></em> RV). We are to be&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;face to this world and to our brethren. With raised eyebrows, lines showing in our forehead, one eye half closed… our body language should reflect the depth of our concern for others. Having spoken of how our attitudes to God's word will elicit from Him varying responses, the Lord&nbsp;<em>cried</em>, loudly, "he that hath ears to hear,&nbsp;<em>let him hear</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em>). There is then the sickening anti-climax of the next verse, where the disciples ask Him whatever His parable meant:&nbsp; One senses a moment of silence in which the Lord composed Himself and camouflaged the pain of His disappointment; and then His essential hopefulness returns in <em><a href='B:490 8:10'>Luk 8:10</a></em>: "Unto you it is given (potentially, anyway) to know (understand) the mysteries (parables) of the Kingdom of God". There is a fine point of translation in <em><a href='B:490 8:8'>Luk 8:8</a></em> which needs to be appreciated: “<em>As</em>&nbsp;he said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (ASV and Greek). It seems that the Lord was ‘throwing out’ this challenge several times, as He spoke the parable. As the sower sows seed, so the Lord was challenging His hearers to decide what type of ground they were, as they heard the parable:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:10&nbsp;<em>And the disciples came and said to him: Why do you speak to them in parables?-</em>&nbsp;This question is understandable if this was the first parable the Lord spoke; see on :1. They were taken aback by His changed method of teaching, probably noticing that the eagerly listening multitudes had not properly understood it, overhearing all kinds of wild guesses at what the Lord was maybe driving at:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:11&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said to them: To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven</em>- The things which God has prepared for those who love Him, things which the natural eye has not seen but&nbsp;which are revealed unto us by the Spirit, relate to our redemption in Christ, rather than the wonders of the future political Kingdom (because <em><a href='B:470 13:11'>Mat 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 2:9-10'>1Co 2:9-10</a></em>). The context of 1 Corinthians 2 and the allusions to Isaiah there demand the same interpretation.</p><p><em>But to them it is not given</em>- Here we see the element of predestination- understanding is “given”. Paul in Romans speaks of such predestination as the supreme evidence of our salvation by grace. One example of the Lord Jesus' emphasis on our salvation being through grace rather than our works is found in the way the parables teach that our acceptance is to some degree dependent on our predestination. Thus the parable of the types of ground suggests that we are good or bad ground at the time the seed is first sown; the fish are good or bad at the time they first enter the net; the wise virgins take the oil with them from the start of their vigil. I would suggest that this is not just part of the story. It was evidently within the Lord's ability to construct stories which featured the idea of bad seed or fish etc. changing to good, and vice versa. But He didn't; indeed, His emphasis seems to have been on the idea of predestination. This isn't to decry the effort for spirituality which we must make; but His stress of the predestination factor is surely to remind us of the degree to which our calling and salvation is by pure grace. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>The Lord’s grace to His men is reflected in Mark’s record of how the twelve were confused by the Lord’s parables. He responds that He speaks in parables so that “them that are without” would not understand; but His followers would, He implies, “know the mystery of the Kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables”. And yet it’s immediately apparent that the disciples were equally confused by the parables. We sense the Lord’s frustration with this: “Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?”- i:e. ‘If you don’t understand this parable, it means you won’t understand any of them, which makes you equal with the crowd of those outside of Me, whom I’m seeking to leave confused’. And we note how straight away Mark notes, perhaps in sadness and yet marvel at the Lord’s grace: “But without a parable spake he not unto them [the disciples]: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples” (<em><a href='B:480 4:10-13'>Mar 4:10-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:34'>Mar 4:34</a></em>). Mark, or Peter writing through Mark, could look back in wonder. They the supposed disciples, learners, of the Lord Jesus had been as dumb as the crowd; but by grace alone the Lord had privately explained the parables to them. And our understanding of true Bible teaching is likewise a gift of grace, when we are every bit as obtuse as the people in darkness who surround us. The phrase "them that are without" (<em><a href='B:480 4:11'>Mar 4:11</a></em>) seems to have stuck with Paul; he uses it five times. Perhaps he saw that a characteristic of the believers, those separated from the world of darkness, was that they understood the parables; and this would explain Paul's frequent allusion to them, stressing as he does the need to appreciate their power. But those “without” in His other teaching clearly refer to those rejected at the judgment, who will stand “without” begging for admission to the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:15'>Rev 20:15</a></em>). But those ‘without’ in <em><a href='B:480 4:11'>Mar 4:11</a></em> are those who chose not to understand the Lord’s teaching, for whom it’s all parables, fascinating perhaps, but confusing, unclear, and not something they are really bothered to understand. This connection of thought doesn’t mean that intellectual clarity of understanding alone decides who will be, indeed who is, within or without of the Kingdom. But it is all the same true that the Kingdom life both now and in the future requires us to understand so that we might believe and live and be as the Lord requires:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:12&nbsp;<em>For whoever has, to him shall be given and he shall have abundance-&nbsp;</em>The faithful do not get the blessing solely by their own effort, but through the gift of God. The context requires we understand this as 'having' the ability to hear the Lord's words and practically 'understand' them (:9). <em><a href='B:470 13:12'>Mat 13:12</a></em> speaks of what a man has, whereas <em><a href='B:490 8:18'>Luk 8:18</a></em> AV mg. more precisely speaks of what a man&nbsp;<em>thinks</em>&nbsp;he has. Matthew’s record adopts a more human perspective. This Greek word for "abundance" is used about the 'abundance' which characterizes the life of the believer. But the 'abundance' is not of material things, but of understanding of and thereby relationship with the Lord.</p><p><em>But whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even what he has-&nbsp;</em>The language is difficult, but makes good sense if we understand ‘what a man has’ as referring to what that generation had due to responding to John’s preaching; but because they had not followed where it led, they were left with nothing. The ideas are similar to the parable the Lord had just given of the demon being thrown out of the house of Israel by John the Baptist, but then returning. The language is arrestingly and purposefully strange. How can a man who has nothing have what he has taken away from him? All is clearer once we accept the initial context as being the Lord's commentary upon Israel's initial response to John the Baptist, and subsequent rejection of his ministry insofar as they rejected Jesus as Messiah. What they had once had- an initial response to the word sown- was now being taken away from them. This likewise explains the language of the next verse- that it was by the process of seeing and hearing that they became blind and deaf. It was their initial seeing and hearing of John's message which had made them now totally blind and deaf- because they had not responded to it.</p>


text:
<p>13:13&nbsp;<em>Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing, they see not, and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand-</em>&nbsp;See on 13:12&nbsp;<em>even what he has</em>. It was their initial seeing and hearing of John the Baptist which became the basis of their subsequent total blindness and deafness to Jesus. If the word sown isn't responded to further, or only partially so, then there remains only a hardening. We must respond, and immediately- and be led wherever the word leads us. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:14&nbsp;<em>And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which said: By hearing you shall hear and shall in no wise understand, and seeing you shall see and shall in no wise perceive-&nbsp;</em>Jesus spoke the parable of the sower so that the Jews "by hearing::. shall hear, and::. not understand" (<em><a href='B:470 13:14'>Mat 13:14</a></em>), which is quoting from <em><a href='B:290 6:9-10'>Isa 6:9-10</a></em> concerning Israel hearing the preaching of Jesus during his ministry. This would explain the present tenses in <em><a href='B:480 4:14-20'>Mar 4:14-20</a></em>: "These&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;they by the way side::. these&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;they::. which&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;sown::.". That prophecy evidently had fulfilment at Isaiah's time; the point is thereby established that prophecy can have multiple fulfilments.</p>


text:
<h4>13:15&nbsp;<em>For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest</em>- Here we have explained why some people don't get it, will not understand. It's not that they are mentally inadequate. The Lord's reason is because they realize, albeit subconsciously, that if they do, then the process will lead to repentance, to change, and thereby to spiritual healing. And people don't want to change, to allow God's claim over every part of their lives. And so they choose not to understand. So often we marvel that despite God's Truth being so simple, so few understand it. That is now no mystery- for the Lord's explanation here is that it's because they don't actually want to change. It's why so many prefer a life of apparently searching for Truth, rather than accepting the most obvious Truth, which is Christ. It's why despite all the miracles and teaching and personality of the Lord Jesus, so few wanted to accept Him as Messiah. This would've been of great relevance to the disciples and first century preachers who first heard this, for whom Israel's rejection of Jesus would've been so hard to understand:&nbsp;</h4><p><em>They should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and repent, so that I should heal them-&nbsp;</em>True conversion involves understanding and perceiving, and not merely hearing doctrinal truth (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>). True understanding is a seeking for God, a doing good; hence those who sin have no true knowledge as they ought to have, whatever their theoretical understanding (<em><a href='B:230 14:2-4'>Psa 14:2-4</a></em>). But we can nominally believe the Gospel, 'understand' it in an intellectual sense, and bring forth no fruit to perfection (<em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em> cp. 23)- not perceiving the power of the Gospel. Understanding and perceiving the meaning of the parables would result in conversion, repentance and forgiveness (<em><a href='B:480 4:12'>Mar 4:12</a></em>). Moses persevered because he<em>&nbsp;understood</em>. “Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law” (<em><a href='B:230 119:35'>Psa 119:35</a></em>) is one of many links in David’s thought between understanding and obedience:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord spoke of conversion as really seeing, really hearing, really understanding, and commented that the disciples had reached this point (<em><a href='B:470 13:15-16'>Mat 13:15-16</a></em>). But he also told them that they needed to be converted and become as children, knowing they knew nothing as they ought to know (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>). There are levels of conversion. “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (<em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>), the Lord told Peter. Yet Peter was converted already! The Lord had spoken of conversion as really seeing, really hearing, really understanding, and commented that the disciples (including Peter) had reached this point (<em><a href='B:470 13:15-16'>Mat 13:15-16</a></em>). But he also told them that they needed to be converted and become as children, knowing they knew nothing as they ought to know (<em><a href='B:470 18:3'>Mat 18:3</a></em>). Quite simply, there are different levels of conversion. Baptism isn’t conversion: it’s a beginning, not an end:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:16<em>&nbsp;But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear-&nbsp;</em>The disciples were so slow to perceive. And yet the Lord could (perhaps gently and smilingly) tell them: “Blessed are your eyes, for they see” (<em><a href='B:470 13:16'>Mat 13:16</a></em>). Yet He later reprimanded them for being so slow of heart to perceive… Surely He was speaking of the potential which He recognized in them; a potential which He rejoiced to see. Of course we are blind and spiritually obtuse. And yet the New Testament speaks of us as if our blindness has been lifted. In the same way as our Lord sees us as if we are perfect, without blemish, as if we are already in the Kingdom, so he sees us as if we are without blindness. This is how he treated the disciples. He spoke of them as "seeing", i:e. understanding (<em><a href='B:470 13:16'>Mat 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:23'>Luk 10:23</a></em>). But frequently he despaired at their lack of spiritual perception, i:e. their blindness. Yahweh describes His servant Israel, both natural and spiritual, as a blind servant: "Who is blind but my servant?::. who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant?" (<em><a href='B:290 42:19'>Isa 42:19</a></em>). There is a real paradox here: a blind servant, or slave. What master would keep a blind servant? Only a master who truly loved him, and kept him on as his servant by pure grace. Yet this useless blind servant was God's servant and messenger- even though the blind were not acceptable as servants or sacrifices of God under the Law (<em><a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:22'>Lev 21:22</a></em>)! God uses His spiritually blind servant people to proclaim His message to the world. The disciples, still blind to the call of the Gentiles, were sent out to preach to the whole world! As the Lord was the light of those that sat in darkness (<em><a href='B:470 4:16'>Mat 4:16</a></em>), so Paul writes as if all the believers are likewise (<em><a href='B:520 2:19'>Rom 2:19</a></em>). Paul points out the humility which we should therefore have in our preaching: there are none that truly understand, that really see; we are all blind. And yet we are "a guide of the blind, a light to them that sit in darkness" (<em><a href='B:520 2:19'>Rom 2:19</a></em>). Therefore we ought to help the blind with an appropriate sense of our own blindness.</p>


text:
<p>13:17&nbsp;<em>For truly I say to you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which you see and saw them not, and to hear the things which you hear and heard them not</em>- These men, the Lord said, wanted to understand but didn't. But He has just explained that lack of understanding is rooted in a subconscious refusal to understand. He is using 'seeing' here in the sense of understanding, rather than physically seeing. I therefore wonder whether He is speaking with irony- of the Jewish false prophets and supposedly 'righteous ones'. They claimed to desire understanding, but they never attained to it.</p>


text:
<p>13:18&nbsp;<em>Hear then the parable of the sower-</em>&nbsp;The Lord has defined 'hearing' earlier in the context as something which requires conscious effort. He is therefore issuing a command here, rather than speaking a meaningless preface to the interpretation:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:19- see on <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>.</p><p><em>When anyone hears the word of the kingdom-&nbsp;</em>“The word”, the “word of the Kingdom”, “the Gospel”, “the word of God” are all parallel expressions throughout the Gospels. The records of the parable of the sower speak of both “the word of God” (<em><a href='B:490 8:11-15'>Luk 8:11-15</a></em>) and “the word of the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>). The word / Gospel of God refers to the message which is&nbsp;<em>about</em>&nbsp;God, just as the “word of the Kingdom” means the word which&nbsp;<em>is about</em>&nbsp;the Kingdom, rather than suggesting that the word is one and the same as the Kingdom. "The seed is the word of God" (<em><a href='B:490 8:11'>Luk 8:11</a></em>), i:e. the word of the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>). The parable gives the impression that the ground was in a certain condition when the seed was first sown; there seems no hint at the possibility of changing the ground, although we will see later that there is a sense in which this is possible. The stony ground, for example, is in that state as soon as the seed lands upon it. It seems that Jesus is showing us how God looks down upon the preaching of the Gospel to various people, seeing that He speaks about things which are future as if they are already (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). He knows the type of ground which each of us will ultimately be. Therefore, as far as God is concerned, we are good ground, or whatever, at the time of our first encounter with the Gospel, even if we are initially stony or thistle-filled. The seed is the word (<em><a href='B:490 8:11'>Luk 8:11</a></em>); and "the word" doesn't necessarily mean the whole Bible (although the whole Bible is of course inspired). The phrase specifically means the word of the power of the Gospel, by which we were ushered into spiritual being. And&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>is what brings forth fruit, through our 'patient' and continued response to it. We were born again, "not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God::. and this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you" (<em><a href='B:670 1:23'>1Pe 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:25'>1Pe 1:25</a></em>). Time and again the New Testament uses "the word of God" or "the word of the Lord (Jesus)" as shorthand for the preaching of the basic Gospel:&nbsp;<em>This</em>&nbsp;is the seed, this is the source of new life, this is what can lead to new character and behaviour in us. James speaks of being "doers of the word" (<em><a href='B:660 1:22'>Jas 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:25'>Jas 1:25</a></em>), using the same word as in the parable of the sower, there translated 'to bring forth fruit'. Note that "the word of God" in the NT often refers specifically to the Gospel. James foresaw the possibility of hearing the word of the Gospel but not doing it, not bringing forth what those basic doctrines imply. He foresees how we can admire it as a vain man seeing his reflection in a mirror. We are not to be "forgetful hearers" of the word of the basics, the "implanted word" (1:21 RV- another reference to the sower parable). We aren't to learn the Gospel and then forget those doctrines. We are to be doers of them.</p><p><em>And understands it not</em>- The Lord has just made clear that not understanding Him is a conscious, wilful intellectual act; and people shut their eyes so that they will not understand, lest it demand too much from them personally (:15). The wayside category are not, therefore, merely predestined not to understand. It's not that they were just in the wrong place, exposed to the wrong teachings and religious culture, and therefore they did not understand. For anyone who hears the word or seed of Christ, refusal to understand it is a conscious choice. It may not appear like that, but the Lord has said in :15 that it Is. By 'understanding', the Lord means the understanding which brings forth fruit. He is here redefining 'understanding the word', making it refer to something fruitful in practice. He spoke against a religious culture in which spirituality was seen in terms of being a microscopic student of the Old Testament and word by word, verse by verse, coming to the right theological interpretation. Many of us were raised in a similar environment. And the Lord here is redefining 'understanding the word' away from the sense of 'correct exposition' towards 'responding faithfully in practice, bringing forth fruit'. The bad ground, therefore, involved an element of choice to be like that. We showed on :4 that there were 'wayside' persons who&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;respond; our location in terms of culture, environment, psychology etc. is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;an inevitable barrier to responding to the word which we hear. This proves that sin, in its various manifestations as a 'devil', can be resisted through an understanding of the word:&nbsp;<em>When</em>&nbsp;there was no understanding of the word,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;the devil came. Likewise <em><a href='B:690 5:18-20'>1Jn 5:18-20</a></em> teaches that those who are born again by a true understanding of the word are not even touched by the "wicked one". Mere knowledge of the word will not necessarily stop the spiritual temptations; the word must be hid in the heart to stop sin (<em><a href='B:230 119:11'>Psa 119:11</a></em>); not just left on the surface of the soil. Those on the good ground both hear&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;understand it (<em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>), corresponding in the first instance to those who heard the parables and understood them. There is no doubt that a degree of intellectual effort is required to understand the word, not least the parables. The Jews generally did not "hear with their ears"- they did not respond or recognize the basic message of the word, let alone go on to understand it:&nbsp;</p><p>In his justification of confusing the Jews through the sower parable, Jesus twice lamented that they did not&nbsp;<em>understand&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 13:13-14'>Mat 13:13-14</a></em>). He was basically saying that the Jews were the bad ground in the parable; the fowls snatched away the seed because they did not&nbsp;<em>understand</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>). By contrast, those on the good ground&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;understand (<em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>). Those who heard the word "and anon with joy receiveth it" only to later fall away (<em><a href='B:470 13:20-21'>Mat 13:20-21</a></em>) approximate to the Jews who initially rejoiced at the word of Christ preached by John and later Jesus himself (<em><a href='B:500 5:35'>Joh 5:35</a></em>). "The care of this world" (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>) must primarily refer to the Jewish world:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Then comes the evil one</em>- Note that the parable was spoken the same day as the discourses of chapter 12- see <em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>. The entire context of the parable and the preceding chapter is that it was the Jewish world system which hindered people from further responding to the seed / word about Jesus which they had first heard from John the Baptist. As I showed at length in&nbsp;<em>The Real Devil</em>, the Jewish system is frequently described as the 'satan' or adversary of the early church. By 'the wicked one', the Lord's audience would've understood 'satan'; and the Lord is redefining their view of 'satan' as being not so much the Gentiles or some cosmic being, as their own religious elders and system.<br/><br/><em>And snatches away-&nbsp;</em>The same word had recently been used by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em> about how the violent take away the Kingdom. I suggested in the commentary there that this is possible to understand as referring to the Jewish leaders stopping people entering the Kingdom of Jesus. In this case, "the wicked one" is again identified as the Jews. The word is also used about the wolf 'catching away' the sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:12'>Joh 10:12</a></em>)- and in the same passage in John 10, it is the wolf who kills Jesus in His mortal combat with him in order to save the rest of the sheep. Clearly the wolf there refers to the Jewish leaders who ravaged the flock, indeed John 10 is full of reference to Ezekiel 34, which speaks of Israel's priesthood as responsible for the scattering of the sheep. <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em> describes the evil one taking away the word out of&nbsp;our heart. However can we resist that evil one? Paul had his eye on this question in <em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:3'>2Th 3:3</a></em>, where he speaks of the word being&nbsp;<em>with them</em>, and also of the&nbsp;Lord keeping them from the evil one. Paul knew that the Lord (Jesus) will help us in keeping the word in our hearts, if we allow him to; he saw that the power of God is greater than our low nature. &nbsp;</p><p><em>That which was sown in his heart-</em>&nbsp;Clearly the types of ground represent types of heart or mind. In addition to the elements of unreality in the parables, there are other features which shout out for our attention. Often details are omitted which we would expect to see merely as part of the story. For example, the parable of the ten girls says nothing at all about the bride; the bridegroom alone is focused upon, along with the bridesmaids. Where’s the bride in the story? Surely the point is that in the story, the bridesmaids are treated as the bride; this is the wonder of the whole thing, that we as mere bridesmaids are in fact the bride herself. Another example would be the way in which the sower’s presence is not really explained. No reference is made to the importance of rain or ploughing in making the seed grow. The preacher is unimportant; we are mere voices, as was John the Baptist. But it is the type of ground we are which is so all important; and the type of ground refers to the type of heart we have (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>). The state of the human heart is what is so crucial. Yet another example is in the way that there is no explanation for exactly why the tenants of the vineyard so hate the owner and kill His Son. This teaches of the irrational hatred the Jews had towards the Father and Son. And why would the owner send His Son, when so clearly the other servants had been abused? Why not just use force against them? Here again we see reflected the inevitable grace of the Father in sending the Son to be the Saviour of the Jewish world:&nbsp;</p><p><em>This is he that was sown by the way side</em>- The person is put for the seed. Because according to a person's attitude to the word of Christ, so he Is.</p>


text:
<p>13:20&nbsp;<em>And he that was sown upon the rocky places, this is he that hears the word and immediately with joy receives it</em>- So long as he 'believes for a while' (Lk:). Belief and joy are therefore paralleled. The later references to our joy&nbsp;<em>remaining</em>&nbsp;unto the end of our spiritual path surely allude here (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:22'>Joh 16:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em>). Note how in <em><a href='B:500 16:22'>Joh 16:22</a></em> the joy of the disciples could be taken from them by those who took Christ from them; another hint that the persecution which choked the joy came from the Jews, who were those who took Christ from them. Joy and faith are linked many times in the New Testament; we must ask whether we really have the joy which is the proof of real faith.</p>


text:
<p>13:21&nbsp;<em>Yet he does not have root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles-&nbsp;</em>The house built on sand was destroyed by a flood, an oft used type of the second coming and day of judgment. The equivalent in the sower parable is "when the sun was up::. they were scattered" (<em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em>). The sun is a symbol of both Christ's return and also of "tribulation or persecution! (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>). It seems that Jesus is teaching that our response to the word now is in effect our judgment seat; if we do not properly grow by it, in time of trial (the sun rising) we will spiritually die. Therefore when "the sun of righteousness" arises (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>) at the day of judgment, we will be "scorched" or 'burnt up' (Gk:). There are other examples of where a man's attitude to God's word in this life indicates his position at judgment day (e:g. <em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>). In the same way as we call upon a reserve of word-developed spirituality in time of trial (the "moisture" of the parable), so we will at judgment day. When Paul spoke of how we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;go through tribulation to enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>), perhaps he was alluding to the parable of the sower, where the Lord taught that when, and not “if” tribulation arises (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>). Paul knew that it&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;come because of the way the Lord had worded the interpretation of the parable.</p><p>It is quite possible that our Lord's sad prophecy of the disciples being offended because of having to identify with his sufferings looked back to this parable, concerning those who impulsively respond to the word in joy, but are offended because they have no deep root (<em><a href='B:480 4:17'>Mar 4:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 14:27'>Mar 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>). The fact that the disciples became good ground after this encourages us that we can change the type of ground which we are on initially receiving the seed.</p>


text:
<p>13:22&nbsp;<em>And he that was sown among the thorns, this is he that hears the word, and the-&nbsp;</em>One of the ineffable sadnesses of Paul's life must have been to see his converts falling away. Yet he seems to have comforted himself by seeing their defection in terms of the sower parable. Many a missionary has been brought close to that parable for the same reason. It supplies an explanation, an answer, a comfort, as 'Friends one by one depart (some we saw as pillars to our own faith, those we thought would always be there) / Lonely and sad our heart'. Thus Paul saw Demas as a seed among thorns (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 4:10'>2Ti 4:10</a></em>); he saw Elymas as a tare (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>); and he pleads with the Romans not to slip into the tare category (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em> Gk. = <em><a href='B:520 14:13'>Rom 14:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><h4><em>Care of the world-</em>&nbsp;In our age as never before, given more possibilities and knowledge of possible futures and what could go wrong, we have as never before the temptation to be full of such care. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:490 21:34'>Luk 21:34</a></em> about the "cares" which will be a feature of the last days- both of AD70 and today. But in the first instance, the 'world' in view was the Jewish world.<br/><br/><em>And the deceitfulness of riches</em>- There are not a few Bible passages which confirm this view of materialism, as&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;besetting temptation of every human soul, and which confirm that therefore our attitude to materialism,&nbsp;serving God or mammon, is the litmus test of our spirituality. The parable of the sower teaches that for those who begin well in the Truth, who don't fall away immediately or get discouraged by persecution, "the deceitfulness of riches::. the cares and pleasures of this life" will be their temptation. I would have expected the Lord to either speak in more general terms about the flesh, or to reel off a list of common vices. But instead He focuses on the desire for wealth as the real problem:&nbsp; The love of wealth is the root of&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;evil behaviour (<em><a href='B:610 6:10'>1Ti 6:10</a></em>). And I would go further, and suggest that so many of the excuses we hear which relate to "I haven't got time" (for reading, preaching, meeting, writing:::) are related to this desire for material improvement. The desire for advancement takes an iron grip on a man's soul. As we move through life, our thinking is concerned with prices, with possibilities, with schemings::. what&nbsp;<em>ought</em>&nbsp;to be the surpassingly dominating aspect of our life, the Son of God and His Truth, takes a poor second place. The connection between the desire for riches and the devil (our nature) is powerful. The devil is a deceiver. And 'riches' is also a deceiver (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>). That we know for sure. The desire for material things, for the false security of bank balances, the excuse that we are allowing ourselves to be so preoccupied for the sake of our families, the idea that we are only human beings and so God will let us be dominated by these worries::. all this is the deception of the flesh. God&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;remember that we are dust, and yes, of course we&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;provide for our own, some thought (but not&nbsp;<em>anxious</em>&nbsp;thought) must be given to tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:25'>Mat 6:25</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>). But these facts must never make us push God's Truth into&nbsp;<em>second</em>&nbsp;place. The lilies of the field are fed and dressed by God without anxiously worrying about it. Israel on their wilderness journey were miraculously provided with food&nbsp;<em>and clothing,</em>&nbsp;surely to prefigure God's basic material care of His spiritual Israel of later years. David, all his life long, never saw the seed of the righteous begging bread (<em><a href='B:230 37:25'>Psa 37:25</a></em>).</h4><p><em>Choke the word</em>- Paul had thought deeply about the parables. He doesn't just half-quote them in an offhand way. For example, <em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> says that riches choke a man's response to the word. <em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em> warns that those who&nbsp;<em>want to be rich</em>&nbsp;are choked by their&nbsp;<em>desire&nbsp;</em>for riches. Likewise Paul saw the rich man of <em><a href='B:470 19:23'>Mat 19:23</a></em> as actually one who&nbsp;<em>wanted</em>&nbsp;to be rich (= <em><a href='B:610 6:9-10'>1Ti 6:9-10</a></em>). So Paul had thought through the parable. He saw that possession of riches alone wouldn't choke a man; he saw that the Lord was using "riches" as meaning 'the desire for riches'. And because "riches" are relative and subjective, this must be right. And therefore the Spirit was able to use Paul's deductions. My point is that the Spirit&nbsp;<em>could</em>&nbsp;have used just anyone to write (e:g:) <em><a href='B:610 6:9'>1Ti 6:9</a></em>. But it was no accident that God chose to use a man with a fine knowledge and appreciation of His Son to be His pen-man.</p><p><em>And he becomes unfruitful-</em>&nbsp;The types of ground represent the hearts of various categories of people. We expect to read that&nbsp;<em>the seed</em>&nbsp;becomes unfruitful. But the seed never does, it never of itself loses its power and life. The seed of the word, of Jesus who is&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;seed, becomes the person. The word is to be made flesh in us as it was to perfection in the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:470 13:6'>Mat 13:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>withered</em>. The word becoming unfruitful in <em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em> is matched by it yielding "no fruit" (<em><a href='B:480 4:7'>Mar 4:7</a></em>) and no fruit being perfected in <em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>. The conclusion from this is that spiritual fruit which is developed but does not remain is not really fruit at all. There is the constant temptation for us to recognize just a bit of apparent 'growth' within us, and feel satisfied with it- rather than taking on board the concept of the word having a fullness of effect upon every part of our lives. Given the lesson of the thorns, there is no doubt that one must watch their friends even within the ecclesia. "Thorns and snares are in the way of the forward: he that doth keep (the Hebrew for "keep" is often used in Proverbs about keeping the word) his soul shall be far from them" (<em><a href='B:240 22:5'>Pro 22:5</a></em>). The language of thorns must connect with the curse upon Eden; the ecclesia, the paradise of God, must always have its thorns in order to spiritually exercise Adam, the spiritual gardener. As our brother's keeper, we need to be aware that after conversion, a whole gamut of new temptations face the convert:&nbsp;<em>After</em>&nbsp;he has heard the word, he is choked with the cares, riches and pleasures (<em><a href='B:490 8:14'>Luk 8:14</a></em>). Yet these things existed before he heard the word; the point is that they became new temptations after his response to the word. A concerted effort to understand, with Biblical guidance, the pressures upon new converts might help save a few more of the many which are being lost.</p><p>Thorns were symbolic of false teachers in the Old Testament ecclesia (<em><a href='B:330 2:6'>Eze 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 33:12-14'>Isa 33:12-14</a></em>). It is a repeated theme that thorns are devoured by fire (<em><a href='B:20 22:6'>Exo 22:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 118:12'>Psa 118:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 7:6'>Ecc 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:17'>Isa 10:17</a></em>), looking ahead to the destruction of all false elements of the ecclesia. The thorns easily equate with the tares of the next parable, which represent false teachers (primarily the Judaist infiltrators of the first century ecclesia). It would seem from this that some members of the ecclesia are never right with God, but exist purely for the spiritual trial of others; although it cannot be over-emphasized that it is quite wrong to attempt to label individuals as this 'thorn' element. Thus Jesus pointed out that grapes (the true Israel) and thorns can be apparently similar (<em><a href='B:470 7:16'>Mat 7:16</a></em>), but "Ye shall know them by their&nbsp;<em>fruits</em>". The thorns of the sower parable and those they influenced were "unfruitful". However, seeing that "the thorns sprang up&nbsp;<em>with it</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 8:7'>Luk 8:7</a></em>), there was some genuine spiritual growth, matched by the appearance of this among the thorns too. <em><a href='B:650 6:8'>Heb 6:8</a></em> likewise speaks of the thorns as believers who grew up within the ecclesia. This indicates the dual-mindedness of those who only partially commit themselves to the word; knowledge like this should play an active part in our self-examination. Because the thorns outwardly look like true believers, having an outward appearance of spiritual growth even more zealous and strong than that of the plants which they choke, it is impossible to personally identify the "thorns"; but there can be no doubt that, according to the parable, they&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be present among the ecclesia. The seed "fell&nbsp;<em>among</em>&nbsp;thorns" (<em><a href='B:470 13:7'>Mat 13:7</a></em>), showing that this thorn category were already within the ecclesia when the person who was to be choked was converted. We have shown that Biblically the thorns are false teachers; yet Jesus interprets them as "the care (Gk. 'divisions'- the double mindedness of serving two masters) of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches" (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>). The conclusion to be drawn is that the false teachers are responsible for the new convert being choked by these things. <em><a href='B:480 4:19'>Mar 4:19</a></em> says that these lusts enter into the convert's heart. Therefore the thorns must influence the person's thinking, so that he follows after these things until "he becometh unfruitful". The Greek for "choked" is from a root meaning 'association, companionship'. Marshall's Interlinear renders the Greek text of <em><a href='B:490 8:7'>Luk 8:7</a></em> in keeping with this idea: "Growing up with the thorns choked it". Thus it is through close association with the thorn element already in the ecclesia, that the new convert who enters it is corrupted. We each have to ask 'What type of ground are we as an ecclesia? Do&nbsp;<em>I&nbsp;</em>have thorn elements to me:::?'</p>


text:
<p>13:23&nbsp;<em>And he that was sown upon the good ground, this is he that hears the word and understands it-&nbsp;</em>“Accepts” (<em><a href='B:480 4:20'>Mar 4:20</a></em>), “holds fast” (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). In our present culture of anti-intellectualism, it can be overlooked that any real acceptance of a message, let alone holding onto it, must require a degree of ‘understanding’. We can hear the Bible explained and at that point&nbsp;<em>understand</em>&nbsp;intellectually. But this is something different to real understanding; for if we truly apprehend the message, we will receive it deep within us and keep that understanding ever present in our subsequent actions. The background of the parable is that it was given the same day as the Lord’s lament over the lack of response to John’s message and therefore His own ministry (<em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>). The very fact there is good ground, and three different types of it matching the three different types of failure, is therefore an encouragement to the disciples (and all) that God’s word doesn’t ‘return void’ but does ultimately achieve an end in some lives. Indeed it has even been suggested that the parable of the sower is a kind of&nbsp;<em>midrash</em>&nbsp;or interpretation of the Isaiah 55 passage about the word going forth and not returning void. Ultimately, despite rejection, setbacks and only a minority responding- the work of the Kingdom will succeed. That is one aspect of the parable:&nbsp;</p><p>The parable of the sower concluded by lamenting that the Lord’s general Jewish audience did&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;understand, and He spoke the parables knowing they wouldn’t understand and would be confirmed in this. And He stressed that a feature of the good ground is that His message is understood. In this context, the Lord commends the disciples because they saw and heard, in the sense of understanding (<em><a href='B:470 13:13'>Mat 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:15-16'>Mat 13:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:23'>Mat 13:23</a></em>). Yet so evidently they didn’t understand. And yet the Lord was so thrilled with the fact they understood a very little that He counted them as the good ground that understood.</p><p><em>Who truly carries fruit and brings it forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty</em>- Many of the Lord’s parables had some oblique reference to Himself. The parable of the sower speaks of the type of ground which gave one hundred fold yield- and surely the Lord was thinking of Himself in this. And yet the whole point of the parable is that all who receive the Lord’s word have the possibility of responding in this way. Or take the related parable of the mustard seed [=God’s word of the Gospel] which grows up into a huge tree under which all the birds can find refuge (<em><a href='B:480 4:31-32'>Mar 4:31-32</a></em>). This image is replete with allusion to Old Testament pictures of God’s future Kingdom, and the growth of Messiah from a small twig into a great tree (<em><a href='B:330 17:22'>Eze 17:22</a></em>). Here we see the power of the basic Gospel message- truly responded to, it can enable us to have a share in the very heights to which the Lord Jesus is exalted.</p><p>The parable of the sower leaves us begging the question: ‘So how can we be good ground?’. Mark’s record goes straight on to record that the Lord right then said that a candle is lit so as to publicly give light and not to be hidden (<em><a href='B:480 4:21'>Mar 4:21</a></em>). He is speaking of how our conversion is in order to witness to others. But He says this in the context of being good ground. To respond to the word ourselves, our light must be spreading to all. The only way for the candle of our faith to burn is for it to be out in the open air. Hidden under the bucket of embarrassment or shyness or an inconsistent life, it will go out. We will lose our faith if we don’t in some sense witness to it. Witnessing is in that sense for our benefit. When the disciples ask how ever they can accomplish the standards which the Lord set them, He replied by saying that a city set on a hill cannot be hid (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>). He meant that the open exhibition of the Truth by us will help us in the life of personal obedience to Him. We must give forth the light, not keep it under a bucket, because "there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested; neither was anything kept secret, but that it should come abroad" (<em><a href='B:480 4:21-22'>Mar 4:21-22</a></em>). In other words, the very reason why God has hidden the things of His word from the world and some aspects of them from our brethren, is so that we can reveal them to them. &nbsp;The ecclesias, groups of believers, are lampstands (<em><a href='B:730 2:5'>Rev 2:5</a></em> cp:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:230 18:28'>Psa 18:28</a></em>). We must give forth the light, not keep it under a bucket, letting laziness (under a bed) or worldly care (a bushel) distract us; because "there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested; neither was anything kept secret, but that it should come abroad" (<em><a href='B:480 4:21-22'>Mar 4:21-22</a></em>).</p><p>Luke goes on to record the Lord’s teaching about a candle. Burning brightly before others is therefore the way to be good ground. We are compared to a candle that is lit (cp. our baptism)&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;it may give light to others (<em><a href='B:490 8:16'>Luk 8:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:33'>Luk 11:33</a></em>); the woman (the Lord Jesus) lights a candle (He uses believers) to find his lost coin (through our efforts) (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>; this must be seen in the context of the other two references in Luke to lighting a candle). If we don't give light (God's word, <em><a href='B:230 119:105'>Psa 119:105</a></em>) to others, we are a candle under a bucket, and therefore we will lose our faith, the flame will go out. So it's hard not to conclude that if we don't naturally give the light to others, we don't believe. The very nature of a lit candle is that it gives light;&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;candles do this, not just some. The Lord wants to use us as His candle, and He will arrange situations in life to enable this. Nothing is done secretly that will not then come to the light (<em><a href='B:490 8:17'>Luk 8:17</a></em> RV)- and therefore we should come to the light right now, living life in God’s light and before His judgment (<em><a href='B:500 3:20-21'>Joh 3:20-21</a></em>). This not only means we should not sin ‘in secret’, but more positively, we should feel and realize His constant affirmation of us for thoughts and actions which are invisible to others or for which we do not receive any thank. The Lord taught that either the 'devil' will "take away" the word from the rejected, or He will "take away" what He has given them at the last day (<em><a href='B:490 8:12'>Luk 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:17'>Luk 8:17</a></em>). In this sense, the word "abiding" in us is a foretaste of the day of judgment- if we don't let it abide, and the 'devil' of the world or our own humanity takes it away from us, then effectively such people are living out the condemnation process even in this life. “My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it" (<em><a href='B:490 8:21'>Luk 8:21</a></em>), refers back to His recent parable of the good seed that “did” the word which they heard (8:15). But surely that group of fascinated, surface-interested onlookers didn’t all come into the good seed category, who held the word to the end, all their lives? He was so positive about others’ faith.</p>


text:
<p>13:24&nbsp;<em>He set another parable before them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field</em>- Potentially, even then, the field of the world had been given to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>13:25&nbsp;<em>But while his men slept, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and then went away</em>- The sense of "while" is supplied by the translators. It could just as well mean that&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;men slept- after the death of the apostles? And yet the Lord commands His followers&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;to sleep, and Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5 repeats this. The implication could be that the sowing of the weeds was avoidable if the Lord's workers had been more attentive. Jesus so understands human weakness. But let's try to enter into the sense of shame and hurt which He must feel at our apathy; the shame is similar to the shame of the farmer who has tares growing in his field. Everyone sees it's the result of his workers sleeping instead of keeping the night watch as they should have done (<em><a href='B:470 13:25'>Mat 13:25</a></em>). The Lord foresaw this; He saw that the ultimate harvest wouldn't be a good one. Even some that looked like "good seed" would be rejected (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em> cp. 13:38). Yet in this same context, Christ speaks of how the believer starts off as a tiny mustard seed, but in the Kingdom grows into a tree which will shelter others (<em><a href='B:470 13:32'>Mat 13:32</a></em>). He saw&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;small are our spiritual beginnings compared to our position in the Kingdom. The least in the Kingdom will be spiritually greater than John the Baptist was in his mortal life (<em><a href='B:470 11:11'>Mat 11:11</a></em>). &nbsp;The false teachers “crept in” just as a serpent creeps (<em><a href='B:720 1:4'>Jud 1:4</a></em>). The same group may have been in Christ’s mind in His parable of the tares being sown in the field of the (Jewish) world by the Devil,&nbsp;<em>secretly</em>&nbsp;(cp. “false [Jewish] brethren unawares brought in”, <em><a href='B:550 2:4-6'>Gal 2:4-6</a></em>). In the parable of the sower, “the Devil” is defined as the enemy of Christ the sower / preacher of the Gospel – and His enemies initially were the Jews. These were the “tares” sown amongst the wheat which Christ had sowed, “things that offend” – and Paul warns of the Judaizers who caused&nbsp;<em>offences&nbsp;</em>and schisms to wreck the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:13'>Rom 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:38-39'>Mat 13:38-39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:25'>Mat 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>). This is all confirmed by Jesus in <em><a href='B:470 15:12-13'>Mat 15:12-13</a></em> describing the Pharisees as plants “which My Heavenly Father hath not planted” which were to be rooted up at the judgment.</p><p>Mark’s record speaks as if the&nbsp;<em>sower Himself</em>&nbsp;slept. The humility of the Lord Jesus is a reflection of the humility of God His Father. He spoke of Himself as the sower, who sleeps (in His death) and then works night and day (His present Heavenly labour for us) so that the seed should bring forth fruit- "He knows not how" (<em><a href='B:480 4:27'>Mar 4:27</a></em>, with allusion to <em><a href='B:250 11:1'>Ecc 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 11:5-6'>Ecc 11:5-6</a></em>). Despite all things having been revealed unto Him, and the Spirit immeasurably given to Him, He had the spiritual and intellectual humility to openly recognize that our spiritual growth and ultimate salvation is a mystery to Him. It was the Father alone who gave the increase. &nbsp;He forgot things at times, didn't understand absolutely everything (e:g. the date of His return, or the mystery of spiritual growth, <em><a href='B:480 4:27'>Mar 4:27</a></em>), made a mistake when working as a carpenter, cut His finger. But He was never frustrated with Himself; He was happy being human, comfortable with His humanity.</p>


text:
<p>13:26&nbsp;<em>But when the plants sprang up and brought forth fruit, then the weeds appeared also</em>- See on :7. This is the "good ground" category of the previous parable. They were sown amongst thorns and yet all the same, brought forth fruit. It may be that the Lord intends us to perceive that one mark of spiritual maturity is that once we start to bring forth fruit, we realize that we are surrounded by weeds / thorns. But we cannot for sure judge any given individual as being in that category:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:27&nbsp;<em>And the servants of the householder came and said to him: Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?-&nbsp;</em>To a Palestinian rural audience, the answer was obvious. Enemies sowing weeds amongst the wheat was a fairly common occurrence. The story is set up to make these servants seem somehow foolish for not suspecting the obvious explanation. In the first instance, the Lord is addressing the problem the disciples were having as to why there was such mixed response to the Gospel. He’s gently trying to explain to them that surely it was obvious why there wasn’t better response- there was, clearly enough, a systematic campaign orchestrated by the Jews to damage the harvest. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:28- see on <em><a href='B:470 15:14'>Mat 15:14</a></em>.</p><h4><em>And he said to them: An enemy has done this! And the servants said to him: Then do you want us to go and gather them up?-</em>&nbsp;The term is used several times in the parables of Matthew 13, and in the context it effectively means 'to judge'. The gathering process is the judgment- not only because the process of gathering and judgment will likely be in a split second in terms of time as we understand it, but because our attitude in the moment when we know 'He's back!' will effectively be our judgment. Those who go immediately will be saved, and those who delay to prepare themselves will thereby show themselves unworthy. “Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?" (<em><a href='B:470 13:28'>Mat 13:28</a></em>) shows Christ's knowledge that this would be the desire of His servants throughout the generations. If we take His teaching seriously, we must come to the conclusion that all of us have a desire to "help" our brethren by 'sorting out' the weaknesses which we see in them, but that there is the real possibility that often this desire is spiritually grotesque in God's eyes. According to the parable of the tares, we are very sure that we know who are the tares and who are the wheat. But we can't be as sure as we feel, is the Lord's message. Some we feel are obviously tares are actually wheat. And the sensitivity of Jesus foresaw this so accurately:&nbsp;There's a fascinating twist in this story that is exactly descriptive of our experience. The servants slept first of all, after the word was first sown, and only once the wheat and tares came to bear fruit did they pester the Master to let them root up the tares. This reference to bearing fruit must be read in the context of the preceding parable of the sower, which describes how the good ground bears fruit (<em><a href='B:470 13:26'>Mat 13:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:8'>Mat 13:8</a></em>). The implication is that the servants shouldn't have been sleeping first of all, thinking there wasn't really much to do in the field. And so it is a familiar pattern: conversion is followed by a period of feeling there isn't much to do, and then the realization dawns that due to our own negligence in those early days there are some tares in the ecclesia. The desire to sort out the tares therefore comes some time&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;conversion. And on the overall level, there is another truism: the servants of Christ are keener to eradicate error than stop it in the first place. It's sad to see that there is almost a despising today of the warnings against 'the thin end of the wedge'; awareness of the possibility of apostasy is seen as somehow negative- exactly as the parable predicts. The parable implies that&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;a greater level of watchfulness was maintained by the servants, there wouldn't be the tares. But, as the Lord foresaw, we seem to lack this watchfulness, often under the guise of feeling that we must sort ourselves out rather than guard against apostasy being introduced. The sensitivity of Jesus constructed that parable with the aim of showing the thoughtful how deeply inappropriate is their desire to root up the tares. He clearly had in mind the prophecy of Himself in <em><a href='B:100 23:6-7'>2Sa 23:6-7</a></em>: "The sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken by (human) hands: but the man that shall touch them (Christ) must be fenced with iron and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place (just outside Jerusalem) "where Christ was "fenced with iron". It isn't possible for us to uproot the tares because this can only possibly be done by the one who totally uprooted&nbsp;sin in Himself, dying to it on the cross. This association between Christ's right to judge and His victorious death is shown by the way the "tares" will be burnt in the same area as He was crucified in. <em><a href='B:570 2:9-11'>Phi 2:9-11</a></em> reasons along the same lines; because Christ died for us, He&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;has the right to have every knee bowing to Him at the judgment. On account of being "the Son of man" and yet also being our perfect Messiah, He has the right<em>&nbsp;therefore</em>&nbsp;to be judge (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:340 7:13-14'>Dan 7:13-14</a></em>). The Lord understood all this; and to the thoughtful, those who would grasp His allusion to 2 Samuel 23, He was saying: 'If you think you can root up the tares, if you think you have that wisdom to identify the tares, you are really insulting the greatness of what I achieved on the cross. It's only on account of that that I have the ability and right to divide wheat from tares, sheep from goats'. See on <em><a href='B:470 7:4'>Mat 7:4</a></em>.</h4><p><em>That we go-</em>&nbsp;The emphasis is surely on the “we”. They assumed that because they were the man’s servants, they were therefore also the reapers. The contrast drawn between the servants and the reapers was an element of unreality in the story. For farmers didn’t have a separate category of workers who were specifically “reapers”. But this householder did, and the element of unreality points to the fact that contrary to what we intuitively think, the work of reaping is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;for us. There are others, the Angels, who will do this. And the other element of unreality is that the householder wanted the weeds to continue to grow, even though they would be taking away moisture and nutrients from the good seed. This is the way the Lord wishes for things in this life. Those who offend, who cause the righteous to stumble, will only be removed from them at the last day (:41). The preceding parable of the sower had featured a type of ground where there were thorns who grew up and stopped the good seed from developing; but the point was that the ‘good ground’ category would still prosper&nbsp;<em>despite</em>&nbsp;growing next to weeds. Such was and is the power of God’s word in Christ, that those who respond to it can still bring forth amazing yield&nbsp;<em>despite</em>&nbsp;the presence of the weeds next to them.</p>


text:
<p>13:29<em>&nbsp;But he said: No. Lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them-&nbsp;</em>The message is that we can rightly sense that there are pseudo plants within the field, but we can never actually define any one individual as being one of them. The parable of the wheat and weeds features another unlikely happening. Someone sows weed seeds on top of the wheat seeds. The farm workers who were sleeping aren’t upbraided as we might expect. The weeds can’t be uprooted because the roots are intertwined; and anyone walking into the field to remove them would trample the wheat. So how, therefore, can they be rooted up at the time of the harvest? It can only be by some super-human reapers- i:e. the Angels. It is totally and utterly beyond&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;to do the uprooting. And yet this obvious meaning has still not been perceived by many of us:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:30<em>&nbsp;Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to-&nbsp;</em>The parables invite us to see the Lord gathering the wheat to one place and the tares to another, as if the gathering is the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>); the wheat is gathered to the garner, and the chaff to the place of burning (<em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>). There is the implication that effectively, the division between sheep and goats happens in the gathering process (<em><a href='B:470 25:33'>Mat 25:33</a></em>); our response to the gathering is our judgment. The Angel who reaps for judgment 'thrusts in' his sickle, and 'casts out' the wicked in rejection (<em><a href='B:730 14:19'>Rev 14:19</a></em>). But 'thrust in' and 'cast out' in that verse both translate the same Greek word&nbsp;<em>ballo</em>- the implication being that the gathering-to-judgment process is in fact the separation process. Likewise the net is "cast" into the sea in order to gather people for judgment, and then the rejected are "cast" away (<em><a href='B:470 13:47-48'>Mat 13:47-48</a></em>).</p><p>The suggestion is that when the fruit is ready, then the harvest begins. The calendar date of the Lord’s return is therefore variable; it depends upon the development of spiritual fruit by the last generation before His return.</p><p><em>The reapers</em>- These are different to the 'servants' of :27. The implication is that we are the servants, and not the reapers. And yet the same word is used in <em><a href='B:500 4:36-38'>Joh 4:36-38</a></em> about how in preaching the Gospel, we are reaping people into the harvest of eternal life. As an exercise in Biblical exposition, this simply shows that a figure may be used in one context in an entirely different way, even with a completely opposite sense, to how it is used in another usage. And in yet another sense, we as it were reap ourselves according to how we sowed in this life (<em><a href='B:550 6:7-9'>Gal 6:7-9</a></em>). And yet we shall be reaped by the Angels in the actual judgment process; the connection perhaps shows that effectively, we judge ourselves.</p><p><em>Gather up the weeds first and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn-&nbsp;</em>This detail is surely not merely incidental. The idea is that the wicked and righteous will be gathered together with others within their same category. Then, it will finally be clear who is who; they will be displayed together. There is the implication in the words of Christ to the angel/reapers that the unworthy will be destroyed together: "Gather together&nbsp;<em>first</em>&nbsp;the tares, and bind them in bundles (i:e. together) to burn them". "<em>First</em>" here may well mean 'most importantly' rather than first in terms of time. It will be our Lord's desire to get the miserable business of destroying wilful sinners over and done with as quickly as possible- a far cry from the orthodox belief that Jesus somehow revels in the punishment of sinners. He can then concentrate on the joy of having the wheat gathered (together) into His barn (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>).</p><p>All these parables end with the impression that the faithful are going to be of eternal use to others, providing food / salvation for them. The 100 fold increase of the good ground was to be eaten, the wheat turned into bread or sown again, the mustard seed tree gives shelter to others, etc. We are to develop a desire to do that for others in this life, so that we might eternally do it in reality.</p>


text:
<p>13:31&nbsp;<em>He set another parable before them, saying</em>- Bearing in mind the Lord's earlier explanation that He was speaking to the Jewish masses in parables so that they would not understand, I wonder if the "them" here refers specifically to the disciples:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The kingdom of heaven is like a grain</em>- Gk. 'a kernel'. The element of unreality is that a farmer would not consciously sow one tiny seed in a field. But the Lord does this, knowing the potential power within that one tiny seed. He 'takes' this&nbsp;one tiny seed [in his palm, we are to imagine] out into the field and sows it. And the mustard bush was perceived as a weed, a wild bush, not a crop. But it grows into a tree, it grows far greater and more majestically than could ever be expected. Here again is the Lord's encouragement to His disillusioned preachers- the growth of the Gospel, rather like the unreal increase on the good ground, is out of all proportion to what it initially Is. Preaching appears 'foolish' (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a></em>); that by sharing the Gospel with others, the vast majority of whom ultimately reject it, something so wonderful and eternal can really come. This parable thereby highlights the faith of the Father and Son, the sowers, that the word of the Kingdom really would survive and grow out of all proportion to its beginnings. This was exactly the encouragement which the disciples needed to hear, disillusioned as they were by the pathetic response to John’s ministry and the Lord’s real spiritual demands upon people.</p><p><em>Of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field-</em>&nbsp;The mustard seed becomes a tree so big that all the birds of the air can live in it (<em><a href='B:480 4:32'>Mar 4:32</a></em>). But mustard trees aren't&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;big. Surely the point is that the small seed of the Gospel produces a quite out of proportion result- by reading literature, spotting a press advertisement, getting baptized::. we will by grace become part of the Kingdom of God, and provide shelter to the nations of this world. This is the extraordinary power of the Gospel. This is how far it will take us, and the extent to which we can, through the Gospel, become saviours of men. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>. Each of the records of the great preaching commission in the Gospels ties in with earlier passages within the same Gospel record. Mark’s “preach the gospel to every creature” is to be understood in the context of the Lord’s prophecy that the seed of His Gospel would be sown by preaching, and would result in creatures&nbsp;of all kinds coming under its’ shadow (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em> cp. 4:32). The extent of witness we make is our choice; and according to how well we do it, so the extent of the shadow of the Kingdom gives shelter to many kinds:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:32&nbsp;<em>Which indeed is smaller than all seeds- &nbsp;</em>Gk:&nbsp;<em>mikros</em>, the tiniest, the least. Mark adds that it was the tiniest of all seeds&nbsp;<em>in the earth</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 4:31'>Mar 4:31</a></em>). It was the tiniest seed known in the land- and the term often refers to the land promised to Abraham. It was the tiniest imaginable seed. And it would grow into the greatest imaginable tree. The point has been made that orchid and other seeds are actually smaller than mustard seeds (H. N. Moldenke and A:L. Moldenke,&nbsp;<em>Plants of the Bible</em>&nbsp;(Waltham, Mass:: Chronica Botanica Company, 1952) p:61). But the Bible is written from the perspective of its original hearers, it never claims to present global scientific truth, and the mustard seed was the smallest seed known to the Lord’s audience:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree</em>- Not ‘grows into’ a tree. The tiniest seed was only supposed to grow into a bush, but this unusual seed ‘became’ a tree,&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>&nbsp;carrying the sense of being ‘caused to become’. This was another element of the unreal- a shrub became a tree. It is AV "The greatest"; but the mustard bush is not the greatest herb and it is far from the tallest tree. The emphasis is on the word “it”- when&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>particular tiny seed grows… The point is that this particular tiny seed had extraordinary growth. This on one hand speaks of the amazing growth experienced by the believer from the apparently tiny beginnings of the Gospel. And yet the specific language of&nbsp;<em>the greatest</em>&nbsp;suggests the entire parable may refer to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate seed, tiny and despised, yet who grew to become the Kingdom of God under whose branches the Gentile world would find blessing. For 'the Kingdom' was a legitimate title for Jesus, the King of the Kingdom who embodied it in His very person (<em><a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a></em>). If here the Lord (as elsewhere) is speaking parables to and about Himself, it would in this context be in encouraging others as to the huge extent of growth possible. For Jesus is the parade example of how something which began so small- an egg within the womb of a barefoot unmarried teenager- could become so great.</p><p><em>So that the birds of the sky come and lodge in its branches-</em>&nbsp;Mark records that the Lord emphasized that the branches were "great",&nbsp;<em>megas</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 4:32'>Mar 4:32</a></em>). The&nbsp;<em>mikro</em>&nbsp;seed became&nbsp;<em>mega</em>; but the greatness of the tree was because of the greatness of the individual branches. A mustard bush doesn't have 'great' branches, but in this unreal story, it does have them. According to the Lord's parable of <em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>, the branches represented the disciples: "I am the vine, you are the branches". The total greatness of the Lord Jesus depends to some extent upon the degree to which we grow into great branches. The disciples were depressed at the lack of response to their message, and the failure of John's ministry in first century Palestine. The Lord is encouraging them personally that from their&nbsp;<em>mikro</em>, tiny beginnings, they would become great branches, and be able to provide shelter for the birds of the Gentiles; although the "birds" in the earlier parable of the sower were representative of the Jewish religious leaders. When the disciples later baptized priests and Pharisees, the Lord's ambitious vision began to come true.<br/>There are a number of insights throughout the parables into how the Lord perceived His future Kingdom. Significantly, His emphasis in the parables of the Kingdom is upon our spiritual status then, rather than on the physical wonders which His reign will bring on the earth. He&nbsp;foresaw how although our faith is so puny now, as a mustard seed, we will be those who will be as a solid tree, a real place of refuge, to the nations of the Millennium (<em><a href='B:470 13:31-32'>Mat 13:31-32</a></em> = <em><a href='B:330 17:23-24'>Eze 17:23-24</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:33&nbsp;<em>He told them another parable: The kingdom of heaven is like the yeast</em>- This continues the theme of the preceding parable; which was about a&nbsp;<em>man</em>, and now He tells a similar story balanced out with a&nbsp;<em>woman</em>&nbsp;as the central figure. Again the point is that from tiny beginnings, great influence comes. And as a note in how to perform Biblical exegesis, we&nbsp;should learn here that because yeast is used negatively in some Bible passages, it doesn't&nbsp;<em>always</em>&nbsp;have to require that meaning. The Gospel which we preach is likened to yeast- in itself a startling comparison- because it is through our humanity that we will influence others, by being our real, human selves. Yet the woman mixing yeast is preparing a huge amount of bread, according to the specifications in <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>. This is perhaps to show us that whilst our influence may be quiet and unseen, the quietest witness can have a huge influence. W:D. Davies quotes Pliny and the Mishnah, giving examples of the use of yeast as a&nbsp;<em>positive</em>&nbsp;symbol (W:D:Davies,&nbsp;<em>Matthew&nbsp;</em>(<em>op cit.</em>) p. 422).</p><p><em>Which a woman took and hid</em>- The teaching of Jesus works quietly from within- that could be the sense. Just as the tiny seed of the Gospel produces huge results finally, so the yeast of the Gospel has disproportionate influence. But we must give full weight to the Lord's other teachings about hiddenness. We are to become a city set on a hill which&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;be hid (<em><a href='B:470 5:14'>Mat 5:14</a></em>; our good works "cannot be hid", <em><a href='B:610 5:25'>1Ti 5:25</a></em>); it is the rejected who hide the talent of the Gospel so that nobody sees it (<em><a href='B:470 25:25'>Mat 25:25</a></em>). Ultimately, the yeast hidden within us at the time of sowing the seed, at the time the yeast is first inserted into the dough, will become public. In the wider context of this section, the Lord is explaining to the disciples the tragedy of how the seed or yeast first sown by John the Baptist has not achieved its intended result- because people were still hiding it, as Joseph and Nicodemus did (<em><a href='B:500 19:38'>Joh 19:38</a></em> s:w:- Joseph was a 'secret' or 'hidden' disciple). And we find the same word just two verses later in <em><a href='B:470 13:35'>Mat 13:35</a></em> - the Lord was now speaking forth publicly things which had been 'hidden' (AV "kept secret") in the Old Testament period. The treasure was "hid" in the field of the world, but the Lord Jesus gave all that He had so that He could redeem / buy the world, the field, and bring the hidden treasure to light (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>). Perhaps we could say that the yeast was only hidden to those who did not have eyes to see; for that has been the context of the Lord's teaching here (see on <em><a href='B:470 13:10'>Mat 13:10</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>In three measures of flour until it was all raised-</em>&nbsp;Until the flour was completely influenced. The hint could be that when the Gospel, the yeast, has done its complete work and the flour is finally completely leavened into a loaf- then the Lord will come. His work then will be complete. The calendar date of the Lord's return is therefore 'open' to some extent, just as the harvest is reaped only when the fruit (of the Spirit) has been brought forth.</p><p>It's tempting to see some connection with Paul's warning that false teachers must be removed from the church, because a little yeast leavens the whole lump (<em><a href='B:530 5:6'>1Co 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:9'>Gal 5:9</a></em>). It could be that he is simply using the figure of yeast in a different sense. But his frequent allusions to the Gospels make us wonder whether he is consciously alluding to the Lord's teaching here in <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>. It could be that he is saying 'Get rid of the&nbsp;<em>old</em>&nbsp;yeast, the yeast of false teaching and associated unspirituality- and instead, be influenced by the&nbsp;<em>true</em>&nbsp;yeast, of Christ's teachings rather than the yeast of&nbsp;<em>false</em>&nbsp;teaching'.</p>


text:
<h4>13:34&nbsp;<em>All these things spoke Jesus in parables to the crowds, and without a parable he said nothing to them</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 13:10'>Mat 13:10</a></em>. The idea surely is that&nbsp;<em>from now onwards</em>&nbsp;the Lord only spoke parables to them, which explains the shocked question of the disciples in :10 as to why there was this change of teaching method. Mark adds that the Lord Jesus spoke the word to men “as they were able to hear it”, not as He was able to expound it (<em><a href='B:480 4:33'>Mar 4:33</a></em>). He didn’t always relay to men the maximum level of understanding which He Himself possessed. The language of Jesus as recorded in John's Gospel is very different to that we encounter in the other Gospels. Indeed, the difference is so striking that some have claimed that John put the words into Jesus' mouth in his account. My suggestion is that the Lord did in fact say all the words attributed to Him in all the Gospel records. But He had two levels of talking with people- a Heavenly, spiritual kind of style (which John picked up on); and also a more earthly one, which Matthew, Mark and Luke tended to record. In our context, the simple point that emerges is that Jesus spoke in different ways to different people; He tailored His language in accordance with His audience. It's significant that there are no records of Jesus casting out demons in John's record; this occurs only in the more audience-friendly accounts of the Synoptics. There is&nbsp;a tendency, it seems to me, for brethren particularly to insist on flaunting their knowledge, to have to correct others who have inferior knowledge or less mature interpretations. The Lord taught men the word “as they were able to hear it” (<em><a href='B:480 4:33'>Mar 4:33</a></em>), not as He was able to expound it. If we ask where He obtained this humility and ability from, it is clearly an inheritance from His dear mother, who stored up things in her heart and didn’t reveal them to others, just quietly meditating over the years. He spoke the word to men “as&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were able to&nbsp;<em>hear</em>&nbsp;it”- He didn’t always relay to men the maximum level of understanding which He Himself possessed . There is a tendency amongst some personality types to turn every disagreement over interpretation of Scripture into a right: wrong, truth: error scenario. Matters relating to basic doctrine are capable of being dealt with like this. But to turn the interpretation of every Bible verse into a conflict area is a recipe for ecclesial disaster. So often the debate becomes personal, with a brother sure that&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;is right and the other wrong, and the other must be shown to be wrong. This leads inevitably to pride, and there is the possibility that the other party is degraded and feels abused by the other. We simply have to accept that much of Scripture is open to various levels of interpretation, which if placed side by side would appear to be contradictory. Consider, for example, how many different applications the NT gives to Psalms 2, 110.</h4>


text:
<p>13:35&nbsp;<em>This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet</em>- Again we see the Lord consciously trying to make the word flesh:&nbsp;</p><p><em>I will open my mouth</em>&nbsp;<em>in parables-</em>&nbsp;Asaph in Psalms 78 seems to be saying that he was going to recount the history of Israel in order to reveal to his audience the hidden message of Israel's history; and he was not going to "hide" that message from them, but rather to 'declare' it and 'make it known': "I will open my mouth in a parable, I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, declaring to the generation to come the praises of Yahweh, His strength, and His wondrous works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a teaching in Israel, which He commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children" (<em><a href='B:230 78:1-5'>Psa 78:1-5</a></em>). And yet the Lord has been saying that He will teach in parables in order to hide, not declare and not make known God's Truth to the majority of Israel. But Psalms 78 says that He&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;declare these things. The point surely is that these truths were being declared, made known etc:&nbsp;<em>to the disciples</em>, but the very process would continue to hide them from Israel as a whole. The context of Psalms 78 is likely Asaph seeking to declare to Judah under Babylonian domination the meaning of their history and how Israel's history was to come to a climax and a full declaration of its meaning in Messiah. It therefore has relevance to the true Israel under Roman domination. Note that <em><a href='B:230 78:2'>Psa 78:2</a></em> is quoted here as it is in <em><a href='B:500 6:31'>Joh 6:31</a></em>; Psalms 78 is alluded to at least 10 times in the N:T. The strongly uneven nature of quotation from the OT shows that some OT chapters were as it were proof texts for the early church; Psalms 110 is the clearest example.</p><p><em>I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world</em>- See on <em><a href='B:470 13:33'>Mat 13:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>hid</em>. Many of the Lord’s parables portray the [preaching of] the Gospel of the Kingdom of God as a kind of secret force: treasure hidden in a field, the tiniest seed in the garden, wheat growing among weeds, a pinch of yeast worked into dough, salt on meat::. these are all images of something which works from within, changing other people in an ongoing, regular manner.</p>


text:
<p>13:36&nbsp;<em>Then he left the crowds-&nbsp;</em>AV "Sent the multitude away<em>":&nbsp;</em>Here we sense the power of the Lord’s personality, able somehow to send a crowd of eager people away:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying: Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field-</em>&nbsp;The disciples only got the interpretation of the parables because they made the effort to go into the house and ask Him. Previously in this chapter the Lord has spoken of how blessed they are because they understand the parables, and how the crowds don’t. But clearly effort had to be made to reach that understanding, it was not automatically beamed into them. They clearly didn’t automatically understand the parables because they asked the Lord to “declare” or (Gk:) expound them to them. They do the same in <em><a href='B:470 15:15'>Mat 15:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:37&nbsp;<em>And he answered and said: He that sows the good seed is-</em>&nbsp;The present tense may suggest that the Lord was referring to the response to His preaching there and then.</p><p><em>The Son of Man-</em>&nbsp;But it also refers to any preacher. If we are in Christ, then in our preaching, we are Him to this world.</p>


text:
<p>13:38&nbsp;<em>The field-</em>&nbsp;The emphasis is repeatedly on the fact that it is&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;field (:24,27,31). The Lord often speaks as if He has already overcome the world, even though the cross was still future for Him. So confident was He that the Father would bring Him through to inherit all things.</p><p><em>Is the world-</em>&nbsp;In the first instance, the Jewish world:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom-</em>&nbsp;We would expect the good seed to represent God’s word, as it does in the earlier parable of the sower. And in a sense, it does; but the word becomes flesh in those who truly respond to it, and therefore the Lord interprets it as individual believers. Being ‘children of’ something suggests that we have that thing as our family of origin, our parent. And this is how we should feel towards the things of God’s Kingdom. “The Kingdom” is placed in contrast with “the wicked one”. The plants are the children or offspring of whoever sowed them. The weeds were sown by the wicked one, and the good seed were sown by the Lord Jesus; but He is styled “the Kingdom” in that as King of that Kingdom, this is a legitimate title for Him. He was and is the essence of the Kingdom:&nbsp;</p><p>It is our attitude to God's word which is the fundamental indicator of our spirituality. The sower parable teaches this by its equation of the seed / word and the types of ground. In the next (but related) parable of the tares, "the good seed are the children of the Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>)- i:e. the seed / word is people. In the sower parable, we read of "He which received seed by the way side" (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em>), connecting the believer with a type of ground which receives the seed, whilst <em><a href='B:490 8:12-13'>Luk 8:12-13</a></em> speak of the people as the seeds rather than the types of ground: "Those (seeds) by the way side are they::. they on the rock are they::.". <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em> speaks of people receiving seed by the way side, but <em><a href='B:480 4:15'>Mar 4:15</a></em> likens their&nbsp;<em>heart</em>&nbsp;to the way side, where the seed was sown. In God's sight, a person&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;his heart or way of thinking (<em><a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a></em>); and to God, a person's attitude to the word&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;his mind.<br/>The RV translates the parable of the sower as if the seed sown is the convert: “he that was sown…” (<em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em> RV). And later on in <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em> we are told so again: “the good seed are the children of the Kingdom”. Yet the seed was a symbol of the word of God. The parallel between the seed and the convert is such as to suggest that the word of God will produce converts in some sense; it will not return void (<em><a href='B:290 55:11'>Isa 55:11</a></em>). The apparent dearth of response to some&nbsp;preaching therefore poses a challenging question. Are we preaching the word of God alone, or our own ideas? Does God withhold blessing for some reason unknown to us? Is this parable only part of a wider picture, in which somehow the word&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;return void due to man’s rejection? Thus the word of God was ‘made void’ by the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:480 7:13'>Mar 7:13</a></em> RV- a conscious allusion to <em><a href='B:290 55:11'>Isa 55:11</a></em>?)…. This is perhaps one of the most defiantly unanswerable questions in our experience. As an aside, one possible explanation is that “the word” which is sent forth and prospers, achieving all God’s intention, is in fact Messiah. The same word is used about the ‘prospering’ of the Servant in His work: <em><a href='B:290 48:15'>Isa 48:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 45:4'>Psa 45:4</a></em>. Another is to accept the LXX reading of this passage: “…until whatsoever I have willed shall have been accomplished”. Here at least is the implication that&nbsp;<em>something</em>&nbsp;happens and is achieved when we preach God’s word. The same idiom occurs in <em><a href='B:330 9:11'>Eze 9:11</a></em> AVmg:, where we read that “the man clothed with linen”- representing Ezekiel or his representative Angel- “returned the word, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me”. The word ‘returned’ in the sense that someone, somewhere, was obedient to it even if others weren’t. We must believe, really and truly, that the word will not return void, but it will accomplish what it is intended to achieve. We are not scattering seed with the vague hope that something might sprout up; we are planting, fully expecting to see a harvest. “The word of God grew and multiplied” (<em><a href='B:510 12:24'>Act 12:24</a></em>) surely means that the number of converts to the word multiplied- for the same word is repeatedly used in this sense (<em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:14'>Act 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:31'>Act 9:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:20'>Act 19:20</a></em>). Thus “the word of God” is put by metonymy for ‘the response to the word of God’, as if the word will inevitably bring forth response:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the weeds are the sons of the evil one</em>- I have demonstrated throughout the exposition of this chapter, beginning with the parable of the sower, that the adversary to the growth of the word of Jesus in the first century was initially the Jewish system. They are here personified as 'the wicked one'. And the noun is used elsewhere in this context by the Lord; He speaks of not resisting the evil one [s:w:] when the disciples were hit on the cheek, which was distinctly a synagogue punishment for uttering heresy (<em><a href='B:470 5:39'>Mat 5:39</a></em>). Judaism understood 'the wicked one' as a personal Satan figure, but the Lord is redefining it- as they themselves. On a wider scale, the New Testament does this masterfully, redefining the common understanding of 'Satan', the adversary, the wicked one, as a personification of you yourself. The Lord specifically defines the Jewish religious leaders as 'the wicked one' in <em><a href='B:470 7:11'>Mat 7:11</a></em>: "If you then, being evil [Gk. 'the wicked one']::.". Earlier that same day (<em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>) the Lord had three times called them "evil ones" and an "evil generation", using the same word&nbsp;<em>poneros</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 12:34'>Mat 12:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:39'>Mat 12:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:45'>Mat 12:45</a></em>; John's Gospel likewise records the Lord calling the Jewish world "evil" in <em><a href='B:500 3:19'>Joh 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:7'>Joh 7:7</a></em>). They were the personification of 'the wicked one' because they had 'evil' [s:w:] in their hearts (<em><a href='B:470 9:4'>Mat 9:4</a></em> "why do you think evil in your hearts?"); for moral 'evil' comes from the heart (<em><a href='B:470 15:19'>Mat 15:19</a></em>). Later in this chapter He uses the word to speak of how the 'wicked ones' will be separated from the righteous at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:49'>Mat 13:49</a></em>). Clearly 'the wicked ones' are people- and not&nbsp;supernatural beings. Note how the very same word and grammatical construction is used to describe a church member as "the wicked one" (<em><a href='B:530 5:13'>1Co 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:2'>2Th 3:2</a></em>). The term does not of itself require any reference to a supernatural being.</p><p>We shouldn’t seek to over-interpret every element of a parable- although such approaches often yield very fruitful lessons. Indeed, here is the difference between parables and allegories- an allegory requires every symbol to be interpreted, but parables aren’t like this. It’s a different genre. The focus is often on the end stress, not the details of the parable itself. And so I submit that rather do we need to seek to perceive the main issues which the Lord is seeking to get over to us, through these special features of His stories. Indeed, when the Lord&nbsp;<em>does</em>&nbsp;give interpretations of His parables, He doesn’t give interpretations of every feature which formed the furniture of the parable. When He gives quite a detailed interpretation of the parable of the wheat and tares, He doesn’t comment on the significance of the servants sleeping, the barn, the<em>&nbsp;bundling&nbsp;</em>of the weeds, etc.</p>


text:
<p>13:39&nbsp;<em>The enemy that sowed them is-</em>&nbsp;The Lord uses the same word in <em><a href='B:490 19:27'>Luk 19:27</a></em> to describe how the Jews who refused the Gospel were the Lord's "enemies". Paul likewise uses it to speak of how the unbelieving Jews are "enemies" (<em><a href='B:520 11:28'>Rom 11:28</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>The Devil</em>- see on :38.</p><p><em>The harvest</em>- The Lord used the same metaphor in <em><a href='B:470 9:37-38'>Mat 9:37-38</a></em> in speaking of how during that earlier part of His ministry, the harvest was ongoing and He was sending out the disciples to reap the harvest; at that time, the Lord could say that "the fields are white already to harvest" (<em><a href='B:500 4:35'>Joh 4:35</a></em>); the disciples were sent out to harvest it (<em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em> s:w:, AV "to reap", literally 'to harvest'). But now He speaks of the harvest as being at a considerable distance in time from where they were now located- "the end of the age". This could be an example of the 'now but not yet' theme, whereby the language of the Lord's return and future Kingdom is used about our present experience. But in line with my observations about the abrupt change in the Lord's attitude to Israel at the end of chapter 12 (see on <em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:10'>Mat 13:10</a></em>), it seems to me that He now considered that the time of harvest had been delayed. The parable of the sower earlier in the chapter had taught that the crop would only be reaped "when the harvest is come" (<em><a href='B:480 4:29'>Mar 4:29</a></em>). This likewise was an implicit statement that the time of harvest in <em><a href='B:470 9:37-38'>Mat 9:37-38</a></em> had now been delayed. And one of the factors was not simply that the fruit was not ready, but that there had been insufficient labourers to harvest it (<em><a href='B:470 9:38'>Mat 9:38</a></em>). Likewise the parable of the weeds suggests that weakness amongst the Lord's servants had led to the problem being experienced- if they had not slept, then the enemy would not have sown the weeds (<em><a href='B:470 13:25'>Mat 13:25</a></em>). This is perhaps why towards the end of His ministry, the Lord taught that&nbsp;<em>He personally</em>&nbsp;was going to do the harvesting, albeit assisted by the Angels (<em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em> "I harvest", s:w:; AV "reap"); see on :41.</p><p><em>Is the end of the world</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>aion</em>&nbsp;means 'age', and so there is no suggestion here of the destruction of planet earth. The disciples impatiently asked when this would be, using the same term (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>). The phrase is only used outside Matthew in <em><a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a></em>, where we read that the Lord's death on the cross was "the end of the age"- and this is part of an argument that the Mosaic age has ended and should not be, as it were, lived in any longer. Paul uses a related phrase in <em><a href='B:530 10:11'>1Co 10:11</a></em> to describe how his generation lived at a time when the ends of the ages had&nbsp;<em>already come</em>. Paul was writing before AD70. In neither of these references is there any suggestion that 'the end of the age' was in AD70; rather the reference is to the Lord’s&nbsp;death on the cross, which ended the Mosaic age. The Lord defines "the end of the age" more specifically in <em><a href='B:470 13:40'>Mat 13:40</a></em> as "the end of&nbsp;<em>this&nbsp;</em>age"- the period in which He was then living, which was the Mosaic age. The significance of the events of AD70 appears to me to have been overstated and over interpreted by many expositors. I suggested that "the harvest" was possible in the first part of the Lord's ministry, but He delayed it because of Israel's lack of fruit and a lack of faithful harvesters. He delayed to 'the end of the age'- His death on the cross. But the harvest didn't happen then either. God's ultimate appeal, indeed the ultimate appeal of Jesus Himself, was in His death, in His body hanging upon the cross for all to see, and in His resurrection. But that appeal went unheeded by Israel. And so it seems to me that the time of harvest has again been delayed, to the final end of the age at His second coming. The great preaching commission includes the promise of the Lord's personal presence with and support to His preachers "until the end of the age" (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>); the implication could be that the new age which the Lord had in mind would be terminated by the Gospel being preached into all the world. This naturally connects with the Lord's teaching that the Gospel "shall be preached in all the world::. and then shall the end come" (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>). He doesn't define "the end". The end of what? Surely "the end of the age" which He had taught about here in <em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>. But the "end" is therefore without a specific chronological terminus- because it depends upon whether the preachers take the Gospel to all the world. Perhaps He didn't say specifically "the end of the age" in <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> because He realized that His death would be the end of one age, the Mosaic age, but the final end of the age would depend, to use His earlier metaphor, upon the ripening of the harvest and the zeal of the preachers to harvest it.</p><p><em>And the reapers are Angels</em>- "The reapers" means literally 'the harvesters'. The same word has been used for how the disciples were sent to harvest in the earlier part of the Lord's ministry. The suggestion could be that this is all part of the Lord's changed program- now, it is no longer the disciples who would reap, but the Angels would. Note how the Lord's parable of labourers in the vine harvest suggests He had a chronic problem getting enough workers- the owner is desperate to get absolutely anybody to do a bit of work in that harvest, paying men a day's wage if they only worked one hour. And connect this with how the Lord prayed and asked others to pray that more labourers would be sent out to harvest (<em><a href='B:470 9:38'>Mat 9:38</a></em>).</p><p>The point has been made that when the Angels first come to call us to judgment at the second coming (<em><a href='B:470 13:39'>Mat 13:39</a></em>), there will be an element of choice as to whether we immediately accept the call to go and meet Christ. Noah and Lot were invited, not forced, to leave the world. Those who respond to Christ's return" immediately" will be accepted, implying that the unworthy delay. This means that the response is optional in the first instance (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>). There are other indications of this:&nbsp; The most obvious is in the parable of the virgins, where the wise go out to meet their Lord immediately, whilst the foolish delay in order to spiritually prepare themselves.</p>


text:
<h4>13:40&nbsp;<em>As therefore the weeds are gathered up and burned-</em>&nbsp;These are the same weeds of the sower parable, who choke the response of people to the message of Christ, initially in the form it was preached by John the Baptist. They refer to&nbsp;<em>people</em>; yet the similar parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em> speaks of how the devil and his angels, his followers, are to be burnt in fire. The devil and his angels therefore refer in the first context to the individuals and collective system behind them which have discouraged response to Christ. The 'angels' of <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em> are the weed category of people defined here in chapter 13.</h4><p><em>With fire, so shall it be at the end of the world-</em>&nbsp;I suggested in the above commentary on :39 that the harvest began earlier in the Lord's ministry, but He recalculated His program and delayed it. Likewise the idea of a gathering of and destruction of the wicked in "fire" is clearly taken from the Lord's earlier teaching that the fruitless trees were even then being cut down and were about to be thrown into the fire (<em><a href='B:470 7:19'>Mat 7:19</a></em> - note the tenses), which was in turn repeating the words of John the Baptist, who predicted that in the ministry of the Jesus whom he was announcing,&nbsp; "He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor and he will gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire" (<em><a href='B:470 3:11-12'>Mat 3:11-12</a></em>). Note again the tenses- this was about to happen, the winnowing fan was already in the hand of the Lord Jesus. But now, the Lord reschedules that judgment and burning until "the end of the age", and urges the disciples to allow the weeds to grow in the field and just wait until Divine judgment comes. Again, it would be possible to understand all this as part of the nexus of 'now but not yet' language we find in the New Testament; in a sense, that fire was "already kindled" by human rejection of the message (<em><a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a></em>), and we can even now drag men out of that fire (<em><a href='B:720 1:23'>Jud 1:23</a></em>). But the context of Matthew 13 is without doubt a change in program by the Lord, and I therefore prefer to see this change in timing as part of His rescheduling of His program. In the past, God Himself had clearly reinterpreted and rescheduled His prophetic intentions with Israel and various Gentile nations (e:g. Nineveh), and so this should not strike us as unusual. Indeed in these last days it could well be that there were various times in the 20th Century when prophetically, the stage was set for the Lord's return; but there was again a rescheduling, partly because of the poorness of the harvest, and partly because of the reluctance of His people to go out and gather it, preferring instead to squabble amongst themselves and chase their own tails over the finer points of Biblical interpretation.</p>


text:
<p>13:41&nbsp;<em>The son of man-</em>&nbsp;A term often associated with the Lord in His role as final judge, for due to having fully had human nature, He thereby has the right to judge men (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>).</p><p><em>Shall send forth His Angels-</em>&nbsp;Practically and concretely, how will we be gathered to judgment? How? When? It seems that the Angels will suddenly appear to us in the course of our mundane lives, and invite us to go to meet Christ. "The reapers" of the harvest "are the angels"; it is they who will gather the believers, and then divide them into wheat and tares (<em><a href='B:470 13:40-42'>Mat 13:40-42</a></em>). As men gather in a net and sort out the fish, so the angels will at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 13:47-50'>Mat 13:47-50</a></em>). "Men (angels) gather (the branches), and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). This same equation of men and angels is seen in <em><a href='B:490 6:38'>Luk 6:38</a></em>, this time concerning how the angels will mete out rewards as well as punishment at the judgment:&nbsp;</p><p>The Greek&nbsp;<em>apostello</em>&nbsp;(“send forth”) is earlier used of the Lord sending forth the apostles / disciples to gather the harvest (<em><a href='B:470 10:5'>Mat 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:16'>Mat 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:40'>Mat 10:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:2'>Mat 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:14'>Mar 3:14</a></em>). But now the Lord is rescheduling His program, perhaps due to the weakness of the disciples in doing the work (see on :39&nbsp;<em>The harvest</em>); instead of them doing the work, He would do it, at the end of the age, through His Angels. The same word is used in the preceding sower parable, of how the sickle is 'sent forth' to gather the harvest when it is ripe (<em><a href='B:480 4:29'>Mar 4:29</a></em>). Such rescheduling is common in God's working with men. Earlier, the Father had 'sent forth' prophets at the time of harvest- but they had not been given any fruit; and therefore He sent His Son (<em><a href='B:480 12:2'>Mar 12:2</a></em> s:w:). The same word is used about how at "supper time", when all things of the Kingdom were "ready", servants were "sent" to bring the guests (Israel) to the table (<em><a href='B:490 14:17'>Luk 14:17</a></em>); but they refused:&nbsp;</p><p>It is not until the harvest that they are sent out to root out of the Kingdom all things that offend. There is a sense in which the Angels have limited knowledge about our spiritual capacities; "We are made a spectacle::. to Angels”&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em>) implies that the Angels look on at the sufferings God has brought on us through our guardian Angel, and intensely scrutinize how we are acting as if earnestly watching a theatre play (so the word "spectacle" implies). Thus they are anxiously looking for the outcome of their trials on us, not knowing the final result. The fact that only at the judgement will the names of the worthy be confessed to the Angels by Jesus (<em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>) makes it appear that the ultimate outcome of our probations is not known to our guardians, hence their eagerness in our lives to see how we react.</p><p>It seems that when Christ first comes, He sends&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;Angels to gather us (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>), and it is also His Angels which punish the wicked (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>); however it is God’s Angels which reward the righteous (there seems a distinction between the Angels of God and of Christ). The Angels of Christ bring us to Him with their report on us, and He then makes the decision- those same Angels are told to arrange the destruction of their charge if unworthy, whilst the worthy are confessed to the Angels of God for glorification:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling and them that do iniquity-</em>&nbsp;Literally, 'All that offend'. The sentence continues: "And&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;which do iniquity". The reference is to&nbsp;<em>people</em>, those weeds who stopped others growing, in the terms of the parable of the sower. Causing stumbling to others is clearly a major sin in the Lord's eyes, and we need to give His perspective its full weight in assessing the likely impact of our dealings with others. To cause others to stumble, to offend them, leads to condemnation with a millstone around the neck; but we can do that&nbsp;<em>in this life</em>, be condemned for it, and yet whilst there is life- we can repent. For Peter was one such who potentially caused another (none less than the Lord) to stumble (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>). We note that it is the Jewish world whom the Lord saw as full of offence / stumbling (<em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em>). In our day it is those who cause division who cause others thereby to stumble (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>); for even the whiff of division is what is so spiritually carcinogenic to new converts and indeed to us all. Causing others to stumble from the path to the Kingdom is the leading characteristic of the condemned, according to the Lord’s words in <em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>. Compare His words: “It is inevitable that offences come; but woe to that man by whom they come” with “The son of man goes as it is written of him; but woe to that man (Judas) by whom the son of man is betrayed!”. The Lord sees those who cause offence as being as bad as Judas. It’s serious. We are the body of Christ. It has been truly said that Jesus has no face, no hands, no legs on this earth apart from us. Positively, this means that we beseech men and women “in the face of Jesus Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 2:10'>2Co 2:10</a></em> RV).</p><p>The Kingdom is here described by the Lord as a time when all those in the ecclesia who cause others to stumble will have been thrown away into condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>). Yet in some things we all offend others (<em><a href='B:660 3:2'>Jas 3:2</a></em>). Our places in the Kingdom will therefore be by pure grace alone; but we must respond to this wonder by&nbsp;<em>trying</em>&nbsp;as earnestly as possible to only upbuild and not to stumble our brethren. A personally ‘righteous’ believer may well be excluded from the Kingdom for the effect he has had on others. Both God and the pastors of Israel are described as having ‘driven out’ Israel from their land (<em><a href='B:300 23:2-3'>Jer 23:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:8'>Jer 23:8</a></em>); the pastors’ sin resulted in all the people sinning and deserving judgment, and God worked with this system, confirming His people in the evil way they had taken.</p><p><em>"</em>Them that do iniquity<em>"&nbsp;</em>are not necessarily a separate category to 'all who offend'. To cause others to stumble is the essence of 'doing iniquity':&nbsp; And we can make others stumble passively; for attitude and unspoken messages have huge effect upon others' spirituality:&nbsp;<em>Anomia</em>, "iniquity", is literally 'not-law'. Yet again the Lord is driving home the paradox- the legalistic, law-following Jews were in fact not keeping the Law. The Lord specifically states that the Pharisees are "full of iniquity" (<em><a href='B:470 23:28'>Mat 23:28</a></em> s:w:). And in <em><a href='B:470 24:12'>Mat 24:12</a></em> He again defines 'iniquity' as being damaging to others- the abounding of 'iniquity' causes "the love (<em>agape</em>) of many [to] become cold". And in our own times, this is clearly seen; legalistic attitudes cause that vital&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;love to disappear from individuals and communities of believers:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:42&nbsp;<em>And shall cast them into the fiery furnace-</em>&nbsp;Defined in <em><a href='B:470 13:50'>Mat 13:50</a></em> as&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;furnace of fire. The reality and picture of final condemnation was so clearly in the Lord's mind so often. He saw clearly where disbelief in Him and legalistic behaviour was going to ultimately lead. To Jewish minds, the idea of being cast into a fiery furnace on a King's orders obviously recalls Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego being cast into such a furnace in Daniel 3. This incident was held up in militant Judaism of the time as the ultimate example for Israel in their struggle against the Gentile world. But, the Lord is saying, there will be no deliverance for you:&nbsp;<em>The</em>&nbsp;furnace begs for Biblical identification with Sodom and Egypt both being described as "the furnace" (<em><a href='B:10 19:28'>Gen 19:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:20'>Deu 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:51'>1Ki 8:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:4'>Jer 11:4</a></em>); and yet Jerusalem was to become "the furnace" when burnt by Babylon (<em><a href='B:330 22:18'>Eze 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:20'>Eze 22:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:22'>Eze 22:22</a></em>). The punishment of the rejected will be to be treated as this world, "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>), sharing Babylon's judgment of having a millstone around her neck and being cast into the sea of the world. But Judaism's strongest theme was their much vaunted separation from the Gentile world. And yet they were to be judged as the very world they hated, because in essence their legalism brought them to the same moral position as that world, and even far worse.</p><p><em>There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth</em>- A phrase so often used by the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:50'>Mat 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:51'>Mat 24:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>). He evidently had the vision of the last day judgment before Him. Here, as so often, it serves well to consider in what tone of voice He spoke. His passion for the lost and urgent desire to save from condemnation lead us to wonder if He spoke these words almost in tears, knowing what was coming. The desolation of the rejected would be so deep because they would then realize the eternal future they could have had. When He spoke of blessedness for those who weep now (<em><a href='B:490 6:21'>Luk 6:21</a></em>), the Lord surely meant 'those who weep for the wretchedness of their own spiritual failure, who recognize how worthy they are of condemnation and feel it as if it had happened'. In contrast, those who wish to appear so spiritually wonderful before men will "weep" in the last day- they will be condemned (<em><a href='B:490 6:25'>Luk 6:25</a></em> s:w:). Peter likewise wept in this life after denying the Lord, experiencing the condemnation of going out from the Lord into darkness with shame; but repented and will be saved:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:43&nbsp;<em>Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father-</em>&nbsp;The second coming of Christ as Malachi's "sun of righteousness" is a clear Bible theme. At the transfiguration, a clear vision of the Kingdom age, the Lord's face shone as the sun (<em><a href='B:470 17:2'>Mat 17:2</a></em>); and it is He personally who shall shine forth to all at His second coming (<em><a href='B:490 17:24'>Luk 17:24</a></em>). The Lord is saying that we will then be openly revealed as Him. But "shine forth" translates&nbsp;<em>ek-lampo</em>; and we are to be a visible&nbsp;<em>lampo</em>&nbsp;right now, shining in a way which cannot be hid from men (<em><a href='B:470 5:15-16'>Mat 5:15-16</a></em>). Again and again, we find the Lord's later teaching so often rooted in the Sermon on the Mount. Our shining before men now is related to our shining eternally in the age to come. The other clear OT allusion is to <em><a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a></em> - those who turn many to righteousness shall shine eternally. The opposite to causing others to stumble (and being condemned for it) is to teach others righteousness (and be saved). We cannot therefore be somehow in a neutral position, doing nobody any evil and yet nobody much good either. We are either making them stumble or turning them to righteousness:&nbsp;</p><p>Contrary to how some wish to interpret things, the Lord did understand "the Kingdom" to have a future aspect; for He speaks of how "then::. in the Kingdom" the righteous will shine as the sun. The shining of the sun was to give light on earth, and this basic reason for the sun is mentioned often in the Bible. In some way, we shall eternally give light to others; and this aspect of the Kingdom life must begin in us now. Even in the future Kingdom, the basis of our witness to the world will be that we are in Christ. Thus Micah’s description of how “the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the Lord, as the showers upon the grass” (<em><a href='B:400 5:7'>Mic 5:7</a></em>) is consciously alluding to the then-famous Messianic prophecy of <em><a href='B:230 72:6'>Psa 72:6</a></em>: “<em>He</em>&nbsp;shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth”. The blessings Messiah brings are to be articulated through the witness of those in Him. Those who have lived in Him will then shine as the brightness of the firmament (<em><a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a></em>). But the description of the Lord’s face shining as the sun draws on this; as if to say that our shining in the future Kingdom will be because we were and are in Him. We will shine forth then (<em><a href='B:470 13:43'>Mat 13:43</a></em>), as the Sun of righteousness Himself.</p><p><em>He who has ears, let him hear-</em>&nbsp;The Lord has earlier in this chapter told the disciples that His audiences generally did not have ears to hear; but the disciples do. This would therefore be an invitation to the disciples specifically to use the potential for understanding which they had. They were to continue shining; for the context of this whole long day's teaching (see on <em><a href='B:470 13:1'>Mat 13:1</a></em>) was that they were weary in their witness because of opposition and lack of response:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:44&nbsp;<em>The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field</em>- This mini parable, and the next one about the man seeking to buy pearls, presents things to us from the perspective of the Lord Jesus. He had just taught that "The field is the world" (:38). Who bought / redeemed the world? The Lord Jesus. It is "<em>His&nbsp;</em>field" (<em><a href='B:470 13:27'>Mat 13:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:31'>Mat 13:31</a></em>). When did the Lord "buy" (this is the word usually translated "redeem") the world? In His death on the cross, which cost Him all that He had. We note that the parable puts the focus on the joy of the obtaining rather than all that was given up and lost. Surely Paul alludes here when he writes that we are "bought [s:w:] with a price" (<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 should act and feel accordingly. Why did the Lord do this? Because within "the world" there was "treasure"- us, those who are finally His special personal possession. Here we see neatly explained the difference between the Lord's redemption of the whole world, "all men", and yet personal salvation only being experienced by a few hidden within the world, His "treasure". <em><a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em> may have this in mind when speaking of how the saved were "redeemed [s:w. "bought"] by [Christ's] blood out of every tribe, language, people and nation". But to save&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;He had to redeem the world, purchase the field. Yet we are 'hidden' in the world; not that our faith is to be invisible, but insofar as we are a minority. This again was in the context of encouraging the disciples that the poor response to their message in the Jewish world was nothing to be unduly discouraged by. The world- and perhaps the Lord had in view the&nbsp;<em>Jewish</em>&nbsp;world for whom Christ primarily died (<em><a href='B:550 4:4-5'>Gal 4:4-5</a></em>)- was to be bought by Christ in His death, but only a few would respond and be 'found' as His treasure. Again, we find "treasure" mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount. The principle that "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (<em><a href='B:470 6:21'>Mat 6:21</a></em>) applied to the Lord- His heart is totally with us. And there is to be a mutuality between a man and his Lord; if we are our Lord's treasure, then we are not to lay up treasure on earth, but rather have Him as&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>treasure (<em><a href='B:470 6:19-20'>Mat 6:19-20</a></em>) just as we are&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;treasure. Paul seems to play around with this idea of 'hid treasure', for he uses the same Greek words twice. But each time, slightly differently. He speaks of how we the light of God's glory has&nbsp;<em>shone&nbsp;</em>in our hearts, using the very same word as in <em><a href='B:470 13:43'>Mat 13:43</a></em> about the righteous shining as the sun in the Kingdom; but he then says that this "treasure" is hidden in the "earthen vessels" of our own bodies (<em><a href='B:540 4:6-7'>2Co 4:6-7</a></em>). Just as we as a community are 'hidden' in the soil of the field / the world, so actually the real essence of our relationship with Christ is likewise hidden within all the dust of our own personal humanity. This is not to say that we can relax and justify worldly living as being merely 'the flesh'. But it is a comfort that the Bible teaching here recognizes that our real spiritual essence is indeed 'hidden' in the dust and ashes of all we have to do as we go about life in the flesh in this present world. Again, as it were playing with the ideas, Paul speaks of how "In Christ are&nbsp;<em>hid</em>&nbsp;all the&nbsp;<em>treasures</em>&nbsp;of wisdom" (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>). There is no very obvious semantic connection with the Lord's teaching about us being His treasure hid in this world. So perhaps this is one of Paul's many unconscious allusions to the Gospels, whereby he had the words so deeply in his consciousness that they influenced his thinking and writing both consciously and unconsciously. For more examples of this, see my discussion of the issue in&nbsp;<em>Bible Lives</em>:&nbsp;</p><h4><em>Which a man found</em>- In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord had put the emphasis upon&nbsp;<em>us&nbsp;</em>seeking and finding the way to life (<em><a href='B:470 7:7-8'>Mat 7:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:14'>Mat 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:25'>Mat 16:25</a></em>). Yet He is also searching for us; He speaks of how He 'found' faith in a Gentile man, and had been seeking to find such faith in Israel (<em><a href='B:470 8:10'>Mat 8:10</a></em> s:w:). The Lord told parables of Himself as the good shepherd seeking and&nbsp;<em>finding</em>&nbsp;the lost (Luke 15; <em><a href='B:470 18:13'>Mat 18:13</a></em> s:w:), of Him seeking and<em>&nbsp;finding</em>&nbsp;workers for His work (<em><a href='B:470 20:6'>Mat 20:6</a></em>), wanting to&nbsp;<em>find</em>&nbsp;fruit on the fig tree (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:7'>Luk 13:7</a></em>),&nbsp;<em>finding&nbsp;</em>people to come to the marriage supper (<em><a href='B:470 22:9-10'>Mat 22:9-10</a></em>). This is why when the searching Lord finds the man searching for Him, there is a spark of mutuality which makes all the Angels of the cosmos rejoice. Thus the same words are used about the early disciples 'finding' Christ, and Him 'finding' them (<em><a href='B:500 1:41'>Joh 1:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>). We may justifiably speak of our search for God, for Jesus, for "the truth", but the reality is that the Father and Son were in search of&nbsp;<em>us:&nbsp;</em>The Hebrew prophets likewise present God as in search of man, and not simply awaiting our approach to Him if we wish to make it, with passive emotionless indifference. The Lord is saying that His death on the cross would not be simply to die for the world; it was because He had 'found' the treasure of believers. But who did He find? A small group of mixed young men, one time prostitutes and a few Gentiles. That was enough. His finding of&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;motivated Him to die for the world that He might save&nbsp;<em>them</em>. In this we have a window onto the apparent 'wastage' of God; that the whole world was redeemed just for the sake of a few. Some argue for universal salvation on this basis- that why should Christ have died to save just a few. But the parable is clear- it was for joy at having found the minority, which were to Him a priceless treasure, He bought the entire field- just to get them. This is the waste and abandon that comes with love, and only a utilitarian, pragmatic, loveless legalist would question its authenticity, credibility or necessity. So the Lord is encouraging His dispirited disciples that He has found them, and He rejoices over them with love and devotion; and they have found Him. That the rest of the world haven't responded cannot take anything away from this experience:&nbsp;</h4><p><em>And hid</em>- It seems that He hides the treasure, although it could mean that He hides Himself. Hiding the treasure gives the impression of an intensely personal relationship between Him and the treasure which He can't share with others. Or if He hides Himself for a period before going to buy the field, we likewise get the impression of a man overcome with an intense sense of in-loveness which only He can understand. This is how He felt about the disciples. It could be in the context of <em><a href='B:470 13:10-15'>Mat 13:10-15</a></em> (see notes there) that He means that He is hiding Himself from the world by telling them parables from now on; and instead will focus on giving His all to get the disciples and the few with "ears to hear" as His special treasure. He is thus putting a far more positive slant on His realization of how Israel generally have rejected Him, only a minority have accepted Him, and Israel had not accepted her king, nor John’s ministry, and so Yahweh’s glory was not going to come to Zion as envisaged. The Lord is saying that He has so fallen in love with the remnant who<em>&nbsp;had</em>&nbsp;responded, that He felt a joy so great that He would give all He had to redeem the whole world in order to save them. And this is in keeping with His teaching in the previous parables- that the wonder of the few good seeds who respond amazingly, of the wheat that grows so well despite the weeds, is such that all the loss, rejection and casualty is worth it.</p><p>If we really want to make encounters and conversations work, we need to consider who we're talking with. The Lord's parables of <em><a href='B:470 13:44-49'>Mat 13:44-49</a></em> make it clear that people have different motivations when they first encounter our preaching. Some are merely fish caught in the Gospel net and compelled to come in; others are as the merchant man who is searching for good pearls, who sells all he has to get that pearl and just have it, gazing at it with admiration and appreciation each day; others are as the man who finds something of value in a field, maybe he sees there's some precious raw material he can exploit there, and so he buys the field in order to get some benefit for himself. The strange (to my ears) comment in <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em> that the man 'hides' his discovery appears to contradict the reality that we should joyfully share our discovery of Christ with others. Perhaps the picture is being painted of a man with all the wrong motivations, who comes to the treasure from the viewpoint of 'What can I selfishly get out of this' (it may be in our age::. a desire for welfare support, a partner, a social club:::). And yet all the same he has come to the treasure, been called to it, allowed to find it::. that is perhaps the point. All these types of people have differing motivations, and need to be treated differently by us.</p><p>The man who finds treasure [or, perhaps, a deposit of precious metal in a field which could be mined]&nbsp;<em>hides the fact</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>), and sells all he has to buy that field. The hiding of the discovery speaks to me of the utterly personal knowledge between a man and his Lord which we enter into when we 'find' the treasure of the Kingdom, the pearl of great price. For any man or woman who hears the Lord's words, He and His Father will enter in and make their abode with them (<em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>). Although we are a great multitude of redeemed, yet the communication of the Father and Son to us are still amazingly unique, even though we all hear and read the same actual words, and reflect upon the same facts. Right back at the beginning of God’s relationship with Israel He had made the point that “I will meet you [plural] to speak there unto thee [you singular]” (<em><a href='B:20 29:42'>Exo 29:42</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p><em>And in his joy</em>- This is the joy of the in-love Jesus, so excited at having found the remnant, the treasure in the field of the unbelieving world, so excited He hides Himself for a while, or hides the treasure from others’ view. One of the motives behind His endurance of the cross (which was how the field of the world was bought / redeemed) was “joy”. Not joy in the sense of giggling and happy-clappy; but “joy” in the sense that He could speak of “My joy” just hours before beginning the ordeal (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>). The parables of Luke 15 describe the Lord’s joy as being in relation to finding the lost, and this was what had happened in the Lord’s ‘finding’ of the disciples and responsive remnant.</p><p><em>He went and sold all that he had and bought that field-</em>&nbsp;These very words are used by the Lord in teaching that the rich ruler should sell all that he has- and give to the poor (<em><a href='B:490 18:22'>Luk 18:22</a></em>). The Lord wasn’t asking the man to do anything that He Himself was not doing. His giving to the poor was in giving redemption to&nbsp;<em>us</em>. And the Lord was a “cheerful giver”; He gave up all “with joy” for us; and in the first instance, to die for that small group of mixed up men and women who tagged around with Him. “Sells&nbsp;<em>all</em>” might suggest He was wealthy; seeing that the Lord was not a wealthy man, we wonder what this ‘wealth’ was which He gave up, recalling Paul’s comment that He who was rich became poor for our sakes on the cross (<em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em>). What did He ‘give up’ or ‘sell’? What was His real loss? Perhaps it was that as God’s Son He could personally have been saved without the cross, but He did all He did in order to save us- and thus set the ultimate example of overcoming selfishness.</p><p>The man who sells all to buy the field containing the treasure (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>)- what does he&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;with his newly found wealth? The question, of course, bids us reflect what we have done with the wealth of the Gospel which we have found. These open-ended parables with unanswered&nbsp;questions are left hanging because the point is, it all depends upon our response as to how they end in our cases! The parables are thus not just cosy stories. They challenge our response. Our tidy images of reality are shattered by the open endings and elements of unreality in the parables. Our minds are arrested and teased by them, as they lead us to self-realization, self-knowledge, at times even healthy self-condemnation. The parables, especially those which Luke records, appear to end leaving us with unanswered questions. Does the wounded traveller survive and get better? When does the Samaritan return? How much does it cost him? Was the beaten man happy to see the Samaritan when he returned? Who inherits the property of the rich fool? Does the barren fig tree produce a crop in the end? Does the elder brother finally join in the party? Does the unjust steward succeed in getting himself out of his problems after his dismissal? What happens to the rich man’s five brothers, seeing Lazarus isn’t allowed to go and warn them? Do they hear Moses and the prophets? Do the riff raff come in from the lanes to the Great Supper? Does the unjust judge actually resolve the widow’s complaints? How does the rich merchant survive, after having sold all he has for the one pearl, thus discarding his entire past, his life’s work…? And what does he do with the pearl? He, presumably, sits and treasures it, but can do nothing with it in order to prosper materially… And yet we are left to reflect upon this:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:45&nbsp;<em>Again, the kingdom of heaven is like to a man that is a merchant-</em>&nbsp;A traveller, for that is the essence of the Greek word translated “merchant”. He was going around seeking- just as Jesus was in search of believing hearts. Paul saw himself as the man who gives all to buy the pearl (<em><a href='B:470 13:45-46'>Mat 13:45-46</a></em> = <em><a href='B:570 3:7-8'>Phi 3:7-8</a></em>; although this passage also alludes to Moses; as if he took inspiration from Moses to be like the man in the parable). He saw the excellency of the knowledge of Christ as the pearl whose beauty inspired even a rich man to give up all that he had. Paul took comfort, real comfort, from the way he found himself in situations similar to those of his Lord.</p><p><em>Seeking</em>- Elsewhere the Lord speaks of Himself as&nbsp;<em>seeking</em>&nbsp;(s:w:) the lost- the lost coin, sheep and son (Luke 15; <em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em> s:w:). Those rather unfortunate people were beautiful pearls to the Lord, and that is how He sees the irritating self-righteous ones, the alcoholics, the druggies, the lazy, the socially awkward… whom He so seeks as His precious treasure. We are to seek Him and His Kingdom and His Father (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:7-8'>Mat 7:7-8</a></em>). And yet He seeks us. Hence there is some kind of ‘flash’ when we meet, a flash which is felt throughout the cosmos, in which&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the Angels of Heaven rejoice. The Lord was seeking fruit on the Jewish fig tree (<em><a href='B:490 13:6'>Luk 13:6</a></em> s:w:) and found none; but just one response was as it were a “pearl” for the Lord. Thus the Lord is presented as ‘seeking’ individuals who respond, often from very bad life situations. John puts this in more spiritual terms in recording how the Lord ‘seeks’ God’s glory (<em><a href='B:500 7:18'>Joh 7:18</a></em>), alluding to how Moses sought the same glory in more visible terms. The repentance of that unlikely minority is the very essence of Yahweh’s glory:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Fine pearls</em>- Perhaps the tension is between His seeking for pearls in the plural, but being so thrilled to find just one (:46), for which he was prepared to give all. This would be in the spirit of the preceding parables; that the beauty of the response of a minority is such that it makes the failure to redeem the others seem less hard. This merchant didn’t find the many pearls he had intended to find; but he was so thrilled to find just one beautiful one that he would give all he had just to get it, and presumably, to end his business life and just sit and admire the pearl. For the question ‘And what did he do next?’ seems to require that kind of answer. For what he did wasn’t the wise thing to do in business terms. It is the element of unreality in the little story. Note the use of pearls as representative of believers in <em><a href='B:730 21:21'>Rev 21:21</a></em>; and see the note on “pearls” under <em><a href='B:470 7:6'>Mat 7:6</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>13:46&nbsp;<em>And having found one-</em>&nbsp;He was thrilled with just one, even though He began seeking pearls in the plural (:45). The combination of ‘seeking’ and ‘finding’ beyond question is to be connected with the Lord’s teaching about His seeking and finding of wayward individuals (Luke 15 and see on :45; the same Greek word for “find” is used a significant seven times in the parables of Luke 15). This strange little story could be making the simple point that if the Lord saved only one person, He would be thrilled by that. This is all directly in the context of this chapter, in which the Lord is discussing the general lack of response to Him, and comforting His flagging preachers in the disillusion which arises from little response to the Gospel. The Lord had taught that we should seek and be assured that we will find, in spiritual terms. All of His teaching He spoke to Himself, and He was the word of His own teaching made flesh:&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;understanding of seeking with the assurance of finding was that if we seek for persons to respond, we will find. Even if only one person. This surely should be our daily prayer- that we will be lead to meet the right people, that our seeking for others will result in at least one being found.</p><p><em>Of great price-&nbsp;</em>As the King of the Kingdom, the term "Kingdom of Heaven" can in some ways be applied to the Lord personally. Having spoken of how "the field is the world" (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>), the Lord goes straight on to speak of how "the Kingdom of Heaven" is like a man who gives all that he has so that he can buy or redeem a field in which He perceives treasure. The same man is also likened to a merchant who sells all that he has in order to buy a pearl of great price. In the utter bankruptcy, the selling all to obtain or redeem one thing, we surely see a parable of the cross, through which death the Lord Jesus redeemed the field of the world, and the pearl of great price [to Him]. Perhaps Paul had his eye on these parables when he spoke of how in the cross, the Lord Jesus who had been rich became poor for our sakes (<em><a href='B:540 8:9'>2Co 8:9</a></em>). That pearl, that treasure hidden within the field of the world, then becomes symbolic of us. It was of "great price" (<em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>)- and Paul again may have this in mind when he warns that we "are bought with a price" (using a related Greek word) and should therefore serve the Lord who bought us and not anyone else (<em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>). Thus we see not only the cost of our redemption, the utter self-emptying of the Lord in His time of dying; but also a picture of how valuable we are to Him. We also see some outline explanation of the way in which the Lord's death redeemed "the world", and yet we are His special treasure hidden within it. In one sense we as His treasure is still hidden within this world; in another sense of course we are to be as a city set upon a hill which cannot be hid. We should be concerned at the danger of hiding our light under a bucket; but in another sense, our relationship to the Lord is such that it is by its wonderful nature 'hidden' from the world in which we currently lie. The strange feature of <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em> - that the man (in this interpretation, the Lord Jesus) 'hides' the treasure- perhaps becomes understandable in terms of <em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>, which speaks of the Lord Jesus as having all God's treasures 'hidden' in Himself. The 'man' bought the field "for joy thereof" (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>); and despite all the pressure of the crucifixion process, the Lord Jesus could still speak at that time of "my joy" in our redemption (<em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:13'>Joh 17:13</a></em>). Just as the merchant man was "seeking" pearls and 'found' one of great price, so the good shepherd, the Lord Jesus, 'seeks' [same Greek word] fruit on the fig tree (<em><a href='B:490 13:6'>Luk 13:6</a></em>), 'seeks' the lost coin until it is found (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>), 'seeks' and saves that which was lost (<em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em>) and 'seeks' His sheep until He finds them (<em><a href='B:470 18:12'>Mat 18:12</a></em>). The 'finding' of the lost sheep, the pearl of great price, in some sense happened in the Lord's death. Hence He pictures Himself as the shepherd carrying the redeemed sheep on His shoulders with head bowed forward- exactly the posture of a man carrying a crossbar on his shoulders.</p><p><em>He went and sold all that he had-&nbsp;</em>The very same phrase is used by the Lord in speaking of how the hopelessly indebted man was sold “and all that he had” (<em><a href='B:470 18:26'>Mat 18:26</a></em>). The picture is of absolute and total destitution from selling every imaginable possession. This story does indeed have a strange twist to it. A rich man so loved a pearl which he saw that he became a pauper by selling absolutely&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;he had- his business, his transport, his expensive clothes- in order to buy a pearl. And, finishing off the story, we are to surely imagine him living the rest of his life in some humble dwelling amongst the poor of this world, daily admiring the beauty of his pearl, totally unrealized by the world around him, caring for it as the most important thing in his whole existence, realizing that in it was the epitome of absolutely all his being: his love, his wealth, his future, his joy of life day by day. And this is what the Lord did from His deep in-loveness with persons who only had potential to become pearls. He was and is in love with the idea of who we may become.</p><p><em>And bought it-</em>&nbsp;The Greek is elsewhere translated “redeem”. This speaks of our redemption by the love and self-sacrifice of the Lord on the cross. The emphasis is perhaps on&nbsp;<em>autos</em>, “it”. He had searched for many pearls, but was thrilled with giving His all for just one single one:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>13:47&nbsp;<em>Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net-&nbsp;</em>It’s so easy to have a negative spirit. Are people sincere? Do they just get baptized in the hope of material help? Can we cope with so many converts? Won’t many of them leave? What does this person really believe about doctrine? Can you believe them? Isn’t this or that the thin end of the wedge? This isn’t the spirit of the Lord’s parable about the drag net fishermen (note, not fishing with a line for a special, prize catch- but concentrating on saving as many as possible, of whatever quality, <em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>). In drag net fishing, one big fishing boat drags a net which is tied to a small dinghy. God’s fishing is thus dependent on us, the smaller boat, working with Him. Thus the harvest was plenteous during the Lord’s ministry, but relatively few were converted due to the dearth of labourers (<em><a href='B:470 9:37'>Mat 9:37</a></em> implies). <em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em> gives something more than a random example: the head (the Lord Jesus) cannot do without the feet (a symbol of the preacher in <em><a href='B:520 10:15'>Rom 10:15</a></em>). In the work of witness especially, the Head is reliant on the preacher for the work He wills to be done.</p><h4><em>That was cast into the sea and gathered fish of every kind-&nbsp;</em>We are being gathered to judgment&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:10'>Mat 22:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>) although we will be gathered then to meet the Lord (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>). We are as fish&nbsp;<em>gathered</em>&nbsp;into the net, and yet also<em>&nbsp;gathered</em>&nbsp;into vessels at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 13:47-48'>Mat 13:47-48</a></em>). The gathering is both then and now; our gathering into the net, our first response to the Gospel, is a gathering unto judgment. The Hebrew idea of 'calling' very often implies a calling to give account- e:g. God calling Adam to account (<em><a href='B:10 3:9'>Gen 3:9</a></em>), Pharaoh calling Abram to account (<em><a href='B:10 12:18'>Gen 12:18</a></em>), and Abimelech likewise (<em><a href='B:10 20:9'>Gen 20:9</a></em> - other examples in <em><a href='B:10 26:9-10'>Gen 26:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:8'>Deu 25:8</a></em>). Our calling to the Kingdom is effectively also a calling to give account. The point is, we must act now as men and women will do so on their way to judgment and the meeting with their ultimate destiny. Then we will not be bickering amongst ourselves or worrying about our worldly advantage; then, only one thing will matter. And so now, only one thing matters. When we go to judgment, we are not to look back as did Lot's wife; and yet we are not to look back having put our hand to the plough in this life. By starting on the way of Christ, we are starting on our way to judgment. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>:&nbsp;</h4><p><em>"</em>Of every kind" here is&nbsp;<em>genos</em>. Does&nbsp;<em>genos</em>&nbsp;here suggest that every genetic type of human being will have been called to the Gospel by the time the fishing is done? The word can of course refer to a nation or kindred. The suggestion is perhaps that once persons of every nation / kindred have been gathered into the net, then the night of fishing is over and the judgment (and therefore the Lord’s return) can happen. Hence our extension of the Gospel net to every&nbsp;<em>genos</em>&nbsp;will affect the coming of the Lord. <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> is actually explicit about this; indeed, it is a repeated teaching of the Lord (although only implicit at times) that He will come only once we have extended the net of the Gospel to every nation.</p>


