# comment

text:
<p><em>And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men of the people sought to destroy him</em>- I have argued elsewhere that the Lord gave His life, in the way and at the time He wished. It was not taken from Him. The role of His mock 'triumphal entry' was to whip up enthusiasm for Him- and then purposefully self-deflate it, so that the people would turn against Him and empower the Jewish leaders to do what they wished, in getting him crucified that Passover. This verse notes the success of His plans. He really was the master psychologist, the chess grandmaster who foresaw every possible move, and accommodate them all within a program and progression of events which He was supremely in control of. This is one reason why He could predict with such detail the events to be associated with His death that Passover.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they could not figure out what they might do, because all the people so hung upon his words</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em>. The Lord's mass popular support is what had apparently stymied their desire to murder Him on previous occasions. I suggest His purpose behind the mock 'triumphal entry' was to whip up that support to a crescendo, and then bitterly disappoint it. In this way, He left the Jewish leadership free to pursue their long held plans to destroy Him. And we observe too how unstable is human nature, how fickle is apparent devotion to the Lord::. that the crowds could turn so quickly. </p>


text:
<h4><em>And it came to pass, on one of the days he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, there came to him the chief priests and the scribes with the elders</em>- Matthew says the Lord "entered" the temple to teach. "Entered" is&nbsp;<em>erchomai</em>, and is matched by the priests and elders 'coming' to Him,&nbsp;<em>proserchomai</em>. The impression is created of direct confrontation, head on:&nbsp;His teaching was the preaching of the Gospel- of the Kingdom of God. But His take on the good news of the Kingdom, as witnessed by multiple parables about the Kingdom, was that the principles of the future political Kingdom on earth must be lived now. All the people wanted was to see the Messianic Kingdom come literally. In chapter 19 we saw how He set up a mock triumphal entry to explain that this was not for now. And now He backs that up by explaining what "the Kingdom" at this stage was really all about in personal terms. Indeed, His view of the Kingdom was totally opposed to theirs. And so in His next parable, He explains that actually Israel must kill their king as they killed their prophets, in order for the Kingdom to come as they wished.</h4>


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


text:
<p><em>And he answered and said to them: I also will ask you a question. Now tell me</em>- It is not necessarily wrong to avoid answering a question- although few of us could do so in the spiritually and logically flawless way the Lord did here, let alone at a moment's notice.</p><p>The AV is mistaken in translating "If you tell me, I will tell you". The sense rather is: 'If you answer this question, then in that answer you will have My telling you the answer to your question'. They finally answered in :7 that 'We cannot know' (Gk:).</p>


text:
<p><em>The baptism of John- </em>Perhaps John's message was so centred around the appeal for baptism that "the baptism of John" is being put for 'the teaching and ministry of John'. Or maybe the Lord has in view His own baptism by John. In this case, His reasoning would be that His authority came from the fact that He had been baptized by John. Seeing John's work was from God and had Divine authority, this meant therefore that the Lord was empowered by that baptism to operate with God's authority. If that is indeed what the Lord intended, then we have another window onto the perplexing question of why the Lord was baptized by John:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Was it from heaven, or from men?</em>- Gamaliel uses the same logic in <em><a href='B:510 5:38-39'>Act 5:38-39</a></em> in urging the Jews to boil all the personal feelings and doubts down to a simple issue: Are these men and their work of God or man? This approach is helpful to us too, assailed as we are by unclarity about others. Is a man in Christ or not? Does God work through him or not? Is he of God or men? There is no middle ground here. This is what I submit concerning myself to those who doubt me, and it is the approach I seek to take with others with whom I have to engage in spiritual life. And Gamaliel rightly concluded that if something is of man and not of God, then we have little to worry about. Finally it will come to nothing. We should be concerned rather with the eternal consequence of refusing those who are clearly of God. If of God, we must accept them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And they discussed it among themselves, saying: If we shall say from heaven, he will say, why did you not believe him?</em>- This could imply they withdrew for discussion amongst themselves. But such a withdrawal would've been a sign of weakness. More likely we have here an insight into their own internal reasonings. In this case, the statement in :7 that they answered that they couldn't tell was uttered by each of them in turn as the Lord asked them individually.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And they answered that they did not know</em>- They had set themselves up as defenders of the Faith, whose duty it was to analyse the claims of teachers and decide whether or not they were false prophets. But now they are beaten in fair intellectual fight. They can give no answer, and yet by saying they could not judge John's claim to be a prophet, they were abdicating the very role of assessors of teachers which they claimed to have, and which they were using against the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to them: Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things</em>- He meant that they knew in their consciences and did not need Him to spell it out to them in words. This was again His style in His silence before His judges, and in His brief answer to Pilate: "You are saying it" (<em><a href='B:490 23:3'>Luk 23:3</a></em>). The answer was in Pilate's own words rather than the Lord's.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he began to speak to the people this parable- </em>'From where do you get your authority? What is your exact nature and relationship to God?' was answered by the parable of the servants who refused to receive the Son and give fruit to the owner (<em><a href='B:490 20:9-16'>Luk 20:9-16</a></em>). The Lord could've answered: 'My authority? From God, He's my Father, I had a virgin birth, you know'. But He wasn't so primitive. Instead He appealed to them to realize their own responsibilities to their creator and to accept His authority by giving fruit to the Father. The absentee landlords at times demanded fruit in lieu of repayment of debt. Perhaps the idea was that Israel were deeply in debt to God. Matthew 21 prefaces this parable with the one about the son who refused to even work in the vineyard. </p><p>There are strong similarities between the Lord's parable and the song of the vineyard of <em><a href='B:290 5:1-7'>Isa 5:1-7</a></em>, especially in the LXX:</p><p>"<em>Let me sing for my well beloved a song of my beloved about His vineyard</em>&nbsp;[The genre is significant; what begins as a joyful, idyllic harvest song turns into bitter disappointment and declaration of judgment]<em>. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill&nbsp;</em>[The environment was ideal]<em>. He dug it up&nbsp;</em>[to dig was the work of the lowest servant, but God did this]<em>, gathered out its stones&nbsp;</em>[the effects of the curse were ameliorated]<em>, planted it with the choicest vine&nbsp;</em>["the men of Judah"]<em>, built a tower in its midst, and also cut out a wine press therein. He looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?&nbsp;</em>[Absolutely all has been done to enable our fruitfulness. The Father wants fruit above all- in the Luke 20 parable, the owner seeks the actual fruit, rather than cash payment. This element of unreality serves to show His passionate interest in fruit]&nbsp;<em>Why, when I looked for it to yield grapes, did it yield wild grapes? Now I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take away its hedge, and it will be eaten up. I will break down its wall of it, and it will be trampled down&nbsp;</em>[The downtreading of the temple at the hands of the Gentiles]<em>:&nbsp;</em><em> I will lay it a wasteland. It won’t be pruned nor hoed, but it will grow briers and thorns&nbsp;</em>[The language of the curse in Eden. The land was as the Garden of Eden, but Israel sinned "as Adam"]<em>. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it&nbsp;</em>[the language of Elijah, prototype of John the Baptist]<em>. For the vineyard of Yahweh of Armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant: and He looked for justice, but, behold, oppression; for righteousness&nbsp;</em>[the fruit required was justice and righteousness- instead, as Isaiah 5 goes on to explain, there was materialistic selfishness]<em>, but, behold, a cry of distress</em>".</p><p><em>A man planted a vineyard- </em>The language of planting a vineyard and eating the fruit of it is used in <em><a href='B:530 3:6'>1Co 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em> about&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;work of preaching. Paul was unafraid to interpret the parable on multiple levels. We are to be fruitful; but in our work of sharing the Gospel with others we are also the planters who come seeking fruit on our converts. The suggestion could be that the owner personally did the planting and preparing. I say this because Isaiah 5, upon which the parable is based, includes this feature- of the owner doing so much personally. Matthew's version stresses that all has been done so that we can produce spiritual fruit; but so often we excuse our lack of fruitfulness by blaming environment factors. The situation in our country, our town, workplace, marriage, family, health etc. And we can put huge effort into trying to change environment because we consider that we can be more fruitful for God in a different environment. But whilst passivity and fatalism are just as wrong, it must be accepted that our environment in the bigger picture has been uniquely and thoughtfully prepared by God so that we might be fruitful. For it is clear from the parable that our fruitfulness is God’s most passionate desire and intention for us. He would hardly place us in any other environment, therefore, than one ideally prepared by Him in order to enable and enhance our fruitfulness.</p><p><em>And rented it to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time</em>- Not necessarily the ascension of the Lord Jesus. It could be a reference to God’s entry of covenant with Israel, at which "God came down on mount Sinai" (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:19'>Exo 20:19</a></em>) and then "ascended up on high" (<em><a href='B:230 68:18'>Psa 68:18</a></em>):&nbsp; The Greek specifically means to go into a foreign, i:e. Gentile, country. It is used of the prodigal son going into a far country (<em><a href='B:490 15:13'>Luk 15:13</a></em>). Let us remember that the Son in the parable represents the Lord Jesus, the owner is clearly God. This going away is not therefore representative of the Lord's ascension to Heaven, although it appears to be used that way in <em><a href='B:470 25:14-15'>Mat 25:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em> ["the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey"]. This may just be the furniture of the parable, alluding to the common experience of absentee landlords. These were often characterized by being uncaring for their land; but this owner was particular careful for his project to the point of obsession. He wanted the fruit, not money. It therefore may be part of the impression given, that the owner appears to be absent and disinterested- but in reality He is passionately interested. And this is exactly the position with God, who is perceived as somehow distant and passionless about His project on earth. There may also be the hint that even before He considered giving His precious vineyard to the Gentiles, which appears at the end of the parable, He had in fact initially envisaged this, and had in some form gone to the Gentiles right from the start of His project with Israel.</p><p>Initially, the parable would've got the hearers on the side of the labourers; because it was a frequent complaint that absentee landlords abused their tenants, who worked hard just to send cash off to the landlord in another country. But the parable twists around, so that after initially identifying with this group, the people came to see that it was they who stood condemned.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And he sent yet another servant, and him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty handed</em>- When the world reviled him, Paul saw himself as the beaten prophets Jesus had spoken about (<em><a href='B:540 11:24-25'>2Co 11:24-25</a></em>). The first servant could be the former prophets, the second servant the latter prophets; for Judaism strongly recognized this distinction. Beating, shaming, stoning and killing [according to Matthew's version] are Mosaic punishments for apostasy, and so the idea may be that Israel excused their lack of spiritual fruitfulness by judging as apostate the prophets who demanded this of them. This is typical- the unspiritual transfer their own anger with themselves and awareness of their own coming judgment onto others, whom they condemn as worthy of judgment and punishment.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he sent yet a third, and him also they wounded and threw him out</em>- <em><a href='B:480 12:4'>Mar 12:4</a></em> adds that the last servant was “wounded in the head”, surely a reference to the beheading of John the Baptist and shameful treatment of his severed head. He was the last of the prophets; their ministry was until John the Baptist. Although we have just read that the crowds recognized John as a prophet (:6), in reality they didn't. They rejected his message of the true nature of Messiah. Mass enthusiasm for a Christian teacher is not the same as real belief and spirituality, and acceptance of the real spirit of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. It may be they will respect him</em>-God sent His Son to Israel, thinking "they will reverence him when they see him" (<em><a href='B:490 20:13'>Luk 20:13</a></em> AV). But Isaiah 53 had prophesied that when Israel saw Him, they would see no beauty in Him and crucify Him. Yet God restrained that knowledge, in His love and positive hope for His people. Likewise Jesus, it seems to me limited His foreknowledge of Judas. He knew from the beginning who would betray him. One of the 12 was a traitor. Yet Judas was His own familiar friend in whom He trusted. "It may be they::.", Gk. <em>isos,</em>&nbsp;is tantalizingly hard to understand. It could mean 'Perhaps'; or equally it could mean 'They will, surely'. We wonder of course how the Father could truly feel like this if He is omniscient. My suggestion is that He limits His omniscience in order to enter fully into our human experience; which means that His expressions of shock and disappointment are legitimate reflections of how He actually feels.</p><p>“My beloved Son” means that the joyful harvest song of <em><a href='B:290 5:1'>Isa 5:1</a></em>, the "song of my beloved”, becomes the tragedy of "My beloved son":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned one with another, saying- </em>That is, they conspired. This is quoting the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:18'>Gen 37:18</a></em>. And the allusion is also to&nbsp;<em>"When they shall see him,&nbsp;</em>there is no beauty that they should desire him" (<em><a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a></em>). "Shamefully handled" (<em><a href='B:480 12:4'>Mar 12:4</a></em>) is s:w. <em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em> LXX "despised". </p><p><em>This is the heir!-</em> The leaders of first century Israel initially recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah (cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:20'>Gen 37:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). They saw (i:e. understood, recognized) him, but then they were made blind by Christ (<em><a href='B:500 9:39'>Joh 9:39</a></em>). It was because they "saw" Jesus as the Messiah that the sin of rejecting him was counted to them (<em><a href='B:500 9:41'>Joh 9:41</a></em>). This explains why the Roman / Italian nation was not held guilty for crucifying Christ, although they did it, whereas the Jewish nation was. And yet there is ample Biblical evidence to suggest that these same people who "saw" / recognized Jesus as the Christ were also ignorant of his Messiahship. "You both know me, and you know whence I am::. You neither know me, nor my Father::. when you have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know that I am he" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>) were all addressed to the same group of Jews. Did they know / recognize Jesus as Messiah, or not? As they jeered at him on the cross, and asked Pilate to change the nameplate from "Jesus, King of the Jews", did they see him as their Messiah? It seems to me that they didn't. In ignorance the Jewish leaders and people crucified their Messiah (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em> RV). And yet they knew him for who he was, they saw him coming as the heir. I would suggest the resolution to all this is that they did recognize him first of all, but because they didn't want to accept him, their eyes were blinded, so that they honestly thought that he was an impostor, and therefore in ignorance they crucified him. And yet, it must be noted, what they did in this ignorance, they were seriously accountable for before God.</p><h4><em>Let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours</em>- Their assumption therefore was that the landlord must have died, for otherwise, killing the son would not have given them the inheritance. They acted, as we can, as if God is dead; although they would never have admitted that. The apparent non-action of God can likewise lead to the wrong impression that He is effectively dead. Seizing a vineyard for personal possession reminds us of Ahab’s actions in <em><a href='B:110 21:15-16'>1Ki 21:15-16</a></em> - making Naboth a type of Christ, and associating the Jewish religious leadership with wicked Ahab. However, Ahab did repent- and one wonders whether the Lord built in this allusion in reflection of His amazing hopefulness for Israel’s repentance. The allusion to Ahab may have been born in the Lord's Bible-saturated mind by the way that <em><a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a></em> spoke of rain being withheld from the vineyard, as happened in Ahab and Elijah's time. The confirmation of Israel in their evil way was brought to its climax in the crucifixion of Christ. </h4>


text:
<p><em>And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them?</em>-Surely a reference to the Lord being crucified outside Jerusalem. In this case, the vineyard specifically speaks of Jerusalem and the temple. <em><a href='B:480 12:8'>Mar 12:8</a></em> appears in English to suggest a different order: Took, killed, cast out of the vineyard. But the Greek text doesn’t have to be read strictly chronologically. The killed-and-cast-out need not be chronological. Or it could be that the Lord is teaching that effectively, they had killed Him before casting Him out and crucifying; the essence of the cross was ongoing in His life. That is clear enough in a number of Gospel passages.</p><p><em>"</em>Cast Him out<em>"</em> has obvious connection to the way in which the Lord was crucified outside the city limits of Jerusalem. But 'cast him out' is parallel with the stone being "rejected" by the builders (:17). The 'casting out' therefore speaks of religious rejection from the community. The same word is used of how the Lord was cast out of Nazareth (<em><a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a></em>), and how believers would be cast out from Judaism (<em><a href='B:490 6:22'>Luk 6:22</a></em>) and the synagogue (<em><a href='B:500 9:34'>Joh 9:34</a></em>); and even from the legalistic church (<em><a href='B:710 1:10'>3Jn 1:10</a></em> "casts them out of the church"). Any who experience being cast out of the visible body of God's people are thereby fellowshipping the Lord's crucifixion sufferings. Yet sadly the experience destroys many- when it can be taken as a share in His sufferings, knowing that if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him. It is the same word used for the </p>


text:
<p><em>He will come and destroy these husbandmen-</em> The Lord spoke of how the owner Himself would “come and destroy these husbandmen”. This is a shocking change in tempo- the owner has appeared impotent, distant and naive, to the point that the husbandmen considered He was effectively dead:&nbsp; They reasoned that if they killed the Son, then the vineyard would be theirs. But this is exactly the nature of Divine judgment. The God who appears effectively dead, at least impotent, distant and naïve, will suddenly reveal Himself in direct judgment. We believe that now by faith, but it shall surely happen.</p><p><em>And will give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said: God forbid</em>- The Lord will&nbsp;<em>give&nbsp;</em>the vineyard to the others. And yet He will come and destroy the vineyard, and the new nation He will choose will not just give Him some of the fruit, but will themselves become part of the vine, and themselves bear fruit to Him (<em><a href='B:470 21:43'>Mat 21:43</a></em>; John 15).</p><p>The Lord’s initial Palestinian hearers were well used to the scenario of absentee landlords. The parables of Israel would have been easily understood by them. The landlords lived far away, were never seen, and sometimes their workers took over the whole show for themselves. The Lord’s parable of the absentee landlord in <em><a href='B:490 20:9-16'>Luk 20:9-16</a></em> alludes to this situation. He sends messengers seeking fruit from the vineyard, but the tenants abuse or kill them, and he does nothing. When his son shows up, they assume that he’s going to do just as before- ignore whatever they do to him. After all, they’d got away with not giving him any fruit and ignoring his messengers for so long, why would he change his attitude? He was so far away, he’d been in a “far country” for a very long time (<em><a href='B:490 20:9'>Luk 20:9</a></em>), they didn’t really know him. The Lord asked the question: “What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?” (<em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>). The obvious answer, from the context provided within the story, would be: “Judging on past experience, not much at all”. But then the Lord presented the element of unreality in the story, as a sudden, biting trick of the tail: No, the lord of the vineyard would actually personally come and destroy them, and give the vineyard to other tenants. Even though his experience of having tenants farm his land had been a fruitless and painful experience that had cost him the life of his son. And it was that element of unreality that brings home to us the whole point of the story. The Father does appear distant and unresponsive to our selfishness, our rebellion, and our refusal to hear his servants the prophets. But there is a real judgment to come, in which He will personally be involved. And yet even His destruction of the Jewish tenants hasn’t taken away His almost manic desire to have workers, in His desperate desire for true spiritual fruit. The parables of Israel surely speak encouragement to each of us. The parable of the absentee landlord has a telling twist to it. Absentee landlords who had never visited their land for ages, and found the people they sent to the property beaten up, would usually just forget it. They wouldn’t bother. In the parable which draws on this, the Lord asks what the landlord will do (<em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>). The expected answer was: ‘Not much. He got what he could, he was never bothered to go there for years anyway’. But <em>this</em> landlord is odd. He keeps on sending messengers when any other landlord would have given up or got mad earlier on. But God’s patience through the prophets was likewise unusual. And then, when the tenants thought they must surely be able to get away with it because the Lord seemed so distant and out of touch… He suddenly comes Himself in person and destroys them. He doesn’t hire a bunch of people to do it. He comes in person, as the Lord will in judgment. And instead of deciding he’d had his fingers burnt and giving up vineyards as a bad job, this Lord gives the vineyard to others- He tries again. And so the Lord is doing with the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he looked upon them, and said: What then is this that is written- </em><em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em> "Did you never read in the scriptures". They spent their whole lives reading Scripture, and Psalms 118 was a well known Passover Hallel. But we can read and yet never really read as God intends.</p><p><em>The stone which the builders rejected- </em>The Lord would be "rejected of the elders, chief priests and scribes" (<em><a href='B:480 8:31'>Mar 8:31</a></em> s:w:); indeed, "rejected by this generation" (<em><a href='B:490 17:25'>Luk 17:25</a></em>).</p><p><em>The same was made the headstone of the corner?</em>- If the builders rejected this stone, the implication is that another set of builders used it in another building, which became the temple of God. This is precisely the situation with the vineyard being taken away from the Jewish tenants and another group of workers being taken on. The quotation is seamlessly in context with the parable.</p>


text:
<p><em>Everyone that falls on that stone shall be broken to pieces, but on whoever it shall fall, it will grind him to dust</em>- There is an unmistakable allusion here to the stone destroying the image, the Kingdoms of men, in <em><a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a></em>. The choice we have is to fall upon Christ and break our bones, to get up and stumble on with our natural self broken in every bone; or to be ground to powder by the Lord at his return, to share the judgments of this surrounding evil world- being&nbsp;“condemned with the world::.". Yet strangely (at first sight) the figure of stumbling on the stone of Christ often describes the person who stumbles at his word,&nbsp;who rejects it (<em><a href='B:290 8:14-15'>Isa 8:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7-8'>1Pe 2:7-8</a></em>). In other words, through our spiritual failures we come to break ourselves, we become a community of broken men and women; broken in that we have broken our inner soul in conformity to God's will. As Simeon cuddled that beautiful, innocent baby Jesus, he foresaw all this: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again (resurrection) of many in Israel::. that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" (<em><a href='B:490 2:34'>Luk 2:34</a></em>). If we are to share his resurrection, if we are to experience such newness of life in this life, we must fall upon him, really feel the cutting edge of his word. We must be broken now; or be broken and ground to powder at the judgment. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>A passage in Psalms 118 is referred to in <em><a href='B:490 20:18'>Luk 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:6-8'>1Pe 2:6-8</a></em>. One wonders if this was a proof text which the early believers would have known by heart. And one wonders likewise about Psalms 2 - it is referred to so often.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the scribes and the chief priests sought to arrest him in that very hour, but they feared the people. For they perceived that he spoke this parable against them</em>- The connection with Isaiah 5 was so clear, and that song of the vineyard was a well known passage understood as the justification for the destruction of the first temple. The fear of the people was the reason why they didn't take the Lord. He realized this, and I suggested on chapter 19 that His mockery of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was calculated to turn the people violently against Him. He was the psychologist <em>extraordinaire</em>. By manipulating things in this way, the Lord held total control over His death and the timing and manner of it, so that His arrest and crucifixion were in fact His giving of His life, rather than it being taken away from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they watched him and sent out spies, who pretended to be sincere- </em>Rightly had the Lord called them hypocrites. Their attempt at acting as sincere enquirers would have been laughable. All the way through, the Lord is presented as the one totally in control, with the Jews and Romans acting exactly as He had set them up to act.</p><p><em>So that they might catch him in something he said; so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman governor</em>- The same word used of how&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were to be entangled in condemnation (<em><a href='B:490 21:35'>Luk 21:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:9'>Rom 11:9</a></em>). As they treated the Lord, so they were treated. Our attitude to Him is in a way our attitude to ourselves and our eternal destiny. We note they could <em>not</em> in fact catch hold of His words (:26). His death was not going to be because they outsmarted Him, but rather because He willingly set up a situation through which He willingly gave His life rather than it being taken from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they asked him, saying: Teacher, we know you say and teach rightly- </em>Gk:&nbsp;<em>orthos</em>, from whence 'orthodox'. They were thereby trying to lead Him to make a right wing, conservative answer, namely, that tribute should be given to God and not Caesar. And then the Herodians with whom they were working in this plan (see Matthew) could legally swoop upon Him and have Him arrested for disloyalty to the empire:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And show no favouritism to any person- </em>This was an appeal to Jewish orthodoxy, whereby the righteous Jew was supposed to be obedient to God regardless of what others thought. They were trying to lead the Lord into a position whereby He said 'No' to the question about giving the tribute money. And the Herodians were ready to pounce on Him if He did; for according to Matthew, they were working together with the Pharisees in this. We can reconstruct how the Pharisees and Herodians worked together in this; the Pharisees were trying to lead the Lord by a path of theology and logic to a position whereby He denied the need to pay tribute- and then Herod's supporters could pounce on Him. The verisimilitude and internal agreement of the record is again strong encouragement to accept this as the inspired word of God, recording he actual words spoken rather than giving a mere summary or imagination of them from a distance of time and space.</p><p><em>But in truth teach the way of God</em>- John the Baptist had attempted to prepare the way or path over which God's glory in Messiah could come to Zion. The only other occurrence of "the way of God" is when we read that Apollos, who knew only John's teaching, had to have "the way of God", i:e. John's message about the way, explained more fully to him (<em><a href='B:510 18:26'>Act 18:26</a></em>). It may be that John had been so unworldly that he had not paid tribute to Caesar, or at least, he had been interpreted that way; and so now the Pharisees were commenting that if the Lord truly upheld John's teaching, then what was his answer about paying the tribute money? Because it was perceived, at very least, that John had advocated not paying it.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them</em>- <em><a href='B:470 22:18'>Mat 22:18</a></em> says He perceived their wickedness. The wickedness could be their hypocrisy. But their "wickedness" could refer to their personal sins, and because in that moment the Lord perceived those sins, He thereby perceived their hypocrisy and therefore challenged them about their hypocrisy. He may have been given that perception of their sins by some flash of Divine insight, or it could be that His supreme sensitivity to people led Him to imagine correctly the kind of stuff going on in their secret lives:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Show me a denarius- </em>The Pharisees claimed that pagan coinage should not be brought into the temple courts. This is why the coin had to be brought to the Lord, according to Matthew. By so doing, the Lord was purposefully provoking the Pharisees; likely the Herodians (<em><a href='B:470 22:16'>Mat 22:16</a></em>) brought it, not the Pharisees. </p><p>The tribute money had the inscription&nbsp;<em>Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus Pontifex Maximus</em>- “Tiberius Caesar, august son of the divine Augustus, High Priest”. Pedants would’ve quickly assumed that such blasphemous language and appropriation of titles appropriate to the Lord Jesus would mean that such coinage should not be used, nor should such tribute be paid to any man on this basis. But the Lord saw a bigger picture. He was quite OK with such token behaviours, but the far bigger issue was giving to God our own bodies and lives which bear His image.</p><p>The coin bore an image which strict Jews considered blasphemous, denoting Tiberius as son of God, the divine Augustus. The Lord doesn’t react to this as they expected – He makes no comment upon the blasphemy. He lets it go, but insists upon a higher principle. ‘If this is what Caesar demands, well give it to him; but give what has the image of God, i:e. yourself, to God’. He didn’t say ‘Don’t touch the coins, they bear false doctrine, to pay the tax could make it appear you are going along with a blasphemous claim’. Yet some would say that we must avoid touching anything that might appear to be false or lead to a false implication [our endless arguments over Bible versions and words of hymns are all proof of this]. The Lord wasn’t like that. He lived life as it is and as it was, and re-focused the attention of men upon that which is essential, and away from the minutiae. Staring each of us in the face is our own body, fashioned in God’s image – and thereby the most powerful imperative, to give it over to God. Yet instead God’s people preferred to ignore this and argue over the possible implication of giving a coin to Caesar because there was a false message on it. Morally and dialectically the Lord had defeated His questioners; and yet still they would not see the bigger and altogether more vital picture which He presented them with.</p><p><em>Whose image and superscription has it? And they said: Caesar's</em>- He was setting them up for His point that whatever bears God's image and superscription is to be given to Him (:25); and that refers to our body and whole lives. We have His signature on us; perhaps the Lord had in mind by this the idea that Israel were God's covenant people, His servants bearing His marks. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's- </em>The Jews were looking for immediate deliverance from Caesar. The Lord's parody of a triumphal entry into Jerusalem was designed to show that He was not bringing that kind of a Kingdom, that sort of salvation. By saying that tribute must indeed be rendered to Caesar, He was further dashing their Messianic hopes concerning Him, and further demonstrating that He was not the Messiah they were looking for. Thus He was consciously bringing about a situation whereby His popularity was turned into hatred, because of the whole psychology of dashed expectations making love turn to hate. The accusation that "We found this fellow::. forbidding to give tribute to Caesar" (<em><a href='B:490 23:2'>Luk 23:2</a></em>) was so utterly untrue.</p><p>The memories of the Maccabean heroes and their rebellion were strongly in the minds and consciousness of first century Israel. Their exploits were recited yearly at the feast of Hanukkah. Yet the Lord purposefully subverts the history of the Maccabees. Mattathias had taught violent resistance to Gentile occupation in the slogan: "Repay the Gentiles in their own coin" (<em>1Ma_2:68</em> N:E:B:). But the Lord alludes to this, at least to the LXX form of the saying, when He advocated paying the Roman temple tax, giving the coin to them, and not violently resisting. See on <em><a href='B:650 5:6'>Heb 5:6</a></em>.</p><h4><em>And to God the things that are God's</em>- The Lord taught that whatever bear's God's image must be 'rendered' to God, just as what bore Caesar's image must be rendered to Caesar (<em><a href='B:490 20:25'>Luk 20:25</a></em>). Seeing that the human body bears God's image, He was clearly teaching that we should 'render' to God our whole being in the course of our human lives. But the same idea of rendering to God is picked up in <em><a href='B:670 4:5'>1Pe 4:5</a></em>, where we are told that in the final judgment, we will 'render' [s:w:] ourselves to God. By the way we live now, the manner in which we render to God all that is not Caesar's, we are effectively rendering to Him our judgment account. And so we also find this Greek word for 'to render' in <em><a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:8'>Mat 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 2:6'>Rom 2:6</a></em> - at the day of judgment, where we render ourselves to God, He will "give" [s:w. 'render'] to every man according as his works have been. We're rendering ourselves to God right now, here in this life. And He will render that back to us in the last day- for we are right now giving our account to God. And there are times in life where perhaps God specifically intervenes in order to give us a taste of that final day of 'rendering' of ourselves to God- hence in the parable of <em><a href='B:490 16:2'>Luk 16:2</a></em>, the man is asked to 'render an account' of his stewardship [s:w:]. It may be through illness, tragedy, loss, the intense introspection of depression, conviction of sin::. in these things we are led to a specific preview of the 'rendering an account' which lies ahead. And we should be grateful that we have such opportunities.</h4><p>What bears God's image, which is our whole body and mind (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>), is to be given to God. We have God's superscription written upon us, moreso if we are in Christ (<em><a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:1'>Rev 14:1</a></em>). "It is he that hath made us, and [therefore] we are his" (Psalms 100 RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p><p>The things which are God's are to be 'rendered' to Him. The Greek word means to pay back, to return; even giving our very bodies only giving back what He has given us:&nbsp; The same word had been used recently by the Lord in teaching that we have a huge debt to God which must be 'rendered' or paid back to Him (<em><a href='B:470 18:25-26'>Mat 18:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>). We can read the Lord's words here as meaning that concerns about pedantic issues relating to coinage are irrelevant compared to the paramount issue- that we owe God everything. Because we are created in God's image, the structure of our very bodies is an imperative to give ourselves totally to His cause (<em><a href='B:470 22:19-21'>Mat 22:19-21</a></em>). Whatever bears God's image- i:e. our very bodies- must be given to Him. "It is he that hath made us, and [therefore] we are his" (<em><a href='B:230 100:3'>Psa 100:3</a></em> RV). We must be His in practice&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;He is our creator. So it is not that we merely believe in creation rather than evolution; more than this, such belief in creation must elicit a life given over to that creator.</p><p>"Should we give tribute to Caesar?" was answered with the comment that whatever has God's image on it should be given to God- and seeing we're made in God's image, the Lord was asking that they gave their very personal selves to God, every part of their mind and body- rather than worrying about the 'guilt by association' that might come from paying your taxes to Caesar (<em><a href='B:490 20:23-25'>Luk 20:23-25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were not able to catch him in what he said in the presence of the people, so they marvelled at his answer and held their peace</em>- The Greek for “catch him” is elsewhere used about the Jews finally taking hold of the Lord in arrest and crucifixion. The Jews are also recorded as not being able to do this physically to Him in public, “before the people”. But Luke speaks of the Jews doing these things in relation to “His words”. This is Luke’s way of saying what John says in so many words- that the Lord Jesus was so identified with His words, which were God’s words, that He was “the word made flesh”, the living personification of His own words, in whom there was perfect congruence between His essential self and His words.</p><p>They perceived what He was saying- for they "marvelled". Just as in the parable, the Jews heard the invitation to the banquet, and perceived that "this is the heir". But Matthew records that they went their way- and that way was the way to crucifying the Lord, killing the messenger of God.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And they asked him, saying: Teacher, Moses wrote to us- </em>Matthew: “Moses <em>spoke </em>unto us”. The Lord picks this up in His answer in <em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>: “Have you not read that which was&nbsp;<em>spoken</em>&nbsp;unto you by&nbsp;<em>God</em>”. He is telling them that God and not Moses was the ultimate speaker to them; and that the word was not merely&nbsp;<em>written</em>&nbsp;but is a living word, actively&nbsp;<em>speaking</em>&nbsp;unto them. For all their much vaunted belief in Divine inspiration of the Scriptures, these men had failed to perceive that God was speaking to them personally through the human authors. And that criticism needs to be remembered today by those equally wedded to a declared belief in Divine inspiration of the Bible. It is to be to us a word&nbsp;<em>spoken</em>&nbsp;and not a dead letter written on paper.</p><p><em>That if a man's brother dies, having a wife but he is childless, his brother should take the wife and raise up seed to his brother</em>- The Lord could have replied that if they read the entire passage in <em><a href='B:50 25:5-7'>Deu 25:5-7</a></em>, they would see that God actually made a concession in this matter; and the whole principle only applied to “brethren dwelling together”. A man did not&nbsp;<em>have to</em>&nbsp;marry his brother’s wife. In any case, as most adult men were married, it would have usually been a case of polygamy. But again, the Lord didn’t point out that expositional error, but goes on to develop a far greater and higher principle concerning the nature of His Kingdom, in which such casuistry about marriage will be simply irrelevant. And again, He sets an example to those who have spent their religious lives arguing about divorce and remarriage and fellowship issues. Their arguments could be demonstrated to be expositionally faulty. But the higher principle is that such issues shall be irrelevant in God’s Kingdom; and we are to live the essence of the Kingdom life now as far as we can, in spirit at least. The Sadducees made a big deal of the fact that the word translated “raise up seed” is that used generally in the Septuagint for resurrection. Their idea was that resurrection is not of the body but through family life. To die childless was therefore tragic indeed. The same error is made by many today who effectively believe that family life is the ultimate form of spirituality. It is not, and God seeks to build a personal relationship with each of us, He is the personal God of Abraham, Isaac etc:, and we shall experience a personal bodily resurrection at which we shall appear before God stripped of our family, and relate to Him as a single individual.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And the third took her, and likewise the seventh also left no children, and died</em>- Instead of asking 'And who and where was this family?', picking up the obvious contradictions within the story, the Lord let all that go. He wanted to focus upon essential principles, rather than getting caught up in proving that His opponents were lying. He sets an example which so many of His followers have not well followed.</p>


text:
<p><em>Afterward the woman also died</em>- She would have been judged to be a most unfortunate woman, likely under God’s judgment (see on :29). But the Lord doesn’t question the very unlikely story nor the contradictions within it- instead He works from what was presented to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>In the resurrection, whose wife of these shall she be? For the seven had her as wife</em>- The Lord could’ve pointed out that they were well known for denying / speaking against the resurrection. But He doesn’t make that obvious point, instead focusing on the higher principles rather than point scoring.</p><p>'Who will be married to whom in the Kingdom?' was well answered by the Lord, but His final cut was that God is the God of the living and "all live unto Him", i:e. the fact <em>we</em> are alive means we are responsible for our actions to Him right now- and we must be moved by that, rather than by speculation about the physicalities of how <em>others</em> may be in God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 20:33-38'>Luk 20:33-38</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry and are given in marriage</em>- The Lord attacks their assumption that the Kingdom will be a continuation of life as it is in this world, just minus some of the limitations and complications. That is not the case; "this world" is contrasted radically to "that world" (:35). Whilst we rightly look forward to seeing beloved family members again who were believers, we have to be aware that family relationships as we now know them are for "this world". The age to come will not be "this world" and its relationships somehow revived in a human sense. The question of the Jews was therefore a reflection of deep immaturity. And this was the context at the time- the Lord was being asked to set up a literal Kingdom in Israel, with Israel 'marrying and giving in marriage' in their own kingdom, totally independent of Rome. But His message was far beyond that. His Kingdom was to come in an age where all such things would be no more. The world of Lot and Noah's time married and gave in marriage right up until the day of judgment- and no longer, after that.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage</em></p><p>- See on :34. "Accounted worthy" means to be counted totally without blame and thereby totally worthy. I suggest this is another example of where Luke is preparing his readers for the Pauline explanations in Romans- that only through imputed righteousness, by faith through grace, can anyone be saved. The same word is used when Paul prays that God would count the Thessalonians "worthy" of their calling (<em><a href='B:600 1:11'>2Th 1:11</a></em>). The Jews were assuming that they would be in the age to come, on account of their relation to Abraham by the flesh; and the Lord is saying that the only ones who shall be there are those counted totally worthy. The thoughtful hearer would have realized that this would mean that worthiness and righteousness had to somehow be imputed. </p>


text:
<p><em>Neither can they die any more; for they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection</em>- Note the present tenses. They are most striking in Greek: “Neither&nbsp;<em>can they die</em>… they&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;equal to the Angels: and&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”. Greek tenses, unlike Hebrew tenses, are precise. We would expect ‘They shall not die… shall be equal… shall be…’. But the present tenses are striking. The Lord is building up to His point that the question about marriage is inappropriate because God is outside of our kind of time; He sees the believers in Him as even now immortal, a point made more strongly in John’s Gospel. This is not the same as having an immortal soul, nor does it imply conscious survival of death. Rather is it a reflection of how God from His perspective outside of time sees His children. <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> makes the same point, that we are born again of water and spirit even in this life, and thereby are living the life eternal. But that is from God’s standpoint outside of time as we experience it. </p>&nbsp;<p>The Sadducees denied the existence of Angels (<em><a href='B:510 23:8'>Act 23:8</a></em>). The Lord’s teaching that Angels do not marry was surely additionally an attack on the Jewish myths becoming popular at the time concerning the supposed marriage of Heavenly Angels with the daughters of men in Genesis 6. These myths are deconstructed in Jude and 2 Peter, but the Lord here is also correcting them. We marvel at how apparently ‘off the cuff’ He could speak in such a multi-faceted and profound way, addressing various issues simultaneously. Although His intellectual and spiritual ability was doubtless capable of such instant responses, I prefer to imagine the Lord reflecting deeply upon God’s word and preparing His ideas throughout the years of spiritual mindedness that preceded His ministry.</p><p>"We shall be as “the sons / children of God”, thereby answering the Sadducees' idea that it is a human duty to have children and thereby continue the race, for therein do we have our ‘resurrection’. Again the Lord is lifting the whole question to a far higher level. Luke adds that the Lord first said that “the children of this world marry…”. The Sadducees were assuming that the Kingdom of God would be a kind of continuation of this present life, just with eternity of nature. Whilst there are similarities and aspects of continuity between who we are and who we shall eternally be, we are mistaken in imagining the future Kingdom of God as some kind of ideal earthly situation, a tropical paradise holiday, which shall last eternally. This is the same mistake as thinking that we shall eternally be doing what “the children of&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;world” currently do. Instead of criticizing and exposing the faults in the argument presented, the Lord makes the point that the Kingdom of God will not be about marriage nor about casuistic arguments about the definition of marriage- the very arguments which have occupied the minds of far too many of His children. Paul uses the same logic in reasoning that arguments about food are irrelevant because the Kingdom of God will not be about such behaviour, but about love, peace and joy (<em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>). Paul, like the Lord here, could have exposed the fallacies of exposition being engaged with, but instead reasons on a higher level- that seeing we shall not be arguing about such things eternally, let us not do it now.</p><p>The fact Angels cannot die means they can't sin, for sin brings death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). This is therefore a fairly strong argument against immortal Angels being sinful. </p>


text:
<p><em>But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, when he called the Lord: The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob</em>- The Greek here says that Moses “calls” [present tense] God “the God of Abraham…”. Not only does this imply a living word which speaks to us today, but again the point is made throughout the passage that God is outside of time. This choice of tenses in this passage is purposeful, for elsewhere we read of how Moses said or commanded things in the past tense (e:g. <em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em> “things which Moses commanded”, “Moses wrote”, <em><a href='B:490 20:28'>Luk 20:28</a></em>; “Moses gave you…”, <em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>). </p><p>If the Lord was looking merely for a reference to God being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He had many places He could have quoted from. I suggest He chose <em><a href='B:20 3:6'>Exo 3:6</a></em> partly to show that the supremely intimate, personal revelation of God to Moses was just the same now to all individuals within Israel. It was a living word spoken to them personally. But also because the Lord wants to make the point that God is outside of time- and that passage goes on to climax in the revelation of that same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the “I am that I am” (<em><a href='B:20 3:14'>Exo 3:14</a></em>). The God outside of time, witnessed by the way the tetragrammaton somehow straddles past, present and future tenses, therefore sees the dead as alive “unto Him”. The question put to the Lord was very much rooted in the assumption that time as we now know it is going to continue in the Kingdom of God, and the Lord is making the point that this is an immature way of looking at it; and therefore the question was irrelevant. The Exodus 3 passage also contains repeated assurance that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will receive what God has promised- which requires bodily resurrection for them. We need to ever remember that the Lord was not merely demonstrating intellectual prowess in all this reasoning and allusion. He considered them as the sheep who erred / were astray, and through all His teaching here He was merely seeking to steer them to Him and ultimate salvation.</p><p>At the time of the burning bush, Moses seems to have forgotten God's covenant name, he didn't immediately take off his shoes in respect as he should have done, he feared to come close to God due to a bad conscience, and he resisted God's invitation for him to go forth and do His work (<em><a href='B:20 3:5-7'>Exo 3:5-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:18'>Exo 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:1'>Exo 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:10-14'>Exo 4:10-14</a></em>). And yet at this very time, the Lord says that Moses showed faith in the way he perceived God. This is indeed imputed righteousness. </p><h4>God is His word (<em><a href='B:500 1:2'>Joh 1:2</a></em>). Moses is likewise spoken of as if he is his word (<em><a href='B:510 15:21'>Act 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:21'>Act 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:22'>Act 26:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>), so close was his association with it; just as we shall be judged by our words. The words and commands of Moses were those of God. “In the bush God spoke unto (Moses), saying, I am the God of Abraham::. Isaac and Jacob” (<em><a href='B:480 12:26'>Mar 12:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:6'>Exo 3:6</a></em>). Yet <em><a href='B:490 20:37'>Luk 20:37</a></em> says that “that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when <em>he calls the Lord the God of Abraham</em>” etc. Yet this was what God said of Himself. </h4>


text:
<p><em>Now He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. For all live to Him</em>- This Greek construction could mean ‘Not only the God of the dead, but also of the living’. But the context is the Lord demonstrating that the understanding of the Sadducees was very much a dead religion and their God was effectively dead. They denied the resurrection and considered that we have reward only in this life. In this case, God was the God of Abraham only in the past. The Greek phrase could literally mean ‘Not the God the dead, but the living [God]’, alluding to the well known phrase “the living God”. If God only acted for Abraham etc. in the past, then the God Abraham knew effectively died when Abraham died. But the living God seeks to impart life to the faithful.</p><p>"All live to Him” is the Lord is critiquing their division between this life and the life to come- by saying that the faithful live on now in God’s memory as they will eternally; He speaks of things which are not as though they are (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>), and in this sense whether we live or die we are the Lord’s (<em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em>). Although the soul is mortal, the spirit returns to God and will be eternally “saved” at the last day. And the spirit refers to who a man essentially is, his thinking and character. This is preserved by God in His memory, and in that sense the faithful dead “live” before Him now. John’s Gospel puts this in so many words by saying that we can live the eternal life right now. Whilst bodily resurrection is so significant from our point of view, the God who is outside of our kind of time sees the dead as effectively living as He extends forwards into eternity from the present- in a way we cannot now do. I made the point above that recently the Lord had resurrected Lazarus, with the result that He appeared to have won over many who had previously supported the Jewish leadership. They were now trying to prove that resurrection doesn’t happen. The Lord at that time had emphasized that the resurrection of Lazarus was a visual reminder of the new life which those who believed in Him could experience right now: “Whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” (<em><a href='B:500 11:26'>Joh 11:26</a></em>). Luke’s comment that “all live unto Him” is saying roughly the same thing. If our spirit is focused upon living and thinking the Kingdom life now, then this spirit is preserved by God upon death. And it is this which God sees after our death, and the sense in which we live unto Him. See on <em><a href='B:520 14:8-9'>Rom 14:8-9</a></em>.</p><p>"All live to him" is a phrase used by the Rabbis concerning the existence of the faithful Jews as immortal souls in Heaven; Adam Clarke quotes several examples from Jewish writings. It seems the Lord uses their phrase in order to deconstruct it. Salvation is through being 'counted worthy' by grace (:35), the same idea as being counted as live "to Him", and depends upon the resurrection of the body (:35). It is not at all automatic, as would be required by the idea of immortal souls. </p>


text:
<p><em>And certain of the scribes answering said: Teacher, you have said well</em>- This was the kind of admission of defeat which was not typical of the Lord's enemies; perhaps these were the scribes of the Pharisees who did later believe in the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 15:15'>Act 15:15</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And after that they dared not question him anymore</em>- They dared not even try to engage Him in debate because He was as it were winning, and the crowds were realizing this:&nbsp; These very words are used of how the disciples after the resurrection dared not ask who Jesus was (<em><a href='B:500 21:12'>Joh 21:12</a></em>), which is the very context here. The connection is clearly to show that they too through their being too influenced by Jewish thinking found themselves in the same category as the unbelieving Jews- the difference being that they repented of it. The Greek for “questions” isn’t in the original; they dared not ask Him again. The implication from the context could be that they dared not ask Him ‘Who are You?’, for the answer was clear in their consciences. They knew, on one level, that He was Messiah, that He was the heir to the vineyard, whom they knowingly sought to murder.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Why do they say that the Christ is David's son?</em>- The Lord had clearly done well in answering the questions, and it’s easy to misinterpret this as Him now going onto the thrust of an offensive, having successfully parried the attacks. But He was trying to steer them to Him, to repentance and salvation, and not to merely win an intellectual battle for its own sake. All the same, He capitalized upon their continued presence to seek to correct another major misunderstanding. His desire to save them is breathtaking. The fact there were Pharisees who later converted to Christ is proof enough that His strategy worked, at least for some (<em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>). And remember that Saul the Pharisee was living in Jerusalem at the time, and may well have been listening carefully.</p><p>They were surely aware that Jesus was a son of David, on both the sides of Mary and Joseph. For the Jewish leaders would’ve done their homework as to His [apparent] family of origin. </p><p>Matthew records that the Lord addressed a question to the Pharisees about Messiah as David's son. Having let the Pharisees give the answer, He then asks others how this can be the case. Again, the Lord’s dialogues with the Pharisees was not simply to try to convert them, but in order that the audience would learn. See on <em><a href='B:470 22:33'>Mat 22:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When the multitude heard this:&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:480 12:37'>Mar 12:37</a></em> concludes the section by observing that “the common people heard Him gladly”, so again we see how the records seamlessly complement each other.</p>


text:
<p><em>For David himself said in the book of Psalms: The Lord said- </em>Clearly Yahweh. If the Divine Name was to be used in the New Testament, surely this would be the place for it. The fact it is not, when some Hebrew words are used (e:g. ‘Sabaoth’), shows clearly enough that the literal usage of the Tetragrammaton is not something God sees as important or even required.</p><p><em>To my Lord, Sit on My right hand- </em>Biblically and historically, David’s immediate ‘Lord’ was Saul. Psalms 110 was originally a revelation to David of the potential possible for Saul, who was an anointed ‘Messiah’ figure. But Saul failed, and so the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord Jesus. The “how” doesn’t imply that David’s Lord is not his son, but rather is a rhetorical question. How is the Messianic son of David, David’s “Lord”, to be his son or descendant? <em><a href='B:480 12:37'>Mar 12:37</a></em> says the Lord reinforced the question by asking “<em>From whence</em>&nbsp;is He his son?”. The answer had to be: ‘Through a woman in David’s direct line giving birth to Him’. And the questioners were fully aware that Jesus was in the direct line of David through Mary.</p>


text:
<p><em>Until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet</em>- The Lord’s enemies stood around Him as He applied this Psalm to Himself. And yet being at the footstool of the Lord doesn't have to mean being dominated by Him in judgment. It can refer to the great paradox whereby the Lord's enemies become His loyalest and most humble citizens, at His feet in submission, and thereby also at the Father's right hand of acceptance.</p>


text:
<p><em>David therefore calls him Lord, so, how is he his son?</em>- Judaism’s concept of Messiah has always been vague and not commonly agreed, but there was and is the idea that the likes of Abraham, Moses and David are greater than Messiah. The Lord is pointing out that David considered Messiah to be his “Lord”, just as Messiah was greater than Abraham (<em><a href='B:500 8:58'>Joh 8:58</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And in the hearing of all the people, he said to his disciples</em>- This is typical of how the Lord intentionally focused upon the disciples. The accounts of the sermons on the mount and on the plain have the same feature; the crowds are gathered, but the Lord addresses the disciples. He realized they were His only hope; the masses were fickle, and He focused upon those who were open to His real teaching. </p>


text:
<p><em>Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes and love greetings in the marketplaces- </em>The Lord’s reason for going to the market was to invite men to work in the vineyard and receive the penny of salvation (<em><a href='B:470 20:3'>Mat 20:3</a></em>); and His people sitting in the markets sought to persuade others of the need to respond to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 11:16'>Mat 11:16</a></em>). The Pharisees went to the markets to simply flaunt their external spirituality. Again, note how their behaviour was the very inversion of true spirituality.</p><p><em>And chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts</em>- They wanted to be publicly seen as spiritually superior. The whole structure of church life, whereby some must have public roles, is such that people can fall so easily into a love of publicity. The Lord realizes this, and often removes His beloved from such temptations. This explains the otherwise inexplicable way in which the Lord allows some of His most talented and capable servants to be removed from the public eye to serve Him in human obscurity:&nbsp;Note that the Lord here is repeating almost word for word what He has previously said about the Pharisees in Luke 11. To repeat so much text twice in the Gospel records, and for the Lord to give identical word-for-word teaching on two occasions, shows how important these warnings are for all readers. This consideration alone suggests that we each have the same tendency as the Pharisees; they are but epitomes of our own deepest tendencies and desires.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And he looked up and saw the rich men that were casting their gifts into the treasury</em>- He "looked up" because Mark notes He was sitting. As he looked up and saw Zacchaeus, so the same term is used here of how He looked upon this poor widow; who was clearly another one of His people known to Him ahead of time. The many small coins the rich threw in make a loud clanging noise in the collection trumpets. They were literally trumpeting their good deeds before men in God's house. The widow threw in the same kind of coins which they threw in in abundance. What she threw in was scarcely audible to men; but the Lord noticed. The only other references to the Lord sitting are to Him sitting in judgment. And that judgment was ongoing even then; it does and will finally take into account the things not audible to men.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he saw a certain poor widow throwing in there two small coins</em>- She could have kept one of the coins; but she threw both of them in. The thin coins (Mk:) were what were typically thrown to beggars; we are left to conclude that she gave to God all that was given to her.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Of a truth I say to you: This poor widow threw in more than all of them</em>- The Lord condemned how the Pharisees “devoured widow’s houses”- and then straight away we read of Him commending the widow who threw in her whole living to the coffers of the Pharisees. It wasn’t important that the widow saw through the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and didn’t ‘waste’ her few pennies; her generosity was accepted for what it was, even though it didn’t achieve what it might have done, indeed, it only abetted the work of evil men.</p><p>The Lord taught that one must forsake all that he has in order to truly be His disciple (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>). But at the end of His ministry, He as it were chose to exemplify this aspect of discipleship by drawing attention to a woman who gave to God “all the living that she had” (<em><a href='B:490 21:3'>Luk 21:3</a></em>). Putting the passages together, the Lord is saying that she is to be the model for us all in this aspect of devotion. </p>&nbsp;<p>So clearly, God accounts not as man does. We are judged according to our possibilities and not according to volume of achievement. She threw in "more", literally she 'exceeded', that the others had thrown in. The same word is used of how our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 5:20'>Mat 5:20</a></em>). She is again presented as the model disciple. The word has just been used&nbsp;in <em><a href='B:480 12:33'>Mar 12:33</a></em> of how love of God and neighbour is "more" than all sacrifices. She achieved that love not by volume of achievement but in her attitude.</p>


text:
<p><em>For all these out of their abundance have put in offerings, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on</em>- The Lord pointed out to the disciples how the extreme generosity of the widow, giving the two pennies of her business capital, her "living", to the Lord, was worth far more than the ostentatious giving of the wealthy Jewish leadership (<em><a href='B:480 12:44'>Mar 12:44</a></em>); but the next incident recorded by Mark is the disciples marvelling at the ostentatious buildings of the temple, and the Lord explaining that all this needed to be thrown down (<em><a href='B:480 13:1-2'>Mar 13:1-2</a></em>). Their slowness to perceive is such a theme of the gospel records. To give from that which is over and above and remaining, "abundance", is not giving much at all really. "Out of her poverty" could suggest that it was her poverty which motivated her gift, as if to say that her greater generosity was not surprising, because she was poor; and in her case, total giving was motivated by her poverty. So it is poverty and not wealth which, as the Lord observed, motivates to the kind of radical giving which He seeks.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and offerings, he said</em>- These words are taken over in the later New Testament to describe the adorning of a new temple with precious stones, comprised of the believers in Christ (<em><a href='B:730 21:2'>Rev 21:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:19'>Rev 21:19</a></em>). Their praise of the ostentatious "offerings" reflects how they had apparently failed to grasp the lesson about the real nature of offerings just given by the incident with the widow woman (:1-4). </p><p>The temple buildings were thrown down&nbsp;<em>in order that</em>&nbsp;a new and spiritual building comprised of believers could be built up through the Lord's work in the hearts of His people. The group of believers are "All the building [which] grows into a holy temple in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:560 2:21'>Eph 2:21</a></em>). Paul, writing before AD70, may have had this contrast indirectly in mind when he wrote that when the earthly house is destroyed, we should remember that we have a "house not made with hands" built by God (<em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>). The same struggle and angst at the loss of physical structures of our religion can be seen today; some find it hard to believe that relationship with God is ultimately personal, and that relationship continues even when surrounding, much loved traditional structures are removed.</p>


text:
<p><em>As for these things which you behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left here one stone upon another; all shall be thrown down</em>- This expands upon His previous use of this word in <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>: "Your house is&nbsp;<em>left</em>&nbsp;unto you desolate". He is asking the disciples to see with the eye of faith- that effectively, the great stones of the temple were already thrown down, the temple was already "desolate" (Gk. 'a deserted place'). The judgment of the leprous house was to be thrown down, stone by stone (<em><a href='B:30 14:41'>Lev 14:41</a></em>). At the time of the final assault on Jerusalem in AD69, Titus commanded that the temple was to be spared. But the Lord's words came true, just as all prophetic words will, despite every human effort to deny their power. Josephus claims that the gold of the temple melted and therefore each stone was prized apart to remove the gold.</p><p>There was a strong belief in Judaism that the temple would last eternally. Hence the disciples’ question about “the end of the age” was because for them, any talk about the end of the temple meant the end of the world. They are not therefore asking about different chronological events when they ask when this shall be, and what sign would indicate the end of the age. This prophecy of the destruction of the temple implied an ending of the Mosaic law. Hence the same word translated "thrown down" is ascribed to Stephen when he was accused of preaching that the Lord Jesus would "<em>destroy</em>&nbsp;this place and [therefore] change the customs which Moses delivered us" (<em><a href='B:510 6:14'>Act 6:14</a></em>). Paul uses the same word about his 'destruction' of the things of legalistic dependence on the law for salvation, by preaching salvation by grace in Jesus (<em><a href='B:550 2:18'>Gal 2:18</a></em>). It is also the word used in <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>, a passage which seems to have some reference to the impending destruction of the temple and its replacement with the spiritual house of God's building: "Our earthly house of this tabernacle be&nbsp;<em>destroyed</em>&nbsp;[s:w. "thrown down"], we have a building of God, an house not made with hands::.". All this would suggest that there was a changeover period envisaged between the Lord's death and the final ending of the jurisdiction of the Mosaic law. Seeing the end Lord ended the Law on the cross, this again is to be seen as a concession to the conservatism of the Jews.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they asked him, saying: Teacher, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when these things are about to happen?</em>- They clearly expected one particular sign, and&nbsp;<em>semeion</em>&nbsp;is typically used of a miraculous wonder. Instead, the Lord gave them a series of signs which they were to discern. The fulfilment of these signs in our times is no less than a miracle- that such detailed predictions could start to come true before our eyes. Such fulfilment of prophecy is therefore itself a miracle. The disciples repeat the Pharisees' question about when the end will come- in almost the same words. They were clearly influenced by them (<em><a href='B:490 17:20'>Luk 17:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 13:4'>Mar 13:4</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>Martin Hengel concludes that the early Gospel records were so radical that they would’ve been part of an “underground literature”. He suggests that the Roman law forbidding oral or written prophecies about the fall of the Roman empire- on pain of death- was enough to make the Olivet prophecy alone a highly illegal document.</p><h4>If none of us can know the time of the Lord's return, the whole spirit of the Olivet Prophecy is hard to come to terms with. When the disciples asked "When shall these things be, and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" (<em><a href='B:490 21:7'>Luk 21:7</a></em>), the Lord didn't cut short the conversation by saying 'Well actually you can't know, so your question isn't appropriate'. He gave them just what they asked for: signs whereby the faithful would know "when these things shall come to pass". The primary application of all this was that the faithful knew exactly the approaching end of the Jewish age in AD70- everything went according to plan, for those who correctly understood the prophecies. Therefore James, Peter and Paul could assuredly teach that "the judge stands before the door" (<em><a href='B:660 5:9'>Jas 5:9</a></em>) etc. And it is apparent that the situation in the run up to AD70 was typical of that in our last days. Likewise, the position of the faithful remnant in Babylon at the time of the restoration is another type of latter day events. And they too had an opening of their eyes to the prophetic word, resulting in an ability to clearly see where they were, and that the time of restoration of Israel's Kingdom was imminent.</h4><p>'What will be the signs of the last days?' was indeed answered quite directly, but building up to a personal, incisive appeal to pray constantly that we will be preserved from those horrors and be accepted before the final judgment seat of God's Son (<em><a href='B:490 21:7'>Luk 21:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>). It was as if the Lord was adding a powerful caveat- as if to say 'Now don't go and get obsessed and distracted trying to match these signs to current events- worry about how <em>you</em> will survive the last days, and whether, when you stand before Me in the very end, you will stand or fall before Me'. And 'Are you really the Messiah? Do you really fulfil all the Old Testament prophecies?' was met by an appeal to not stumble in faith (<em><a href='B:490 7:21-23'>Luk 7:21-23</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 19:11'>Luk 19:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Take heed you are not led astray. For many shall come in my name, saying: I am he, and, The time is at hand- </em>Coming in the name of the Lord was the formula used in Judaism to describe Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 21:9'>Mat 21:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>). The false claims to be Jesus the Christ are hardly persuasive nor vaguely credible. That they should be a source of mass falling away amongst the Lord's people seems hardly likely. We must assume, therefore, that such persons will have a credibility or a surrounding context which makes them far more attractive than they currently are. Revelation speaks of false miracles being done in the last days. Perhaps views of prophetic fulfilment will become so dogmatically held, suggesting that Christ&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;come once certain things happen in the world, that the believers will be open to easy deception. This scenario would be the more likely if a doctrine of&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>, the "coming" of Christ", is adopted which postulates that His coming will be somehow secret, invisible to the world and perceived only by the faithful.</p><p>Josephus describes the period before AD70 as being when “The country was full of robbers, magicians, false prophets, false Messiahs and impostors, who deluded the people with promises of great events” [<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;20:10:13 5,6].</p><p><em>Do not be led astray by them</em>- “Be not deceived" is extensively quoted later in the NT concerning the need not be deceived by false teachers <em>within the ecclesia</em> (<em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>, <em><a href='B:530 6:15'>1Co 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:17'>Gal 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>, as <em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:690 3:7'>1Jn 3:7</a></em>). The deceivers the Lord spoke of were not just bogus Messiahs out in the world, but apparently Spirit-gifted brethren who will arise within the ecclesia.</p><p>Warnings against being deceived are a major theme in the Lord's message here (<em><a href='B:470 24:5'>Mat 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:11'>Mat 24:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>). Paul read the prophecy of deceivers arising in the last days as referring to deceivers arising within the ecclesia, i:e. people who were already baptized, consciously deceiving the majority of the ecclesia. He repeats this conviction at least three times (<em><a href='B:470 24:4'>Mat 24:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:560 5:6'>Eph 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:8'>Col 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:3'>2Th 2:3</a></em>). The later NT writers make the same appeal using the same Greek words, with reference to not being deceived by the allurements of the fleshly life (<em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:33'>1Co 15:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:7'>Gal 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:16'>Jas 1:16</a></em>). And warnings against "them that deceive you" are common, along with lament that many believers in the first century had indeed been deceived (s:w. <em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:19'>Jas 5:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:26'>1Jn 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:7'>1Jn 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:20'>Rev 2:20</a></em>). Indeed, Revelation is full of warnings and judgment against "the devil" who deceives God's people (s:w. <em><a href='B:730 12:9'>Rev 12:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 13:14'>Rev 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:23'>Rev 18:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:3'>Rev 20:3</a></em>). Perhaps this is one reason why the Olivet prophecy was not fulfilled in AD70- the warning with which the Lord opened the prophecy was not heeded by the majority.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>Then said he to them: Nation shall rise against nation- </em>Any first century fulfilment is unlikely because the&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;meant that the Roman empire was firmly in power and such a situation did not therefore occur.<em>&nbsp;</em><em>Ethnos</em>&nbsp;is the word commonly translated "Gentiles". The picture of nations and kingdoms rising up against each other was simply not fulfilled in the run up to AD70- the Roman empire with their&nbsp;<em>Pax Romana</em>&nbsp;did not permit such a situation. And the system of world empires which disintegrated in the 20th Century likewise didn't permit much of this in recent times, especially in the area around Israel, or in the land promised to Abraham, which is the focus of all Bible prophecy. Only in our times has this become a reality, especially in the Arab world and amongst the nations located in the territory promised to Abraham. The language of 'rising up' in revolt is now common amongst them. The picture, however, is of the Gospel going into all those "nations" at this time (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>), all those nations persecuting the believers (<em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em>), and the nations [AV "Gentiles"] taking Jerusalem and treading it down (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>); despite their internal struggles, these same "all nations" will be confederated under a latter Babylon (<em><a href='B:730 17:15'>Rev 17:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:23'>Rev 18:23</a></em>). The overall picture is of Gospel preaching going on at a time when the nations are rising up against each other, and at the same time persecuting the believers. This scenario is developing- but is as yet unfulfilled on a global scale. But it is daily fulfilling in the nations surrounding Israel, who are persecuting Christians, rising up against each other, and to whom the Gospel is being powerfully preached. Never before has my own mission organization received such major expression of serious interest from the Muslim nations surrounding Israel, thanks largely to the growth of the internet and the growing disillusion with the existing social and religious situation. People from all nations will be gathered before the Lord for judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em>) and people from every nation will be saved (<em><a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>)- confirming that the Gospel will indeed spread to all nations before the Lord's return; it must at least be "proclaimed" to them all, thereby making people amongst them responsible to judgment; the "fullness of the Gentiles" must "come in" to Christ before the end comes and Israel repent (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). The Lord sent the disciples out to "all nations" (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> s:w:); the implication is that they failed to take the Gospel to them all, and therefore the intended scenario didn't fulfil as initially intended in the first century. <em><a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a></em> speaks of how there will be "upon the earth [land- that promised to Abraham] distress of nations", suggesting that the situation amongst the Gentile nations living within the land promised to Abraham is the particular focus of the prophecy. The same language is used of how there were devout Jews in "every nation under Heaven" (<em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em>)- and the list of nations in Acts 2 corresponds with the Middle Eastern Moslem world of today. We note that the promise that Abraham should be father of "many nations" was fulfilled in a literal sense in that Abraham is the ancestor of the Arab nations living in the land promised to him (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). And it is those nations particularly who have stated their desire to take Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jews, as required in <em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>.</p><p><em>And kingdom against kingdom</em>- It seems likely from Revelation that ‘Babylon’ of the last days will rise to political and military dominance in the territory promised to Abraham, the earth/ land of which the Bible speaks so much:&nbsp;The 10 nations / horns / leaders which exist in the land promised to Abraham- the “kings of the earth / land”- will give their power to Babylon, by force and by political manoeuvre, and this system will then invade Israel. The horns hating the whore implies there will be inter-Arab friction apparent in the beast system throughout its existence. "Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" (<em><a href='B:470 24:7'>Mat 24:7</a></em>) will be a sign of the last days. In the AD70 context, this referred to friction between the Semitic peoples living around Israel; and the Lord's words are clearly an allusion to <em><a href='B:140 15:6'>2Ch 15:6</a></em>, which specifically uses the phrase about inter-Arab friction. The fragile alliance between them will then be broken by the Lord’s return, the horns will hate the whore and destroy her. They give their power to the beast for but “one hour”. Daniel seems to associate a covenant which is then broken with the latter day Antichrist. <em><a href='B:290 30:27-31'>Isa 30:27-31</a></em> speaks of the latter day Assyrian as placing “a bridle in the jaw of the people causing them to err”, referring to some kind of covenant / agreement which forces others to follow their direction. The Lord’s especial fury will be against the individual latter day Nebuchadnezzar who leads the invasion. The future leader of Babylon, the whore riding the beast, will see themselves as Nebuchadnezzar. Isaiah and Micah describe the latter day invader of the land as “the Assyrian” (<em><a href='B:290 10:5'>Isa 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:25'>Isa 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 30:31'>Isa 30:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 5:1-6'>Mic 5:1-6</a></em>). This itself suggests we are to see the individual who heads up the invasion, the rosh / chief prince of <em><a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a></em>, as an ethnic Assyrian / Iraqi. <em><a href='B:340 8:24-25'>Dan 8:24-25</a></em> invites us to see the same- the “king of fierce countenance” stands up out of the area of northern Iraq / northern Iran:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And there shall be great earthquakes- </em>Just as there was at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em>), yet another reason for thinking that the tribulation of the last days will enable Israel to identify with the sufferings of their crucified Messiah. Again, earthquakes feature in the seals of <em><a href='B:730 6:12'>Rev 6:12</a></em>; and in the judgments upon Israel's enemies in <em><a href='B:730 11:13'>Rev 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:19'>Rev 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:18'>Rev 16:18</a></em>. Again, it seems that Israel will initially experience the judgments upon their enemies, just as they did in the lead up to their Passover deliverance in Egypt which also prefigures their final salvation. The fig tree nation- Israel- is to be shaken of a mighty wind (<em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>), and the word "shaken" is a form of that translated "earthquake". The forcing of fruit from the fig tree will be brought about by the experience of the earthquake:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>And in various places-</em> The word "various" is added by the translators to try to make sense of the otherwise obvious statement that earthquakes will occur in "places". There is no suggestion in the Greek text that earthquakes will occur in various places worldwide where they have not been known to occur. But maybe we have here an intensive plural- the one great place. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a></em> about "the holy<em> place</em>". There are rumours that an earthquake hit the temple area around AD70. But seeing that the temple mount is the bone of contention between Israel and her neighbours, an earthquake splitting the mount would be appropriate. And of course this would link directly with the prediction of Zechariah 14, that when Christ returns there will be an earthquake which splits it. And yet this is used by the Lord as a sign of His coming, rather than a statement about what will happen at His return. It could be that this is an example of how the meaning of time will be somehow collapsed around the second coming; a sign of His return is in effect His return. Or it could be that the events described in the Olivet prophecy will all happen in a very short period of time, a matter of days rather than years or decades [as is assumed by those who seek to connect the predictions with current world events]. <em><a href='B:480 13:8'>Mar 13:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em> speak of the earthquakes in&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;places, but this doesn't necessarily mean 'various' places, but could equally mean 'around'- earthquakes around the holy place would then be signs and portents of the earthquake under the Holy Place which will happen when Christ returns. In <em><a href='B:510 6:13-14'>Act 6:13-14</a></em> Stephen's enemies appear to have twisted his quotations of the Lord's Olivet prophecy to mean that Christ would destroy the "holy place" [s:w. "places" here in Matthew 24].</p><h4><em>Famines and pestilences- </em>There was an acute famine in Israel during Elijah's ministry of three and a half years, as part of God's appeal for Israel to repent and respond to Elijah's message (<em><a href='B:490 4:25'>Luk 4:25</a></em>). And so it will be in the final three and a half year tribulation. Likewise it was famine which led the prodigal to repent and return to the Father (<em><a href='B:490 15:14'>Luk 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:17'>Luk 15:17</a></em>), a clear prototype of Israel's repentance. And perhaps the greatest prototype of their repentance is in the coming of Joseph's brothers to bow before Him; and this too was provoked by famine throughout the region around Israel (<em><a href='B:510 7:11'>Act 7:11</a></em>). There will be a purpose in all the sufferings which precede the Lord's return- and that purpose is to bring about Israel's repentance, which is the key condition required for His second coming. There were indeed major famines in the lead up to AD70 (<em><a href='B:510 11:28'>Act 11:28</a></em> "a great famine throughout all the world"); again, the signs which depended upon Divine intervention were fulfilled in the first century, but those which depended upon Israel and the believers did not, because they chose not to. And thus the second coming was delayed. “In the reign of the Emperor Claudius (AD41-54) there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign, the famine in Judea was so severe that the price of food became enormous and great numbers perished. Earthquakes occurred in each of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius” (R. C. Sproul,&nbsp;<em>The Last Days According to Jesus</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids, MI, 2000: Baker Books), p. 36). Paul encourages his first century readers that famine and other elements of the Olivet predictions would not separate believers from the love of God- as if he expected those signs to be fulfilled in their lifetimes (<em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>). The seals of Revelation 6 are full of reference to the Olivet predictions, as if they could all have been fulfilled in the first century (<em><a href='B:730 6:8'>Rev 6:8</a></em> speaks specifically of "famine"). Famine can come quicker than ever in our modern world, where most countries depend upon imported food; and this is especially the case in the area around Israel, where the climate doesn't enable the support of the relatively large population living in the area without food being imported. This explains how Babylon's famine comes in one day (<em><a href='B:730 18:8'>Rev 18:8</a></em>). This could never have been possible in the ancient world, where famine required a period of time to develop. Just as Israel initially experienced the early plagues upon Egypt, so it may be that the judgments poured out upon the [Arab?] world at the very end do initially affect Israel too, and lead them to repentance:&nbsp;&nbsp;</h4><p><em>And there shall be terrors and great signs from heaven</em>- During their tribulation, Israel will experience intense "terror" (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>), which would be enough to kill them (<em><a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a></em>):&nbsp;This extraordinary level of paranoia will be modelled upon that of Jacob as he faced Esau - representing Israel's confrontation with the Arabs in the last days (<em><a href='B:300 30:5'>Jer 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>):&nbsp;This state of fear will result in many Jews going to live in Jerusalem, as happened during the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions (<em><a href='B:300 35:11'>Jer 35:11</a></em>). Ezekiel had prophesied of this time: "Terrors (an intensive plural - i:e. 'the one great terror') by reason of the sword shall be upon my people" (<em><a href='B:330 21:12'>Eze 21:12</a></em>):&nbsp;Likewise our Lord spoke of "fearful sights" being seen in latter-day Israel (<em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>But more significantly than all these things, they shall lay their hands on you and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name's sake</em>- "The synagogues::. the prisons" - implying both a religious and civil persecution of the saints? The Lord predicted that His people would be cast out of the synagogues, as if He was happy that Christianity remained a sect of Judaism until such time as Judaism wouldn’t tolerate it. His prediction that His people would be beaten in synagogues (<em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>) implies they would still be members, for the synagogues only had power to discipline their own members, not the general public. The Lord had no fear of ‘guilt by association’ with wrong religious views such as there were within Judaism. </p><p>They were to be "delivered up" just as the Lord was 'betrayed' [[s:w. <em><a href='B:470 10:4'>Mat 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:18-19'>Mat 20:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:2'>Mat 26:2</a></em> (also verses 15,16,21,23,24,25,45,46,48); <em><a href='B:470 27:3-4'>Mat 27:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:22'>Mat 17:22</a></em> "the Son of Man shall be betrayed"] to the Jews and 'delivered up' to the Gentiles [s:w. <em><a href='B:470 27:18'>Mat 27:18</a></em>, <em><a href='B:470 27:26'>Mat 27:26</a></em>, <em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em> "delivered Him to Pontius Pilate"] for suffering, death- and thereby to resurrection. Again, there is an attempt to make those enduring these things identify with Him in His time of suffering. They too would be delivered up to both Jews and Gentiles- to synagogues [Jews; <em><a href='B:490 10:17'>Luk 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>] and to prisons, rulers and kings [Gentiles; <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:9'>Mar 13:9</a></em>]. Mark adds "They shall deliver you up to councils and in the synagogues you shall be beaten". Clearly the Lord had in mind a first century fulfilment of His words, but as we have seen, not all the signs fulfilled in the first century and the Lord's&nbsp;<em>parousia</em>&nbsp;did not literally happen when the temple was destroyed. We therefore have to look to a re-scheduled fulfilment of these words in the persecution of the disciples in the last days.</p><p>The "persecution" is in Matthew "to tribulation", the "great&nbsp;<em>tribulation</em>" (<em><a href='B:470 24:21'>Mat 24:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:29'>Mat 24:29</a></em>). The Lord was addressing the disciples, and yet their sufferings were not completely in line with the picture presented here, whereby their suffering was at the same time as Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. Clearly the intended program was delayed. John's equivalent of the Olivet prophecy is the upper room discourse, and the same idea of a woman in the sorrows of labour is to be found there, and also this same word for 'afflicted' is found, translated "anguish" and "tribulation": "A woman when she is in labour has:::&nbsp;<em>anguish</em>::. in the world you shall have&nbsp;<em>tribulation</em>" (<em><a href='B:500 16:21'>Joh 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>). The Lord seems to speak as if these experiences will be those of all His true followers, but just as His anguish and sorrow came to term in His triumphant resurrection, so for all who are in Him. John uses the language of the Olivet prophecy but seems to apply it in more general terms to the suffering of the believer in all ages. Surely this was consciously done as a response to the fact that the Olivet prophecy had been rescheduled in fulfilment. Again we find the idea of 'affliction' associated with the Lord's sufferings. Joseph, His clearest prototype, was 'afflicted' (<em><a href='B:510 7:10'>Act 7:10</a></em> s:w:), just as his brothers were 'afflicted' to lead them to repentance and acceptance of how badly they had treated Joseph / Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 7:11'>Act 7:11</a></em> s:w:). Stephen's use of the same word for the sufferings of both Joseph and his brothers was surely to teach that Israel's affliction was in order to teach them what they had done to Joseph, and to thereby identify with Him and repent. And this is exactly the purpose of Israel's latter day afflictions as outlined in the Olivet prophecy, and likewise the reason for the new Israel experiencing them- to help us identify with our crucified Lord. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?". Here Paul lists the kinds of tribulation outlined in the Olivet prophecy and assures his first century readers that these will never separate them from God's love- he clearly expected the prophecy to have a first century fulfilment. Likewise the Lord foresaw the possibility of the "great tribulation" coming upon the first century church (<em><a href='B:730 2:22'>Rev 2:22</a></em>), and uses the same term "great tribulation" to describe the experiences of those Jewish Christians who would finally be saved (<em><a href='B:730 7:14'>Rev 7:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall turn out to be your opportunity to give a witness</em>- This is Luke's equivalent of Matthew and Mark predicting that the Gospel will be preached to all nations. Luke's angle on this is that the preaching will arise out of persecution and fleeing from it- which is just what happened in the first century:&nbsp;</p><p>But the AV speaks of how when a believer is persecuted, “it shall turn to you for a testimony”. What does this really mean? For me, the most satisfactory explanation would be that the Angels give a positive testimony of the faithful believer in the court of Heaven. Or could it mean that the way we respond to our trials during the tribulation will determine our verdict at the judgment? It will be a testimony in our favour at the day of judgment. In view of this, "Settle it <em>therefore</em> in your hearts" to make this witness in God's strength (<em><a href='B:490 21:14'>Luk 21:14</a></em>). "In the endurance of you (in the tribulation), ye will gain the souls of you" (<em><a href='B:490 21:19'>Luk 21:19</a></em> Marshall's Interlinear). The run up to the tribulation will provoke a "praying always, that ye may be accounted worthy::. to stand before the Son of man" (<em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>). Peter describes the tribulation of the believers in the run up to AD70 (and therefore the last days too) as judgment taking place on the house of God, in which even the righteous are "scarcely saved" (<em><a href='B:670 4:17-18'>1Pe 4:17-18</a></em>). This suggests that the last generation of believers will only be saved due to their response to the tribulation which comes upon them; but even then, only by the skin of their teeth. Lot in Sodom and the parable of the virgins, among others, are hints that the last generation of believers will be in a weak state.</p><p>For those who suffer persecution, prison etc. for the Lord's sake, "it shall turn to you for a testimony" (<em><a href='B:490 21:13'>Luk 21:13</a></em>). When? How? Surely in that these things will be 'gone through' with them at judgment as a testimony to their faithfulness.</p>


text:
<p><em>Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer</em>- They were to decide so definitely not to work out their answer ahead of time, because their answer or testimony was with God (:13). He had made an answer / testimony for them in the court of Heaven; and He would put that in their mouths at the right time. </p>


text:
<p><em>For I will give you the words and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to contradict</em>- This is alluding to <em><a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a></em>, where God tells Moses at the time of the Egyptian persecution of God's people, "I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say". This persecution lead to intensified prayer to God, resulting in&nbsp;the deliverance of the suffering saints at Passover time, after a period of especial distress and 'time of trouble' for the surrounding world due to the plagues. After this deliverance, God's people went into the wilderness and were declared God's Kingdom. We have earlier shown how all these events form a remarkable latter day prophecy. This verse also suggests that the gifts of the Spirit may be given to some in the Elijah ministry in order to enable them to make a more powerful witness (as in <em><a href='B:730 11:6'>Rev 11:6</a></em>). The fact they are given personally by Christ would indicate that in some way, Christ is already back at this stage. Time and again we will see how the prophecies of events in the last days are ambiguous as to whether Christ is already back at the time of their fulfilment, or whether they herald his return. Seeing that we will never know the exact time of Christ's return, this is understandable. Similarly Joel 2 prophesies the pouring out of the gifts " before the great and terrible day of the Lord" (:31). Malachi surely refers to this passage when prophesying the Elijah ministry "before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a></em>). This suggests that the three and a half year Elijah ministry of the last days (<em><a href='B:660 5:17'>Jas 5:17</a></em>) will be accompanied by Spirit gifts, and will coincide with the time of persecution. Note that the gifts were given "before the day of the Lord" in AD70 too. It is possible that because of this possession of the gifts by 'Elijah', false teachers within the ecclesia at the end will also claim to possess them (<em><a href='B:470 24:24'>Mat 24:24</a></em>), so convincingly that all but the elect within the ecclesia will be duped into following them. Yet it must be stressed that it is a feature of the gifts that they are unmistakable and obvious to identify (cp. <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>); it will be evident enough if and when they are poured out in the last days.</p>


text:
<p><em>But you shall be delivered up even by your parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they shall kill some of you</em>- This indicates that the persecuting power will infiltrate the ecclesias, as the Jews and Romans did to the early church in order to bring about their persecution. <em><a href='B:400 7:2-9'>Mic 7:2-9</a></em> is a clear prophecy of Christ's sufferings. But embedded in it are words which are quoted in <em><a href='B:490 21:16'>Luk 21:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 10:36'>Mat 10:36</a></em> concerning the latter day tribulation of the believers: "the son dishonoureth the father:::a man's enemies are the men of his own house”. In similar manner, some of the prophecies of Israel's latter day sufferings speak in the same context of those of Christ. <em><a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a></em> is an example: ":::he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel (Christ) with a rod upon the cheek". The whole of Amos 5 can be scanned for connections with both the future tribulation of Israel, and also the sufferings of Christ. See on <em><a href='B:480 13:13'>Mar 13:13</a></em>.</p><p>"Some of you shall they cause to be put to death::. but there shall not an hair of your head perish" can only be reconciled by appreciating how miraculously the disciples were preserved in order to inspire and co-ordinate the rest of the body. Perhaps a similar group of elders ("the two witnesses"?) will be preserved in the last days too.</p>


text:
<p><em>And you shall be hated of all men for my name's sake-</em>&nbsp;&nbsp; This hating by all men may imply a world-wide persecution. Matthew: "hated by all nations":&nbsp; But the Gospel will then be preached to “all nations” (<em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em>). It seems that the persecution will result in preaching, perhaps through highly publicized legal cases. If the Gospel is taken to all nations, then this will not need to happen. "For my Name’s sake" is a&nbsp;phrase which rarely occurs outside of the Olivet prophecy; one other time is in the upper room discourse, which is John’s parallel with the Olivet prophecy as recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Here we read again that the believers will be “hated… for My Name’s sake” (<em><a href='B:500 15:18'>Joh 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:21'>Joh 15:21</a></em>). But in John 15 the Lord seems to be angling His words not just to the twelve, but to all in Him; for His reasoning is that the world’s attitude to Him will be their attitude to us, and all in Him will suffer as He did. Again we can conclude that John, the latest of the Gospels, was re-adjusting the emphasis of the Olivet prophecy, knowing that it had been rescheduled and would not fully come true in an early coming of Christ in the first century.</p>


text:
<p><em>But not a hair of your head shall perish</em>- Primarily concerning the disciples, seeing that some believers were to die for their faith in the period around AD70 (cp. :16). The figure of not a hair of the head perishing is used in the Old Testament concerning sudden deliverance from what seemed like certain death, e:g. Jonathan in <em><a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a></em>. This is fitting, seeing that "except those days should be shortened there should no flesh be saved" (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>). It is also the language of the faithful few among an Israel who wouldn't stand up and be counted being miraculously preserved from Babylonian tribulation (<em><a href='B:340 3:27'>Dan 3:27</a></em>). There are many instructive parallels here with the latter day tribulation, which the majority of natural and spiritual Israel may try to avoid by some tokenistic acquiescence to the dictates of the King of Babylon.</p><p>We must lose our lives, one way or the other. If we lose them for Christ, we will find eternal life. If we keep them for ourselves, we will lose that eternal life. This teaching is picked up by the Lord in <em><a href='B:490 21:16-18'>Luk 21:16-18</a></em>, in stating that some of His people would be put to death, but actually, not a hair of their heads would perish. Surely He was saying that yes, they would lose their lives, but in reality they would find eternal life. Those men and women who died on crosses, were burnt as human torches, were thrown to the lions::. the Lord foresaw them, and implied that their sacrifice was <em>in principle</em> the process that must be gone through by each of us: a losing, a resigning, of our life and all the things that life consists of in everyday experience. Either we die to sin now, living out in practice the theory of baptism, or we will die to sin in rejection at judgment day; sin has it’s end in death (<em><a href='B:330 21:25'>Eze 21:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a></em>), either now, or then. So we may as well die to the things of sin in this life. </p>


text:
<p><em>In your patience, you shall win your souls</em>- The idea may be that those who endure the final tribulation will be saved; they will be the only generation who will not die. For they will be immortalized at the Lord's return. The same group are in view in <em><a href='B:470 10:22'>Mat 10:22</a></em>: "He that endures to the end shall be saved". Although it is the Lord who purchases / redeems ["wins"] our souls, we must play our part in this. It is our endurance in faith in His work for us which enables all this to become true for us in reality.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that her desolation is at hand</em>- Jerusalem was truly “compassed with armies” in Hezekiah’s time, and perhaps the Lord has this in mind when He predicted that Jerusalem would again be like this in the last days. His subsequent warning to those in the country areas not running into Jerusalem for refuge is also an allusion to the situation in Hezekiah’s time- for this was exactly what happened then. </p><p>We need not get overly worried about the supposed discrepancies between prophecy and its historical fulfilment. Such differences don't negate the Divine inspiration of the original prophecy- rather do they show how God's intentions can be worked out in different ways because of the open-ended approach He takes to human response. Thus it's been observed that the siege of Jerusalem in AD66-70 doesn't exactly follow the descriptions in <em><a href='B:490 19:41-44'>Luk 19:41-44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:20-24'>Luk 21:20-24</a></em>. This would be because there were within the Olivet prophecy a number of possible scenarios of what could happen <em>if</em> the believers fled the city as commanded; and of course, <em>if</em> Israel repented and accepted Christ at His AD70 'coming' in judgment. Additionally we must remember that this prophecy was only having its initial fulfilment in AD70- the final fulfilment will be in our last days.</p><h4>The placing of the abomination is what will bring about the desolation, according to Mk. and Mt. On Revelation 17, 18 I suggest that the whore Babylon will enthrone herself in Jerusalem, through the building of some Islamic and blasphemous religious building or capital there. And this will lead to her desolation. Luke records the Lord as saying that&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;Jerusalem was surrounded by armies,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;His people should know that the "desolation" of it was near. The desolation is therefore of Jerusalem rather than specifically the temple (<em><a href='B:490 21:20'>Luk 21:20</a></em>). The abominating desolation could therefore refer to the invading armies. Seeing&nbsp;<em>them&nbsp;</em>was the signal to flee. "Abomination" in the Old Testament typically refers to idolatry or paganism. One interpretation is that the desolator would place some pagan religious symbol in the temple. But this is the sign to flee, and this was only done by the Romans after the city had fallen. That, therefore, doesn’t really fit the requirements of the prophecy. The AD70 interpretation notes the pagan standards of the Roman legions, but even they were not placed in the temple. This was defended until the end, until the Romans forced entry, pulled it down and burnt it. As with many details of this prophecy, a future fulfilment is required. And yet we need to note that such desolation was only a visual reflection of the abomination the Jews had committed in the temple: "Because of the evil of your doings, and because of the&nbsp;<em>abominations&nbsp;</em>which ye have committed; therefore is your land a&nbsp;<em>desolation&nbsp;</em>and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day" (<em><a href='B:300 44:22'>Jer 44:22</a></em>). The abomination which caused desolation may not simply refer to some pagan symbols in the temple area. Josephus records that the Jewish zealots came into the Most Holy place, "placed an imposter in office as high priest, and ordained unqualified misfits to the priesthood" (<em>The Jewish Wars</em>&nbsp;4:3:6–9; 4:5:4). The pagan Idumeans were invited into the Most Holy by the zealots in order to murder the chief priest Annas.</h4><p>The word "desolation" is used again about the desolation of the Babylon system (<em><a href='B:730 17:16'>Rev 17:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a></em>). Yet Babylon will be judged according to what it did to God's people- the judgment for 'desolating' will be 'desolation'. Yet the Olivet prophecy clearly intended the Roman armies to be the means of the desolation, but I suggest that Revelation extends the prophecy by giving more detail, and describing the system of desolation as 'Babylon'. And that system clearly has similarities with Rome- it could have been fulfilled in Rome, but because the fulfilment of the prophecy was rescheduled, we can look for another equivalent of the enigmatic 'Babylon' of the last days. The "desolation" referred to is clearly to be understood as the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a></em> LXX, which says that the abomination that desolates will come "after the cutting off of Messiah the Prince". Whilst how long "after" is not defined, we are surely intended to understand that the desolating abomination comes soon after the death of Messiah:&nbsp; "The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and&nbsp;<em>the end&nbsp;</em>thereof ("then shall&nbsp;<em>the end</em>&nbsp;come", <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>) shall be with a flood, ("as the days of Noah::."), and unto&nbsp;<em>the end&nbsp;</em>shall be war;&nbsp;<em>desolations&nbsp;</em>are determined . . . and upon the temple of&nbsp;<em>abominations&nbsp;</em>shall come one that makes&nbsp;<em>desolate&nbsp;</em>(cp. "your house is left unto you desolate", <em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>),&nbsp; even unto the consummation, and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolated" (LXX). And yet note that that prophecy itself had had various potential fulfilments which didn’t come true. So it is fair to think that it could have had a fulfilment in AD70, but this was again deferred- for the same reason as ever, Israel’s lack of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:730 11:1'>Rev 11:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>Then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let them that are in the midst of her depart, and do not let them that are in the countryside enter therein</em>- As the faithful remnant were miraculously allowed to leave Sodom, immediately unleashing the Divine judgments by doing so, the faithful Christian remnant were allowed to leave Jerusalem just before the final Roman onslaught of AD70, doubtless spurred on by their Lord's command: "Let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it (Jerusalem) depart out" (<em><a href='B:490 21:21'>Luk 21:21</a></em>). The reference to fleeing to the mountains would have suggested a conscious allusion back to&nbsp; the command to Lot to flee out of Sodom "to the mountain" (<em><a href='B:10 19:17'>Gen 19:17</a></em>):&nbsp;"Then let them which be in Judaea flee to the mountains" means that there will be Jewish believers in Jerusalem in the last days, seeing the whole prophecy has a latter day application. <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> says that in the final tribulation of Israel, those Jews who are "written in the book", i:e. who are acceptable saints (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:27'>Rev 21:27</a></em>) will be delivered. So there will be a minority in latter day natural Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal, as in Elijah's time- which is typical of the situation at the latter day Elijah ministry.</p><p>This is the equivalent of the plea in Revelation to flee out of Babylon, the latter day Islamic complex to be built in Jerusalem on the temple mount. </p><p>The same word was used by the Lord in introducing the Olivet prophecy in <em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>: "How can you&nbsp;<em>escape</em>&nbsp;the condemnation of Gehenna?". The way of escape was through obedience to His word. Clearly the Lord intended His words to be fulfilled in that immediate generation; but fleeing to the mountains did not bring ultimate salvation because the Lord did not return as intended. His coming has been rescheduled, and perhaps utter salvation for the Jewish remnant in the land will likewise depend upon 'fleeing'. The Old Covenant had specified that Israel would flee before their enemies if they broke the covenant; the command to 'flee' may therefore be an invitation to accept guilt for their sin, and thereby be saved through the very act of recognizing the justice of their judgment. For this is the essence of the salvation of every man in Christ. It could be that <em><a href='B:730 12:6'>Rev 12:6</a></em> provides more details, in speaking of the faithful fleeing into the wilderness and thereby being saved. This was the way to flee the coming condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 23:33'>Mat 23:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:7'>Luk 3:7</a></em>). The Lord's words require[d] some faith to accept, because if Jerusalem were surrounded by armies, how could the faithful flee? Josephus explains that the Roman legions did in fact withdraw for a time, allowing civilians to flee (B:J:2:19:6,7).</p><p><em>"</em>To the mountains" is better, 'toward'. Clearly this was capable of fulfilment in the Jewish war, in a fairly literal sense. But what is the latter day equivalent? "The mountains" could be an intensive plural for the one great, special, obvious mountain. The same word is found earlier in the chapter- the Lord is saying these words sitting on "the mount" of Olives (<em><a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a></em>). And it is to that mount that He will return, according to <em><a href='B:510 1:12'>Act 1:12</a></em> and Zechariah 14. It could be, therefore, in a literal or figurative sense, an appeal to move towards the mount of Olives to meet Him at His return. Perhaps in a literal, geographical sense, that area will be the only area left by the invading armies, and they will surround the faithful Jewish remnant on that mount- and then the Lord shall come. But such speculation is unhelpful, because the principle of prophecy is that when it happens, then we shall understand. I do not believe we are intended to work out a sequence of events ahead of time. Indeed, given the conditional nature of Bible prophecy, that is impossible to do anyway:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled</em>- This is the day ["days" may be an intensive plural referring to the one great day] when vengeance will be poured out; God will take revenge on the system which has persecuted His natural and spiritual people (<em><a href='B:600 1:8'>2Th 1:8</a></em> s:w:). Revelation puts this in terms of the beast system receiving revenge for all she has recently done to the Lord's people. In a sense, "all" the written prophecies and words of God shall come to their final fulfilment in the Lord's return. </p>


text:
<p><em>Woe to them that are with child in those days, and to those nursing babies!- </em>This may well match Paul's warning against marrying&nbsp;in the last days in 1 Corinthians 7. He understood the Olivet prophecy as having the real prophecy of fulfilment in his generation. As He hung on the cross, our Lord quoted this part of His Olivet prophecy to the women who stood by (<em><a href='B:490 23:29'>Luk 23:29</a></em> “blessed are [those] who never gave suck” = <em><a href='B:470 24:19'>Mat 24:19</a></em> “Woe to them… who give suck”, s:w:), concerning the sufferings of the believers in the 'last days'. Here we see His matchless selflessness; going out of His own sufferings, to think, with anguish, how they would be experienced by His followers in the tribulation. "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves::. for if they do these things (to) a green tree (the spiritually healthy Lord Jesus), what shall be done (to) the dry", the spiritually barren tree of Israel. This is a superb essay in the Lord's selflessness and minimizing of his own sufferings: he felt that what he was going through was less than what the spiritually weak would have to go through in the AD70 tribulation (and that of the last days). In the other 11 occurrences of “woe” in Matthew, the objects of the “woe” are clearly the unfaithful and the condemned; this category of those “with child” are therefore not amongst those who obediently ‘flee’. <em><a href='B:490 21:23'>Luk 21:23</a></em> states that they would be amongst those who would suffer the “wrath upon this people”. In <em><a href='B:490 23:29'>Luk 23:29</a></em> the Lord clearly envisaged the women of His generation, the ones who lined the road to Golgotha, as experiencing the trauma He predicted in the Olivet prophecy. And yet it is clear enough that the final fulfilment is yet to come- because His coming was rescheduled.</p><p><em>For there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath upon this people</em>- Paul's later comment that "Wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>) suggests he believed that these words were being fulfilled completely at his time. But the Lord did not come, many aspects of the prophecy were left unfulfilled, and the complete fulfilment has yet to come. </p><p>"Great distress" could mean 'the greatest ever distress'. This would connect with <em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em> - that immediately prior to the Lord's return, there will be a time of distress for Israel such as they have never experienced- far worse than the holocaust. The LXX uses this same word for "distress" or "tribulation2 in several passages pregnant with latter day significance: </p><p>“The day of my [Jacob’s] <em>distress</em>” at the hands of Esau (<em><a href='B:10 35:3'>Gen 35:3</a></em>)</p><p>“The <em>anguish</em> of his [Joseph’s] soul” at the hands of his half brethren and the Ishmaelites (<em><a href='B:10 42:21'>Gen 42:21</a></em>)</p><p>“I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and <em>troubles </em>shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?” (<em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em>)- a passage in the Song of Moses regarding Israel’s latter day tribulations. </p><p>“Thus says Hezekiah, This day is a day of <em>trouble</em>, and of rebuke, and blasphemy” (<em><a href='B:120 19:3'>2Ki 19:3</a></em>)- Sennacherib’s Assyrian invasion at this time was a clear prototype for the latter day invasion described in Ezekiel 38 and elsewhere. </p><p>“The time of Jacob’s <em>trouble</em>” from which he will be delivered (<em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>)</p><p>“There shall be a time of <em>trouble</em>, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time your people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book” (<em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em>). This time of trouble is specifically for Israel in the last days. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations- </em>The downtreading of Jerusalem during the tribulation, the "times" of the Gentiles, the three and a half year [1260 days, 42 months, "time, times and a half"] domination of the land, will be long enough for some Jews to led captive into the "all nations" surrounding Israel who form the coalition of the beast. Such mass deportations would be performed in conscious imitation of the Babylonian and Assyrian dominations. The Greek word for "sword" is literally a dagger; we would have expected the more common word for sword to be used. But we recall images of Islamist extremists killing those whom they consider apostate by cutting their throats with the edge of a knife / dagger; and it seems this is what we can expect. The phrase is alluding to <em><a href='B:300 21:7'>Jer 21:7</a></em> LXX, where those in Judah who escaped the plagues and other calamities [which have also been mentioned here in Luke 21] are then slain by the edge of the sword of the Babylonians. The Babylonian invasion clearly is the prototype of Jerusalem's latter day tribulation.</p><p><em>And Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled</em>- The "times of the Gentiles" (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>) appears to refer to the time of Gentile opportunity to learn the Gospel, according to how Paul alludes to it in <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>. This however is going to be particularly true of the final period when Jerusalem falls to the Gentiles and is trodden underfoot. When that downtreading is completed, then likewise the opportunity for Gentile response will close.</p><p><em><a href='B:450 12:3'>Zec 12:3</a></em> is being alluded to: "In that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people (i:e. all around Israel, as this often means): all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it". The Septuagint renders the first phrase as "a stone trodden down by the Gentiles", clearly alluded to here. Those who are 'gathered together' against Jerusalem must be the Arab neighbours of Israel, according to the Zechariah context. The rejected likewise will be burdened with a heavy stone (<em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>), showing that they will share the judgments of Israel's enemies.</p>&nbsp;<p>The allusion is to <em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em>: "The transgression of desolation gave both the sanctuary and the host (i:e. the people of Israel) to be&nbsp;<em>trodden underfoot":&nbsp;</em>This part of Luke 21 is clearly alluding to Zechariah 14, a prophecy about the final desolation of Jerusalem:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4></td><td>Luke 21</td><td></td><td>Zechariah 14</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20.</td><td>Jerusalem surrounded by armies</td><td>2.</td><td>All nations against Jerusalem to battle</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>20.</td><td>The desolation of Jerusalem is near</td><td>2.</td><td>The city shall be taken</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>21.</td><td>Let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains</td><td>5.</td><td>You shall flee to the ::. mountains</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>22.</td><td>Great distress in the land</td><td>2.</td><td>Houses ransacked, women raped.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>24.</td><td>Led away captive into all nations</td><td>2.</td><td>Half the city shall go into captivity</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>24.</td><td>Jerusalem trodden down by the Gentiles.</td><td><em><a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a></em></td><td>LXX Jerusalem a stone trodden down by the Gentiles.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The context of Zechariah 14 is clearly concerning the last days and the literal appearance of Messiah in Israel. The way the Olivet Prophecy alludes to it, indeed is based upon it, shows that it too requires reference to the last days. Any limited fulfilment in AD70 was only a partial foretaste of the final outworking of the prophecy. <em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em> itself was a prophecy which had already had various possible fulfilments and had already had its fulfilment rescheduled a few times. It is therefore unsurprising if its intended, or possible, fulfilment in AD70 was again rescheduled.</h4><p>It may well be that the "all" which will be fulfilled in <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> is to be equated with "the times of the Gentiles" being fulfilled (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>). "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles" for three and a half years, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 'Jebus', the old name for Jerusalem, means 'downtrodden'. This&nbsp;hints that the liberation of Jebus at the beginning of David's reign was seen by Christ as typical of the time when He would liberate Jerusalem from downtreading, at his return. This suggests that the times of Gentile domination of Jerusalem are to be ended by the establishment of the Kingdom at Christ's second coming; we are yet to see, therefore, a Gentile domination of Jerusalem before Christ's coming. </p><p>"The times of the Gentiles" are often taken to have finished in 1967. But at least three major problems arise with this: </p><p>1) The temple site, Biblical 'Zion', is still not totally under Jewish control due to the presence of the Mosque there. </p><p>2) "Trodden down" has clear links with <em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em> and <em><a href='B:730 11:2'>Rev 11:2</a></em>, which describe the temple being blasphemously desecrated for certain periods of time. How can they have ended in 1967, seeing the 'Dome of the Rock' still stands there? And 1967 minus 2300 day/years (<em><a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a></em>) or 1260 day/years (<em><a href='B:730 11:2'>Rev 11:2</a></em>) do not appear to yield any significant starting points. </p><p>3) The times of Gentile opportunity, as some read it, are still with us now as much as they were in 1967. If anything, numbers of baptisms have mushroomed <em>since</em> 1967, notably in distant Gentile lands. </p>


text:
<p><em>And there shall be signs in sun, moon and stars- </em>Joseph's dream clearly identifies these symbols as representing Israel. The passages which make this same identification are many: <em><a href='B:10 37:9-10'>Gen 37:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 8:8-10'>Amo 8:8-10</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:400 3:6'>Mic 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:260 6:10'>Son 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 24:23'>Isa 24:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 33:20-26'>Jer 33:20-26</a></em>; JoeI <em><a href='B:490 2:10'>Luk 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:30-32'>Luk 2:30-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:15'>Luk 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:20'>Act 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 6:12'>Rev 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 8:12'>Rev 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 12:1'>Rev 12:1</a></em>. <em><a href='B:300 31:35-36'>Jer 31:35-36</a></em> is likely the Old Testament passage the Lord specifically had in mind: "Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divides the sea when the waves thereof roar; the Lord of hosts is his name. If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever". </p><p><em>And upon the earth distress of nations- </em>The reference is to distress amongst the nations within the earth / land promised to Abraham. There are many prophecies in Jeremiah and Ezekiel of Babylon being at war with the neighbouring nations who supported her in the attack on Jerusalem, e:g. concerning Ammon (<em><a href='B:330 21:20'>Eze 21:20</a></em>) and Tyre (<em><a href='B:330 26:7'>Eze 26:7</a></em>):&nbsp;Ammon is mentioned as <em>escaping </em>out of the hand of the king of the North during his invasion of Israel and Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:340 11:41'>Dan 11:41</a></em>). This shows that there will be much inter-Arab conflict both before and during Israel's prolonged desolation period. "The sea and the waves roaring" at the time of Israel's final suffering is a figure taken from <em><a href='B:300 49:23'>Jer 49:23</a></em> concerning the nations around Israel being like the troubled sea in their fighting with each other. However, the outstanding inter-Arab conflicts will be temporarily forgotten in the last days to concentrate on a combined push against Jerusalem:&nbsp;But once this is captured, the old rivalries will suddenly violently surface, which is how God will destroy the invaders and save the righteous remnant who are still barely alive in the sewers and basements of Jerusalem. </p><p><em>In perplexity for the roaring of the sea and the waves- </em>The Greek word translated "perplexity" is used in the LXX concerning the final tribulation of Israel (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:22'>Deu 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:30'>Isa 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:20'>Luk 8:20</a></em> LXX):&nbsp;It seems that the beasts of Daniel 7 are only different aspects of the one great beast which finally emerges. Daniel sees them all come up together after the waves of the sea are troubled (<em><a href='B:340 7:3'>Dan 7:3</a></em>), connecting with the Lord's description of the last day powers around Israel in the same way (<em><a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Men will be fainting for fear in expectation of the things which are coming on the world- </em>We are to be in expectation of the Lord's return (s:w. <em><a href='B:680 3:12-14'>2Pe 3:12-14</a></em>); the Lord comes on the unworthy when they are not expecting Him (<em><a href='B:490 12:46'>Luk 12:46</a></em> s:w:). The magnitude of the world's problems will block the vision of worldly people, so that they refuse or are rendered unable to look beyond them to the things of the Lord and His Kingdom "coming on the world". </p><p><em>For the powers of the heavens shall be shaken</em>- The Greek phrase is used only elsewhere in <em><a href='B:730 6:13'>Rev 6:13</a></em>. This vision is clearly an expansion upon the Olivet prophecy. There, the stars fall “as a fig tree casts her unripe figs”. This too is the language of the Olivet prophecy (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>). The lack of spiritual maturity in Israel is related to the stars [of Israel</p><p>- see on&nbsp;<em>Sun::. moon::. stars</em>] falling. The appearance of comets would certainly give the impression of falling stars, and I suggest that the main fulfilment will be in terms of things visibly seen in the sky, as hard proof to all the world that the Lord Jesus is returning. And it is this which provokes chronic fear in the hearts of the worldly. The events of judgment day will be a ‘shaking’ of the world, including the faithful (<em><a href='B:490 6:48'>Luk 6:48</a></em> the house built on the rock could not be “shaken”, s:w:). <em><a href='B:650 12:26-27'>Heb 12:26-27</a></em> surely allude here, saying that just as the earth shook when the old covenant was instituted, so the “heavens” would also be shaken. The suggestion of the context is that this day of shaking both heaven and earth was almost upon the readership- who were Hebrews, Jewish Christians.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>But when these things begin to happen, look up, lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near</em>- <em><a href='B:230 24:9'>Psa 24:9</a></em> clearly states that when the gatekeepers of Zion lift up their heads [to God in truth], then the King of glory will come in. And the Lord here applies these words to His true people of the last days- they are to likewise lift up their heads [so that] their redemption will draw nigh, or be hastened.</p><p>"When these things begin to come to pass, then look up (Gk. un-bend), and lift up your heads" may suggest that the believers will be bowed down in bondage in some sense. Alternatively, we can read it simply as a command to stand up (as NIV), which would connect with the slumbering virgins, <em>none</em> of them standing ready to welcome their Lord as they should have been. It is evident from a close reading of the Olivet prophecy that the Lord is using his pronouns carefully. Sometimes He speaks of "ye", sometimes of "they". It seems that the “ye" refer to the disciples and the faithful remnant in the latter day ecclesia, and the "they" either to the natural Jews or to "the many" (majority) in the ecclesia who will fall away. "<em>They</em> shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud::. when these things (leading up to the Son of man coming) begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up <em>your</em> heads" (<em><a href='B:490 21:27-28'>Luk 21:27-28</a></em>). This may suggest that the majority, the "they" category, are shocked by the coming of the Lord, but the faithful minority stand up from their slumber and are expecting his coming.</p><p>“When these things begin to come to pass, then look up (Gk. 'unbend'- as if the depression of the faithful is partly lifted by discerning the nearness of Christ's return), and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh". These are words which can only apply to the last generation; and they self-evidently imply that therefore that last generation does know for sure that Christ is about to come. Just two verses later, the Lord spoke of how in the Spring "Ye see and know <em>of your own selves</em> that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the Kingdom of God is nigh" (<em><a href='B:490 21:30-31'>Luk 21:30-31</a></em>). There is an instinctive sense within us concerning the change of the seasons; and this will be the same in the minds of the faithful as they sense the Lord's return approaching. There will be no need for magazine articles expounding "signs of the times"; we will not need any man to say unto us "The time draweth near" because we will know <em>of our own selves</em> that the coming of Christ is near (<em><a href='B:490 21:7-8'>Luk 21:7-8</a></em> should be read in the context of v:30,31). The relationship between Solomon and his bride in the Song of Solomon is typical of that between Christ and His church; and significantly, therefore, she senses his approach, she hears his voice telling her that he is coming, even before she sees him (<em><a href='B:260 2:8'>Son 2:8</a></em>).</p><p>We were redeemed by the blood of Jesus; and yet His return and judgment of us is also our “day of redemption" (<em><a href='B:490 21:28'>Luk 21:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:23'>Rom 8:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>). Yet that day was essentially the cross; but it is also in the day of judgment. Likewise, we are “justified" by the blood of Jesus. Yet the idea of justification is a declaring righteous after a judgment; as if the cross was our judgment, and through our belief in the Lord we were subsequently declared justified, as we will be in the Last Day.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he told them a parable: Behold the fig tree and all the trees</em>- <em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em> records another parable of the fig tree, upon which that in the Olivet prophecy is based. Jesus, the dresser of God's vineyard of Israel, came seeking spiritual fruit on the fig tree, for the three years of his ministry. Because of the lack of it, the tree was cut down. Christ said "Now (i:e. towards the end of the tribulation period?) learn a parable of the fig tree" (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>). It is tempting to read this as effectively meaning 'Now learn&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;parable of the fig tree', seeing that the parable of the Olivet prophecy is so similar to the previous fig tree parable:&nbsp;Spiritual fruit on the fig tree of Israel is to be associated with spiritual fruit on "all the trees" within the Eden / earth / land promised to Abraham; this will be the fruit of the witness made to them all by the Elijah ministry and the two witnesses of Revelation 11:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>When they shoot forth, you see it, and know of yourselves that the summer is now near</em>- Or, “you know in your own selves”. Seeing the repentance of Israel will lead to the faithful perceiving that the end is near. This perhaps alludes to the same idea as in <em><a href='B:680 1:19'>2Pe 1:19</a></em>, that the day star shall arise in the hearts of the believers just before the Lord comes. </p><p>One way to look at this is that summer stood for harvest, obviously so in this context of fruit on a fig tree. But harvest was clearly a metaphor for judgment upon Israel, which is the context and burden of the Olivet prophecy. The Lord has lamented that the fig tree of Israel has nothing but leaves- and because of that, He had uttered judgment upon her (<em><a href='B:470 21:19-20'>Mat 21:19-20</a></em>). So the Lord could be simply repeating this is parabolic terms. The judgment / harvest / Summer was to come upon the fig tree whilst she had only leaves [and not fruit] on her tender branch. And yet the language of ‘shooting forth’ [Gk. germinating] in <em><a href='B:490 21:30'>Luk 21:30</a></em> suggests that more than mere leaves are in view. Summer will only come once there is fruit to harvest. That seems the point:&nbsp;</p><p>The shooting forth of the fig tree is given as the special sign that the Lord will return (<em><a href='B:490 21:30'>Luk 21:30</a></em>). This must be understood in the context of the Lord coming to the fig tree in Mark 11; He sought for at least the beginnings of fruit shooting forth, but found only leaves. And therefore He cursed the fig tree. He evidently saw the shooting forth of the fig tree as a figure of Israel's acceptance of Him, however immaturely. Likewise the parable of <em><a href='B:490 13:6-9'>Luk 13:6-9</a></em> makes the same connection between fruit on the fig tree and repentance within Israel. "Learn a (the) parable of the fig tree" (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>) may suggest that we are to understand the fig tree parable in the light of these other fig tree parables. And there are several OT links between fruit on the fig and spiritual fruit in Israel (<em><a href='B:400 7:1'>Mic 7:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 7:15-16'>Mat 7:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 3:17-18'>Hab 3:17-18</a></em>). When the branch of Israel “is now become tender”, i:e. immediately this happens, we are to know that the eternal Summer of God’s Kingdom is nigh (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em> RV). The tenderness of the branch is surely to be connected with the hard heart of Israel becoming tender through their acceptance of Jesus and the new covenant. When we see just the beginnings of Israel’s repentance, through a remnant responding, we are to know that “He is near, even at the doors” (<em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em> RV). All this evidence steers us away from the idea that the fig tree became tender through the re-establishment of the nation of Israel- and towards an understanding that this is all about Israel’s repentance.</p><h4>The fig tree was to "shoot forth" (<em><a href='B:490 21:30'>Luk 21:30</a></em>) or 'germinate' (Young), witnessed by its putting forth of leaves (<em><a href='B:480 13:28'>Mar 13:28</a></em>) and tender branches (<em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em>). When the fig tree puts forth leaves there are often immature, unripe figs amongst them. Thus Jesus inspected the fig tree outside Jerusalem to see if it had any fruit, and cursed it because it did not. "The time of <em>figs</em> was not yet", i:e. it was not reasonable to find fully developed fruit on it. The fig tree referred to the nation of Israel; Jesus expected to find at least the beginnings of some spiritual fruit, but due to the chronic dearth of response to his message, Jesus cursed the nation and dried it up (<em><a href='B:480 11:13-14'>Mar 11:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:20'>Mar 11:20</a></em>). This would lead us to interpret the putting forth of leaves on the fig tree as the signs of an initial repentance and indication that real spiritual fruit is developing. It may well be that the whole of the Olivet prophecy has reference to a final three and a half year tribulation of the believers just prior to the second coming, and that during this time there will be a period of zealous witnessing to both Jews and Gentiles. This fits into place with the fig tree parable; this preaching starts to produce some degree of response from Israel, and then "all (is) fulfilled" in the full manifestation of Christ's Kingdom. The parable says that as surely as Summer follows Spring, so those who see the blossoming of the fig tree in the parable, will see the Kingdom. Maybe this is to be taken literally; there may be a literal gap of a few weeks/months (as between Spring and Summer) between the first signs of Jewish repentance, and all being fulfilled. It may well be that the "all" which will be fulfilled in <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> is to be equated with "the times of the Gentiles" being fulfilled (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>). The Greek <em>kairos </em>translated “times” is also translated “opportunity”; the Gentiles’ opportunity to hear the Gospel is fast running out. There will be a call to Israel to repent in the last days, and a remnant will respond. This Elijah ministry [and maybe our present witness to Jewry prepares the way for this?] must occur “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”. We could interpret the putting forth of leaves on the fig tree as the signs of an initial repentance and indication that real spiritual fruit is developing.</h4>


text:
<p><em>Even so, you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near</em>- The structure of the argument suggests that “these things” specifically refers to the shooting forth of the fig tree:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4><em><a href='B:470 24:32'>Mat 24:32</a></em></td><td><em><a href='B:470 24:33'>Mat 24:33</a></em></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>When [Gk:&nbsp;<em>hotan</em>]</td><td>When [Gk:&nbsp;<em>hotan</em>]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>His branch is yet tender and puts forth leaves</td><td>You see all these things</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>You know [Gk:&nbsp;<em>ginosko</em>]</td><td>You know [Gk:&nbsp;<em>ginosko</em>]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>That summer is near [Gk:&nbsp;<em>eggus</em>]</td><td>That it is near [Gk:&nbsp;<em>eggus</em>]; <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> “That the Kingdom of God is near [Gk:&nbsp;<em>eggus</em>]”.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The “Summer” meant ‘harvest’, and that was a metaphor for judgment. Verse 33 parallels this by saying that “it” is near. The “it” may well refer to the destruction of the temple, which is the context of the whole discussion; although <em><a href='B:490 21:32'>Luk 21:32</a></em> supplies “the Kingdom of God”. The Lord is bringing the discourse to a close by returning to the question which provoked it: “When shall these things be?”. And He appears to be saying in the first century context that so long as only leaves remained on the fig tree of Israel, then the Summer of harvest judgment upon her was going to come. And yet the Lord here is using language with two or more meanings, as Scripture often does. In the latter day context, He seems to be saying that once spiritual fruit is beginning on the Israel fig tree, then this is the ultimate sign that the ultimate end is near.</h4><p>The Lord introduces his Olivet prophecy by saying that it was no use listening to those who said "The time draws near"- instead, he went on to say, 'You must personally match the spiritual and physical situation you find yourself in with what I'm describing'. And at the end of the prophecy, he hammered this home again: "When (the trees) now shoot forth, ye see it, and know of your own selves that Summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things::. know ye" (<em><a href='B:490 21:30-31'>Luk 21:30-31</a></em> RV). The very personal feeling within us that Summer is near is likened to our knowledge of the imminence of the Lord's coming; you can't be told by anyone else that Summer's coming, you see the signs, and you know within your own self. &nbsp;</p><p>Perhaps the very last generation <em>will</em> know the time of Christ's return. "Likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, <em>know ye</em> that the Kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (<em><a href='B:490 21:31'>Luk 21:31</a></em>). As surely as trees bud and then Summer comes, so when we see the signs of <em><a href='B:490 21:24-26'>Luk 21:24-26</a></em> in Israel, we will know that the Lord is really at hand. It is only to the unworthy that the Lord comes unexpectedly. The majority of generations, including the disciples to whom Christ primarily spoke those words concerning not knowing the hour, have of course not known the day or hour. But there seems absolutely no point in the Lord giving us <em>any</em> signs if in fact the last generation cannot foresee with some certainty the time of His coming. Surely Yahweh has revealed all His plans to His servants the prophets? As a woman knows within herself the approximate time of childbirth although not the day or hour, so we should know that the day of new birth is approaching- so Paul's reasoning goes in 1 Thessalonians 5. He warns that for those who do not watch, the day of Christ's coming will be a day of "sudden destruction::. as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape" (<em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em>). Surely the picture here is of a woman whose time of delivery comes unexpectedly upon her, with complications that result in her dying in childbirth. As a woman who knows the time of delivery is very near will behave in an appropriately careful way, so will the faithful of the last generation who likewise know that the Lord's coming is nigh. The same mixture of seriousness and joyful anticipation will be seen in us too, who are watching and loving the appearing of Christ. </p>


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


text:
<p><em>Heaven and earth shall pass away</em>- This could simply be saying to the effect 'Even if heaven and earth could pass, which they cannot, there is even less possibility that My words shall not be fulfilled'. <em><a href='B:470 5:18'>Mat 5:18</a></em> seems to use the term in that sense- "Even until [<em>heos</em>, i:e. 'even if'] heaven and earth pass::.". In this case, we are not to even bother trying to understand 'heaven and earth' as 'a system of things', although this is certainly how the term is used, especially in the context of the Jewish system. And yet later New Testament allusion to this passage seems to suggest we are justified in seeing some reference to the Jewish, Mosaic system of the first century. <em><a href='B:650 12:26'>Heb 12:26</a></em> speaks as if heaven and earth are to be so shaken by the blood of Christ and the new covenant that they will pass away just as Sinai shook at the inauguration of the old covenant. <em><a href='B:680 3:7-13'>2Pe 3:7-13</a></em> is perhaps the clearest statement- the 'heaven and earth' which "are now" in the first century were to pass away and be replaced by a new heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells. Clearly 'heaven and earth' are not literal, because righteousness already dwells in literal Heaven, and the earth shall not be literally destroyed; this passing of 'heaven and earth' is patterned after the destruction of sinful&nbsp;<em>society&nbsp;</em>in Noah's time (<em><a href='B:680 3:5'>2Pe 3:5</a></em>). We note that the Olivet prophecy concludes with a warning that society would become like it was in the days of Noah. Clearly this major changeover did happen in the first century in that the Jewish and Mosaic system did finally pass away in AD70 with the destruction of the temple. And yet Peter's words also seem to demand application to the second coming of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Clearly the heaven and earth of the Kingdom could have come in the first century, but 'all' that happened was that the Jewish and Mosaic systems were ended; this was in itself created a requirement for a&nbsp;<em>new&nbsp;</em>'heaven and earth' in which dwells righteousness, but that system has evidently not yet physically come on earth. In this sense, what happened in AD70 was a guarantee and a creation of the requirement for the new Kingdom to come</p><p>- see on :32&nbsp;<em>Be fulfilled</em>.</p><p>The Greek word&nbsp;<em>ge</em>&nbsp;["earth"] is used often for the ‘land’ of Israel in the NT. We must remember that although the NT is written in Greek, it strongly reflects Hebrew usage of words. Again, the word commonly refers to the land of Israel. Consider some examples:&nbsp;</p><p>- “But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King” (<em><a href='B:470 5:34-35'>Mat 5:34-35</a></em>). This is alluding to the Jewish habit of swearing by their own land:&nbsp;</p><p>- “The kings of the earth take custom or tribute" (<em><a href='B:470 17:25'>Mat 17:25</a></em>). The rulers of the earth were those ruling over Israel:&nbsp;</p><p>- “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth" (<em><a href='B:470 23:35'>Mat 23:35</a></em>). The blood shed on the earth means that which was shed in the land:&nbsp;</p><p>- Heaven and earth passing away (<em><a href='B:470 24:35'>Mat 24:35</a></em>) follows on from the Lord speaking of how all tribes of the earth / land would mourn in repentance (:30). He was speaking in the common OT idiom that used ‘heaven and earth’ for Israel. The nation would pass away in AD70, but His words would not.</p><p><em>But my words shall not pass away</em>- The Lord uses&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>here rather than any other term for ‘words’, perhaps because He perceived that it was the essence of what He was saying that would be fulfilled, rather than necessarily the very letter.</p><p>There seems a parallel with :30. "My words shall not pass away" is parallel with "This generation shall not pass away"; "Heaven and earth shall pass away" is parallel with "All these things [being] fulfilled". 'Heaven and earth' passing is therefore in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth in fulfilment of all that was prophesied by the Lord. But there is then a parallel between "My words" and "this generation". The intention may be to show that that generation were to be identified with the Lord's words, and thereby with Himself. For whenever He elsewhere uses the term "My words", it is always in parallel to 'I Myself' (<em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:27'>Joh 15:27</a></em>). He was His words; He was the quintessential logos. And that generation were to be identified with them. If they did so, if the tender branch of the fig tree became one with the Messianic branch of the Old Testament prophecies, then all would be fulfilled in that generation.</p>


text:
<p><em>But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with partying, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day come on you unexpectedly</em>- It could fairly be asked 'Why is there this warning, if the believers of the last days are to be actively persecuted?'. This verse implies that the world will be in a materially prosperous state in the last days; it will be possible for us to become so preoccupied with it that we do not prepare for the time of tribulation, so that it comes as a sudden surprise. Of if "that day" is the day of Christ's coming, then it may be that by opting out of the persecution, we will be able to continue to enjoy the materialism of the world, in which case we will be caught unawares by the second coming. Thus while the saints are persecuted, the world enjoys a time of prosperity as it did in the times of Lot and Noah.</p><p>Even in the first century context, Paul has to use these same Greek words in warning the believers not to be caught up in drunkenness (<em><a href='B:520 13:13'>Rom 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:21'>Gal 5:21</a></em>). And "cares" is the word used in the parable of the sower; the thorns represented the cares of this life (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>). The appeal is therefore to those who have received the seed of the word, and have responded. Attempting to enjoy the good life will make believers no longer expectant of the Lord's return. "Unexpectedly" translates a Greek word only found elsewhere in <em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em>, of the "sudden destruction" which is to come upon those within the church who are saying "peace and safety". The attitude of "peace and safety" is therefore within the church rather than in the world; for it is here paralleled with eating and drinking without awareness of the imminence of the Lord's return. The state of the world in the very last days is going to be crying out for interpretation as a fulfilment of prophecy predicting the Lord's coming. And yet, it seems many within the church will be spiritually asleep and so&nbsp;engrossed with the good life that they do not perceive it. This is the distracting power of materialism and self-indulgence.</p>


text:
<p><em>For so shall it come upon all those that dwell on the face of all the earth</em>- As noted on :34, the unexpected nature of the Lord's coming is pertinent specifically to the believers who are engrossed with the good life and not aware of the imminence of His return. But they are associated here with all dwellers on the earth / land, for whom the Lord's coming will likewise be an abrupt, unexpected interruption. The dwellers on the earth / land in Revelation appear to specifically refer to those within the territory of the land promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p><em>But watch continually, praying that you may have strength to prevail against all these things that are going to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:490 18:5'>Luk 18:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 8:1'>Rev 8:1</a></em>. It is by being continually aware of the Lord's presence, and the closeness of His coming, that we find moral strength to overcome. And this will be especially true of the final generation. Spiritual strength is clearly given in response to prayer and desire. The Lord doesn't simply advocate Bible study as the method for gaining strength.</p><p>"Prevail" or "escape" can mean 'to suddenly flee away from'- the same idea of sudden deliverance from persecution which cropped up in our notes on :18. Those who do not watch and pray will be unable to flee out of the tribulation, as Lot's wife was unable to. This idea of escaping connects with <em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em> (this is just one of many links between the Olivet prophecy and Thessalonians): "When they shall say (in the ecclesia) Peace and safety, then sudden destruction comes upon them::. and they shall not escape". The language of "peace and safety" is often used in the Old Testament to describe the calm words of Israel's false teachers, as they confidently asserted that all was spiritually well within Israel (<em><a href='B:300 6:14'>Jer 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 5:12'>Jer 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 14:13'>Jer 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 3:5'>Mic 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 13:10'>Eze 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:19'>Deu 29:19</a></em>). Those who do not think that there is peace and safety in the ecclesia and who face up to the reality of 'watching and praying' to spiritually survive the last days, are those who will 'escape'.</p><p>Jacob's wrestling with the Angel was really a clinging on to him, pleading with tears for the blessing of forgiveness; and in this he was our example (<em><a href='B:350 12:4-6'>Hos 12:4-6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em> RV speaks of the believer 'prevailing' with God in prayer. The 'struggles' of Moses in prayer are an example of this; through the desperation and spiritual culture of his pleading, he brought about a change even in God's stated purpose. See on <em><a href='B:580 2:1'>Col 2:1</a></em>.</p><p>If our prayers really can help others on their salvation road- how we should use this! Remember Lot's deliverance for the sake of Abraham's prayers, whilst he unknowingly went about his daily life in those last hours. Reflect too how the Lord told us: “Pray <em>ye</em> may be accounted worthy to… be stood before the son of man". Not 'pray for thyself', singular, but for the whole community of the last days.</p><p>Angelic appearances to men have so often included an encouragement to "fear not" that we have every reason to imagine that those same words will be repeated to us when the angel calls. The Greek text of <em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em> further fills out the place of the angels in our judgment: "Pray always, that you may be accounted worthy::. to be stood before the Son of man". This creates the picture of our guardian angel literally standing us up in acceptance before our Lord, as happened to Daniel. <em><a href='B:230 1:5'>Psa 1:5</a></em> can now take on a literal aspect: "The ungodly shall not stand [up] in the judgment". It is so fitting that the angel who is with us now in our every situation, will be with us in that supreme moment too.</p><h4>Throughout Christ's discourses concerning his return, "watch" is the key-word (<em><a href='B:470 24:42'>Mat 24:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:33-37'>Mar 13:33-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>). There are at least ten New Testament allusions to Christ's command for us to "watch" in the last days, and thus be found loving the appearing of Christ; this alone indicates how our lives should be characterized by this spirit of watching. I would go so far as to say that generally we seem almost unaware of this emphasis. "Watch::. watch::. watch" is the cry that comes out from our Lord himself. It seems almost unknown to us that we are <em>commanded</em> by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, with a great sense of urgency, to live in this spirit of watchfulness for His return. It is easy to think that the command to watch means that we should scan Bible prophecies and compare them with current world events, and thereby see the coming of Christ approaching. However, this is not the idea behind the word "watch". We are told to watch precisely because we do <em>not</em> know the time of Christ's appearing; therefore Jesus cannot be telling us (in this command) to watch political developments as pointers towards the date of His return. "Watch" nearly always refers to watching our personal spirituality, and concerning ourselves with that of others’. The Hebrew word translated "watch" carries the idea of defending, holding on as a matter of life or death, enduring with stamina, being awake. Thus Habakkuk speaks of "watching", i:e. being spiritually sensitive, to what God is going to tell him (<em><a href='B:420 2:1'>Hab 2:1</a></em>). Doing a study of New Testament allusions to Christ's command to "watch" yields conclusions which may seem unpleasantly negative to some. In Greek, the verb 'to watch' is related to the noun 'watch', referring to soldiers guarding something, or the period of guard duty. The idea behind 'watching' is definitely defensive rather than aggressive. In the same way as the gate keeper of a large house has to watch, to guard and protect, so should we in the last days (<em><a href='B:480 13:34-37'>Mar 13:34-37</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em> defines watching as praying always, concentrating our faith upon the fact that ultimately we will stand acceptably before the Lord Jesus at the day of judgment, and by His grace be saved from the great judgments which will surely come upon this world. The ideas of watching and praying often occur together (<em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:38'>Mar 14:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:18'>Eph 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>). Prayer for our forgiveness, for acceptance by our Lord, must therefore characterize our watching in these last days. We must " watch" in the sense of being on our guard against the possibility of personal and communal apostasy from the faith (<em><a href='B:510 20:31'>Act 20:31</a></em>); "watching" is standing fast in the doctrines of the one faith , exhorting and encouraging others in the household of faith (<em><a href='B:590 5:6'>1Th 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:11'>1Th 5:11</a></em>), holding fast in ecclesias swamped by apathy and apostasy, strengthening what remains (<em><a href='B:730 3:2-3'>Rev 3:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:3-5'>2Ti 4:3-5</a></em>), keeping the oil of the word burning in our lamps even though others have let it burn out (<em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>).</h4>


text:
<p><em>And every day he was teaching in the temple, and every night he went and stayed on the mount that is called Olivet</em>- Perhaps He didn't wish to draw attention to the Bethany home. Or perhaps He found Gethsemane especially conducive to the prayer which filled His final nights. Maybe He wanted to reduce His journey time each day to the temple, in order to provide maximum teaching and final appeal to Israel. He must surely have had sympathizers within the city who would have let Him spend the night there. But He didn't wish to make them a target for the Jews, nor give them the appearance of some special blessing after all the grief was over and He was glorified. He likely wanted to have the 12 with Him as much as possible, and it's unlikely such a large group could have been accommodated under one roof. And so they slept rough for those final nights, with Him using every moment in prayer, teaching and appeal. </p>


text:
<p><em>And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, to hear him</em>- The "early morning" eagerness for His teaching explains why He reduced His journey time to the temple each day by sleeping rough on Olivet rather than in Bethany (:37). Their attraction to His teaching was deep; for He carefully avoided doing miracles at this stage.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now the feast of unleavened bread drew near, which is called the Passover</em>- This clarification would have been unnecessary for a Jewish audience, so we can see that Luke was aiming at preaching to the Gentiles even before generally this was acceptable within the church. Taking the Gospel to those whom the main body of believers hold to be unacceptable is a lonely and visionary task.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put him to death, for they feared the people</em>- This 'seeking' to kill the Lord connects these orthodox Jews with Herod, who 'sought' to kill the Lord at His birth (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 2:13'>Mat 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:20'>Mat 2:20</a></em>). The seeking of the Jews to kill the Lord coincided with the seeking of Judas to betray Him to them (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 26:16'>Mat 26:16</a></em>). In this sense the Jewish satan entered into Judas (:3). And the Lord was aware of all this; as noted on <em><a href='B:480 14:1'>Mar 14:1</a></em>, He brought about the circumstances so that He died as the Passover lamb at that feast. He did so by provoking Judas to 'seek' to betray Him through the incident of the 'waste' of wealth at Bethany; when He knew that the Jews were also 'seeking' His death.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve</em>- It was the Jewish ‘satan’ that put the idea of betraying Jesus into Judas’ mind, so <em><a href='B:490 22:2-3'>Luk 22:2-3</a></em> implies: “the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him:::then entered Satan into Judas”. See on :2. The Jewish ideas of an immediate Kingdom and the throwing off of the Roman yoke by a glamorous, heroic Messiah entered Judas, and caused him to become so bitter against Christ’s Messiahship that he betrayed Him. The Jewish Satan, in the form of both the Jews and their ideology, was at work on the other disciples too: “Satan has desired to have you” (plural), Jesus warned them. Especially was the High Priest seeking Peter: “I have prayed for you (Peter – singular), that your&nbsp;faith doesn't fail you” (<em><a href='B:490 22:31-32'>Luk 22:31-32</a></em>). Could Jesus foresee the Satan – High Priest later arresting Peter and his subsequent trial in prison? Throughout the first century, the Jewish and Roman Devil sought “whom he may devour” (<em><a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a></em>).</p><p>Note how “enter” is used in a non-physical sense in <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>: “Enter into the joy of your Lord”, entering in at the narrow gate (<em><a href='B:470 7:13'>Mat 7:13</a></em>), entering into another’s labours (<em><a href='B:500 4:38'>Joh 4:38</a></em>). ‘Satan’ enters a man’s heart in the sense that “the lusts of other things enter in” (<em><a href='B:480 4:19'>Mar 4:19</a></em>); in this sense we can “enter into temptation” (<em><a href='B:490 22:46'>Luk 22:46</a></em>).</p><p>The link between Judas and the ‘Devil’ is brought out by a consideration of Luke’s comment that Judas “sought an opportune time [<em>eukairan</em>] to betray Jesus” (<em><a href='B:490 22:6'>Luk 22:6</a></em>). But Luke earlier used this word in <em><a href='B:490 4:13'>Luk 4:13</a></em> to describe how the “Devil” in the wilderness departed from the Lord “until an opportune time” [<em>achri kairou</em>]. The Lord’s victory in the wilderness prepared Him for the victory over the ‘Devil’ which He achieved in His final passion. Just as the temptation to ‘come down from the cross’ was a repetition of the temptation to throw Himself down from the temple. John’s Gospel often repeats the history of the other Gospels, but in different language. In <em><a href='B:470 26:46'>Mat 26:46</a></em>, the Lord comments upon the arrival of Judas: “Rise, let us be going; my betrayer is coming”. But <em><a href='B:500 14:30-31'>Joh 14:30-31</a></em> puts it like this: “The prince of this world [a phrase understood as meaning ‘the evil one’, the Devil] is coming… Rise, let us be going”. John is picking up the mythological language of the ‘Satan’ figure, and applying it to a real person with real attitudes and sinful intentions – i:e. Judas, who is presented as a personification of the ‘Satan’ / ‘Devil’ / ‘Prince of this world’ principle.</p><p>We can easily overlook the huge significance of <em><a href='B:480 14:21'>Mar 14:21</a></em> recording the Lord’s words that Judas personally was guilty for betraying Him, and would suffer accordingly – even though <em><a href='B:490 22:22'>Luk 22:22</a></em> says that Judas did this because the Satan [i:e. the Jews] ‘entered him’. <em>Whatever</em> that means, it doesn’t mean that Judas nor anyone is thereby not personally responsible for their actions. </p><p>The translation of the Greek text in <em><a href='B:500 13:2'>Joh 13:2</a></em> has been problematic. “The Devil having put into the heart of Judas” doesn’t quite do justice to what the Greek is really saying. The respected expositor and Greek student C:K. Barratt insists that strictly, the Greek means ‘the Devil had put into his own [i:e. the Devil’s] heart, that Judas should betray Jesus’ (C:K. Barratt, <em>The Gospel According to St. John</em> (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) p. 365. Barratt’s view of the Greek is confirmed in D:A. Carson, <em>Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility</em> (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981) p. 131). This translation is almost impossible to make any sense of given the orthodox understanding of the ‘Devil’. And so most popular translations ignore the obvious difficulty by glossing over the strict meaning of the Greek. Understanding the ‘Devil’ as the innate source of temptation within the human heart, the picture becomes clearer. The idea is surely that the thought of betraying Jesus began within the Devil–mind of Judas; he ‘put the thought in his own mind’, as if to stress how Judas conceived this thought totally of himself and within his own mind, just as later Ananias and Sapphira [in an analogous incident] ‘conceived this thing within their heart’. So properly translated, <em><a href='B:500 13:2'>Joh 13:2</a></em> actually supports our general thesis about the Devil – it is stressing that the heart of Judas was itself responsible, that heart put the idea of betraying Jesus into itself – and nobody else was responsible. Note how the Lord addresses Judas as if Judas had full responsibility for his actions and control over them – e:g. “What you are going to do, do quickly” (<em><a href='B:500 13:27'>Joh 13:27</a></em>), and <em><a href='B:480 14:21'>Mar 14:21</a></em> “Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Good were it for that man if he had never been born”. Those two passages alone surely make it clear that Judas was no robot, no puppet on a satanic string. He had full responsibility and choice over his actions, hence these words of the Lord to him. Summing up, we are left with the question: Did <em>Judas</em> betray Jesus, or did <em>Satan</em>, working through Judas, betray Jesus? The answer, surely, is that it was Judas, and he must bear full responsibility for that.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went away, and discussed with the chief priests and captains how he might betray him to them</em>- The Jews discussed amongst themselves how they might arrest and kill Jesus: "And they plotted together how they might seize Jesus using trickery and kill him<em>"</em> (<em><a href='B:470 26:4'>Mat 26:4</a></em>). Again we see a parallel between the Jews and Judas; the Jewish 'satan' entered into him (:3). </p>


text:
<p><em>And they were glad, and agreed to give him money</em>- Matthew says they gave him 30 pieces of silver immediately, but this would have been a down payment for a future promise of money. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he consented- </em>This Greek word is usually translated "confessed", in the sense of repenting of sin. He may have assured them that He felt the Lord's movement was wrong and that he had been sinful to support it.</p><p><em>And looked for an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of the crowd</em>- Perhaps this was why the Lord chose to spend His nights sleeping rough on Olivet rather than in the home at Bethany or of sympathizers in Jerusalem. He was giving Judas the chance to betray Him. If we look for an opportunity to sin, the Lord in a way provides it in that He can 'lead into temptation' unless we pray not to be so led.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the Passover must be sacrificed</em>- The Lord was aware that the Passover sacrifice was Himself. He wanted to die when the lambs were killed. And He did. His psychological manipulation of it all went perfectly. We can read "the day" of unleavened bread as meaning "the time", rather than referring to a particular period of 24 hours.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he sent Peter and John on an errand, saying: Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover</em>- This is the language of the 'preparing' of the Marriage Supper (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>). And yet at that meal, He explained to them how in fact He had been sent by God on a mission to "prepare" a place in God's Kingdom for them, and this preparation required His death on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em>). They would later have reflected that their journey and efforts to prepare were representative of His own work for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they asked him: Where do you want us to prepare for it?</em>- Perhaps we are intended to see a veiled allusion to <em><a href='B:50 16:2'>Deu 16:2</a></em>, where we learn that the Passover was to be kept in the place which Yahweh chose. And they are asking the Lord where He has chosen to eat the Passover. Whilst He was and is not God, He functions as God and manifested Him in flesh.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And you shall say to the master of the house: The Teacher says to you- </em>The anonymous man, unnamed perhaps for security reasons, was presumably a believer for this title to mean anything to the man. Likewise the reference to the Lord's time being at hand (Mt:) would've only been understandable by a disciple. The Lord wishes to assume that the man will appreciate that if the Lord's time of death was at hand, then He must first keep the Passover.</p><p><em>Where is the guest room, in which I shall eat the Passover with my disciples?</em>- The "guest room" is the same concept as in <em><a href='B:500 14:2'>Joh 14:2</a></em>, where there in that very guest room which they had "prepared", the Lord says that He is now going to the cross to prepare <em>them</em> a room, an eternal place in the Father's house. He wished them to perceive a mutuality between them and Himself; what they had done, He was now going to do on a far greater scale. And to this day, we sense this mutuality between us and our Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he will show you a large furnished upper room. There make ready</em>- <em><a href='B:480 14:15'>Mar 14:15</a></em> brings out the paradox more strongly. The room was "ready" and yet there they were to "prepare"; "prepare" translates the same Greek word as "ready". All was prepared; the Lord was the Passover lamb and had prepared Himself for an untimely death, just as they were to keep Passover in advance of the 14th Nissan. They were to show willingness to do their part, but they could not fully do it. It has been done for them already. And we get this impression in all our attempts at labour for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they went and found as he had said to them, and they made ready the Passover</em>- As noted on :12, it was already "made ready", so they just did the cosmetic arrangements. We likewise can add nothing really to the Lord's sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the hour had arrived, he sat down with the apostles</em>- There is no actual mention of the slaying of the paschal lamb, which should have been done that evening. It had already been strangely provided for them. "Sat down" is "dining" in Matthew; the idea is of reclining. </p><p>Joachim Jeremias gives a whole string of quotes from Rabbinic and historical writings that indicate that “At the time of Jesus the diners sat down" to eat. Yet the Gospel records are insistent that Jesus and the disciples&nbsp;<em>reclined</em>&nbsp;at the last supper (<em><a href='B:470 26:20'>Mat 26:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:18'>Mar 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:14'>Luk 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:12'>Joh 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:23'>Joh 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:25'>Joh 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:28'>Joh 13:28</a></em>). Yet at the Passover, it was apparently common to recline, because as Rabbi Levi commented “slaves eat standing, but here at the Passover meal people should recline to eat, to signify that they have passed from slavery to freedom". The breaking of bread is thus stressed in the records as being a symbol of our freedom from slavery. It should not in that sense be a worrying experience, taking us on a guilt trip. It is to celebrate the salvation and release from bondage which has truly been achieved for us in Christ our Passover.</p><p>"With the apostles" doesn't mean that only the twelve partook or were present. There are reasons to think that there were others present too. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer</em>- It was 'with desire that He desired' [a real emphasis] to eat the Passover with His men. He so wants us to break bread with Him; He so wants us to partake of and with Him. He abides in us and we in Him; see on <em><a href='B:500 17:24'>Joh 17:24</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>For I say to you, I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God</em>- The Lord told us that the Passover feast would "be fulfilled in (i:e. by?) the Kingdom of God". This is confirmed by the description of "the marriage supper of the lamb" in <em><a href='B:730 19:9'>Rev 19:9</a></em>. Likewise the parable of Luke 14 speaks of "a great supper" at the beginning of the Millennium. As we share this feast together now, we are acting out a parable of the feast to be kept at the Lord's return. In the light of this, how important it is to ensure that there is no bitterness and disunity at the breaking of bread meeting! To be invited to sit at the King's table is an honour indeed (cp. <em><a href='B:100 19:28'>2Sa 19:28</a></em>). Remember that we are reaffirming our covenant. "This is the blood of the covenant" is a reference back to the blood of the Old Covenant being sprinkled upon the people, with their response of vowing obedience unto the end (<em><a href='B:20 24:7'>Exo 24:7</a></em>). The solemnity of that distant moment should be ours, weekly.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:480 14:23'>Mar 14:23</a></em>. </p><p><em>And he took a cup- </em>This was by no means easy for Him, because in Gethsemane He struggled so deeply in order to take it. Surely Luke was aware of this and wishes us to remember it every time we break bread. He&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;take the cup- the cup we go on to read about, that was so difficult for Him to accept. Luke's record records the taking of the cup twice. This could be a reference to multiple cups of wine drunk at the Passover; or it could be that Luke simply records the incident twice. Or perhaps the Lord was simply drinking from the common table wine, and more than once drew out the symbology.</p><h4><em>And when he had given thanks- </em>Here&nbsp;<em>eucharisteo</em>&nbsp;is used, but&nbsp;<em>eulogeo&nbsp;for</em> the 'blessing' of the bread. The difference may be in that the Lord took the bread, an accessory to the meal, and turned that which was so ordinary into something of spiritual symbolism; and His blessing of the bread was necessary for this. But&nbsp;<em>eucharisteo</em>&nbsp;includes the idea of grace,&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, and suggests more thankfulness for grace- a thought appropriate to the meaning of the Lord's blood shed for us by grace. And naturally we wonder whether the wine that was taken was one of the Passover cups, or simply some of the table wine, an accessory to the meal just as the bread was. Whilst there was a taking of four cups of wine at the Passover, this may not be the only explanation for Luke recording the taking of two of them. It could simply be that as they were eating the Passover lamb, they ate bread and drunk weak wine as part of the accompaniments which went with every Palestinian meal. And the Lord twice passed comment on the wine, that it represented His blood. This would be similar to the manner in which He chose the bread, the&nbsp;<em>artos</em>, the ordinary word for bread rather than one referring specifically to unleavened bread, as the symbol for His body- rather than the meat of the Passover lamb. He could have made use of the blood of the Passover lamb as a symbol in some way- e:g. He could have asked a servant to bring the blood of the lamb and asked the disciples to all dip their fingers in it. But instead He uses wine as a symbol of His blood. My hunch is that the wine was the ordinary table wine accompanying the meal, just as the bread was, and was not the ritually significant Passover cup. In any case, the tradition of drinking cups of wine at Passover was non-Biblical, and somehow out of keeping with the original spirit of Passover, which was to remember the haste with which the first Passover was eaten. <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em> speaks of "the cup of blessing which&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>bless", with the emphasis on the "we". We are to do what the Lord did that night- not be mere audience figures, but actually do what He did:&nbsp;&nbsp;</h4><p><em>He said: Take this and share it among yourselves</em>- "Among yourselves" carries the idea of 'among all of you'; Mt. <em>"</em>All of you, drink it". The appeal for all to drink it was surely said because some were doubtful as to whether they should take it. Perhaps there were others in the room apart from the twelve. But most likely this was yet another appeal to Judas- to drink the cup of salvation and forgiveness. He gave the reason in <em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> - "For", or because, this was the symbol of the means for the forgiveness of sins. The Lord's attitude to Judas leaves us realizing we should never give up with the lost. Even the very worst of them. And given the Lord's eagerness that Judas break bread, we can hardly conclude that any sinner is thereby unworthy of participation at the breaking of bread. It is after all His table and not ours. This isn't to say that forms of discipline may not be required at times, but welcome at the Lord's table should never be withdrawn.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I say to you, I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine from this time forward- </em>An allusion to how the priest on duty was not to drink wine during his service. The Lord foresaw His work from then on, beginning with the cross, as an active doing of priestly work for us. This would imply that the essence of His work on the cross is the essence of His work for us today; there is a continuity between Him there and His work for us now, with elements of the same pain and passionate focus upon us and the achievement of our salvation. He is not waiting passively in Heaven for the time to return; He is actively busy for us. There is also the implication in His words that His future 'drinking' will be literal- He was holding literal wine in His hand, and He said He would not again drink it until the Kingdom. This suggests that at very least, He invites us to understand His future Messianic banquet as being in some ways a literal feast.</p><p>The Lord clearly taught the continuity between the breaking of bread and the future marriage supper by observing that He would not again drink the cup until He drinks it with us in the Kingdom. The parables of how the Gospel invites people as it were to a meal are suggesting that we should see the Kingdom as a meal, a supper, of which our memorial service is but a foretaste. We are commanded to enter the supper and take the lowest seat (<em><a href='B:490 14:10'>Luk 14:10</a></em>), strongly aware that others are present more honourable than ourselves. Those with this spirit are simply never going to dream of telling another guest 'Leave! Don't partake of the meal!'. But this is the spirit of those who are exclusive and who use the Lord's table as a weapon in their hands to wage their petty church wars. The very early church didn't behave like this, but instead sought to incarnate and continue the pattern of the meals of the Lord Jesus during His ministry. And this is one major reason why their unity drew such attention, and they grew. To exclude someone from the Lord’s table is to judge them as excluded from the Kingdom banquet. And those who make such judgment will themselves be rejected from it.</p><p><em>Until the kingdom of God shall come</em>- The reference is primarily to the literal Kingdom to be established on earth at His return (<em><a href='B:490 22:29-30'>Luk 22:29-30</a></em> goes on to speak of the disciples eating and drinking in the Kingdom as they sit with Christ on His throne judging Israel), but there is a sense in which His word is fulfilled in the breaking of bread service, where He drinks wine with us as the invisible guest. For His parables of the Kingdom all speak of the experience of God's reign / Kingship as a present experience in the lives of His people. <em><a href='B:490 22:16'>Luk 22:16</a></em> adds with reference to the bread: "Until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God". The fulfilment of Passover deliverance is finally in the last day, and yet the fulfilment of Passover is also to be seen in the breaking of bread service. Note in passing that the Lord's predilection for the term 'Kingdom of God' or 'Father's Kingdom' was perhaps to counterbalance the Jewish emphasis upon the Kingdom as being that of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;father&nbsp;<em>David</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:480 11:10'>Mar 11:10</a></em>). The Kingdom was God's, "<em>Yours</em>&nbsp;is the Kingdom", rather than simply and solely the re-establishment of Israel's Kingdom:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he took bread- </em>Taking bread, blessing and breaking it and giving to the disciples was exactly what the Lord did at the </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:480 14:23'>Mar 14:23</a></em>. </p><p><em>And the cup in like manner after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood- </em>The promises to Abraham were effectively the new covenant, even though they were given before the old covenant [the law of Moses] was given. The Lord's death confirmed those promises made to the Jewish fathers (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>). But God's word is true as it stands and in that sense needs no confirmation, no guarantee of truthfulness. But in an effort to persuade us of the simple truth and reality of the promises of eternity in the Kingdom which were made to Abraham, God confirmed it through the death of His Son. This was foreseen in the horror of great darkness which Abraham experienced in Genesis 15. Abraham did nothing to confirm his side of the covenant; it was God who passed between the pieces of the slain animal, during a time of Divine darkness as there was on the cross, in order to demonstrate to Abraham and to us all how serious He was about keeping His promise. Through the death of Christ, God commended His love to us (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>), He confirmed the covenant; not that He needed to do so, nor that His love needs any more commendation to us. But He did, in order to seek to persuade us of the truth of the promises which comprise the Gospel (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>). In this sense "the promise was made sure [s:w. 'confirmed'] to all the seed" (<em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>); the extra element of making sure or confirming the promise was in the death of God's Son. Our hope is therefore "sure<em>&nbsp;</em><em>and</em>&nbsp;confirmed [AV "steadfast"]" (<em><a href='B:650 6:19'>Heb 6:19</a></em>). <em><a href='B:650 9:17'>Heb 9:17</a></em> puts it another way in saying that a will or legacy is only confirmed [AV "of force"] by the death of the one who promised the inheritance, and the death of Christ was God's way of confirming the truth of what He had promised. This same word meaning 'confirmed' is used by Peter in writing of how we have "the word of prophecy made sure / confirmed" (<em><a href='B:680 1:19'>2Pe 1:19</a></em>). The prophesied word is the word of the Gospel, the promise of the Kingdom which began in Genesis, and this has been confirmed to us, made even more sure, by the Lord's death. Peter isn't referring to prophecy in the sense of future events being predicted in the arena of world geopolitics; the prophesied word is the word of our salvation, of the Gospel- which is how Peter elsewhere uses the idea of "the word". God can save who He wishes, as, how and when He wishes. He was not somehow duty bound, left with no option, forced by an unpleasant logical bind to suffer the death of His Son. He gave His Son, according to His own plan from the beginning. But He did it that way in order to persuade us of His love and simple desire to give us the Kingdom He has promised from the beginning of His revelation to men. The Lord's blood is "of the new covenant" not in that it&nbsp;<em>is itself&nbsp;</em>the new covenant, but rather in that it is the blood associated with the confirmation of that covenant as true. And so it is understandable that the Lord should wish us to understand His blood as the blood of the new covenant, the supreme sign that it is for real, and desire us to regularly take that cup which reminds us of these things. <em><a href='B:650 6:17-18'>Heb 6:17-18</a></em> carries the same idea- that in order to demonstrate the utter certainty of the things promised to Abraham's seed, God confirmed it by an oath so that we might a strong consolation and persuasion of the certainty of the promise. The death of God's Son was not therefore unavoidable for Him; He could save us as He wishes. But He chose this most painful way in the ultimate attempt to persuade men of the reality of His Son. With this understanding we can better appreciate the tales of the old missionaries who went to pagan and illiterate tribes and reported a strange response to their message once they explained the idea of the Son of God dying on a cross to show us God's love. It must be persuasive to us too, week by week as we reflect on the blood of the covenant.</p><p>"Covenant" literally means that which is to be disposed of or distributed, and was used about the distribution of property upon decease. The Lord's parables about the Master who distributes all His wealth and possessions to His servants were surely looking forward to His death, at which He gave us all He had- and that was and is visually symbolized in the breaking of bread, the division even of His body and life blood amongst us, for us to trade with.</p><p>Moses bound the people into covenant relationship with the words: “Behold the blood of the covenant" (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em>). These very words were used by the Lord in introducing the emblems of the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:480 14:24'>Mar 14:24</a></em>). This is how important it is. We are showing that we are the covenant, special Israel of God amidst a Gentile world. Indeed, “the blood of the covenant" in later Judaism came to refer to the blood of circumcision (cp. <em><a href='B:10 17:10'>Gen 17:10</a></em>) and it could be that the Lord was seeking to draw a comparison between circumcision and the breaking of bread. For this is how His words would have sounded in the ears of His initial hearers. This is how vital and defining it is to partake of it.</p><p><em>Which is poured out for you</em>- He perhaps followed this by saying "Shed for you" (<em><a href='B:490 22:20'>Luk 22:20</a></em>). This is often the way with Biblical statements- the general and global is stated, and then the scale is focused down to you personally. His blood was shed for many::. but for you. However we may also have here a similar idea to that expressed in the parable of the man [Christ] who finds treasure [us] in the field of the world, and therefore gives all in order to redeem the field, in order to get us as His own (<em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em>). Likewise His blood was shed for many, the redemption price was paid for humanity, that He might redeem us. Putting <em><a href='B:490 22:20'>Luk 22:20</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 26:28'>Mat 26:28</a></em> together, the Lord may have said: ":::&nbsp; My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins of you / for the remission of&nbsp;<em>your</em>&nbsp;sins". One wonders whether the Lord actually was pouring out the wine as He spoke the word "shed". The same word for "shed" is used of how the new wine put into old bottles "runs out". The idea may be that if we don't change, then we crucify Christ afresh. But the Lord may also have in mind that if Israel had accepted the wine of the new covenant which He preached, then the shedding of His blood could have been avoidable. The fact it could have been avoidable- for Israel didn't&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to crucify their King- doesn't mean that God was not behind it, using it to confirm the covenant with us, nor that Christ did not of Himself give His own life. "Poured out" is ongoing, Gk. 'is being shed', another hint at the ongoing nature of His death:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But behold, the hand of him that betrays me is with me at this table</em>- To be together at table meant to be in fellowship and mutual acceptance of each other; one ought to trust those with whom he sat at table. This was the huge significance of the Lord's open table policy, dining with questionable and unholy characters, thereby overturning all the religious hang-ups about guilt by association. </p>


text:
<p><em>For the Son of Man indeed goes- </em>The Lord's 'going' was His going to the cross. The Lord used the same word in <em><a href='B:470 13:44'>Mat 13:44</a></em> in describing Himself as the man who 'goes'&nbsp;<em>with joy&nbsp;</em>and sells all that He has in order to buy / redeem [s:w:] the field (representing the world) in order to gain for Himself the treasure (the redeemed). His 'going' to the cross was therefore done with some form of "joy". Even when the only visible representative of the treasure were that band of mixed up men and a few doubtful women. He uses the word again in telling Peter to 'go' behind Him and carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>). Yet the Lord looked beyond the cross; He saw Himself as 'going' to the Father (<em><a href='B:500 7:33'>Joh 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:14'>Joh 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:21-22'>Joh 8:21-22</a></em> s:w:), in the same way as we do not only 'go' to our death, but ultimately even death itself is part of an onward journey ultimately towards God and His Kingdom. The Lord's attitude to His death was that He&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;that He was now 'going to the Father' (<em><a href='B:500 13:3'>Joh 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:28'>Joh 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:5'>Joh 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:10'>Joh 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:16-17'>Joh 16:16-17</a></em> s:w:). This unique perspective upon death and suffering is only logical for those who have a clear conception of future resurrection and personal fellowship with the Father in His future Kingdom.</p><p><em>As it has been determined- </em>Mt. "as it is written". </p><p><em>But woe to that man through whom he is betrayed!</em>- The Lord typically pronounced 'Woe' upon the Jewish world and their religious leaders. He classes Judas along with them, because his actions had been inspired by them. The devil, in this context referring to the Jewish opposition to Jesus, had put the idea of betrayal into the heart of Judas (<em><a href='B:500 13:2'>Joh 13:2</a></em>). "Woe" translates&nbsp;<em>ouai</em>, an intensified form of&nbsp;<em>ou</em>, "no". Perhaps in His word choice the Lord was still desperately saying to Judas 'No! No! Don't do it!'. He knew that He had to be betrayed, but His appeals for Judas to repent were therefore rooted in an understanding that the Bible prophecies would come true in some other way than through Judas. For otherwise, Judas would have had no real possibility of repentance, and no real choice but than to do what he did.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they began to question among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing</em>- "Is it I, Lord?" lead to them asking each other rather than being satisfied with the Lord's cryptic response. Perhaps "every one of them" excludes Judas, because he apparently asked the question later, and replaces 'Lord' with "Master"[Gk. 'rabbi'] when he asks: "Master ['rabbi'], is it I?" (<em><a href='B:470 26:25'>Mat 26:25</a></em>). His usage of 'rabbi' to address the Lord may reflect how influenced he was by Judaism, and how he failed to appreciate the utter Lordship of Jesus. Judas maybe persuaded himself that this Jesus was just another itinerant rabbi, who Judaism would be better off without. Note that "Is it I?" is&nbsp;<em>eimi ego</em>, literally 'Am I?'. This is one of many examples of where&nbsp;<em>ego eimi</em>&nbsp;means simply 'I am', and [contrary to Trinitarian claims] the words do not mean that the speaker of them is claiming to be God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there arose also a dispute among them, as to which of them would be counted as greatest</em>- Even after the acted parable of the feet washing, there was still a strife amongst them about who should be greatest. They’d clearly not grasped the Lord’s teaching and example about not worrying about what place we take at a dinner. It could be that they accepted the Lord's upcoming death, and were wondering which of them ought to replace Him. They had thereby clearly missed His teaching in John 14-16, that although He was going away, He was coming again and would permanently be with them as Lord, master and leader through the gift of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them, and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors</em>- We must be aware that in helping people, be it in teaching them the Truth of Christ, or in materially supporting them in their needs, we must never allow our position of ‘superiority’ become a vehicle for abusing their person, however unintentionally. The Lord in <em><a href='B:490 22:25'>Luk 22:25</a></em> spoke of how in the world, “benefactors” have power over people. His idea seems to have been: ‘If you show generosity in the world, you have authority over others; but you, after my example, must show generosity to others in humble acts of service but not expect authority over others as a result of this’. The giving of help or welfare in any form should therefore never become a source of control over another person. Their integrity and independence as a person must never be in this sense ‘abused’ by us or simply lost sight of, because we have helped them. Peter took due note of this teaching, repeating it in <em><a href='B:670 5:3'>1Pe 5:3</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>But you shall not be so, but he that is the elder among you, let him become as the younger, and he that is chief, as he that does serve</em>- Again, these words remained in Peter's mind and he faithfully teaches them to his converts in his letters. Perhaps Peter was especially sensitive to these words (see on :25) because he was the eldest among the group, and also the one who had been given a chief role at various times in the ministry. The Lord's words here were specifically directed at him.</p><p>The Lord was addressed as ‘Rabbi’ and to some extent acted like one. It was the well known duty of a rabbi’s pupils to serve their teacher and do menial chores for him; the Jewish writings of the time and the Mishnah are full of references to this. Yet the Lord treated His ‘servants’ radically differently- His behaviour at the Last Supper was just the opposite. And He even taught that He, the Lord of all, would be so happy that His servants were waiting for Him that He would “come forth and serve them” (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). He was a most unusual “Lord and Master”, one who served His servants, and whose death for them was His ultimate act of service. </p>


text:
<p><em>For which is greater, he that sits at the table, or he that serves? Is not he that sits at the table? But among you, I am he that serves</em>- The parallel record in <em><a href='B:500 13:4-17'>Joh 13:4-17</a></em> describes the Lord actually serving as a servant, when He was the greatest. This was John's way of showing how the word [in this case, the Lord's own words as recorded here by Luke] became flesh in Him. </p>


text:
<h4><em>But you are those who have stayed with me in my time of trial</em>- The disciples' persistent failure to grasp our Lord's teaching must have been a great source of trial and frustration for Him. Despite His warnings about His coming sufferings, the disciples failed to comprehend this; perhaps partly due to Jesus Himself fluctuating between talking of his death in both literal and then figurative terms. In His time of greatest need of encouragement He found them sadly lacking in any real degree of spirituality beyond a fanatic allegiance to Him. And yet He graciously thanked them for continuing with Him in His temptations, even though they fell asleep. We can under-estimate how sensitive He is to our feeble spirituality, and how even the basic will to be loyal, no matter how much we fail in practice, means so much to Him. Yet their lack of comprehension must have been especially tragic, since one of the reasons for the gift of the disciples was to help Jesus through the pain of His ministry, and this was to culminate in the cross. After the Jews' first council of war against Christ, He prayed for strength and was answered by being given the twelve (<em><a href='B:490 6:11-13'>Luk 6:11-13</a></em>).</h4><p>The disciples slept in Gethsemane, despite being asked to stay awake and encourage the Lord in His hour of need (<em><a href='B:490 22:45'>Luk 22:45</a></em>). Yet He thanks them for being those who continued with them in His temptations. When the Jews agreed at a council to kill Him, the Lord went to be alone with the twelve (<em><a href='B:500 11:53-54'>Joh 11:53-54</a></em>). He took such comfort from them even though they did not or would not understand the reality of His upcoming death. He, like us, could only take such comfort from His brethren if He viewed them positively. </p>


text:
<p><em>And I appoint to you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed me</em>- The Greek for "appoint" is always elsewhere used about a covenant. They had just celebrated the new covenant in the Lord's blood. Participation in that new covenant meant that for sure, a Kingdom had been covenanted to them. The cup of the covenant speaks the same assurance to us today. All that is true of the Son becomes true for all those in Him. As He has been covenanted a Kingdom, so have we. The certainty of the Kingdom for Him is as sure as it is for we who are in Him. This takes some believing, but it is all part of our status "in Christ".</p>


text:
<p><em>So that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel</em>- This is an allusion to the happiness of Solomon's servants as they sat down to food and wine; they listened to Solomon's wisdom as they ate. <em><a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a></em> speaks of us as happy servants. The idea is that the eating and drinking at the Lord's Passover table was to be repeated in the Kingdom to come. Joseph celebrated his brothers’ repentance with a meal together, at which they sat in their proper places (<em><a href='B:10 43:16'>Gen 43:16</a></em>). Likewise at the marriage supper of the lamb, with each in his proper place (<em><a href='B:490 14:10'>Luk 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:30'>Luk 22:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:9'>Rev 19:9</a></em>).</p><p>It was apparent that in the breaking of bread meetings, there had to be a host. The host was a vital figure. And yet herein lay the huge significance of breaking of bread meetings being held in homes- presumably the home of a richer believer- and yet it was the table <em>of the Lord</em>. <em>He</em> and not the master of the house was the host of that meeting. It's for this reason that it was unthinkable for any invited by grace to their Lord's table to turn away other guests- for it wasn't <em>their</em> table, it was the table of another One, and they were but guests. Attempts to bar others from the Lord's table in our own time are equally rude and deeply lacking in basic spiritual understanding. There are evident similarities between the breaking of bread experience and the marriage supper which we shall eat with the Lord Jesus in His Kingdom. The breaking of bread assembly is called "the table of the Lord"- and yet He says that we shall eat at "My table" at His return. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, Satan has asked for you that he might sift you as wheat</em>- The fact an Angel was called 'satan' in Numbers 22 and in Job's case means we can maybe have another look at <em><a href='B:490 22:31'>Luk 22:31</a></em>, where Jesus tells the disciples "satan has desired to have you (lit. 'demanded you for trial') that he may sift you as wheat". Wheat is normally a symbol of the righteous after a process of tribulation or judgement. The satan here could be an Angel, demanding them for trial from God, as Job's satan Angel did. The Lord’s comment that satan had demanded to have the disciples, especially Peter is clearly based upon the experience of Job, whom satan also demanded:&nbsp;The Lord saw a similarity between Job and Peter, in that Job’s sufferings were to be repeated in their essence in the experience of Peter. Only through that bitter weeping and reflection upon it, corresponding in the Lord’s analogy to all that Job went through, would Peter like Job emerge triumphant.</p><p>The Old Testament prophecies also give insight into the actual process of the betrayal. The Hebrew for "equal" in "a man my equal" (<em><a href='B:230 55:13'>Psa 55:13</a></em>) is invariably translated elsewhere as 'price' or 'estimation'; possibly implying that the Jews had set the same price on Judas' head (in the sense of a bribe offered to them) at one stage as they had on Jesus. The Jewish satan seeking Peter and the other disciples ("Simon, Satan has desired to have you", plural) implies an organized attempt to subvert each of the twelve, perhaps by offering a financial reward for becoming a secret agent for the Jews. Judas having an equal price in the Jews' eyes as Jesus indicates how highly he was seen to rank among the disciples in the public eye- as important to the Jews as Jesus himself. This further strengthens the impression that Judas was highly esteemed by both Christ and the other disciples. It would appear that the love of this money was a significant factor in Judas' downfall; in the same way as Joseph's brethren were blinded by a money motive in betraying him rather than being interested in his death for its own sake. In addition, Judas' motives seem to have also been from being influenced by the thinking of the Jewish satan, offering the chance of an immediate Kingdom. He is alluded to in <em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em> (cp. <em><a href='B:500 13:30'>Joh 13:30</a></em>) as the prototype of all who left the true faith to be influenced by Judaist doctrine:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a></em>.</p><p>It is noteworthy that the Lord had previously warned that the Jewish Satan / world would be actively trying to influence the disciples to stumble: “Woe unto the world (often referring to the Jewish world in the Gospels) because of the offences!::. but woe to that man by whom the offence comes!::. whoso shall offend one of these little ones (the disciples – <em><a href='B:450 13:7'>Zec 13:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>) which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned” (<em><a href='B:470 18:6-7'>Mat 18:6-7</a></em>). This invites comparison with “Woe unto that man by whom the son of man is betrayed::. it had been good for that man if he had not been born” (<em><a href='B:470 26:24'>Mat 26:24</a></em>). Notice that this stumbling of the disciples at the hand of the Jewish world and its servant Judas was to be around the time of Christ’s capture (<em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>); which is what <em><a href='B:490 22:31'>Luk 22:31</a></em> is warning the disciples (“you” plural) about, and which proved to be so relevant to Peter in the hours after the Lord’s capture. Further proof that “the world” that was to cause these offences was the Jewish world is found by comparing <em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>. It’s also been pointed out that ‘Satan desires to sift you as wheat’ “is a proverbial expression” (H:A. Kelly, <em>Satan: A Biography</em> (Cambridge: C:U:P:, 2006) p. 312). Schleiermacher therefore observes about this passage: “There is no intention to teach anything with regard to Satan or to confirm that older belief” (F:E. Schleiermacher, <em>The Christian Faith</em> (London: Clark, 1999 ed:) p. 165).</p><p>There’s also some evident allusion back to the record of Job in the Septuagint version. “The Lord said to the Devil, ‘Behold I give him over [<em>paradidonai</em>] to you; only preserve his life” (<em><a href='B:220 2:6'>Job 2:6</a></em> LXX). <em>Paradidonai</em> and related words are very frequently used of how the Lord Jesus was ‘handed over’ to the systems of the Roman and Jewish Satan (e:g. <em><a href='B:480 14:41'>Mar 14:41</a></em>), and yet ultimately His life was preserved by God. Here in <em><a href='B:490 22:31'>Luk 22:31</a></em> we have the Jewish Satan desiring to have the disciples, just as Job’s ‘Satan’ desired. If the disciples grasped the allusion, they would perceive that they were to be as Job, and believe that ultimately the ‘Satan’ was under God’s control, and through prayerful endurance they would come to victory as Job did.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:3'>Luk 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:24'>Act 8:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:7'>2Co 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 1:12'>2Pe 1:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>But I prayed for you, that your faith should not fail- </em>Not only did the Lord pray that Peter’s faith wouldn’t fail. He repeatedly made the point in the lead up to Peter’s temptations that His disciples really <em>did </em>know Him, therefore they should never deny this (<em><a href='B:500 14:7'>Joh 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:17'>Joh 14:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:21'>Joh 15:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em>), and He taught them that all men <em>must</em> know they were His disciples, if they truly were (<em><a href='B:500 13:35'>Joh 13:35</a></em>). He was trying to strengthen Peter against the trial He knew would come: to deny that he knew Him. Likewise we may try to strengthen those prone to specific temptation, but the power of it depends on their recognition of their own weakness, and whether they have ears to hear. It would seem Peter didn’t, so confident was he of his own strength. Moses of his own freewill chose to intercede for Israel, concerning things which at the time they knew nothing about; things which were almost against their will, in fact. And this is the prototype of the Lord's mediation for us who know not what to pray for as we ought. Consider how he prayed for Peter when Peter didn't realize he was being prayed for. </p><p><em>And when you have been converted, strengthen your brothers</em>- Paul referred to the Jews to whom he preached as his “brothers” (<em><a href='B:510 13:26'>Act 13:26</a></em>), and it may be that Peter at least initially understood his commission to “strengthen your brothers” as meaning preaching to his unbelieving Jewish brethren (although the same Greek word is used by Peter regarding his work of upbuilding the converts, <em><a href='B:670 5:10'>1Pe 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 1:12'>2Pe 1:12</a></em>). <em><a href='B:550 2:8-10'>Gal 2:8-10</a></em> informs us that Peter had a ministry to the Jews of the diaspora in the Roman empire just as much as Paul did to the Gentiles living in the same area (<em><a href='B:550 2:8-10'>Gal 2:8-10</a></em>). Because the Acts record focuses more on Paul’s work rather than Peter’s doesn’t mean that Peter was inactive. 1 Peter is addressed to Jewish converts living in the provinces of Asia Minor, and we can assume that Peter had spent years travelling around building up groups of believers based around the families of the individual Jews he had converted in Jerusalem at Pentecost. It would seem from <em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em> that Peter had made a number of converts in Corinth, and <em><a href='B:670 5:13'>1Pe 5:13</a></em> strongly suggests Peter lived for a while in “Babylon” and had begun an ecclesia there. Whether this be taken as a code name for Rome or as literal Babylon (where there was a sizeable Jewish community), this was somewhere else Peter reached. All through this remarkable life of witness, he was motivated by his own experience of the Lord’s greatness, and His all sufficient grace toward him in his weakness. And a similar life of powerful witness lies before any who are touched likewise:&nbsp; </p><p>The command to strengthen brothers is given again in the Lord’s interview with Peter in John 21. Three times He asks him: ‘do you love me?’, and three times he invites Peter to care for the lambs and sheep- to strengthen his brethren. The triple denial and the triple re-instatement and triple confession of love both occurred by a fire, a <em>charcoal</em> fire on each occasion (<em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:9'>Joh 21:9</a></em>) just to heighten the evident connection. Peter’s conversion can therefore be equated with his response to the denials- the repentance, the realization of his own frailty, and desperate acceptance of the Lord’s gracious pardon. Yet Peter invites his fellow elders: “feed the flock of God”, repeating the Lord’s commission to him, as if he saw in himself a pattern for each man who would take any pastoral role in Christ’s ecclesia. The implication is that each man must go through a like conversion. And Peter points out that we are “a royal priesthood”, as if he saw each believer as a priest / pastor. Peter is our example. We all deny our Lord, camouflage it and justify it as we may. We all stand in Peter’s uncomfortable shoes. We do in principle what Judas did.</p><p>“When you are converted::." elicits the obvious response that 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. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to him: Lord, with you I am ready to go both to prison and to death</em>- Peter imagined himself going to prison and death "with you", walking alongside the Lord. But the reality of prison and death is that these things are faced alone. Walking with the Lord on the water, Peter could do it. But not alone. His impetuosity is indeed noticeable, but this should not make us unimpressed by his genuine level of dedication to his Lord. Peter did indeed go to prison and death with his Lord, but he was not then "ready" for that. That process of preparation was still ongoing.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: I tell you Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, until you shall deny three times that you know me</em>- Peter's problem with the cross was perhaps at the root of his denials of the Lord. Before the cock crowed twice, he denied Jesus twice (<em><a href='B:490 22:34'>Luk 22:34</a></em>). It's been pointed out that chickens couldn't have been anywhere near the High Priest's house because the priests forbad anyone in Jerusalem from keeping chickens, lest they stray into the temple. The <em>Encyclopaedia Judaica</em> points out that the priest who was the temple crier was called the <em>Gaver</em>, Hebrew for 'cock' or 'rooster'. This man opened the temple before dawn and called the priests and people to make the morning sacrifice. And he did this two or three times. Surely the Lord was referring to this when He spoke of the 'cock' crowing. Each time, Peter was being called to make the sacrifice with Jesus; but instead he denied knowledge of Jesus and the call to the cross which that knowledge entails. The context of the Lord's warnings to Peter about his forthcoming denial was that Peter had insisted he <em>would</em> die with Jesus, sharing in His sacrifice. And the Lord was foretelling that when that call came, Peter would deny the knowledge of Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: When I sent you out without purse and wallet and shoes, did you lack anything? And they said: Nothing</em>- We are to realistically grasp the fact that His mission and ministry is in fact ours. And the total insecurity, exposure to danger, misunderstanding, slander, sudden calls of God to change direction and move way out of our comfort zone etc. are all part of participating in the short term fate and eternal victory of the One whom we follow. His call to each of us to preach Him is radical. He sent out His preachers with <em>no </em>money, <em>no </em>food etc. He didn’t tell them to go out without <em>extra</em> money, <em>extra</em> food nor clothes etc. He instead told them to take <em>none</em> of these things. Why? Surely because He wanted them – and us- to understand that the preacher of Christ is to be <em>totally</em> dependent upon His provision for them. It was a high challenge. When the disciples faltered at the Last Supper, the Lord told them that OK, if you have a purse, take it; if you want a sword for protection, then buy one. Surely He was saying, as He is to us today: ‘OK, I want you to rise up to the spirit of My ‘Let the dead bury their dead’ and ‘Take no money with you’ exhortations. But if you can’t, OK, take a lower level, but all the same, go forth and be My witnesses. <em>Please!</em>’.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet, and he that has none, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword</em>- As noted on :35, the Lord could be saying that He had intended them to learn from their experience when sent out on the preaching tour by Him; but they had not. He clearly didn't intended them to take Him literally, because there and then they had no chance to go buy swords. And then Peter pulled out a dagger the Lord tells him that that is quite enough. I take this verse as a lament that they had not retained the lessons learnt; for the Lord foresaw how they were going to all dramatically fail in Gethsemane and the subsequent events.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors- </em>The Lord was reckoned "with" sinners, but not as a sinner. And therefore there was no point in the disciples fighting to stop Him being numbered with the transgressors. The prophecy had its specific fulfilment at the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:480 15:28'>Mar 15:28</a></em>). </p><p><em>For what is written about me must have its fulfilment</em>- "Fulfilment" is not the best translation. AV "have an end" struggles towards expressing the idea of "to be finally settled" (Vine). We may have here another insight into the open nature of prophecy. The exact outcome and nature of events was variable to some extent; it depended to what extent the Lord wished to fulfil them. The prophecies came to be "finally settled"; and were then "fulfilled in me". </p>


text:
<p><em>And they said: Lord, look, here are two swords. And he said to them: That is quite enough</em>- Again their literalism reflects a lack of faith and understanding. He is telling them that there is no point in fighting, because He must be crucified in the spirit of Isaiah 53. As noted on :35 and :36, He was lamenting that they had not learnt the lesson, that no sword or wallet was necessary. He dismisses any attempt to use those swords by saying "That is quite enough". </p>


text:
<p><em>And he came out and went, as his custom was, to the mount of Olives; and the disciples followed him</em>- His custom for the last few nights of His life was to sleep there on Olivet; because He knew that Judas was wanting an opportunity to betray Him out of sight of the crowds. In the middle of the night in Gethsemane would be ideal; and the Lord set up this situation. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he came to the place, he said to them: So that you do not enter into temptation, pray</em>- "The place" may refer to Gethsemane, where He often went (<em><a href='B:500 18:2'>Joh 18:2</a></em>). But the language is reminiscent of Abraham and Isaac coming "to the place" of sacrifice. It was as if He saw that spot in Gethsemane as His place of death. Perhaps He did hope that a ram would as it were&nbsp;be provided; for He did pray there for the cup to pass from Him. It is a mark of His supremacy as a spiritual man that He was not solely focused upon Himself, but instead was concerned about the spiritual pressure on His men.</p><p>The relationship between prayer and temptation may not simply be that the Holy Spirit will be provided to fortify us against temptation if we pray. If we are in prayer, in the Father's presence, then we are less likely to just give in to temptation. However, the connection between prayer and strength against temptation is proof enough that Bible reading is not the only strength against temptation. So much more help and succour of the Holy Spirit is available (<em><a href='B:650 4:15-16'>Heb 4:15-16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw away, and knelt down and prayed</em>- "A stone's throw" is an allusion to David and Goliath near the brook:&nbsp;</p><h4>Paul's description of himself on the Damascus road falling down and seeing a Heavenly vision, surrounded by men who did not understand, is framed in exactly the language of Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:510 22:7'>Act 22:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>); as if right at his conversion, Paul was brought to realize the spirit of Gethsemane. His connection with the Gethsemane spirit continued. He describes himself as "sorrowful" (<em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>), just as Christ was then (<em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>). His description of how he prayed the same words three times without receiving an answer (<em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em>) is clearly linked to Christ's experience in the garden (<em><a href='B:470 26:44'>Mat 26:44</a></em>); and note that in that context he speaks of being “buffeted” by Satan’s servants, using the very word used of the Lord being “buffeted” straight after Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:67'>Mat 26:67</a></em>).</h4><p>To fall on the face is used in the Old Testament to describe men like Abraham and Moses falling on their face in the visible presence of God, e:g. before an Angel (<em><a href='B:10 17:3'>Gen 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:4'>Num 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a></em>). Yet there was no visible manifestation of God’s presence at this time; so we are to assume that the Lord Jesus intensely perceived the Father’s presence even though there was no visible sign of it. It could be that the Angel from Heaven strengthening the Lord had already appeared, but this appears to come&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;the Lord had fallen on His face.</p><p>The Lord had foreseen how He must be like the grain of the wheat (note the articles in the Greek) which must fall to the ground and die, and then arise in a glorious harvest (<em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>). But soon after saying that, the Lord fell to the ground (same Greek words) in prayer and asked the Father if the cup might pass from Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>). It seems to me that He fell to the ground in full reference to His earlier words, and asked desperately if this might be accepted as the falling to the earth of the grain of the wheat, i:e. Himself, which was vital for the harvest of the world. Don’t under-estimate the amount of internal debate which the Lord would have had about these matters. The spirit of Christ in the prophets testified Messiah’s sufferings “unto Christ" (<em><a href='B:670 1:11'>1Pe 1:11</a></em> RVmg:), but He still had to figure it all out. And this enabled an element of doubt, even though in the end He knew “all the things that were coming upon him" (<em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>). To doubt is not to sin. Another Messianic Psalm had foretold: “In the multitude of my doubts within me, thy comforts delight my soul" (<em><a href='B:230 94:19'>Psa 94:19</a></em> RVmg:). This aspect heightens the agony of His final crisis, when He unexpectedly felt forsaken. </p>


text:
<p><em>Saying: Father, if You be willing, remove this cup from me- </em>This may not simply mean 'If it's possible, may I not have to die'. The Lord could have meant: 'If&nbsp;<em>it</em>- some unrecorded possible alternative to the cross- is&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;possible, then let&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;cup pass'- as if to say 'If option A is possible, then let the cup of option B pass from me'. But He overrode this with a desire to be submissive to the Father's preferred will- which was for us to have a part in the greatest, most surpassing salvation, which required the death of the cross. </p><p>“Such&nbsp;<em>great</em>&nbsp;salvation" (<em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em>) might imply that a lesser salvation could have been achieved by Christ, but He achieved the greatest possible. "He is able also&nbsp;<em>to save them to the uttermost</em>&nbsp;that come unto God by him" (<em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>) may be saying the same thing. Indeed, the&nbsp;<em>excellence</em>&nbsp;of our salvation in Christ is a major NT theme. It was typified by the way Esther interceded for Israel; she could have simply asked for her own life to be spared, but she asked for that of all Israel. And further, she has the courage (and we sense her reticence, how difficult it was for her) to ask the King yet another favour- that the Jews be allowed&nbsp;to slay their enemies for one more day, and also to hang Haman's sons (<em><a href='B:150 9:12'>Ezr 9:12</a></em>). She was achieving the maximum possible redemption for Israel rather than the minimum. Paul again seems to comment on this theme when he speaks of how Christ became obedient, "<em>even</em>&nbsp;to the death of the cross" (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>), as if perhaps some kind of salvation could have been achieved without the death&nbsp;<em>of the cross</em>. Perhaps there was no theological necessity for Christ to die&nbsp;<em>such</em>&nbsp;a painful death; if so, doubtless this was in His mind in His agony in the garden.</p><p>The Lord had taught more than once that “with God all things are possible” (<em><a href='B:470 19:26'>Mat 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:23'>Mar 9:23</a></em>), and yet He inserts here a condition: “If it be possible”. He recognized that God’s plan was possible of fulfilment by any means, and yet He recognized that there was a condition to that. This issue is not really resoluble, at least not by any intellectual process. If, or rather when, we struggle with these issues, this balance between God’s ultimate possibility and the fact there appear to be terms and conditions attached- then we are there with the Lord in Gethsemane. But we need to note that it was God who was being pushed to the limit here as well- for literally all things are indeed possible to Him, and He could have saved the world any way He wished. In His allowing of this chosen method we see the degree to which the cross was indeed His plan that He so wanted to see worked out.</p><p><em>"</em>Let this cup pass" is interpreted in <em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em> as “That the hour might pass”. He saw the cup and His “hour” of death as the same thing. The challenging thing is that He invites us to drink His cup, to share in His final hour… even when He Himself found this so hard to drink.</p><p>Paul uses the same Greek term "from me" in describing how also three times he asked for the thorn in the flesh to “depart&nbsp;<em>from me</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em>). He saw his prayers and desires as a sharing in the Lord’s struggle in Gethsemane, just as we can too.</p><p><em>Nevertheless</em>- The saying of these brief words lasted long enough for the disciples to fall asleep. “Could you not watch with Me for one hour?” (<em><a href='B:470 26:40'>Mat 26:40</a></em>) suggests not ‘even just for one hour’ but rather ‘We’ve been here an hour, and you couldn’t watch with me even for that short period of time’. So it took the Lord an hour to say the words recorded here, which can be spoken in a few seconds. We have a window here into the essence of prayer; the words can be spoken quickly, but saying with meaning can take far longer. There may well have been many minutes in between each word here. And doubtless He said the same words and repeated the ideas several times, which would explain the slight differences in wording at this point between the Gospel records.</p><p><em>Let not my will, but Yours be done</em>- Trinitarians need to note that the Lord’s will was not totally the same as that of His Father.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:230 80:15'>Psa 80:15</a></em>. The son of man was "made strong" by the Father through Angelic ministration, as happened after the wilderness temptations. The strengthening may have been in order to pray to the Father "more earnestly" in :44. "Strengthening" is <em>enischuo</em>, literally, to in-strength, to in-possible. The same word <em>ischuo</em> is used in the Lord's lament that at this time, Peter, James and John "could" not watch in prayer (<em><a href='B:470 26:40'>Mat 26:40</a></em>). They were not 'strong' because they had not allowed themselves to be 'strengthened'. To not make use of empowerment is therefore sinful. We have huge potential power available to us through the Holy Spirit, the direct succour of the Lord in our hearts (<em><a href='B:650 4:15-16'>Heb 4:15-16</a></em>). To claim that this is not available is a serious false teaching. </p>


text:
<p><em>And being in anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground</em>-&nbsp; The mental intensity within His mind had physiological effects. His skin became thin and the sweat dropped as blobs. Only Luke the doctor notes this. This was the focus of a human mind upon God such as has never been seen. The shame is that the Lord's men drifted off to sleep whilst He was achieving it. What was He praying for? Perhaps there were no requests as such, but a mind locked in contact with the Father. For that is the essence of prayer. This is the strong crying and tears of <em><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a></em>. The whole condition was enough to have killed Him of itself; it was indeed sorrow unto death (<em><a href='B:470 26:38'>Mat 26:38</a></em>). It would have left His skin very sensitive and thin- and that skin was now to be subjected to whipping, piercing and other abuse.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he rose up from his prayer, he went to the disciples, and found them sleeping from sorrow</em></p><p>- See on <em><a href='B:480 14:72'>Mar 14:72</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:27'>Luk 22:27</a></em>. The manner of inspiration reflects how God sees His servants. Often the Spirit caused the Bible writers to portray God's children in an extremely positive way. Thus <em><a href='B:490 22:45'>Luk 22:45</a></em> says that the disciples fell asleep from sorrow, when in reality this was due to their lack of spiritual awareness and sense of spiritual urgency. Likewise, <em><a href='B:490 1:18'>Luk 1:18</a></em> records only a few (apparently harmless) of the many words which Zacharias doubtless said, not without strong disbelief, during the abnormally long time he remained in the temple. These examples illustrate how God looks so positively upon His children. </p><p><em>"</em>Comes… and finds" are the very words used of the Lord’s coming in judgment to ‘find’ the state of His people (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:46'>Mat 24:46</a></em> “whom his Lord when He&nbsp;<em>comes</em>&nbsp;shall&nbsp;<em>find</em>&nbsp;so doing”; <em><a href='B:490 18:8'>Luk 18:8</a></em> “When the Son of Man comes, shall He find faith…?”). And His ‘coming’ to the disciples found them asleep and unprepared. This was exactly the picture of <em><a href='B:480 13:36'>Mar 13:36</a></em> (and <em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>), using the same Greek words: “Watch… lest coming suddenly, He find you sleeping”. We can be condemned in this life, as Peter was when he denied his Lord, and yet be saved out of it by repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>And said to them: Why do you sleep? Get up and pray, so that you will not enter into temptation</em>- Each statement of the apparently simple model prayer needs careful reflection. The Lord told the disciples in Gethsemane to earnestly pray the simple saying: “Pray not to fail in the test” (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 6:13'>Luk 6:13</a></em>). The prayer that they could gabble mindlessly must be prayed with intense attention to every phrase. They presumably did pray as directed, but the Lord later warns them: “Why do you sleep? Get up and pray, so that you will not enter into temptation”. He intended them to keep on praying, as He spent an hour praying the same words; and not just rattle off a few words and think we have done our praying. Just as the tribulation of the last days seems to be conditional upon our faith, so the Lord may imply that entering into the time of trial or testing was avoidable by their prayer and faith. Again we see the final time of tribulation as reflective of the Lord’s sufferings, enabling the very last generation to identify with the Lord’s death so that they might share in His resurrection.</p><p>Without being ostentatious in the eyes of others, try to use a physical position in prayer which is conducive to concentration. There are Biblical examples of prayer standing, kneeling, sitting, sitting cross-legged, with hands uplifted::. Remember how the Lord told the disciples to <em>rise</em> and pray; He could see that curled up as they were, they were more likely to nod off to sleep than intensely pray (<em><a href='B:490 22:46'>Luk 22:46</a></em>). He had already told them to pray (v. 40), and doubtless they had obediently started praying, but had fallen asleep while doing so. "<em>Rise</em> and pray" surely suggests: 'Come on men, I told you to pray, but you can't pray lounging around like that!'. And I would bet many of us need the same words.</p><p>How He prayed is an example of the Lord’s words being made flesh in His living. He taught His men to pray “Your will be done”; and in Gethsemane, He prayed those very words Himself, even though praying them meant an acceptance of crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 26:52'>Mat 26:52</a></em>). In that same context, the Lord asks His men to pray that they enter not into temptation (<em><a href='B:490 22:46'>Luk 22:46</a></em>). He was asking them to pray His model prayer just as He was doing. His own example was to be their inspiration. I wonder too, in passing, whether the Lord’s request at that time that the cup of suffering pass from Him (<em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>) was His way of praying not to be led into temptation- for perhaps He momentarily feared that He would finally spiritually stumble under the burden of the cross? This surely is the meaning of the hymn that speaks of living more nearly as we pray.</p><p>Each statement of the apparently simple model prayer needs careful reflection. The Lord told the disciples in Gethsemane to earnestly pray the simple saying: “Pray not to fail in the test” (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 6:13'>Luk 6:13</a></em>). The prayer that they could gabble mindlessly must be prayed with intense attention to every phrase. They presumably did pray as directed, but the Lord later warns them: “Why do you sleep? Get up and pray, so that you will not enter into temptation”. He intended them to keep on praying, as He spent an hour praying the same words; and not just rattle off a few words and think we have done our praying. Just as the tribulation of the last days seems to be conditional upon our faith, so the Lord may imply that entering into the time of trial or testing was avoidable by their prayer and faith. Again we see the final time of tribulation as reflective of the Lord’s sufferings, enabling the very last generation to identify with the Lord’s death so that they might share in His resurrection.</p>


text:
<p><em>While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them-</em>This was a tacit recognition of the fanatic loyalty of the eleven; Judas reckoned that they could put up enough of a fight to require this great multitude.</p><p><em>He drew near to Jesus to kiss him</em>- It could be that the crowd of armed men were still hidden, and he came alone to make this act of identification of Jesus- again suggesting that the crowd of hired hoods were unclear as to which one of the group of disciples was Jesus. This is why Mt. and Mk. say that after the kiss, "then came they"- Judas was alone when he first approached the Lord. Although the Lord later protests that He had been with 'them' in the temple teaching, presumably that comment was directed only at the leadership of the group. Or perhaps it was simply because in the darkness it was not clear who was who, and Judas needed to make the identification for that reason. He needed to be alone to make that identification- he would've been unable to do it if he had approached Jesus and the disciples with the crowd of men next to him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus said to him: Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?</em>- This was not to merely point our irony. The Lord didn't waste His words on throwaway remarks. This was a last minute, desperate appeal for repentance. The Lord's desire for Judas' repentance speaks volumes of His basic love; there was no vindictiveness, just a desire for the man's salvation. He is the same with each of us, and we should be the same to those who abuse us.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said: Lord, shall we strike with the sword?</em>- Peter asked if he should strike with the sword (Mt:) and then did so without waiting for a response. This is rather typical of us all. We assume Divine response, and thus play God.</p><p>Peter’s objection to the Lord’s going to die at Jerusalem surfaced several times. He wanted to build tents so that Jesus wouldn’t go down from the mountain to the strange <em>exodos</em> which the prophets declared. When he wanted to “smite with the sword” in the Garden, it was to get the Lord out of the cross. Peter was willing to suffer, to fight, to even die in what would have been a hopeless combat, outnumbered dozens to one. But he just didn’t want the cross to be the way. It is recorded that when Peter saw “what would follow” in the Garden, he wanted to start a fight in order to at least have some slim chance of avoiding that inevitable crucifixion which now looked so certain (<em><a href='B:490 22:49'>Luk 22:49</a></em>). He didn’t want the path of events to “follow” to that end. He again denied the connection between following and cross carrying. Later, the Lord told Peter in categoric terms that he personally was to follow Him to the death of the cross. And Peter turns around, sees John following, and gets side-tracked by the question of what the Lord thinks about John. As with us, quasi spiritual reasoning and issues were allowed to cloud and dilute the essential and terrifying truth- that we are called to bear Christ’s cross to the end.</p><p>An essay in unquestioning loyalty to the Lord and Master is found in <em><a href='B:490 22:49'>Luk 22:49</a></em>: "When they which were about him saw what would follow (i:e. arrest and attack), they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?". That grim-faced band of men standing in a protective circle around their Lord knew that they had no chance of victory against the mob with Judas, armed to the teeth as they were. Yet they were willing, to a man, to heroically sacrifice their lives- the inevitable result of starting a fight- as a token of loyalty to a man who humanly speaking was a lost cause, and whose demise seemed so unexpected to them compared to their hopes of a glorious Kingdom being established there and then:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And a certain one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear</em>- Perhaps the detail is provided as backdrop for the Lord’s response- that whoever&nbsp;<em>takes</em>&nbsp;the sword shall perish by it (<em><a href='B:470 26:52'>Mat 26:52</a></em>). Peter did indeed take the sword- but by grace was saved from the consequence. He clearly aimed to strike off the man's head, but he ducked and Peter only caught his ear.</p><p>The material from Mark is about the same as in Matthew, but Luke and John add various details. Here is Matthew’s account of the arrest in the Garden, with the details from Luke 22 and John 18 (on which see commentary) added in square brackets:</p><h4>“The hour is at hand and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise! Let us be going. He that betrays me is nearby. And while he yet spoke, Judas, one of the twelve, came; and with him a great crowd with swords and staves, from the chief priest and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he. Take him. [<em><a href='B:490 22:47-48'>Luk 22:47-48</a></em> He drew near to Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said to him: Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?] And immediately he came to Jesus, and said, Greetings, Rabbi; and kissed him. And Jesus said to him: Friend, do what you came to do. [Luke 22 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said: Lord, shall we strike with the sword?]. Then they came. [<em><a href='B:500 18:4-9'>Joh 18:4-9</a></em>&nbsp;Jesus knowing all the things that must come upon him, went forward and said to them: Whom do you seek? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them: I am he (Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing with them). When he said to them: I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them: Whom do you seek? And they said: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered: I told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way- that the word might be fulfilled which he spoke: Of those whom you have given me I lost not one]. [then they] laid hands on Jesus and took him. And one of those with Jesus [John 18 Simon Peter] stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear [John 18 his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus]. Then said Jesus to him: [No more of this <em><a href='B:490 22:51'>Luk 22:51</a></em>] Put away your sword into its place, [into its sheath, John 18] for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Do you think I cannot ask my Father and He shall, even now, send me more than twelve legions of Angels? [<em><a href='B:500 18:11'>Joh 18:11</a></em> The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?] [<em><a href='B:490 22:51'>Luk 22:51</a></em> And he touched his ear and healed him]. But how then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way? In that hour Jesus said to the mob: Have you come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching and you did not take me. [Luke 22 But this is your hour, and the power of darkness]. But all this is happening so that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him and fled. [Luke 22 And they seized him and led him away, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed from a distance]”.</h4>


text:
<p><em>But Jesus said: No more of this! And he touched his ear and healed him</em>- This is another example of where healings do not elicit faith. Judas and those men were so blindly committed to their path that even a plain miracle would not stop them. The Lord could have spoken the word, but He touched the man; another indication that He was totally in control and was giving His life rather than having it taken from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders that had come against him: Have you come as against a robber, with swords and staves?</em>- The same word used about Jesus and the disciples ‘going out’ from the Upper Room to Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:30'>Mat 26:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:1'>Joh 18:1</a></em>), and Jesus ‘going forth’ to meet the crowd of armed men who were coming against Him (<em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>). The impression is given of a head-on meeting between the forces of light and darkness.</p>


text:
<p><em>When I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness</em>- The Lord was addressing the leadership of the group, who had sat daily in the temple over the past week and heard Him. They knew what He looked like, He had sat&nbsp;<em>pros humas,&nbsp;</em>"with you" (AV), not so much “with you” as ‘directly facing you’, sitting down in front of them and therefore at close range. Therefore the need for Judas to identify the Lord with a kiss, to prove “that same is He”, was because the mass of armed men didn’t know who He was, and had therefore not sat in the temple. Again we see the Lord recognizing that men are only who they are, the hired thugs were no more than hired thugs acting in ignorance; but the leaders who were present were the ones He wanted to address. This is confirmed by <em><a href='B:490 22:52'>Luk 22:52</a></em> stating that “Jesus said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders that had come against him: Have you come as against a robber, with swords and staves?”. The priests and elders were in that large crowd, and the Lord directly addresses them. So although He addressed “the multitudes”, His message was aimed at specific individuals within the crowd. This is true of much of Scripture; perhaps those parts we personally fail to understand are speaking to a particular group in need of that message, perhaps in a previous age, and it may not be as directly intended for us as it was to them. The correspondence between the narratives is detailed and deeply credible. Uninspired writers would surely not only contradict themselves, but lack this artless congruence between each other which we find in the inspired Gospel records. <em><a href='B:490 22:53'>Luk 22:53</a></em> adds that the Lord continued to say: “But this is your hour, and the power of darkness”. The sense is surely that in broad daylight they dared not lay hold on Him- they had to do it under cover of darkness, because they were of the darkness.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they seized him and led him away, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed from a distance</em>- There is great emphasis on the Lord being&nbsp;<em>led</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:31'>Mat 27:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:16'>Mar 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:13'>Joh 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:16'>Joh 19:16</a></em>). And notice how <em><a href='B:510 8:32'>Act 8:32</a></em> changes the quotation from Isaiah 53 to say that Christ was&nbsp;<em>led</em> (this isn't in the Hebrew text). His passivity is another indication that He was&nbsp;<em>giving</em>&nbsp;His life of His own volition, it wasn't being taken from Him. As noted on <em><a href='B:480 14:51'>Mar 14:51</a></em>, it seems that Peter was the young man who followed dressed in a linen cloth.</p><p>This is recorded in the same words by all three Synoptics. It impressed them all as perhaps typical of so much of their ‘following’ the Lord; it was a following, but far off from Him. His challenge to Peter had been to not just physically follow Him, but to pick up His cross and walk behind Him on His way to His cross (<em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em> s:w:). Following Jesus in the shadows and avoiding identification with Him was hardly the kind of following which He intended. Yet Peter recognized this, because his appeal for repentance describes his audience as likewise “afar off” (<em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em> s:w:); he is asking them to make the conversion which he did, and he thereby considers his ‘following afar off’ as not really following at all, and being in a ‘far off from Christ’ position from which he repented and thereby ‘came near’ to Christ in conversion. The Greek words for ‘followed’ and ‘afar off’ are also used about how the few remaining disciples stood ‘afar off’ from Christ on the cross. The sense is perhaps that the Gospel writers recognized how far they were from co-crucifixion with Christ, and this sense is one we can identify with. And we are those likewise described in Ephesians as “far off” as Peter was, but are now likewise reconciled.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat among them</em>- Mt. <em>"</em>and sat with the officers". The presence of the definite article suggests that "the servants" [the Greek also means "officers"] are a group which has already been mentioned, and surely they are the "servants" who comprised the crowd of armed men who arrested Jesus in the Garden. The same word is used three times about them in <em><a href='B:500 18:3'>Joh 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:12'>Joh 18:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>. The risk Peter was taking was considerable, seeing he had visibly been with the Lord in the Garden and had tried to kill one of the servants. We must give due weight to this- his devotion to his Lord was incomplete but all the same must be recognized for what it was as far as it was. So often those who aim higher than others in their spiritual devotions are those who fall the most publicly, and yet their devotion to their Lord should not be forgotten- for it is higher than the mass of other disciples.</p>&nbsp;<table><tr><td></p><h4></td><td>Matthew</td><td>Mark</td><td>Luke</td><td>John</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accusation 1</td><td>Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a maid came to him, saying: You also were with Jesus the Galilean.</td><td>And as Peter was downstairs in the courtyard, there came one of the maids of the high priest:&nbsp; And seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said: You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus!</td><td>And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat among them. And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire and looking earnestly upon him, said: This man also was with him.</td><td>Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest; and he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest:&nbsp; But Peter was standing outside the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept watch at the door. The maid keeping watch at the door said to Peter: Are you also one of this man's disciples?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denial 1</td><td>But he denied before them all, saying: I do not know what you say.</td><td>But he denied it, saying: I neither know, nor understand what you say; and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.</td><td>But he denied it, saying: Woman, I do not know him.</td><td>He said: I am not!</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accusation 2</td><td>And when he went out to the entrance, another maid saw him and said to the bystanders: This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.</td><td>And the maid saw him and began again to say to them that stood by: This is one of them!</td><td>And after a little while another person saw him and said: You also are one of them.</td><td>Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals. For it was cold, and they were warming themselves; and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself::. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him: Are you also one of his disciples?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denial 2</td><td>And again he denied with an oath: I do not know the man.</td><td>But he again denied it.</td><td>But Peter said: Man, I am not.</td><td>He denied and said: I am not!</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accusation 3</td><td>And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter: Of a truth you also are one of them, for your dialect makes you known.</td><td>And after a little while, again they that stood by said to Peter: Of a truth you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.</td><td>And after the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying: Of a truth, this man also was with him. For he is a Galilean.</td><td>One of the servants of the high priest, being a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said: Did I not see you in the garden with him?</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denial 3</td><td>Then he began to curse and to swear: I do not know the man! And immediately the cock crowed.</td><td>But he began to curse and to swear under oath: I do not know this man of whom you speak. And immediately the second time the cock crew</td><td>But Peter said: Man, I do not know what you say. And immediately, as he spoke, the cock crew.</td><td>&nbsp;Peter denied again; and immediately the cock crew.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Peter's response 1</td><td>And Peter remembered the words which Jesus had said: Before the cock crows, you shall deny me three times.</td><td>And Peter remembered what Jesus had said to him: Before the cock crows twice, you shall deny me three times.</td><td>And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord that he had said to him: Before the cock crow this day, you shall deny me three times:&nbsp;</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Peter goes out</td><td>And he went out and wept bitterly.</td><td>And as he thought upon it, he wept.</td><td>And he went out and wept bitterly.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire and looking earnestly upon him, said: This man also was with him</em>- For the significance of the firelight, see on <em><a href='B:500 3:14-21'>Joh 3:14-21</a></em>. Gk. 'a servant girl', "one of the servant girls of the High Priest" (<em><a href='B:480 14:66'>Mar 14:66</a></em>). Her claim that "You also were with Jesus" may specifically refer to Peter's presence with Jesus in Gethsemane, for”&nbsp;the servants" of the High Priest had been there. Perhaps she was one of them. She describes Peter as being&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>Jesus ["you were with Jesus"], and the same phrase&nbsp;<em>meta&nbsp;</em>Jesus is used to described the disciples being&nbsp;<em>meta </em>Jesus in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:36'>Mat 26:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:51'>Mat 26:51</a></em>). Or since the Lord was a public figure in Jerusalem, it would be likely that Peter was known as one of those ever to be seen hanging around Him. <em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em> gives further information about her: "The maid keeping watch at the door said to Peter: Are you also one of this man's disciples? He said: I am not!". The only other time we read of a servant girl who was a door keeper is in <em><a href='B:510 12:16'>Act 12:16</a></em>, where the servant girl [s:w:] called Rhoda was the door keeper at the home of the disciples in Jerusalem, and is thrilled when she realizes that it is Peter knocking at the door asking her to let him in. Note that "door keeper" is likely a technical term, a kind of profession. This heightens the similarity between the two characters. The similarities with the scene in <em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em> are too strong to be passed off as unintentional; for here Peter has to have the door to the courtyard opened by the servant girl, and it is at the gate that she recognizes him. Peter's failure, his denials, were the basis of his successful appeals for Israel to follow his pattern of repentance. Thousands heard him make those appeals in Jerusalem, for if a few thousand were baptized in one day, we can be sure that many others heard the message and didn't act upon it. It's highly likely that that servant girl was in the crowd, and was one who responded. I suggest that Rhoda was that servant girl, converted by Peter's failure, repentance and experience of forgiveness. She converted from serving the Jewish High Priest to serving the Heavenly High Priest, the Lord Jesus; from being one of the crowd who went out to arrest Jesus, to being one who glorified His resurrection:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But he denied it, saying- </em>Matthew stresses the denial was before them all. Peter was living out the scene of condemnation at the last day, where the verdict likewise will be manifest "before all". The Lord had used the same word in saying that whoever denied Him "before men" [cp. "before all"], He will deny before the Father at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 10:33'>Mat 10:33</a></em>). Peter appealed for Israel to repent on the basis that they had "denied" Christ (<em><a href='B:510 3:13-14'>Act 3:13-14</a></em> s:w:)- he is appealing for them to realize that they had done what he had done, and yet they could repent, convert and experience the same grace he had done. His appeal, made a stone's throw from where the denials were made and only 6 weeks later, was therefore so powerful. Peter likewise used his failure in his pastoral work with his converts, warning them that to even deny the Lord who redeemed us is the worst possible thing we can do (<em><a href='B:680 2:1'>2Pe 2:1</a></em>). Likewise <em><a href='B:690 2:22-23'>1Jn 2:22-23</a></em> speaks of denying Christ as being the characteristic of the AntiChrist. And John wrote in the context of the early church having Peter as its first leader, and John of course was fully aware of Peter's failure that night.</p><p>Peter in this life denied his Lord&nbsp;<em>in front of men</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>)- and the record of his failure intentionally looks back to the Lord's warning that whoever denies Him&nbsp;<em>before men&nbsp;</em>will be denied by Him at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 10:33'>Mat 10:33</a></em>). He sinned, and in the court of Heaven was condemned. There is a passage in <em><a href='B:240 24:11-12'>Pro 24:11-12</a></em> which has a strange relevance to Peter's self-condemnation. Having spoken of those being led away to death (the very context of Peter's denial), we read: "If thou sayest, Behold we know not this man: doth not he that weigheth the hearts consider it? And shall not he render to every man according to his works?". This last phrase is quoted in <em><a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a></em> about the final judgment. Paul seems to consciously link Peter’s church hypocrisy and legalism with his earlier denials that he had ever known the Lord Jesus. He writes of how he had to reveal Peter’s denial of the Lord’s grace “before them all” (<em><a href='B:550 2:14'>Gal 2:14</a></em>), using the very same Greek phrase of <em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>, where “before them all” Peter made the same essential denial. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Woman, I do not know him</em>- Again, Peter was acting as the condemned, to whom the Lord will say "I know you not" (<em><a href='B:470 25:12'>Mat 25:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). The whole idea of ‘I don’t know Him’ must, sadly, be connected with the Lord’s words in <em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>, where He tells the rejected: “I never knew you”. By denying knowledge of the Saviour, Peter was effectively agreeing that the verdict of condemnation could appropriately be passed upon him:&nbsp; In one of his many allusions to the Gospels, Paul wrote that “If we deny him, he also will deny us” (<em><a href='B:620 2:12'>2Ti 2:12</a></em>). Peter in this life denied his Lord&nbsp;<em>in front of men</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>)- and the record of his failure intentionally looks back to the Lord’s warning that whoever denies Him&nbsp;<em>before men&nbsp;</em>will be denied by Him at judgment day (<em><a href='B:470 10:33'>Mat 10:33</a></em>). He sinned, and in the court of Heaven was condemned; and yet he could change the verdict by repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after a little while another person saw him and said: You also are one of them. But Peter said: Man, I am not</em>- John says that a group of men made the second accusation; see the parallel texts at the commentary on :55. Luke says that Peter replied to the second accusation [which Matthew says was made by a<em>&nbsp;</em><em>woman</em>] by saying “<em>Man</em>, I am not”. Clearly the accusations and denials were in groups- the second ‘denial’ involved a number of people [a man, a woman and plural men] making accusations and Peter denying them all. If we put together the various records of Peter’s three denials, it seems clear that a number of accusations were made, and he replied slightly differently each time. But there were three groups of accusations and denials. We can imagine the scene- there was a whole group of men and women present, all within earshot, and once one person made the accusation, others would’ve chimed in. But the account is stylized to group the denials in three groups, and Peter obviously perceived this after his final oath of denial. But in fact it seems that each denial was a series of separate denials. Indeed the tense of the verb “denied” suggests he kept on and on denying.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying: Of a truth, this man also was with him. For he is a Galilean</em>- Matthew says it was a group of men, Mark says it was a maid; Luke says it was one individual who made the third accusation, and John says it was specifically a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off. The three episodes of accusation and denial were therefore each comprised of a series of accusations and a series of denials. This means that the Lord was being generous in saying that Peter would deny Him three times before the cock crowed. Each episode of denial contained many separate denials.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter said: Man, I do not know what you say. And immediately, as he spoke, the cock crew</em>- The problem is that Mark says that the cock crowed after the first denial; and it is Mark who says that the Lord’s warning was that “Before the cock crows&nbsp;<em>twice</em>, you shall deny Me three times”. Matthew and the others seem to speak of only one cock crow. There are various solutions. One is that we give full weight to the fact we are dealing with three episodes or groups of denials. If the first ‘denial’ involved three separate denials, then this fulfilled the prediction that there would be three denials before the cock crew. And the third episode of denials occurred before the second cock crow, this fulfilling the Lord’s word as recorded by Mark “Before the cock crows&nbsp;<em>twice</em>, you shall deny Me three times”:&nbsp; Another is to go with the NIV footnotes on <em><a href='B:480 14:30'>Mar 14:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:72'>Mar 14:72</a></em>, which claim that earliest manuscripts omit the word “twice” and “second time”:&nbsp; Another textual approach is to reflect that the record of the cock crowing after the first denial (<em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>) is omitted by most later translations after the AV. The text also could be suspect at that point. But I am distinctly uneasy at resolving apparent difficulties by claiming that verses are spurious and uninspired. Issues of translation, however, are of another order. I submit that <em><a href='B:480 14:72'>Mar 14:72</a></em> is capable of another translation. Most versions have to the effect that “Before the cock crows twice, you shall deny Me three times”. But it could equally be translated ‘You shall deny Me three times for each two crows of the cock’. This would make a total of six denials. I suggest therefore that there were three denials from Peter during the first denial episode, before the first crowing of the cock; then another one or two denials during the second denial episode, and then another one or two during the third denial episode- and then the cock crew a second time. Another possible reconstruction was offered by Michael Cortright:</p><p>First denial:&nbsp;</p><p>A girl at the door to the courtyard (<em><a href='B:500 18:17'>Joh 18:17</a></em>).</p><p>Second denial:&nbsp;</p><p>A servant girl, by the fire in the courtyard (<em><a href='B:470 26:69'>Mat 26:69</a></em>, <em><a href='B:480 14:66'>Mar 14:66</a></em>, <em><a href='B:490 22:56'>Luk 22:56</a></em>).</p><p>Third denial:&nbsp;</p><p>A man by the fire in the courtyard (<em><a href='B:490 22:58'>Luk 22:58</a></em>).</p><p>First crow:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em> (King James Version).</p><p>Fourth denial:&nbsp;</p><p>Another girl, at the gateway (<em><a href='B:470 26:71'>Mat 26:71</a></em>) or entryway (<em><a href='B:480 14:68-69'>Mar 14:68-69</a></em>).</p><p>Fifth denial:&nbsp;</p><p>Some anonymous (standing) people by the fire in the courtyard (<em><a href='B:470 26:73'>Mat 26:73</a></em>, <em><a href='B:480 14:70'>Mar 14:70</a></em>, <em><a href='B:500 18:25'>Joh 18:25</a></em>).</p><p>Sixth denial:&nbsp;</p><p>Another man who happens to be a male servant of the high priest (<em><a href='B:490 22:59'>Luk 22:59</a></em>, <em><a href='B:500 18:26'>Joh 18:26</a></em>).</p><p>Second crow:&nbsp;</p><p><em><a href='B:470 26:74'>Mat 26:74</a></em>, <em><a href='B:480 14:72'>Mar 14:72</a></em>, <em><a href='B:490 22:60'>Luk 22:60</a></em>, <em><a href='B:500 18:27'>Joh 18:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he went out and wept bitterly</em>- There are connections between Peter’s position at this time and that of the rejected before the judgment seat. His bitter weeping connects most obviously with the weeping and gnashing of teeth of the rejected. He was ‘remaining outside’ of the Palace where the Lord was (<em><a href='B:470 26:29'>Mat 26:29</a></em> AV “sat without”). Yet the Greek&nbsp;<em>exo</em>&nbsp;translated “without” or “outside” is elsewhere used about the rejected being “cast out” (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>), ‘standing without’ with the door shut (<em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>), like a fruitless branch cast out into the fire (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). When we read that Peter “went out” from the Lord’s presence (<em><a href='B:470 26:75'>Mat 26:75</a></em>), the same Greek word is used. The oaths which Peter used would probably have included ‘Before God!’. He was anticipating the judgment seat: before God he admitted he did not know His Son. But in this life we can be condemned- and yet be reprieved through repentance. But remember that Judas likewise “went out” into the darkness. Judas is described as "standing with" those who ultimately crucified Jesus in <em><a href='B:500 18:5'>Joh 18:5</a></em>. Interestingly the same idea occurs in <em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em> where Peter is described as standing with essentially the same group; point being, that Judas and Peter in essence did the same thing, they both denied their Lord and stood with His enemies. But one repented real repentance, whereas the other couldn't muster the faith for this. Lesson: We all deny the Lord, but the two paths before us are those of either Peter or Judas. Peter of course is our pattern. Perhaps Peter was encouraged towards repentance by recalling that just hours before, the Lord had predicted that the disciples would weep [s:w:], but their sorrow would be turned to joy (<em><a href='B:500 16:20'>Joh 16:20</a></em>), in harmony with the Lord’s earlier teaching of blessedness for those who weep now. His weeping was intense, and he must’ve wondered how ever such weeping could be turned to joy. The only answer was that Jesus would have to die for Peter’s sin, be resurrected, forgive Peter and restore fellowship with him, even using him again in His service. It was upon this, then, that Peter desperately set his hope and faith- and it was rewarded.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter- </em>The “day of <em>visitation</em>” is coming for us all (<em><a href='B:670 2:12'>1Pe 2:12</a></em>). The Greek is related to the word describing how after the denials, Christ turned and <em>looked</em> upon Peter (<em><a href='B:490 22:61'>Luk 22:61</a></em>). This was for him his day of judgment, which we must all pass through. He called down Divine curses <em>upon himself</em> if he knew Jesus of Nazareth- and thus brought the curse of God upon himself (the record of his cursing and swearing refers to this rather than to the use of expletives).</p><p><em>And Peter remembered the word of the Lord that he had said to him: Before the cock crow this day</em>- "Peter remembered" the Lord's words.<em>&nbsp;</em>The letters of Peter urge his readers to “be mindful of the words which were spoken before” (<em><a href='B:680 3:2'>2Pe 3:2</a></em>). Yet this is evidently alluding to the frequent references to the disciples being slow to “remember” [s:w. “mindful”] the words which their Lord had “spoken before” (<em><a href='B:490 24:6'>Luk 24:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:8'>Luk 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:17'>Joh 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:22'>Joh 2:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:16'>Joh 12:16</a></em>). Indeed, the same word is used about Peter ‘remembering’ [s:w. “be mindful”] all too late, the words which his Lord had “spoken before” to him (<em><a href='B:470 26:75'>Mat 26:75</a></em>). So Peter was aware that his readers knew that he had not ‘remembered’ the words his Lord had “spoken before” to&nbsp;<em>him</em>- and yet, knowing that, he exhorts his readers to ‘remember’ or ‘be mindful’ [s:w:] of words which had been previously spoken. His readers likely had memorized the Gospels by heart. And yet Peter asks them to learn from his mistake, not to be as slow to remember as the disciples had been, and he especially. This is the basis of powerful exhortation- a repentant life, not an appearance of sinlessness:&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:680 1:12'>2Pe 1:12</a></em>.</p><p>Appreciating the extent of Peter's devotion to the Lord's words enables us to more fully enter into the man's spiritual and emotional tragedy when he denied the Lord. He paid no attention to His words of warning concerning Peter's own spiritual weakness. After that third cock crow, "Peter remembered <em>the word&nbsp;of</em> the Lord, <em>how</em>&nbsp;he had said unto him::." (<em><a href='B:490 22:61'>Luk 22:61</a></em>; "how" may refer to the physical manner in which Christ spoke to Peter, as well as to the content of his words):&nbsp; </p><p><em>You shall deny me three times</em>- Pliny records how Christians were asked to make a threefold denial of Christ (<em>Epistles</em>&nbsp;10:97). It has been suggested that the account of Peter's threefold denials of Christ has been included in the Gospel records as an encouragement to those whose faith failed them that still there was a way back to restoration with the Lord Jesus, just as there had been for Peter. When Peter encourages his persecuted brethren to resist the "roaring lion" of Roman / Jewish persecution (<em><a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a></em>), he is therefore to be seen as writing against a background in which he had actually failed the very test which his brethren were facing. Yet he can therefore even more powerfully encouraged them, because he had also experienced the Lord's restoring grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went out and wept bitterly</em>- Peter “went out” from the Lord. “Went out” is the language of Judas going out (<em><a href='B:500 13:30'>Joh 13:30</a></em> - in essence, Peter and Judas did the same thing at the same time). Other prototypes of the rejected likewise had gone out from the Lord. Cain ‘“went out” (<em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>), as did Zedekiah in the judgment of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:300 39:4'>Jer 39:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 52:7'>Jer 52:7</a></em>). Esau went out from the land of Canaan into Edom, slinking away from the face of his brother Jacob, sensing his righteousness and his own carnality (<em><a href='B:10 36:2-8'>Gen 36:2-8</a></em>). Yet Peter in this life “went out” from the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>) and then some minutes later further “went out and wept bitterly” (<em><a href='B:490 22:62'>Luk 22:62</a></em>), living out the very figure of condemnation-&nbsp; and yet was able to repent and come back. In this life we can be judged, condemned, weep::. but still repent of it and thereby change our eternal destiny. But at the final judgment: it will be just too late. That ‘judgment’ will be a detailed statement of the outcome of the ongoing investigative judgment which is going on right now. See on <em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>.</p><p>here are connections between Peter’s position at this time and that of the rejected before the judgment seat. His bitter weeping connects most obviously with the weeping and gnashing of teeth of the rejected. He was ‘remaining outside’ of the Palace where the Lord was (<em><a href='B:470 26:29'>Mat 26:29</a></em> AV “sat without”). Yet the Greek&nbsp;<em>exo</em>&nbsp;translated “without” or “outside” is elsewhere used about the rejected being “cast out” (<em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:48'>Mat 13:48</a></em>), ‘standing without’ with the door shut (<em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>), like a fruitless branch cast out into the fire (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>). When we read that Peter “went out” from the Lord’s presence (<em><a href='B:470 26:75'>Mat 26:75</a></em>), the same Greek word is used. The oaths which Peter used would probably have included ‘Before God!’. He was anticipating the judgment seat: before God he admitted he did not know His Son. But in this life we can be condemned- and yet be reprieved through repentance. But remember that Judas likewise “went out” into the darkness. Judas is described as "standing with" those who ultimately crucified Jesus in <em><a href='B:500 18:5'>Joh 18:5</a></em>. Interestingly the same idea occurs in <em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em> where Peter is described as standing with essentially the same group; point being, that Judas and Peter in essence did the same thing, they both denied their Lord and stood with His enemies. But one repented real repentance, whereas the other couldn't muster the faith for this. Lesson: We all deny the Lord, but the two paths before us are those of either Peter or Judas. Peter of course is our pattern. Perhaps Peter was encouraged towards repentance by recalling that just hours before, the Lord had predicted that the disciples would weep [s:w:], but their sorrow would be turned to joy (<em><a href='B:500 16:20'>Joh 16:20</a></em>), in harmony with the Lord’s earlier teaching of blessedness for those who weep now. His weeping was intense, and he must’ve wondered how ever such weeping could be turned to joy. The only answer was that Jesus would have to die for Peter’s sin, be resurrected, forgive Peter and restore fellowship with him, even using him again in His service. It was upon this, then, that Peter desperately set his hope and faith- and it was rewarded.</p>


text:
<h4><em>And the men that held Jesus mocked him and beat him</em>- This was done by men who just minutes beforehand had been carefully upholding some isolated principles of Divine law and general legal integrity. Their appearance of culture vanished. They only could have been so crude and cruel if they first justified it in terms of their religion; spitting and beating would have been justified by them as the punishment due to a heretic. But here we see how they were justifying their own natural anger and jealousy by taking a tiny shard of Biblical precedent- for only in <em><a href='B:50 25:2'>Deu 25:2</a></em> do we have any justification for legal beating, and once it was finished, then there was to be no other punishment. The beating was to be on his back and not on his face; and there was no talk of spitting. But the Jews took that and used it to justify spitting in the Lord's<em> face</em>, beating Him with their fists and then further condemning Him to death. The only command to spit in the face of a man was if he refused to raise up children for his dead relative (<em><a href='B:50 25:9'>Deu 25:9</a></em>); but this was totally irrelevant to the Lord Jesus. He in any case was the ultimate example of a man who did build up His Father's house. There is anger in each of us, and religious people at times give full vent to that anger by justifying it as righteous anger, grabbing hold of the vague implication of some Bible verse and taking it way beyond the obvious meaning of the verse. In doing so, they are behaving no better than these the very worst of men who have ever lived, committing the worst ever crime ever committed in the cosmos. The face of Jesus shone at times with God's glory; He was the face of God to men. And they spat in that face, and beat it. The wonder was that the Lord had specifically foreseen this- He had predicted that they would spit at Him (<em><a href='B:480 10:34'>Mar 10:34</a></em>). He foresaw how they would fuel their anger against Him with their persuasion that He was a heretic:&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em>And they blindfolded him and questioned him&nbsp;saying: Prophesy- who is he that struck you?</em>- They had blindfolded Him, and were challenging Him to exercise the prophetic gift of discernment by saying the name of the soldier who had struck Him. We note that 'prophesy' is not to be understood solely as the prediction of future events. The fact is, the Lord did know who had struck Him. They were clearly alluding to the fact that the Jews had concluded the Lord was a false prophet and false Christ and were punishing Him as such. See on <em><a href='B:490 7:39'>Luk 7:39</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And many other things they spoke against him, reviling him</em>- "Blaspheming"; this was exactly the charge the Lord was being crucified for (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 26:65'>Mat 26:65</a></em>), and so they blasphemed <em>Him</em>. We note how the Lord ahead of this had promised that all blasphemy against Him would be forgiven (<em><a href='B:490 12:10'>Luk 12:10</a></em>). Again, it seems the Lord foresaw these details of His death and sufferings; and forgave it ahead of time. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away into their council, saying</em>- They were careful to appear to obey their own laws and bylaws, whilst breaking God's law entirely. Again we have the impression of Psalms 2 being fulfilled, in the gathering together of Gentile powers against Messiah. The most orthodox and pious within Judaism were no more than Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>If you are the Christ, tell us. But he said to them: If I tell you, you will not believe</em>- The Lord had been careful in His ministry not to specifically claim to be Messiah. Rather He had left His personality, words and works to leave those who encountered Him with the conviction that He was indeed Messiah. To simply 'tell' people truth doesn't mean they will believe; the word must be made flesh. </p>


text:
<p><em>And if I ask you, you will not answer</em>- As noted on :67, the Lord left individuals to be convicted in their own consciences. Formal telling and asking people will not elicit a response worth having; because the conviction is in their hearts. </p>


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


text:
<p><em>And they all said: Are you then the Son of God? And he said to them: You say that I am</em>- <em>"</em>You say::." shows how the Lord sought to elicit confessions from men in their own words:&nbsp;The Lord’s sensitivity is revealed in how He comments upon the Jews’ question: “Art thou then the Son of God?”. He replies: “Ye say it because I am” (<em><a href='B:490 22:70'>Luk 22:70</a></em> RVmg:). The Lord perceived that men ask a question like that because subconsciously, they perceive the truth of the matter, and in their conscience, they already know the answer to their question. Perhaps for this reason He simply ceased answering their questions as the trial went on (<em><a href='B:490 23:9'>Luk 23:9</a></em>). He realized that the questions they asked were actually revealing the answers which were already written in their consciences. For a man of this psychological insight to have lived and died amidst and for such a primitive rabble is indeed amazing.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said: What further testimony do we need? For we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth</em>- They themselves thus became the witnesses responsible for the Lord's death. Again, legal procedure, which they had tried so carefully to follow, was made a mockery of. They began with a conviction of plotting to destroy the temple buildings, then turned that into an accusation that He was a "Christ, the Son of God", a rival to Caesar; and now they jump on the charge of blasphemy, for which they gave Him the death penalty. And yet the Jews had no legal power to execute people; they had to present their case to the Roman authorities. And blasphemy was not a capital offence under Roman law. Their careful attempts to follow legal integrity broke down in pathetic collapse, and thereby they condemned themselves. The same word,&nbsp;<em>blasphemeo</em>, is then used of how the Jews "reviled" or blasphemed the Lord as He hung on the cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:39'>Mat 27:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:65'>Luk 22:65</a></em>). They had earlier accused the Lord of blasphemy at least twice during His ministry (<em><a href='B:470 9:3'>Mat 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:36'>Joh 10:36</a></em> s:w:). So they should have thought of that earlier in the trial, seeing they themselves were the witnesses of that supposed crime. We are left with the impression of a judge and jury increasingly desperate to find the Lord guilty, progressively throwing their integrity and legalism to the winds in their obsession to make Him guilty of death. Little wonder that Pilate later remonstrated with them that Jesus was simply not legally guilty of any capital offence. But the more he made that point to them, the more they screamed for His death:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And the whole company of them rose and brought him before Pilate</em>- Early in the morning, after an illegal night time trial. Their 'rising' may refer to a judge rising to give a verdict. They rose in condemnation of Him and went to Pilate to get the sentence carried out.</p><p>Israelites binding a man and delivering him over to Gentiles sounds very much like what Israel did to Samson. The Lord must’ve reflected how easily He likewise could have burst those bands and destroyed them all. The similarity with Samson is surely to remind us that He had those possibilities, but He was consciously choosing to give His life. The great paradox was that by accepting those bonds, He was thereby binding the strong man of sin and sin as manifested in the Jewish system (<em><a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a></em>):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And they began to accuse him, saying: We found this man perverting our nation and forbidding giving tribute to Caesar, and saying that he is Christ a king</em>- These were not the reasons for which they had condemned the Lord. The whole legal process was illogical and inconsistent from start to finish. The Lord had stated that tribute should be given to Caesar; no matter how well He had answered their earlier trick questions, they still decided He was guilty. He had also not stated that He was a king, except by implication; and He had carefully deconstructed any idea that He was in His lifetime a political king seeking His own kingdom.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>And Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds: I find no fault in this man</em>- We would have imagined that the talk of the Lord forbidding tribute to Caesar and proclaiming Himself a King would have led Pilate to at least pronounce some kind of guilty verdict. His insistence that there was "no fault in this man", especially as he was renowned for his lack of conscience, is all indication that he was deeply impressed with the Lord's righteousness, and even prepared to publicly defend it. According to John, it was only when the claim that Jesus was God's Son surfaced that Pilate felt the need to take the Lord aside to learn more. His reactions are very clear evidence of the Lord's self-evident righteousness and connection to the Father.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they were the more urgent, saying: He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to this place</em>- We sense their increasing desperation as the evident righteousness and innocence of the Lord was testified to by the clearly troubled state of Pilate's conscience.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a Galilean</em>- Again we see Pilate's troubled conscience. He dearly wished to palm off responsibility for this case, and he pricks his ears up when he considers that the Lord is a Galilean.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he knew that he was of Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in those days</em>- As noted on :6, this was a reflection of Pilate's desperate conscience. For it was his responsibility and not Herod's to deal with issues in Jerusalem, and it was down to him to authorize capital punishment and not Herod. So sending the Lord to Herod was a desperate attempt to get out of the situation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad. For he had for a long time been desirous to see him, because he had heard about him, and he hoped to see some miracle done by him</em>- Yet Herod had earlier desired to kill the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 13:31'>Luk 13:31</a></em>). Again, we see the power of conscience at work in Herod; for he was more than fascinated by the Lord and wanted to personally hear His teaching and see His miracles. Instead of just passing the death sentence for a known trouble maker, these rulers were clearly aware that they were dealing with no ordinary case.</p>


text:
<p><em>So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer</em>- As noted on <em><a href='B:490 22:70'>Luk 22:70</a></em>, the Lord preferred to be silent because the answer was given within the consciences of the questioners. The Lord perceived that men ask their questions l because subconsciously, they perceive the truth of the matter, and in their conscience, they already know the answer to their questions. Perhaps for this reason He simply ceased answering their questions as the trial went on. He realized that the questions they asked were actually revealing the answers which were already written in their consciences. For a man of this psychological insight to have lived and died amidst and for such a primitive rabble is indeed amazing.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him</em>- 'Devil' means 'false accuser'; here we have established the major theme which will dominate the later New Testament- that the Jews and Judaism was the great satan / adversary, the embodiment of false accusation against the Lord and all those in Him. They "stood by" Herod, identifying themselves with Him rather than with the Messiah of Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him, and dressing him in gorgeous apparel, sent him back to Pilate</em>- We see here human nature at its most raw and primitive. That is one feature of the crucifixion accounts. They were also motivated by a desire to test His claims to royalty. He had made it clear that His Kingdom was not of this world; His teaching about the Kingdom, largely in the parables, was about life lived now under domination of the Father's principles. And yet they willingly overlooked that and focused on mocking Him as a king. We note that Babylon too is arrayed in purple as the Lord was (<em><a href='B:480 15:17'>Mar 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 17:4'>Rev 17:4</a></em> s:w:), making her a veritable anti-Christ, a fake imitation of Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day. For before they had been enemies</em>- This is phrased in terms of <em><a href='B:230 2:1-3'>Psa 2:1-3</a></em>, where Messiah's enemies were to unite together against Him. The psychology presented here is absolutely true to observed human experience; a common focus upon a perceived enemy creates an illusion of unity, which then evaporates once the common enemy is no more. The same idea is to be found in the descriptions in Revelation of Israel's enemies uniting against her in the last days and then self-destructing. The unity between Jew and Gentile was to become typical of how the early church were persecuted in the same way as their Lord, as they fellowshipped His sufferings. The enmity may have been related to how Pilate had slain those of Herod's jurisdiction when they were offering sacrifices in the temple, mixing their blood with the temple offerings (<em><a href='B:490 13:1-2'>Luk 13:1-2</a></em>). This shows Pilate's callous nature, and points up the power of the Lord Jesus in touching even a conscience like that. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Pilate called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people</em>- This reflects the complete guilt of Jewry; from the common people through to their political and religious leadership. They too were "called together" against the Lord, just as Gentile power was united in Herod and Pilate.</p>


text:
<p><em>And said to them: You brought to me this man, as one that perverts the people; and I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this man concerning those things of which you accuse him</em>- Pilate may have carefully chosen his word for "perverts". For it can also mean 'to bring again', specifically in repentance (s:w. <em><a href='B:470 27:3'>Mat 27:3</a></em> "brought again", <em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em> "turning away" from sin). The Lord's mission was to turn Israel away from their sin. A man of Pilate's callousness was touched to insist time and again that the Lord was without fault. We should never therefore assume that anyone is beyond the reach of His spirit and personality. "No fault" is a phrase used three times by Pilate about the Lord (:4,14,22). This is one of Luke's tripilisms, designed so that illiterate people could remember it more easily.</p>


text:
<p><em>Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him</em>- Again and again, the otherwise conscienceless Pilate stresses the Lord's innocence. Neither he nor Herod had any worry about murdering innocent men. But the Lord's death worried them when they came up close to Him. Such is His power even today. We should never therefore write off anyone as beyond the power of the Gospel which is in Him. Herod had once wanted to kill John the Baptist, but now, encountering the One whom John had testified of, he had to admit the man's innocence.</p>


text:
<p><em>I will therefore chastise him and release him</em>- The crowd hated the Lord and wanted to see Him crucified. So they were coming to ask for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus, according to Matthew and Mark. But Pilate is so desperate to get the Lord off, so screaming was his conscience, that he misread the situation and grasped at this tradition of releasing a prisoner, hoping the Jews would want their King released and not crucified. Actually his offer only fomented their passions the more. According to Luke here, Pilate attempted to take the decision out of their hands by saying that Jesus was to be the prisoner to be released; and this also had the effect of piquing their desire for His crucifixion the more. For nobody, especially a mob, likes to feel railroaded out of their desired outcome at the last moment.</p>


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


text:
<h4><em>But they cried out all together, saying, Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas</em>- Son of Abba, the father. This man was clearly an anti-Christ, a fake Christ, a man set up in appearance as the Christ, the son of God, when he was the very opposite. And Israel chose him. His similarity with the Lord is made even more interesting by the fact that some early manuscripts (such as the Caesarean, the Sinaitic Palimpsest and the Palestinian Syriac) here read ‘Jesus Barabbas’ (Referenced in Craig A. Evans, <em>Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary) </em>(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012 p:&nbsp;453:). The four gospel records only occasionally all record the same incident. When they do all mention the same thing, it seems that the Spirit intends us to see an especial significance in this. The fact that the crowd chose Barabbas rather than the Lord of glory is one of those aspects of the Passion which is recorded by all four writers. There is much information given about Barabbas, emphasizing the kind of criminal he was (<em><a href='B:470 27:16'>Mat 27:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:7'>Mar 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:19'>Luk 23:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:40'>Joh 18:40</a></em>). That men would reject the righteousness of God, the Spotless Lamb of God, for such a man::. this is the tragic story of our race and our nature. And it was the ecclesia of those days which made this dastard choice, and crucified the Lord Jesus. The same nature, the same blindness, is in us all. </h4><p>They cried out "together", despite their individual pangs of conscience. We see here the power of group think and culture, leading individuals to behaviour and positions which are far beyond where they personally stand. No wonder we are warned to watch those groups with whom we identify and join.</p>


text:
<p><em>(One who had been cast into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder)</em>- Both Barabbas and the thieves are described with the same Greek word, translated "robber" (<em><a href='B:500 18:40'>Joh 18:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:27'>Mar 15:27</a></em>). The Lord uses the same word when He points out that His persecutors were treating him as a "robber" (<em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:48'>Mar 14:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:52'>Luk 22:52</a></em>); He seems to be aware that what the experience He is going through is setting up Barabbas as a kind of inverse type of Himself, the true 'Son of the Father' (= 'Barabbas'). Those low, desperate men, the dregs of society, were types of us. Barabbas especially becomes a symbol of us all. According to Jewish tradition at the time (<em>Pesach</em> 8:6) “They may slaughter the Passover lamb…for one whom they [the authorities] have promised to release from prison". The Passover amnesty freed a man justly condemned to death- on account of the death of the lamb. We can imagine the relief and joy and almost unbelief of Barabbas, as he watched or reflected upon the crucifixion of Jesus- that he who rightfully should have been there on the cross, was delivered from such a death because of the cross of Christ. The image of condemned prisoners being released due to the death of Messiah is an undoubted Old Testament figure for our redemption from slavery. Some of the legal terms used in the NT for our redemption imply that Christ redeemed us from slavery through His death. And yet one could redeem a slave by oneself becoming a slave (<em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:5'>Gal 4:5</a></em>). This is why the crucified Jesus is typified by the suffering servant / slave of Isaiah’s prophesies. And Paul seems to have risen up to something similar when he speaks of giving his body to be branded, i:e. becoming a slave (<em><a href='B:530 13:3'>1Co 13:3</a></em> Gk:). </p>


text:
<p><em>And Pilate spoke to them again, desiring to release Jesus</em>- We see here Pilate's persuasion of the Lord's sinlessness; and how he discounted even the talk about the Lord seeking to stop tribute being given to Caesar and to start a revolution. Pilate knew that they had delivered Jesus to him from envy, and that there was no legitimate reason for the death sentence. I suggest he is not so much seeking to change their minds, but rather purposefully seeking to elicit from the Jews a clear statement that they wanted Him crucified. </p>


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


text:
<p><em>And he said to them the third time: Why! What evil has this man done? I have found no cause of death in him. I will therefore punish him and release him</em>- Pilate knew that they had delivered Jesus to him from envy, and that there was no legitimate reason for the death sentence:&nbsp; I suggest he is not so much seeking to change their minds, but rather purposefully seeking to elicit from the Jews a clear statement that they wanted Him crucified. "The third time" is another of Luke's tripilisms, a feature included in the record to enable the memorization of the gospels; and to emphasize the point, that even the callous Pilate really struggled to not allow the murder of an innocent and righteous man. Pilate's attempt to "just" punish the Lord was however only going to pique the wrath of the crowd, as they sensed the Lord's crucifixion slipping out of their grasp. And by saying this, Pilate was effectively robbing them of the choice as to which man should be released. So his desperate attempt to save the Lord only backfired upon him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they were insistent with loud voices, asking that he might be crucified. And their voices prevailed</em>- Where and how did<em> their </em>word prevail? Surely in the conscience of Pilate. The implication is that there was a struggle within him between their voice / word, and another word- that of God, made flesh in the man before him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Pilate gave sentence that what they asked for should be done</em>- The record here clearly states Pilate's responsibility; he gave sentence. We may excuse our misbehaviours on the basis that there would have been huge consequences if we had not::. disfellowshipped that brother, rejected that sister. But our actions remain as they are. Circumstance will never be too overpowering that we have no option but to sin (<em><a href='B:230 125:3'>Psa 125:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus over to their will</em>-&nbsp; The delivering of the Lord to the will of the Jews is all written from a human perspective. For it was by the determinate will of God, and not of man, that the Lord was handed over to death; and He Himself gave over His life, it was not in fact taken from Him. We have here a parade example of how things may appear one way from a secular standpoint, when they are in fact quite different from heaven's perspective.</p><p>This handing over of the Lord to crucifixion was ultimately done by God, the "power" behind and through Pilate. There is an unmistakable Biblical link between the term "Son of God", the idea of God giving, and the death of the Lord Jesus. Whatever else this means, it clearly shows the pain to God in the death of His Son. Paul only uses "Son of God" 17 times- and every one is in connection with the death of the Lord. And often the usages occur together with the idea of God's <em>giving</em> of His Son to die- "He who did not spare His own son but gave him up for us all" (<em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>). This sheds light on the otherwise strange use of another idea by Paul- that Jesus was 'handed over' to death (<em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:25'>Eph 5:25</a></em>). It was the Father who ultimately 'handed over' His Son to death. The idea of God's Son being <em>sent</em> to redeem us from sin is perhaps John's equivalent (<em><a href='B:690 1:7'>1Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>). Jesus was the Son whom the Father sent "last of all" to receive fruit (<em><a href='B:480 12:6'>Mar 12:6</a></em>)- and it is reflection upon God's giving of His Son on the cross which surely should produce fruit in us. For we can no longer live passively before such outgiving love and self-sacrificial pain. And we are invited to perhaps review our understanding of two passages in this light: "When the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son::. to redeem" (<em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em>) and "God sending His son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for [a sin offering] condemned sin, in the flesh" (<em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>). These verses would therefore speak specifically of what happened in the death of Christ on the cross, rather than of His birth. For it was in the cross rather than the virgin birth that we were redeemed and a sin offering made. It was on the cross that Jesus was above all in the exact likeness of sinful flesh, dying the death of a sinful criminal. The "likeness" of sinful flesh is explained by <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>, which uses the same word to describe how on the cross Jesus was made "in the likeness of men". We can now better understand why the Centurion was convicted by the sight of Christ's death to proclaim: "Truly this was the Son of God" (<em><a href='B:480 15:39'>Mar 15:39</a></em>).</p><p>Pilate's guilt here is plainly stated, especially as he himself realized he had the power to release the Lord. He delivered Him "to their will" (<em><a href='B:490 23:25'>Luk 23:25</a></em>), tacitly accepting that their will was stronger than his; although all this happened according to the will of the Father and Son. The Gospels carefully omit any record of Pilate pronouncing a judgment of condemnation upon the Lord, as was required and usual. He did not do so because of the deep weight of conscience within him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it after Jesus</em>- Simon is a Greek name, and the names of his sons are Greco-Roman. The way he is described as “coming out of the field" (<em><a href='B:490 23:26'>Luk 23:26</a></em>) could imply that he was working, doing what was improper on a feast day, because he was a Gentile. It could be that he simply lived and worked near Jerusalem, he wasn’t a religious guy, and like Saul out looking for lost cattle, he was going some place else… until the Lord as it were arrested him with the message of the cross. </p><p>Cyrene was where there was a strongly orthodox Jewish community (cp. <em><a href='B:510 6:9'>Act 6:9</a></em>). Simon was probably dark skinned, a countryman, a simple man, who had perhaps come up to Jerusalem in his zeal to keep Passover. What a comfort it was to the Lord to see a black man carrying His cross; for He had earlier said that <em>all</em> His true followers would carry the cross behind Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>). The Hebrew writer seemed to see Simon as typical of us all when writing of how we must go out of the city with the Lord, "bearing his reproach" (<em><a href='B:650 13:12-13'>Heb 13:12-13</a></em>, probably using 'reproach' as a parallel to 'the cross'). He would have seen in Simon a prototype of all His future, suffering, humiliated followers; "impressed" by the predestined calling, almost against our will, to carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em> RV mg:). And was it accident that this prototype was almost certainly a black man, when perhaps ultimately it may appear that a large proportion of the faithful body of the Lord Jesus will have been black people? If indeed Simon was a black Jew (cp. modern Falashas) who had come up to keep the Passover, it would have been annoying beyond words for him to be made unclean by the blood of the Lord, which was inevitably on the stake after His first attempt at bearing it after His flogging. Not to mention the shame for a zealous Jew in having to carry the cross of this Jesus of Nazareth. Yet it would seem that he was later converted, and he in turn converted his wife and son (<em><a href='B:480 15:21'>Mar 15:21</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 16:13'>Rom 16:13</a></em>). Mark rarely records proper nouns, but he makes a special effort to mention that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus. It would therefore seem that these men were well known in the early church. Simon may be the "Simeon called Niger" ('the black one') of <em><a href='B:510 13:1'>Act 13:1</a></em>. He is listed there next to Lucius, who was also from Cyrene. The thief and the centurion were likewise converted, and the faith of Joseph, Nicodemus and probably others was brought out into the open by the cross. Like Samson, the Lord won victories even in His death. The spiritual turn-around in Simon is a type of what is experienced by all whom the Lord compels to carry His cross. He was passing by, going somewhere else, full of his own plans, going about to establish his own righteousness::. and then, out of the blue, he was called to what he much later realized was the greatest honour a man could be called to: to accompany the Son of God and carry His cross, right to the end. We are left to imagine him plonking it down, as if to say to Jesus 'Now you've got to do the rest', and then slipping off into the crowd. </p><p>John says that the Lord went out bearing His cross. Luke says that Simon was asked to carry the hinder part of the cross behind Him. Matthew and Mark say Simon carried the cross. <em><a href='B:480 15:22'>Mar 15:22</a></em> (Gk:) says that the soldiers carried Jesus to Golgotha. J:B. Phillips renders it: "They got him to a place Golgotha". It would seem that the Lord collapsed, perhaps fainting. If He was crucified on an olive tree (excavations of crucified men suggest this is what was used), it would not have been simply because of the weight of the stake. Take a picture of Him lying there, with the face that was marred more than the children of men pressed into the hot dust of that Jerusalem street. And some human fool probably said something like 'Come on, get up' (doubtless with embellishments). If indeed He did faint, there would have been that sense of 'coming around', the "Where am I?”, the memory and consciousness flooding back. "Have I died and been resurrected?" No, as some nameless soldier kicked Him and told Him to get up. </p>


text:
<p><em>And a great crowd of the people followed him, and women mourned and wailed for him</em>- As unworthy people wailed before Him on the cross (the Lord knew they would be condemned in the AD70 judgment rather than obey his words and flee the city), so they will wail (s:w:) before Him at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>). The cross and the judgment are definitely connected. Men's feelings at the cross are a foretaste of our feelings before the enthroned, glorified Lord. And hence there is a connection between the breaking of bread, the judgment, the crucifixion, self-examination::. it all comes together.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:490 7:9'>Luk 7:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>But Jesus turning to them, said: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children</em>- He turned and spoke to the women. Luke as a doctor knew that suffering makes one self-centred. It is perhaps because of this that he especially seems to concentrate on the wonder of the way in which the Lord looked out of His own agony to be so concerned with that of others. A:D. Norris has commented (<em>The Gospel Of Mark</em>): "It is he who reports the Lord's prayer for Simon Peter (<em><a href='B:490 22:31'>Luk 22:31</a></em>); who recounts the Lord's sympathetic warning to the women of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:490 23:27-31'>Luk 23:27-31</a></em>); and who speaks of the Lord's forgiveness for His crucifiers, and remission for the penitent thief (<em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:43'>Luk 23:43</a></em>)".</p><p>Reflect for a moment upon the fact that the women wept, and amongst them were the Lord’s relatives (<em><a href='B:490 23:27'>Luk 23:27</a></em>). Lamentation for criminals on their way to die was not permitted in public. Suetonius (<em>Tiberius</em> 61) reports that “the relatives [of the crucified] were forbidden to go into mourning". Likewise Tacitus (<em>Annals </em>6:19), Philo (<em>In Flaccum </em>9,72) and Josephus (<em>Wars Of The Jews</em> 2:13:3,253). This is all quite some evidence, from a variety of writers. So why did they make this great sacrifice, take this great risk? The cross has power. Whether we feel it is impossible for us to be emotional, given our personality type, or whether we feel so lost in our own griefs that we cannot feel for Him there, somehow sustained reflection on the cross will lead us out of this. We will mourn, come what may. Yet the tragedy is that those women who risked so much didn’t necessarily maintain that level of commitment to the end. For the Lord had to tell them that they should weep for themselves given the calamity that would befall them and their children in AD70- for they would not listen to Him. </p>


text:
<p><em>For the days are coming in which they shall say: Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!</em>- Josephus records that during the AD70 siege of Jerusalem, "one rich and noble woman, whose name was Mary, the daughter of Eleazar, being stripped of all she had, by the seditious, killed her own child, and dressed it, and ate part of it". In that day, the Lord's words would have been remembered. And this judgment would come upon those who had disobeyed the Lord's words to flee the city. The Lord is alluding to the curses for disobedience in <em><a href='B:50 28:53-57'>Deu 28:53-57</a></em>. Those women weeping for Him were in fact the disobedient who would be cursed. The emotion of a moment for the sake of the suffering Lord Jesus is simply not enough. We must challenge ourselves with this thought. The Lord is also quoting from the words of <em><a href='B:300 19:9'>Jer 19:9</a></em> about the sufferings which the Babylonian siege would bring upon Jerusalem. He had no problem in seeing the events of the Babylonian invasion as relevant to His day, and we likewise can see the large bulk of Old Testament material about Israel's historical sufferings as likewise coming true in the last days. Revelation presents those sufferings in language absolutely loaded with Old Testament allusion.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then shall they begin to say to the mountains: Fall on us, and to the hills: Cover us</em>- The Babylonian siege would be repeated in AD70 (<em><a href='B:350 10:8'>Hos 10:8</a></em>); and these words are quoted about the feelings of the impenitent within the land of Israel in the last days, when every prophetic word shall come to its climax (<em><a href='B:730 6:16'>Rev 6:16</a></em>). "Begin to say" could imply that the Lord was hopeful that they would repent. But Josephus says that during the AD70 siege "Hundreds of the Jews at the end of the siege hid themselves in subterranean recesses, and no less than 2000 were killed by being buried under the ruins of these hiding-places". In <em><a href='B:730 6:16'>Rev 6:16</a></em>, the desire for the hills to fall upon them was because they sense that the wrath of the once crucified Lamb is even greater. The Lamb for sinners slain also has anger; He saw through the tears of those women, and was warning them of the huge price to be paid for what they were doing to Him. </p>


text:
<h4><em>For if they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?</em>- He turned and spoke to the women on the walk to Golgotha; He looked out of His own agony to the needs of others. This is another theme of the cross. He was even thoughtful for weak Pilate (<em><a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a></em>); for the thief, for the forgiveness of those mocking soldiers, for His mother, for John, for those women lining the Via Dolorosa::. And those women, He said, would be destroyed in the condemnation of Jerusalem in AD70. <em><a href='B:570 2:2-4'>Phi 2:2-4</a></em> makes the point that the essence of the cross is in the way the Lord's mind was so full of concern for <em>others</em> throughout the whole wretched process. The Lord's Bible-filled mind would have been aware of <em><a href='B:300 9:20-22'>Jer 9:20-22</a></em>, which prophesied special woe to women in the holocaust of AD70. Those women were condemned. Yet the Lord turned, in His desperate agony, to speak to them. I admit, as I must through every stage of the cross, that I wouldn't have done this. I wouldn't have bothered with them. But He made such effort to at least try to get them to change their minds. They were weeping for Him, but He knew they would not obey His command to leave Jerusalem when it would be surrounded by armies. Neither would their children. On a human level, they must have been so annoying. Young women (if they were alive in AD70 40 years later), probably passively in love with Him, moved to tears at His passion but with no regard for His words and the real implications of His cross. Yet still He tried for them, running the risk of cat calls of 'You can't carry your own cross but you can talk to the girls'. "If they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" is packed with allusion to O:T. Scriptures (<em><a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:16'>Jer 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:19'>Jer 11:19</a></em>; Psalms 1; <em><a href='B:300 17:5-8'>Jer 17:5-8</a></em>). His preceding words to the women were likewise; his quotation from <em><a href='B:350 10:8'>Hos 10:8</a></em> is set in a context so appropriate to the situation He was in. If they did these things to Him, the green and healthy shoot, what would be done to the dry dead wood of Israel…? His concern was always with the sufferings others would experience rather than being lost in His own introspection. Without getting too deeply involved in the actual exposition, a simple lesson emerges: He was not so overpowered by the terrible physicality of His human situation that He ceased to be spiritually aware. His mind was full of the word, not just out of place quotations flooding His subconscious, but real awareness of the spirit of the Father's word and its' intensely personal relevance to Himself. In this He sets a matchless example. If the crossbeam was tied to the nape of the Lord’s neck, it would have been impossible for Him to turn round and talk, as it is specifically stated that He did. I would reconstruct that the Lord collapsed, and Simon was forced to carry the cross, whilst the Lord followed on, scarcely conscious. Before collapsing again, with the result that He was carried to the cross, He used His last and final energy at the time to speak to those women. He used His last bit of mental and physical strength to preach- to women whom He knew were not going to really respond. For He said they should weep for themselves, He knew they would not listen to His warning to flee Jerusalem in AD70. But such was His hopefulness for people, that He still made the effort to communicate rather than get lost within Himself and His own thoughts as I would have tended to. </h4><p>The humility of Mary was the pattern for the Lord’s self-humiliation in the cross. Here above all we see the influence of Mary upon Jesus, an influence that would lead Him to and through the cross. Her idea of putting down the high and exalting the lowly (<em><a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a></em>) is picking up <em><a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a></em>: “I have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish”. And yet these very words of Ezekiel were quoted by the Lord in His time of dying. With reverence, we can follow where we are being led in our exploration and knowing of the mind of Christ. His dear mum had gone around the house singing her Magnificat. He realized that she felt the lowly who had been exalted [and perhaps in some unrecorded incident before her conception she had been recently humbled?]. And Jesus had realized her quotation of <em><a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a></em>. And He had perceived His linkage and connection with her, and how she saw all that was true of Him as in some way true of her, and vice versa. And now, in His final crisis, He takes comfort from the fact that like His dear mother, He the one who was now humbled, would be exalted. How many other trains of thought have been sparked in men’s minds by the childhood instructions of their mothers…?&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And two others, both criminals, were led out with him to be executed</em>- <em><a href='B:470 27:38'>Mat 27:38</a></em> RV has a dramatic change of tense: “Then are there crucified with him…". Mark’s present tenses are also arresting: “plaiting…&nbsp; they clothe him… they smote…" (<em><a href='B:480 15:17'>Mar 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:19'>Mar 15:19</a></em> RV). Perhaps Mark is seeking consciously to make us imagine it all as going on before our eyes. Take just <em><a href='B:480 15:23-26'>Mar 15:23-26</a></em>: “They offered…&nbsp; they crucify…&nbsp; and part… casting lots… crucified… was written". These arresting changes are surely to encourage us to re-live it all. Mark speaks of “they crucify him", going on to say that “then are there two crucified with him" (<em><a href='B:480 15:38'>Mar 15:38</a></em> RV), whereas Luke records the act in the past tense. Significantly, very few actual details are given by the Gospel writers of both the scourging and the crucifixion. It could be that they felt it impossible to dwell upon these things; or it could be that they and their readers knew what was involved in these practices, and we are left to dwell upon them in our own imagination. We are intended to reconstruct in our own minds what may have happened… We have a solemn duty towards Him to do this. This is perhaps why the tenses change so dramatically in the records. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left</em>- Note the emphasis in the records on "unto", "to", "the place". They arrived. They stopped there. This was it. Golgotha possibly means 'The skull of Goliath'. In this case, we have opened up a detailed typological meaning to David's victory over Goliath. He was there as the Lord Jesus fighting sin, and then burying the head of Goliath, the 'man of sin', near Jerusalem:&nbsp; "Ephes-Dammim", where David killed Goliath, meaning 'border of blood' suggests 'Aceldama', the "field of blood". Goliath coming out to make his challenges at morning and evening&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:90 17:16'>1Sa 17:16</a></em>) coincided with the daily sacrifices which should have been offered at those times, with their reminder of sin and the need for dedication to God. The thoughtful Israelite must surely have seen in Goliath a personification of sin which the daily sacrifices could do nothing to overcome.</p><p>The crucified Christ is portrayed as King of criminals, King of the basest sort, enthroned between them, taking the place of their leader Barabbas, who ought to have been where the Lord was. Both Barabbas and the thieves are described with the same Greek word, translated "robber" (<em><a href='B:500 18:40'>Joh 18:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:27'>Mar 15:27</a></em>). The Lord uses the same word when He points out that His persecutors were treating him as a "robber" (<em><a href='B:470 26:55'>Mat 26:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:48'>Mar 14:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:52'>Luk 22:52</a></em>); He seems to be aware that what the experience He is going through is setting up Barabbas as a kind of inverse type of Himself, the true 'Son of the Father' (= 'Barabbas'). </p><p>John’s Gospel has many references to Moses, as catalogued elsewhere. When John records the death of the Lord with two men either side of Him, he seems to do so with his mind on the record of Moses praying with Aaron and Hur on each side of him (<em><a href='B:20 17:12'>Exo 17:12</a></em>). John’s account in English reads: “They crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one” (<em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>). Karl Delitzsch translated the Greek New Testament into Hebrew, and the Hebrew phrase he chose to use here is identical with that in <em><a href='B:20 17:12'>Exo 17:12</a></em>. Perhaps this explains why John alone of the Gospel writers doesn’t mention that the two men on either side of the Lord were in fact criminals- he calls them “two others” (<em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>) and “… the legs of the first and of the other” (<em><a href='B:500 19:32'>Joh 19:32</a></em>). Thus John may’ve chosen to highlight simply how there were two men on either side of the Lord, in order to bring out the connection with the Moses scene.</p><p>It is likely that the Lord was crucified naked, thereby sharing the shame of Adam's nakedness. The <em>shame</em> of the cross is stressed (<em><a href='B:650 11:26'>Heb 11:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 31:17'>Psa 31:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:6-7'>Psa 69:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:12'>Psa 69:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:19-20'>Psa 69:19-20</a></em>). And we are to share those sufferings. There <em>must</em>, therefore, be an open standing up for what we believe in the eyes of a hostile world. Preaching, in this sense, is for all of us. And if we dodge this, we put the Son of God to a naked shame; we re-crucify Him naked, we shame Him again (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). He was crucified naked, and the sun went in for three hours. He must have been cold, very cold (<em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>). Artemidorus Daldianus (<em>Oneirokritika </em>2:53) confirms that the Romans usually crucified victims naked. Melito of Sardis, writing in the 2nd century, writes of “his body naked and not even deemed worthy of a clothing that it might not be seen. Therefore the heavenly lights turned away and the day darkened in order that he might be hidden who was denuded upon the cross" (<em>On the Pasch</em> 97). The earliest portrayals of the crucified Jesus, on carved gems, feature Him naked. There is reason to think that the Jews put the Lord to the maximum possible shame and pain; therefore they may well have crucified Him naked. T. Mommsen <em>The Digest Of Justinian </em>48:20:6 reports that “the garments that the condemned person is wearing may not be demanded by the torturers"- the fact that they gambled for His clothes shows that the Lord was yet again treated illegally (quite a feature of the records) and to the maximum level of abuse. We not only get this impression from the Biblical record, but from a passage in the Wisdom of Solomon (<em><a href='B:490 2:12-20'>Luk 2:12-20</a></em>) which would have been well known to them, and which has a surprising number of similarities to the Lord’s life amongst the Jews (Susan Garrett lists several Greek words and phrases found in the Gospel of Mark which are identical to those in this section of the Wisdom of Solomon. It would seem that Mark was aware of this passage in the Wisdom of Solomon, and sought to show how throughout the Lord's ministry, and especially in His death, the Jews were seeking to apply it to Him in the way they treated Him. See Susan Garrett, <em>The Temptations Of Jesus In Mark's Gospel</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) p. 68):</p><p>“Let us lie in wait for the virtuous man, since he annoys us and opposes our way of life, reproaches us for our breaches of the law an accuses us of playing false::. he claims to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a son of the Lord. Before us he stands, a reproof to our way of thinking, the very sight of him weighs our spirits down; His way of life is not like other men’s::. in His opinion we are counterfeit:::and boasts of having God as His father. let us see if what he says is true, let us observe what kind of end he himself will have. If the virtuous man is God’s son, God will take his part and rescue him from the clutches of his enemies<em>. Let us test him with cruelty and with torture, and thus explore this gentleness of His and put His endurance to the proof. Let us condemn him to a shameful death</em> since he will be looked after- we have his word for it".</p><p>The idea of the Lord being subjected to the maximum pain and mocking must, sadly, be applied to Seneca’s description of how some victims of crucifixion were nailed through their genitals (<em>Dialogi</em> 6:20:3). In this sense the paradox of Isaiah 53 would have come true- through losing His ability to bring forth children, the Lord brought forth a huge multitude of spiritual children world-wide. It’s an honour to be one of them. </p><p>Did they throw the die on top of His outer garment? Note the focus of the soldiers upon the dividing up of the clothes, whilst the Son of God played out the ultimate spiritual drama for human salvation just a metre or so away from them. And our pettiness is worked out all too often in sight of the same cross. As those miserable men argued over the clothes at the foot of the cross, so when Israel stood before the glory of Yahweh at Sinai, they still suffered “disputes" amongst themselves (<em><a href='B:20 24:18'>Exo 24:18</a></em> ( NIV) cp. <em><a href='B:650 12:29'>Heb 12:29</a></em>). So pressing and important do human pettinesses appear, despite the awesomeness of that bigger picture to which we stand related.</p><p>The sheer and utter reality of the crucifixion needs to be meditated upon just as much as the actual reality of the fact that Jesus actually existed. A Psalm foretold that Jesus at His death would be the song of the drunkards. Many Nazi exterminators took to drink. And it would seem almost inevitable that the soldiers who crucified Jesus went out drinking afterwards. Ernest Hemingway wrote a chilling fictional story of how those men went into a tavern late on that Friday evening. After drunkenly debating whether “Today is Friday", they decide that it really is Friday, and then tell how they nailed Him and lifted Him up. ''When the weight starts to pull on 'em, that's when it gets em::. Ain't I seen ‘em? I seen plenty of 'em. I tell you, he was pretty good today". And that last phrase runs like a refrain through their drunken evening. Whether or not this is an accurate reconstruction isn't my point- we have a serious duty to seek to imagine what it might have been like. Both Nazi and Soviet executioners admit how vital it was to never look the man you were murdering in the face. It was why they put on a roughness which covered their real personalities. And the Lord’s executioners would have done the same. To look into His face, especially His eyes, dark with love and grief for His people, would have driven those men to either suicide or conversion. I imagine them stealing a look at His face, the face of this man who didn’t struggle with them but willingly laid Himself down on the wood. The cross struck an educated Greek as barbaric folly, a Roman citizen as sheer disgrace, and a Jew as God's curse. Yet Jesus turned the sign of disgrace into a sign of victory. Through it, He announced a radical revaluation of all values. He made it a symbol for a brave life, without fear even in the face of fatal risks; through struggle, suffering, death, in firm trust and hope in the goal of true freedom, life, humanity, eternal life. The offence, the sheer scandal, was turned into an amazing experience of salvation, the way of the cross into a possible way of life. The risen Christ was and is just as much a living reality. Suetonius records that Claudius expelled Jewish Christians from Rome because they were agitated by one Chrestus; i:e. Jesus the Christ. Yet the historian speaks as if He was actually alive and actively present in person. In essence, He was. All the volumes of confused theology, the senseless theories about the Trinity, would all have been avoided if only men had had the faith to believe that the man Jesus who really died and rose, both never sinned and was also indeed the Son of God. And that His achievement of perfection in human flesh was real. Yes it takes faith- and all the wrong theology was only an excuse for a lack of such faith.</p><table><tr><td></p><h4></td><td></td></tr></table><p>Several crucifixion victims have been unearthed. One was nailed with nails 18c:m. long (7 inches). A piece of acacia word seems to have been inserted between the nail head and the flesh. <em>Did the Lord cry out in initial pain and shock?</em> Probably, as far as I can reconstruct it; for He would have had all the physical reflex reactions of any man. But yet I also sense that He didn't flinch as other men did. He came to offer His life, willingly; not grudgingly, resistantly give it up. He went through the panic of approaching the pain threshold. The nailing of the hands and feet just where the nerves were would have sent bolts of pain through the Lord's arms every time He moved or spoke. The pain would have been such that even with the eyelids closed, a penetrating red glare would have throbbed in the Lord’s vision. Hence the value and intensity of those words He did speak. The pulling up on the nails in the hands as the cross was lifted up would have been excruciating. The hands were nailed through the 'Destot gap', between the first and second row of wrist bones, touching an extra sensitive nerve which controls the movement of the thumb and signals receipt of pain. They would not have been nailed through the palms or the body would not have been supportable. It has been reconstructed that in order to breathe, the crucified would have had to pull up on his hands, lift the head for a breath, and then let the head subside. The sheer physical agony of it all cannot be minimized. Zenon Ziolkowski (<em>Spor O Calun</em>) discusses contemporary descriptions of the faces of the crucified, including Jehohanan the Zealot, whose crucifixion Josephus mentions. Their faces were renowned for being terribly distorted by pain. The Lord's face was marred more than that of any other, so much so that those who saw Him looked away (<em><a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a></em>). That prophecy may suggest that for the Lord, the crucifixion process hurt even more. We suggest later that He purposefully refused to take relief from pushing down on the 'seat', and thus died more painfully and quicker. Several of the unearthed victims were crucified on olive trees. So it was perhaps an olive tree which the Lord had to carry. He would have thought of this as He prayed among the olive trees of Gethsemane (perhaps they took it from that garden?). I would not have gone through with this. I would have chosen a lesser death and the achieving of a lesser salvation. I would have had more pity on myself. But the Lord of all did it <em>for me</em>, He became obedient <em>even</em> to death on a cross (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>), as if He could have been obedient to a lesser death, but He chose this ultimately high level. I can only marvel at the Father's gentleness with us, that despite the ineffable trauma of death, the way He takes us is so much more gentle than how He allowed His only begotten to go. </h4><p>Presumably there were many soldiers around. The temple guard which was seconded to the Jews (<em><a href='B:470 27:65'>Mat 27:65</a></em>) was doubtless there in full force, lest there be any attempt to save Jesus by the crowd or the disciples. And yet <em><a href='B:500 19:23'>Joh 19:23</a></em> suggests there were only four soldiers, each of whom received a part of His clothing. This must mean that there were four actually involved in the crucifixion: one for each hand and foot. He had signs of nails (plural) in His hands. We are left to meditate as to whether He was nailed hand over hand as tradition has it (which would have meant two very long nails were used); or both hands separately. </p><p>Despite much prior meditation, there perhaps dawned on the Lord some 'physical' realizations as to the nature of His crucified position: the utter impossibility of making the slightest change of position, especially when tormented by flies, the fact that the hands and feet had been pierced in the most sensitive areas; the fact that the arms were arranged in such a way so that the weight of the body hung only on the muscles, not on the bones and tendons. The smell of blood would have brought forth yelping dogs, circling birds of prey, flying insects…an incessant barrage of annoyances, things to distract the Lord’s mind. As we too also face. He would have realized that the whole process was designed to produce tension in every part of the body. All His body, every part of it, in every aspect, had to suffer (and He would have realized the significance of this, and seen <em>all</em> of us as suffering with Him). The muscles were all hopelessly overworked, cramps due to the malcirculation of blood would have created an overwhelming desire to move. All victims would have writhed and wriggled within the few millimetres’ leeway which they had, to avoid a splinter pushing into the back lacerated from flogging::. But my sense is that the Lord somehow didn't do this. He didn't push down on the footrests for relief (see 54), He didn't take the pain killer, He didn't ask for a drink until the end, when presumably the others accepted. Every muscle in the body would have become locked after two hours or so. Every part of His body suffered, symbolic of how through His sufferings He was able to identify with every member of His spiritual body- for "we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones" (<em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em>). He had perhaps foreseen something of all this when He likened the killing of His body to the taking down of a tent / tabernacle- every bone and sinew, like every pole and canvass, had to be uprooted, 'taken down' (<em><a href='B:500 2:19'>Joh 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:21'>Joh 2:21</a></em>). </p><p>The moment of lifting the stake up vertical, probably amidst a renewed surge of abuse or cheering from the crowd, had been long foreseen and imagined by the Lord. "If, if I be <em>lifted up</em>::." (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>). He foresaw the physical (and spiritual) details of the crucifixion process in such detail. Recall how He foresaw that moment of handing over to death. And yet still He asked for the cup to pass, still He panicked and felt forsaken. If the theory of the cross was so hard to actually live out in practice for the Lord, then how hard it must be for us. The Lord's descriptions of Himself as being 'lifted up' use a phrase which carried in Hebrew the idea of exaltation and glory. As He was lifted up physically, the ground swaying before His eyes, His mind fixed upon the Father and the forgiveness which He was making possible through His sacrifice, covered in blood and spittle, struggling for breath::. He was 'lifted up' in glory and exaltation, to those who have open eyes to see and hearts to imagine and brains to comprehend. </p><p>Imagine yourself being crucified. Go through the stages in the process. The Lord invited us to do this when He asked us to figuratively crucify ourselves daily. Consider all the language of the sacrifices which pointed forward to the final, supreme act of the Lord: poured out, pierced, parted in pieces, beaten out; the rock smitten::. and this is the process which we are going through, although the Father deals with us infinitely more gently than with His only Son. </p><p>It is one of the greatest internal proofs of inspiration that this climactic act is recorded by each of the Gospel writers as a participial or subordinate clause. The concentration is on the splitting up of the clothes, which happened, of course, after the impaling. It is as if the record at this point is from the perspective of the soldiers. Get the job done, and <em>then</em>, on with the important bit!- the dividing of the clothes! No human author would ever have written like this. It's rather like the way Mary thinks that the risen Lord is a gardener. There is something artless and utterly Divine about it all. The record is full of what I would call spiritual culture. It has the hallmark of the Divine. This may be why some of the 'obvious' fulfilments of prophecy aren't mentioned, e:g. <em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em> concerning the Lamb dumb before her shearers. Likewise there is no record of the faithful women weeping, or moaning as the body was taken down. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Jesus said: Father, forgive them. For they do not know what they do- </em>The Lord prayed that the soldiers would be forgiven [without repentance] because "they know not what they do". The fact He asked for their forgiveness shows that they were guilty of sin, although they were ignorant of it- and had therefore not repented. How could they repent of crucifying Christ while they were actually doing it? They may well have regretted doing what they were forced to do by reason of the circumstances in which they found themselves. Thus Christ knew that forgiveness was possible without specific repentance and forsaking. The reply 'But that only applies to sins of ignorance!' is irrelevant- Christ's attitude still disproves the hypothesis that forgiveness can <em>only</em> be granted if there is a forsaking of sin. See on <em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em>.</p><p>Note the Lord's appreciation of the Fatherhood of God throughout His passion: <em><a href='B:490 22:42'>Luk 22:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:42'>Mat 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:44'>Mat 26:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:46'>Luk 23:46</a></em>. Throughout the Gospels, the Lord calls God His Father around 170 times (109 of them in John, as if he noticed this as especially significant). This was a real paradigm breaker for the Jews, who even from the 15 Old Testament references to God as Father, only understood His fatherhood in a national, not personal, sense. Yet the Son's relation to the Father has been passed on to us (<em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>). The closeness of the Father to the Son, prefigured by that between Abraham and Isaac, is something to be wondered at:&nbsp; </p>&nbsp;<table><tr><td></p><h4>The Seven Last Sayings Of Jesus From The Cross</td><td>Number of words in Greek</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1."Father forgive them; for they know not what they do" (<em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>) </td><td>12 </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2."Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" (<em><a href='B:490 23:43'>Luk 23:43</a></em>) </td><td>9 </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3. "Woman behold thy son!::. Behold thy mother!" (<em><a href='B:500 19:26'>Joh 19:26</a></em>) </td><td>4 </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4. "My God, my God, Why hast thou forsaken me?" (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:34'>Mar 15:34</a></em>) </td><td>3 </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5. “I thirst" (<em><a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a></em>) </td><td>1 </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6. "It is finished" (<em><a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a></em>) </td><td>1 </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7. "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (<em><a href='B:490 23:46'>Luk 23:46</a></em>) </td><td>8 </td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>The pain and difficulty of speech in the position of crucifixion was such that it is apparent that the Lord meant us to hear and meditate upon the words He uttered from the cross. Perhaps it would have been far easier for Him to have prayed those words to Himself, within His own thoughts; but instead He made the effort to speak them out loud. The passion of the Lord's intercessions on the cross is matchless. He roared to God in His prayer, regardless of whether there was light or darkness (<em><a href='B:230 22:1-2'>Psa 22:1-2</a></em>). He reflected there that His prayer was offered to God "in an acceptable time" (<em><a href='B:230 69:13'>Psa 69:13</a></em>). And yet this very passage is taken up in <em><a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a></em> concerning the necessary vigour of <em>our</em> crying to God for salvation. That the intensity of the Lord's prayerfulness and seeking of God on the cross should be held up as our pattern: the very height of the ideal is wondrous. </h4><p>It is worth noting that if the Lord's seven recorded utterances are placed in the conventional chronology, the number of words He actually spoke can be seen to steadily decrease until the final utterance (although it should be noted that in our reconstruction, saying 3 comes before no. 2). Not only does this serve to illustrate the intensity of effort wrung forth from our Lord in His final utterance, but we also sense that He found physically speaking increasingly difficult:&nbsp; </p><p>"Father forgive them" were the first words said by the Lord Jesus as He hung on the cross. It seems from the context that they were said soon after the cross was lifted up into a vertical position and dropped down into the hole prepared for it. Physically, this would have been the time of greatest shock and pain, as the body of Jesus came to rest with its full weight upon the nails, as they tore into the flesh and sinews of His hands and feet. As His nervous system began to fully react, He was in great pain and shock. And yet immediately His thoughts went to forgiving those who had brought this upon Him; and, as we hope to see, His thoughts were immediately with us, with the possibility of our salvation and forgiveness. In this we see a matchless example of being so concerned for the salvation of others, so taken up with a desire to show love to those who hate us, that the physicality of our own sufferings, however immediately and insistently they press, becomes totally relegated. </p><p>We must face up to a fundamental question: Who was it that the Lord was asking God to forgive? By eliminating who He did <em>not</em> pray for, we can come towards an answer. He did not pray for the world (<em><a href='B:500 17:9'>Joh 17:9</a></em>), which in the context seems to refer to the unrepentant Jewish world (cp. <em><a href='B:300 11:14'>Jer 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:8'>1Jn 5:8</a></em>) as well as the surrounding (Roman) world. </p><p>Forgiveness is related to repentance. There would seem little point in the Lord praying for the Roman soldiers to be forgiven. It would be rather like a believer praying for some youths to be forgiven for vandalizing a bus shelter; to what point would this be? Would such a prayer really lead them towards salvation? Would it be an appropriate thing to pray for? </p><p>Throughout the Acts, both Peter and Paul accuse the Jews of having crucified the Lord, even though the Roman soldiers physically did it. Peter even goes so far as to say that it was their <em>hands</em> which placed Jesus on the cross and nailed Him (<em><a href='B:510 2:23'>Act 2:23</a></em> - notice how their physical contact with the Lord's body is stressed in <em><a href='B:480 14:46'>Mar 14:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:53'>Mar 14:53</a></em>). The Roman hands which did this were effectively Jewish hands. Psalms 22, 69 outline in some detail the things done to Christ on the cross. Some were done by the Jews, others by the Romans. And yet the same pronoun "they" is used, as if these things were all done by the same group of people. This further suggests that the Spirit saw the actions of the Romans as being attributable to the Jews. There seems no reason to think that the Roman or Italian nation were held guilty by God for the part they played in the death of His Son. </p><p>The Jewish people generally were punished because they saw the Son of God coming to their vineyard, and yet they killed Him, despite recognizing who He was. "This is the heir", they recognized (<em><a href='B:470 21:38'>Mat 21:38</a></em>). Pilate <em>therefore</em>, because of the Jews, ordered the death of the Son of God (<em><a href='B:500 18:40'>Joh 18:40</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 19:1'>Luk 19:1</a></em>). They must take full responsibility for it. The Roman soldiers set Christ at nought (<em><a href='B:490 23:11'>Luk 23:11</a></em>); but this very act (the same word is used) is counted to the Jews (<em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>). The Lord Jesus shouted out to them that He knew that they realized who He was: "Then cried Jesus in the temple as He taught, saying, You both know me, and you know from where I am" (<em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>). His allusion to the memorial Name ("I am") suggests that He recognized that they knew His Divine origin and manifestation of His Father's Name. The Lord was responding to their claim that they did not think He was Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 7:27'>Joh 7:27</a></em>)- by saying 'You do know, deep inside, that I am He; but you won't face up to your conscience about it'. It was in this sense that Jesus frequently said in John's Gospel that the Jews did not know Him nor His Father. However, this does not mean that they did not recognize who He was. To "know" Christ in the Johannine sense is to believe in Him, not just to give Him cognizance. It would be a massive contradiction within the thinking of Jesus for Him to ask God to forgive the whole Jewish people <em>because</em> they didn't realize what they were doing. According to His parable of the men recognizing the heir and killing him, they did know, perfectly well, what they were doing. If indeed He was praying for the entire Jewish nation, His prayer went unanswered. He had said Himself that if the Jews did not repent and believe in Him, they would die in their sins; He said that an impressive three times (<em><a href='B:500 8:21'>Joh 8:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:24'>Joh 8:24</a></em>). </p><p>It seems that the Lord was in some way praying for those among the Jews who would later repent of what they had done. This suggestion must almost certainly have some truth about it because of the way Peter alludes to Christ's words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do". He seems to apply these words to the Jews, and uses them to encourage the Jews to repent and thereby take unto themselves the forgiveness which Christ's prayer had made possible: "And now, brethren, I wot that through (RV "in") ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers::. repent ye <em>therefore</em>" (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em> AV). Paul makes a similar allusion in <em><a href='B:510 13:26-27'>Act 13:26-27</a></em>: "Men and brothers, children of the stock of Abraham::. they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers (cp. <em><a href='B:490 3:17'>Luk 3:17</a></em>), because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him”. </p><p>There is a clear principle throughout God's self-revelation that ignorance does not atone for sin. "Father forgive them <em>for</em> they know not what they do" therefore does not mean that their ignorance plus Christ's prayer equalled forgiveness and therefore salvation. We have to conclude that He was saying 'They don't <em>now</em> know what they are doing, please forgive them on account of my death, they'll repent and realize later'. Despite Peter's allusion to Christ's prayer for their forgiveness, Peter still asks the Jews to repent so that they could be forgiven and saved. Therefore Christ's prayer for their forgiveness was not offered or answered in the sense that they would be forgiven without repentance. That forgiveness was only granted in prospect. They had to 'claim' it by their own repentance. However, it is still wondrously true that Christ understood that God was willing to grant forgiveness to people in prospect, even though they had not actually repented. If God is willing to do this, to forgive in hope of future repentance in response to such great grace, how much more should we behave likewise to each other. And yet we struggle with this, even though we each have received such grace ourselves. </p><p>The Lord's death was fundamentally for the salvation of Israel. His prayer was gloriously answered in that soon afterwards, 8,000 Jews were baptized (<em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>). Such is the power of anguished, heartfelt prayer for others- even when it seems there is no chance it will be heard. And such is the power of prayer for a third party. The Lord’s attitude was not that they simply had to decide. He prayed they would be converted. It only applies to us insofar as we unite ourselves with the Israel of God. That minority within Israel who were crucifying Christ in ignorance ("they know not what they do”) were the same category into which we fall. Christ praying on the cross for men to be forgiven ought to send the mind back to Isaiah 53, which prophesied that on the cross, the Christ would "justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities", be wounded for our transgressions, be bruised for our iniquities, make a sin offering for His seed, heal us through His stripes, achieve our peace with God through His chastisement, bear the sin of many, be numbered with the transgressors, be stricken "for the transgression of my people", and make "intercession for the transgressors". These are all broadly parallel statements. "The transgressors" are primarily "my people", Israel, who despised and rejected him (<em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em>). And yet they also refer to us, insofar as we become identified with Israel in order to be saved. The prophesy that Christ would make "intercession for the transgressors" in His time of dying was surely fulfilled when He prayed "Father forgive them". There seems no other real alternative. </p><p>And so we come to an awe-inspiring conclusion: the Lord was lifted up on the cross, and immediately His mind was full of us, all those who would repent and become the seed of Christ, full of our need, of the huge weight of all our sins. And He knew that through His death all that sin would be forgiven. It was by the Lord’s one act of righteousness, one act of obedience, that we are justified (<em><a href='B:520 5:18-19'>Rom 5:18-19</a></em>). He was obedient to the death of the cross (<em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em>); and yet <em><a href='B:650 5:8'>Heb 5:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:570 2:8'>Phi 2:8</a></em> RV imply that He only became obedient whilst He was actually on the cross. Was it that there, whilst hanging there, He more deeply perceived that really, this was indeed the only way to meet our need- and therefore He made that one-off act of obedience in death which <em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em> speaks about. And that supreme love for us, that willingness to die “for us", is still part of His wonderful character; for there He “loved us" [the love of Christ and the cross are so often connected ideas], and yet He still has that same “love of Christ" for us today (<em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:37'>Rom 8:37</a></em>). </p><p>As soon as the cross was lifted up, despite the sudden searing pain, His mind was fixed upon our desperate need: "Father forgive them". Each one of us who have now believed down through the subsequent years was forgiven then, in that moment, of all our sins we would ever commit. Through one act of righteousness [i:e. the cross], we were justified (<em><a href='B:520 5:18'>Rom 5:18</a></em> RV). There was such intensity of achievement in those moments of His death. Here on earth, on a mere speck of a planet in the outer suburbs of a galaxy that is only one of about a billion such galaxies in the observable universe, what happened on the cross determined the future of that universe. For all things both in heaven an in earth were reconcile by the blood of the cross. And yet throughout the Gospels Christ had taught that the Father would only forgive those who themselves live a forgiving life. Yet at that time we had not repented; "When we were yet without strength, Christ died for the ungodly::. God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us::. when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his son" (<em><a href='B:520 5:5-10'>Rom 5:5-10</a></em>). </p><p>Our Lord's prayer was heard; our sins, unrepented of, were forgiven, in prospect we were forgiven and saved. In the same way as Peter used the wonder of this to appeal to the Jews to repent, so we should heed the appeal. All our sins were forgiven as a result of that prayer; in prospect we were saved. God for the sake of that prayer of Christ forgave us all our sins then (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>), the whole concept of sin was ended in prospect (<em><a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a></em>), one final sacrifice was offered for sins (<em><a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a></em>). The result of this is that we should repent, search ourselves and confess as many of our sins as possible, knowing they have been conquered. And we too should forgive each other in the same manner as we have been forgiven (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>), not waiting for repentance, but learning the spirit of Christ and the attitude of our Father. </p><p>The extreme seriousness of our position prior to our reconciliation with God is easy to underestimate. We were "enemies::. sinners". We have seen that "Father forgive them" refers to both us and the ignorant Jews who were crucifying Christ. And yet in the first instance, the "them" referred to the Roman soldiers; <em>they</em> crucified the Lord, they parted His garments; and it is in that context that He asked for "them" to be forgiven. There is a certain relevance of Christ's words to those ignorant soldiers. And yet we have seen that they really refer to us, to all those who will truly repent of their sins. It follows that those soldiers represent us, as the Jews who rejected and despised Christ in Isaiah 53 represent us too. Truly do we sing that "<em>We</em> held him as condemned by Heaven", albeit in ignorance. The roughness and ignorance of those soldiers typifies our life before baptism. If we continue sinning, we crucify again the son of God, this time not in ignorance. The consequences of that are almost too fearful to imagine. </p><p>Ignorance is no atonement for sin, as the Law taught. "Forgive them <em>for</em> they know not what they do" sounds as if Christ felt that He was the offering for ignorance, which was required for both rulers and ordinary Israelites (cp. how Peter and Paul describe both the rulers and ordinary people as "ignorant", implying they had a need for the ignorance offering of Christ, <em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:27'>Act 13:27</a></em>). Indeed, <em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em> NIV describes the Lord's death as a "guilt offering". And significantly, <em><a href='B:650 5:2'>Heb 5:2</a></em> describes Him as a good priest who can have compassion on those (i:e. us) who have sinned through ignorance and want reconciliation. As we come, progressively, to realize our sinfulness, we need to make a guilt offering. But that guilt offering has already been made, with the plea "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do". </p><p>"Father forgive them" was uttered with His mind on all our future sins, He foresaw them all, He felt them upon Him, He saw they could not be forgiven without repentance, and yet He asked the Father to forgive them as sins of ignorance, believing that we would repent in the future. No wonder Peter and Paul use these words of the Lord as the basis of their appeal to Israel to repent! And if we appreciate them, we will be inspired to truly examine ourselves, to realize our secret sins, to search the word in order to reveal our sins to us, to ask God after the pattern of David to reveal our weakness to us, to truly confess our sins, knowing that each and every one of them was recognized by the Father and Son as Christ hung on the cross. Every one of them was a weight upon Christ, and every one of them was forgiven in the hope that we would later appreciate the wonder of such grace, and repent. This means that as with Israel in Acts 3, our repentance is what makes the cross of Christ powerful for us, it is what makes the victory of Christ all the greater if we accept it; for when we repent, "our unrighteousness commends God's righteousness", in the language of Romans. </p><p>In some sense, then, the Lord was aware of each of us and each of our sins as He hung there. "Forgive them" was wrung out of this deep appreciation. Just one word (in the Greek) expressed such intensity of appreciation of our need. It seems that as Christ hung on the cross He had a vision of the faithful. How this was achieved is hard to imagine, but it is not beyond the realms of Divine possibility that somehow Christ was made aware of each and every one of us, and each of our sins. Consider the following hints concerning the Lord's vision of His ecclesia on the cross: </p><p>- "<em>When </em>You shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed::. he shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied" (<em><a href='B:290 53:10-11'>Isa 53:10-11</a></em>). "<em>When</em>" would suggest that the Lord had some kind of vision of those He was offering Himself for, especially in their future, forgiven state.</p><p>- Psalms 22, 69 describe Christ on the cross foreseeing "the great congregation" gratefully and humbly eating in memory of Him (cp. the breaking of bread), serving Him, inheriting Zion and declaring His righteousness and His victory on the cross to others down the generations. Let us remember this as we break bread and witness to Him (<em><a href='B:230 22:30-31'>Psa 22:30-31</a></em>).</p><p>- On the cross the Lord saw all His bones, which represented the future members of His body (<em><a href='B:230 22:17'>Psa 22:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em>).</p><p>- The Lord prayed just before His passion in a way which would almost imply that He had some heightened awareness of the redeemed as a group: ":::for them also which shall believe in me::. that they also may be one".</p><p>- "For the joy that was set before him" the Lord endured the cross (<em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em>). "Set before" can imply a vision, as if He saw something in front of Him as He hung on the cross. The spirit of Christ in <em><a href='B:230 16:11'>Psa 16:11</a></em> describes the Lord looking forward to fullness of joy in God's Heavenly presence, because "at your right hand are pleasures for evermore". He is now at God's right hand interceding for us. Therefore we suggest that the joy set before Christ in vision as He hung on the cross was the joy of His future mediation for our sins as we repent of them and confess them in prayer. </p><p>The intensity of feeling behind those words of our Lord almost defies exhibition through the medium of human words or language. <em><a href='B:650 5:1-7'>Heb 5:1-7</a></em> describes the Lord on the cross as a priest offering up a guilt offering for our sins of ignorance. He did this, we are told, through "prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears". This must surely be a reference to "Father forgive them". Those were said with a real passion, with strong crying, with tears as He appreciated the extent of our sinfulness and offence of God. There is a connection between these words and those of <em><a href='B:520 8:26-27'>Rom 8:26-27</a></em>, which describes the Lord as our High Priest making intercession for us "with groanings". "Groanings" is surely the language of suffering and crucifixion. It is as if our Lord goes through it all again when He prays for our forgiveness, He has the same passion for us now as He did then. Think of how on the cross He had that overwhelming desire for our forgiveness despite His own physical pain. That same level of desire is with Him now. Surely we can respond by confessing our sins, by getting down to realistic self-examination, by rallying our faith to truly appreciate His mediation and the forgiveness that has been achieved, to believe that all our sins, past and future, have been conquered, and to therefore rise up to the challenge of doing all we can to live a life which is appropriate to such great salvation.</p>


