“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him” (Lk. 22:14). It was, says John’s record, “when supper was ready’—literally: “supper having become.” The AV reading: “supper being ended,” is clearly mistaken, for later on there are plain indications of the meal being resumed (v. 12,26; for the Greek expression, compare Mk. 1:32; Mt.26 :6; 27 :1; Jn.10 :22). The reference is not to the hour of eating the Jewish Passover, as John makes doubly plain: “Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come, in order that he might depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end” (Jn.13:1).

At first sight there might appear to be a certain inappropriateness about those concluding phrases. Would not John have done better to relate such words: “He loved them unto the end,” to the next day when Christ died on the cross?

It is the repeated word “loved” which supplies all needful explanation. In Study 192 it is shown that in this way John was referring not to the Lord’s final self-sacrifice but to the Love Feast, the sacramental memorial, now to be observed for the first time and which was to be ceaselessly associated with the Lord’s supreme act of love on behalf of sinful men—”his own.”

At the beginning of this fourth gospel “his own” had meant “the nation of Israel’—”he came unto his own, and his own (people) received him not” (1 :11). Now John intimates a switch of the phrase to the disciples, the New Israel, who did receive him.

The idea is emphasized by the words: “depart out of this world unto the Father.” With double meaning, there is here not only an anticipation of the Lord’s self-offering as a sacrifice “unto the Father” (not an allusion to the ascension), but also his final abandonment of the Jewish world, kosmos often having this meaning in John’s gospel.

“Knowing . . . that he came from God and went to God” is an expression that has been used with much confidence by Trinitarians as “proof” of the Lord’s pre-existence in heaven. Yet an examination of the Greek text reveals a careful distinction between “came from God” (apo theou, no article) and “went to God” (pros ton theon, with the article). The latter definitely requires reference to a personal approach to the Father, but not so the former. Here, as in 1:6, the meaning is diluted to imply: ‘He came with a divine mission/ but there is no explicit intimation of a personal descent from heaven.

Apostolic rivalry

In these last hours of strain and leave-taking Jesus needed all the fellowship and help his followers could give. Then how distressing for him that there should be another competition amongst the twelve for precedence. Doubtless—though Luke does not say this—the quarrel concerned priority as to their seating at table. Yet, in a parable specially framed to be a guide to those ambitious for prominence in his ecclesia, Jesus had warned against eagerness for prominence or power (Lk. 14:7-11; cp. Mk. 9:34,35). And later, Peter himself was to make specific reference to this upper-room experience (1 Pet. 5:3,5).

Over a long period this tussle for leadership had been going on among the twelve (e.g. Mk. 9:34; 10:37). (Would it have continued as it did if the Roman Catholic interpretation of Mt. 16:18 were correct?). Blunt warnings and reproaches from their Master may have been heeded at the time, but if so the effect had worn off. A kingdom here and now!—this would appear to have been the obsession which effectively blinded their eyes to the teaching of Jesus concerning his sacrifice.

Ultimately the Lord made his own choice of those who were to fill the chief seats: John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, reclined in his bosom; Peter was probably next to John on the same side of the Master (Jn.13 :24); and Judas probably straight opposite Jesus.

The washing of feet

On this occasion the immediate rebuke as they were at table was the more effective because at first no word was spoken. Jesus rose up and, removing his upper garment, he took a towel and basin and proceeded to wash the feet of first one and then another disciple (Lk.22 :27; Jn.13 :14). Why had this not been attended to already? Possibly, in view of the fact that this was not the passover meal itself, such attention to preliminary washing had been deemed unnecessary. Or can it be that, by arrangement with Jesus, the omission had been deliberate, and no servant had been delegated to provide this courtesy, simply in order to give the disciples an opportunity to show to what extent they had learned from their Lord the greatness of service and humility?

If the latter conjecture is worth anything, then great must have been the disappointment of Jesus that they gave no thought to their fellows, but instead were concerned to the point of bitterness about their own personal status, How little they realised that the more they asserted themselves and the more successful they were in achieving a superficial priority, the lower became their standing in the eyes of Jesus, apart from whom this petty bickering would have had no meaning at all, for it all had to do with their relative nearness to him!

So Jesus, with basin and towel and earthenware jug went systematically from one to the next. In this way he gave practical illustration of the truth that “he took on him the form of a servant … he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death” (Phil.2 :7,8). It may even be that in the day of glory there will be a breath-taking repetition of this amazing act of self-humiliation: “He shall gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them” (Lk.12 :37). If so, it will be designed (like Lk.22 :16,18) as an awe-inspiring reminder of the days of his human weakness.

All argument and discord froze on the lips of the disciples—except with Peter, whose mind was soon effervescing with a sense of superiority over the rest; but now in him it was a different kind of pride.

Peter’s protest

These others had evidently so little sense of the fitness of things that they would even allow Jesus to perform this most menial service to each of them! Was their estimate of him as low as that? He, Peter, would show them a better attitude. He at least had a finer sense of propriety, and he proceeded to show it by vigorous protest: “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” (cp. Mt.3 :14). At the same moment, doubtless, he made a rough attempt to take over the basin of water so that he might do this for Jesus instead.

It was the common-place every-day test which comes a thousand times over to the disciple with higher standards and more conscientious service—the temptation to thank God (or to congratulate himself) that he is better than the rest. And this was, and is, the more dangerous sin because the more subtle, and the more difficult to recognize and cope with.

This assertion of his own superior worth was to be Peter’s downfall (and his making again) before the night was out. It has to be thus with every disciple who rejoices in the better qualities of his own discipleship, for if he wait until the Day before facing up to the shattering truth that he has nothing to preen himself about, he has waited too long.

So in reply to Peter’s protestations, Jesus insisted: “You will understand better by and by why I must do this.”

But at this moment Peter saw only one thing—that his pride was being rebuked and he was loth to acknowledge his need of it. “Never, never, till the end of time, shalt thou wash my feet,” he asserted with characteristic vigour. The same kind of double negative had been used by him before: “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never, never be unto thee,” and in that also he was to be proved wrong. (As on every other New Testament occasion when men have used the same over-emphasis: Mt.26 :35; Jn. 11:56 and 20.-25).

“If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” Interpreting the acted parable, this austere saying must surely mean: If no participation in this Breaking of Bread service, then no sharing in the Messianic future. In using this word “part” Jesus spoke, and very soon was to speak again, about inheritance of the Kingdom and about these twelve ruling with him over the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk.22 :30). And this was an aspect of his Messianic work about which Peter was as eager as the rest. So he gave way.

More than that, in a burst of realisation that even more lay behind this symbolic action of Jesus (see Study 185), he now swung with typical Petrine violence to the other extreme: “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” Was it that a sudden flash of mental honesty revealed to him his own true state? Or were the words an expression of his eagerness for any experience that would give him a real and lasting closeness to his Master?

But no, Peter! You have been washed already, in the baptism of your early discipleship, and “he that is bathed all over needeth not save to wash his feet”. It was a winsome and reassuring assertion of the power and authority of Jesus, not only to bring a man out of the old Adam into his New Creation, but also to provide continual cleansing from the renewed and inevitable defilements of daily life, and of his lower nature. Jesus is the purifier of the troubled disciple who finds with mortification and distress that though he wills for Christ’s sake to have done with sin, sin has not yet done with him. Even there the power of Christ can reign. The Son of man has power on earth to forgive these sins also, and he signifies this through the sacrament which he now appointed.

Symbolism

How much of the intensely symbolic meaning behind this humble act of Jesus did the apostles perceive? “Thou shalt know hereafter,” he said to Peter. In the course of the next forty days many things that Jesus had said and done were to be floodlit in their memories with an almost blinding intensity. “When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them” (2 :22). “When Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of him” (12 :16).

Is it significant that Jesus mentioned feet only, and not hands? Perhaps the apostle John, writing in later troubled times of contention against the inroads of Judaism, saw in this a setting aside of any justification by works. Let a man’s walk in life be right, and his works will be acceptable in spite of his sins. “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.” How many truly and fully believe this of their life in Christ, that by their sharing of the Bread and Wine in sincerity and truth they are “clean every whit”? The one who has been “baptized into Christ” has “put on” Christ—in the sight of God he is clothed with the robe of Christ’s righteousness, not with his own (cp. Tit.3 :5). But the inevitable defilements of daily life and the strain of living with one’s inherited Adamic propensities mean a constant need for spiritual renewal and refreshing. It is no accident that the very phrase: “for the remission of sins,” used regarding one’s baptism (Acts 2:38; Mk. 1:4), was used again in the Upper Room and with reference to its renewal of the New Covenant in Christ (Mt.26:28). Nor is it accident that the washing of the disciples’ feet took place even whilst the Last Supper was in progress (cp. the force of Jn.15 :3; Eph.5 :26; Heb. 10:22).

Origen, anxious to justify his own enthusiasm for “allegorizing” the gospels, has this comment: “Let those who refuse to allegorize these and the like passages explain how it is probable that he who out of reverence for Jesus said: ‘Thou shalt never wash my feet’, would have had no part with the Son of God, as if not having his feet washed were a deadly wickedness.” Regarding this example, at least, there can be no argument!

Unclean Judas

With further emphasis, Jesus repeated: “And ye are clean—but not all; for he knew who was betraying him.” These disciples!—these with their quarrelling and their crudities and their dim opaque vision of the Master they claimed to follow—these were clean! (ls.52 :7,11). But not Judas, even though his feet had been washed as clean as Peter’s, for he alone out of all the twelve had now lost faith in Jesus and had become himself “the son of loss.” The essential meaning, then, of this part of the parable is that a man may be diligent in his attendance at the Lord’s Table, but if he does this in a spirit of formality then it does him no good at all, but only harm. There the others are made clean, but not he!

What were Judas’s reactions to these solemn words of his Master? For he alone understood them. But even here the goodness of the Good Shepherd, in doing what he had done just now and in saying what he said, could not reclaim this lost sheep, because the letter’s measure of greatness had become something altogether different-a worldly-wise criterion which makes no sense to the one who truly lives in the presence of Christ, and by which neither Christ nor disciple make sense either.

Now Jesus “took his garments” which he had “laid aside,” precisely as he was very soon to “lay down his life that he might take it again,” thus fulfilling “the commandment received of the Father” (10 :17,18). By and by he was at his place at table once again, reinforcing the more obvious object lesson by simple instruction with repetitious emphasis (v. 12-17) as though to children: “I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet.” In any other man this would ask to be interpreted as inverted humility, one of the most poisonous forms of pride. Only Jesus can say such things and get away with them. “You, then, owe it to one another to wash each other’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”

Time after time the New Testament emphasizes the Christian duty to imitate the humility of Christ (e.g. Rom.15:1-14; I Cor.10 :33; 11:1; Phil.2:4-7; 1 Th. 1:2-7; Eph.5:l,2).

Modern practice?

These words have been inadvisedly appropriated by some to prove either of two opposite conclusions, both of which are wrong. There are those who argue that the Washing of Feet is as much a commandment of Christ as the Breaking of Bread and should therefore be practised whenever the latter is celebrated. There are others who argue that the Breaking of Bread need not be literally observed provided the spirit of the observance is there, because— say they—the similar commandment concerning the Washing of Feet is observed in the spirit and not in the letter. Jesus commanded both; therefore let both be observed in the letter (so it is argued by some) or both in the spirit (by others).

Either way this approach seems reasonable enough. Where is the fallacy?

In a matter of this sort the witness of the early church is valuable. The Breaking of Bread was the very centre and focus of all activity and worship from the earliest days (e.g. Acts 2:42,46), whereas in the rest of the New Testament and for fully three hundred years later there is no single mention of the Washing of Feet as church ritual.

In any case, careful reading of the words of Jesus shows a clear distinction. Concerning one he said: “Observe this practice” (1 Cor.11 :25; the verb is continuous), but concerning the other his word was not: “I have given you a sample, that ye should do what I have done to you”; but: “I have given you a type, that ye should do even as I have done to you” (same word as in Lk. 17:28—another type).

There is also an inspired interpretation available in Peter’s own words, written with pointed allusion to this incident: “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder (Lk.22 :26). Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be girded with humility”, even as Jesus when he girded himself with the towel (1 Pet.5 :5 RV). Here, clearly enough. Peter is intent on the spirit of the observance rather than on the literal washing of feet.

But, if Christ is to be there, the humility of this self-demeaning service must be there also, for—the Lord added with a quiet irony—”the servant is not greater than his lord; neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” But this humility is not a thing to be striven for. The greater the agonizing effort to achieve it, the more it eludes him who strives. In this more than anything it is a matter of quiet imperceptible transformation of the spirit through the influence of Christ himself. In this especially those who live closest to him will gain most from him.

Exhortation and warning

“If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye practise them.” It is a statement of the obvious which needs, nevertheless, to be said and said again, for whatever the willingness to receive this truth in theory, the routine of life in the world gives the lie to it a thousand times a day, so that, except he be aware of it, the outlook and practice of the disciple can become seriously warped and twisted by his constant association with false principles of living. Is there also implied behind the words of Jesus an ominous converse: “If ye know these things, cursed are ye if ye do them not”?

The searing influence of worldly standards of behaviour was brought pointedly home to the disciples with a familiar illustration: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called Benefactors.” The last phrase should probably read (with heavy irony): “they call themselves Benefactors”, and this is even more true to life. Inscriptions on ancient coins bear witness to the literal truth that then, as in every age, dictators sought to camouflage their lust for power behind a facade of eagerness to improve the lot of their people, an eagerness made worse than useless by a desperate anxiety that it be known by all the world.

“But not so ye”, warned Jesus in plain peremptory fashion, “for I—your Lord and Master—am among you as he that serveth.” These words preserved only by Luke (22 :27) clearly imply the act of foot-washing described only by John.

“And (Jesus went on) ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations” (Heb. 2:18; 4:15). This remarkable way of describing his own ministry was not a vote of thanks for sterling support and service through three and a half years-for during that time, it was not they who had borne with Jesus but he who had borne with them. Rather was he emphasizing responsibility because they had been so close to him. “To whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” These men had known Jesus in his humility as none others had. Opportunity came to them as to no others to know and marvel at his self-demeaning. As he had taken on him the form of a servant, so too must they. The same moral imperative lay on them more heavily than on any.

Thus, and only thus, could he “appoint (covenant; v.29) unto them a kingdom, even as the Father had appointed unto him.” The humility which made him obedient even to the death of the cross would highly exalt him and give him the Name which is above every name. If they would share his glory, “eating and drinking at his table in his kingdom, and sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”— as did the son of Barzillai (1 Kgs.2 :7), in reward for loyalty to a rejected king—then their path of glory must lead to the grave—the way of self-denial and humble service, the way of shame and the death of self (2 Cor.1 :7).

^ “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Such is the inevitable cry of every disciple when faced with such exacting standards. The Ideal is so impossible. If only Jesus would make the way more easy! They were twelve silent, shamed, uneasy men who continued supper with Jesus. And ever since, that same supper has been shared by men brought to silence and to shame by the same example and the same word of rebuke.

The Judas prophecy

Jesus returned to the sad theme of betrayal. In more than one place his broken sentences bear witness to the torn state of his emotions:

“I know whom I chose (Lk. 6:12,13), but (there will be betrayal) that the scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth bread with me did lift up his heel against me.”

There are deliberate divergences here from the Septuagint text of Psalm 41. Instead of “loaves”, there is the one Loaf broken in the Lord’s New Passover; and the less usual word for “eat” is the one used sacramentally by Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand (Jn. 6:54,58], when Judas had eaten of his Lord’s miraculous loaves— and began to lose faith (6:64,67-71).

But now Judas was near to the point of no return. Very soon he “lifted up his heel” against his Master. There is here clear allusion to the familiar promise given in Eden (Gen.3 :15) of the Seed of the woman who would bruise the serpent in the head. The picture is that of One who lifts his foot to crush the serpent’s head and who is, in that very act, stung in the heel.

Remarkably, however, the words are used about Judas as though he were the redeemer crushing the serpent’s head. It is a fantastic reversal of truth, and seems to imply that this sick apostle had come to the conclusion that his Master was a false Messiah, and that it was his (Judas’s) duty to fill the part of redeemer of his people, saving them from subtlety and deceit. Had Judas come to share the foul and yet true philosophy of Caiaphas that it was expedient that one man die for the nation so that the whole nation perish not? (Jn. 11:50).

Yet, as the serpent ate the forbidden fruit in Eden (see H.A.W. on Gen.1-4), so Jesus was willing for Judas to share the Bread at that last gathering—and this, apparently, Judas did: “he ate my Loaf with me”.

Warning of this betrayal Jesus now gave enigmatically to the rest, “that, when it come to pass, ye may believe that I am (the one who fulfils this prophecy).” He intended that one of the hardest trials of their faith should ultimately become a superb ground for conviction. The fulfilment of Bible prophecy, then and also now, provides a unique support for sorely-tested loyalty.

Notes: Lk. 22:24-30

24.	Should be accounted. Gk. suggests : who really was the greater. Then was this wrangle between just two of them? Clearly Peter was not recognized as having any priority. Then what of R.C. interpretation of Mt.16:18?
25.	Called benefactors. A heavy irony. Contrast Jesus, called “The Lord our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6).
26.	The younger. In later days this became a kind of technical term for the less prominent executive officers in the early church: Acts5:6;l Jn. 2:13; 1 Pet.5 :5.
	He that is chief; s.w. Heb. 13 :7,17,24. But this respect for elders is to be accorded to the humility of their service: “as he that doth serve.”

Jn.l3:l-18

3.	Into his hands. Contrast 1 Cor.15 :27.
8.	The translation in the text in Farrar’s—a beautifully turned expression.
9.	No part. Normally meras means inheritance.
10.	He that is bathed. Apart from the fact that some of the twelve were, earlier, disciples of John the Baptist, this is the only intimation that the apostles were baptized.
	Wash his feet. Cp. Ps.49:5, and the idea behind Jn. 15:3 RV.

A number of details in connection with this incident are mentioned in such a way as to read like allusions to the priesthood under the law of Moses. It seems possible that Jesus had such an idea in mind and that John has so framed his story as to emphasize the symbolism of the incident. The various points are catalogued here for consideration.

	a.	“Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands . . . .” (v.3). This is Exodus 29:9: “Thou shalt consecrate (mg: fill the hands of) Aaron and his sons….” Also Leviticus 8 :27: “And he (Moses) put all upon Aaron’s hands, and upon his son’s hands. . . .” This was their consecration for the priesthood.
	b.	Jesus “girded himself” : the same word is used of the girding of the high priest (Lev.8 :7 LXX).
	c.	“Not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” Peter had evidently recognized now the further meaning behind this strange action of Jesus, and proceeded characteristically to press for a complete consecration like that of the high priest who was anointed with the sacrificial blood on the tip of his great toe, the thumb of his right hand and the tip of his right ear (Lev.8:24).
	d.	“He that is bathed (as the priests were: Lev.8:6, same word in LXX) needeth not save to wash his feet,” like the priests busy in the tabernacle or temple (Ex.30 :19). The Levitical priest had to wash hands also, to cleanse them from the blood of the sacrifice, but this new priesthood need offer no more sacrifice for sin (Heb.10 :U).
	e.	“After… he had taken his garments . . . .” This divesting of garments and taking them again suggests either Zechariah 3 :4,5, where another Jesus is both type and prophecy of a greater high priest, or else the action of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev.16:23,24).
	f.	“I have left you an example.” The word is really “a type”.
	g.	The high priest had in his bosom the Urim and Thummin by which guilty men were identified by divine decision (e.g. Josh.7:16-19). Is there a counterpart to this in John lying on Jesus’ breast (Jn. 13:25 has the same word as Ex. 28:23,26 LXX, and apparently, a deliberate change from 13:23)? And he elicited from him a pronouncement as to who was the guilty one.
	h.	John 14 continues the idea with its reference to “my Father’s house” (always the sanctuary), and to “abiding places” in it; this must be an allusion to the rooms for the priests on duty, which were an integral part of the sanctuary. “I go to prepare a place for you”, anticipates the double work of Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood without which the believer’s priestly service cannot possibly be acceptable.
	i.	John 17 is the Lord’s high-priestly prayer,
	j.	A remarkable parallel with John 13 and context can be traced in Hebrews 10:21-29:
		v.22:		“Bodies washed with pure water”
		v.23:		“Hold fast the profession of your faith”—cp. the warning: “All will deny me.”
		v.24:		Consider one another to provoke unto good works’—
				“Do as I have done to you.”
		v.24:		“Love and good works’— the Agape: “He loved them unto the end” (see Study 190).
		v.25:		“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together’—
				“Judas went out and it was night.”
		v.26:		“If we sin wilfully … no more sacrifice for sins’—
				“Better for that man that he had never been born.”
		v.29:		“Trodden underfoot the Son of God . . . counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing’— Judas again.
		v.21:		“Having an high priest over the house of God.”
	k.	In Matthew 26 also, Jesus blessing the Bread and Wine exercised the function of the priest blessing the sacrifice (1 Sam. 9:13; Ps. 132:15).
	l.	“I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine. . .” —a priest on duty was not to drink wine (Lev.11 :9). Thus Jesus proclaimed his own priesthood.
	m.	“This is the blood of the new covenant . . . .” Compare Moses and the blood of the first covenant (Ex. 24:8; Heb. 9:18-24; 8:13).
	n.	Note that in Gethsemane the four groups had relative nearness to God-Jesus, me three disciples, the rest of the twelve, and the hostile world outside; then compare the high priest, the ordinary priests, the Levites, and the ordinary people; and also: the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, the Outer Court, and the outside world. (Study 211).
	o.	“Watch with me.” It is the word used in LXX for “keeping the charge” of the sanctuary: e.g. Num. 3:28,31,32.
	p.	“He prayed the third time . . . .” On the Day of Atonement the high priest went three times into the Holy of Holies:
		1.	with incense.
		2.	with the blood of the bullock of his own sacrifice.
		3.	with the blood of the goat for the sins of the people.
	q.	The coat of Jesus, without seam, appears to be carefully described in this way so as to invite comparison with the seamless robe worn by a priest (Jn.19:23).

So it would seem that more than one gospel writer, besides the writer of Hebrews, was quick to see a fulness of “priestly” significance in the actions and work of Jesus as the time of sacrifice drew near.

“Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” Was Luke writing with a pen dipped in irony? They called it Passover, but with their evil intentions it could be no true Feast of the Lord. The true Passover that weekend was the deeply religious rite—“this passover”-which Jesus kept with his disciples (Lk.22:15).

And unleavened bread was to be a pointed reminder to all Israel of the uncorrupt life before God to which the entire nation was called.

But now was the time, so Jesus ominously reminded the twelve (including Judas!) when “the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified” (Mt.26:2RV).

It was with such portentous words that Jesus again prepared the minds of his disciples for what lay ahead. His hour was come, and-fully instructed by the Holy Scriptures—he knew it well, but it is very doubtful whether they did, even though their Master had made persistent efforts (Studies 150,151) to prepare their minds for the faith-shattering events which must soon come to pass.

“The Son of man is being betrayed”, he said. Then, at that very time (so the next verse insists) the chief priests and scribes were meeting unofficially at the high priest’s palace, and not in their normal place of meeting, the Hall of Unhewn Stone. It was a hand-picked assembly. Wracking their evil brains, they conferred how they might remove this troublesome prophet of Galilee. Men like Nicodemus, Gamaliel, Joseph of Arimathea, had not been invited.

Not long before this, Joseph Caiaphas had roughly thrust his point of view at the Sanhedrin. “Ye know nothing at all,” he had said, offensively expressing his dislike of the Pharisee-dominated council which normally gave him little co-operation, “neither do ye consider that it is expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (Jn. 11:49,50).

And now, at last, they had all come round to his point of view. The devastating arguments of Jesus and his withering censure of their hypocrisy had made converts of them all-to the ruthless policy of a scheming high-priest.

Recent events had frightened them. The tumultuous acclamation of Jesus by the Galilean pilgrims, his high-handed assumption of authority in the temple, his easy parrying of their dialectic as though they were so many brash undergraduates, and his blazing white-hot anger at their religious impostures, had made it painfully evident to the most cautious of them that Jerusalem, and indeed all Jewry, must soon make its choice between him and them. Vested interests were in peril. Jesus had hurt their most sensitive spot. So “they sought how they might take him by craft (s.w. Gen.3 :1 Dt.27:24 LXX; ls.53 :4) and put him to death”.

But how? Ah, there’s the rub! A review of past moves against this mild Galilean gave little cause for satisfaction or self-congratulation.

Past efforts against Jesus

There had been a campaign against his cool disregard of the tradition or the elders about Sabbath-observance; yet he had discredited them all and had ruthlessly exposed the utter hypocrisy of their position-and this before the multitudes. A dead loss! (Mk.2 :24 and 3 :2; Jn.5:16and9:16).

A different line of attack showed greater promise, and for a while they had plugged away with dogged pertinacity. ‘Miracles? Yes, of course he works miracles!’ Who would dream of doubting it? But, can’t you see, the explanation’s obvious-he casts out devils because he himself is possessed by the biggest devil of all; he casts out devils by the prince of the devils; isn’t it clear that the man is out of his mind? ‘(Mt.9 :34 and 10 :25 and 12 :24; Jn.7 :20 and 8 :48,52 and 10 :20). But the irresponsible lunatic had turned on them and exposed the flimsy illogicality on which their blasphemy rested, the crowd meanwhile laughing at their discomfiture and marvelling at the deft use of such quick rapier-like mental powers.

It was no good. To meet this man head-on was to invite further trouble. They must work behind his back. So they had begun a nasty whispering campaign about his origins. That would put the brake on the progress of his campaign, for what Jew would find room for a Messiah born of fornication? (Jn.8 :14,16,19,41,46,48; 9 :29). But in reply, this Jesus had dared to return the charge against them, the nation’s holy men. They, and not he, were the false children, disowned and cast out by the God of Abraham, whilst he could assert with confidence his origin not only from a pure and holy woman but also from God Almighty Himself! And, in proof, he challenged them to find one single sin in all his life (Jn.8:33-47).

What could they do against an adversary of such calibre and character? Their resort to physical force ended only in futility and puzzlement. For when they sent the temple guard to arrest him, these police returned empty-handed, inviting their own dismissal with their openly-expressed admiration of him (Jn.7 :45,46). And when they themselves, simulating holy indignation, had taken up stones to batter him to death, he had somehow vanished or hidden, and the chance was gone (Jn. 8:59 and 10 :31,39).

A renewed frontal attack by a guards brigade of Biblical experts had been sent reeling back. Even the cunning attempt to embroil him with the Romans over the ticklish question of tribute to Caesar had been quietly and easily parried, and they had finished up feeling foolish and quite unable to hide their mortification (Mt.22:46).

By this time it was patent to the Pharisee majority in the Sanhedrin and to every priest in the cabal of Annas that this Jesus must go. It was he or they! And if desperate measures were needful to save for them “their place and their nation,” then in the name of God let desperate measures be taken.

But again, what or how? Whatever was done must be done quietly, for the Romans were nervous about the excitability of the Passover crowd, and only a few days ago this most recent pilgrim invasion of Jerusalem had shown an exasperating enthusiasm for this unmessianic Messiah. So, at all costs, not on the feast day. One speaker after another insisted on this—not because it was a feast of the Lord, but for the sake of their own skins! Nor must the thing be done openly with the knowledge of the crowd (yet with what gladness were these evil men soon to leap at an opportunity to be rid of Jesus on the very day of Passover; glad also to use the mob at its worst to force their will concerning him upon a reluctant governor!)

Evil hopes revived

There seemed to be only one ray of hope left to them. They must try to wreck this movement from within. That did not seem to be an altogether hopeless proposition, for already the secret dossiers compiled about the helpers of Jesus had revealed signs of faltering loyalty (Study 94), especially in Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot-“Judas, the one of the twelve” (Mk.14 :10 RV). The expression might imply: the disciple of outstanding ability or of high social standing; or, by anticipation, the evil one amongst them.

Yes, that line of attack offered some promise. They must act quickly. Mark has a sinister conjunction of phrases “they sought how they might put him to death . .. Judas sought how he might betray him”! (14:1,11).

Judas and Satan

That very day a Satan (Lk.22:3), an emissary of these desperate unscrupulous rulers, was empowered to enter into negotiations with Judas right away. This agent found his task easier than he could have believed. On some plausible pretext “he entered in unto Judas” (so Gk: see Notes) perhaps at the home at Bethany. Perhaps, like some of the other Jews of Jerusalem who had gone out to Bethany (Jn.12 :9), he too feigned a consuming eagerness to see Lazarus.

There can be little doubt that the Satan passages in this part of the gospels (Lk. 22:3, 31; Jn.13:2, 27) should all be read with reference to the human enemies of Jesus. With this approach all four places make good sense. The usual “superhuman Satan” interpretation is quite unBiblical.

Weakening loyalty.

The timing of this encounter with Judas could hardly have been better. For a year now (Jn.6 :15,60-71) his convictions regarding Jesus had been becoming more and more unsettled, and in various ways the past week had added bitterness and disillusionment.

At the house in Bethany his virtuous (sic!) protest against the criminal waste of expensive ointment had earned for him blunt rebuke before the others, coupled with a pointed reminder about his Master’s impending burial. Then how could Jesus be the Messiah? A dead Messiah was of no use to anybody. And even Jesus had no right to make him a target of rebuke before the rest (Jn. 12:4-8).

Then, next day, there had come the wide-open opportunity presented by the tumultuous entry into Jerusalem, for all the world as though he were a king taking possession of his capital. Pilate can’t have slept much that night! And yet such a superb chance as this was frittered away in a quiet disapproving tour of the bazaars of Annas in the temple area, Judas meantime gnawing his tongue with vexation (Mk.11:7-11).

The next day in the temple court there had been that parable of the vineyard, so plain that a child could understand it. Here was Jesus representing himself as the Son of the Lord of the vineyard-but a Son to be despised, killed and cast out, whilst the rest were left in possession (Mk.12:6-8). His Master, it would seem, was obsessed with a sense of failure. Then what use all those fine qualities of his if this weakness was to cancel them all out?

The day after that, the faith of Judas had reeled under another blow, and once again it had come from the mouth of a Master he had loved and honoured with the consecration of his own not inconsiderable talent. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Mk.12 :13-17). Did Jesus really mean that? If so, there was an end to all hopes of seeing a Son of David reign in Jerusalem on David’s throne. Here surely Jesus was now going back on his own earlier plainly-expressed Messianic claims. Judas, this company of woolly-minded disciples is no place for a man of shrewd balanced judgment like yourself. Isn’t it time to make a break before the crash of failure involves you along with all the rest?

There was the more need to act with decision because, as the vision of a royal throne in Jerusalem faded, Judas had quietly and systematically re-couped himself by surreptitious embezzlement of the funds entrusted to him (Jn.12 :6 RV). Already he had some of it invested in a useful piece of real estate in Jerusalem (Acts 1 :18). How long could he keep such transactions from the knowledge of his leader and from the prying eyes of his fellow-disciples?

So the contact with the emissary of Caiaphas and Annas came at just the right moment, and without loss of time Judas was closeted with the chief priests and the officers of the temple police. The former of these were, of course, the authors of the strategy to be employed, and the latter directed the tactics of the scheme, for they would need to plan every move down to the last detail.

A sordid bargain

“What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?”, said Judas. This was an excellent opportunity to save himself from the inevitable ruin which must soon overtake the movement. By this act of betrayal he would simultaneously ingratiate himself with the authorities and at the same time usefully feather his own nest a little more. So “he went his way (s.w. Jn.6 :67), and communed” with them (what a fellowship!) how-not whether or why or when —he should betray him (Lk.22:2,4). And these desperate evil men rejoiced (Lk: they were glad) at a much earlier prospect of success than they could have thought possible.

Judas went away from the secret meeting, his purse heavier with thirty pieces of silver. The difficulty associated with this sum of money is often overlooked. It represented in terms of modern English currency (1983) about £1500. When it is considered that the chief priests controlled all the revenue of the temple-millions of pounds a year-this was a very small sum for an avaricious man to ask for supplying such crucial help in an acute problem. It was the price of a mere slave (Ex.21 :32).

Thoughtful readers of the gospels have often osked themselves why Joseph, that impressively full and detailed type of Christ, should have been sold for twenty, and not thirty, pieces of silver (Gen.37 :28 and cp. Lev.27 :4). Is this Scripture’s way of emphasizing that Joseph, although so much like Jesus was not a Jesus?

Regarding this cash payment there is a significant difference of detail between Matthew and Mark. The former passage means that Judas received the money there and then (so the RV; Matthew quotes verbatim the Septuagint version of Zechariah 11 :12, where the meaning is plain enough; see Study 219). Also in Matthew 27 :3 Judas had already received the money. But Mark says the money was promised to him. (Lk: covenanted; s.w. 22 :29).

The obvious explanation is that the thirty pieces of silver were a token payment to show good faith (!), whilst the real wages for the execution of such a nefarious job would be paid when all had gone through successfully. Let the reader put himself in imagination in the place of these men dealing with a traitor, and ask himself: Would I have followed any other course? So it may be confidently surmised that if all had gone according to plan, a second sum of money (ten times as much?) would likewise have changed hands.

Thereupon, “Judas promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude” (Lk.22 :6). This verse calls for re-translation. It must be either “he confessed (faith in their promises)”, or else-the normal meaning in the Septuagint version (Jn.18 :3; Lk.22 :52; Mt.26 :55)-“he thanked them.” Either way there is something tragically pathetic about this exchange of faith in Jesus for confidence in the power and wealth of a group of godless schemers. And the Greek phrasing seems to suggest that Judas was making a condition that Jesus be taken with as little snow of force as possible. It was a condition which they readily accepted, and then as readily went back on.

Thus Judas Iscariot, the man whose surname would sound in Jewish ears as meaning “the man of great preaching” sold his birthright and became instead (as the name might also mean) “the man of cutting off” or “the man of divorcement” (contrast Ps.55:13,14). That agreement with his Master’s enemies was his bill of divorcement.

Notes: Mt. 26:1-5, 14-16

3.	Consulted. Gk. middle voice here is eloquent: not for righteousness’ sake, but for their own selfish interests.
5.	Lest there be an uproar. Not, be it noted, because the occasion was a Feast of the Lord!
14.	Then. The context requires a careful link-up with v.6-13, inserted here to explain Judas’s sudden decision.
15.	Covenanted. RV: weighed; but not literally. This is “the use of an ancient form of speech after the practice had become obsolete,” employed here to make the link with Zech. 11:12 LXX more evident.

Lk. 22:1-6

2.	They feared the people. What a praiseworthy fear! and (v.5) what a righteous gladness!
3.	Entered into Judas. The Greek verb here is identical with that in Luke 19: 7, 45 and 22:10 and 24:3, 29 and many other similar places.
	Being of the number. Literally: out of, suggesting more pointedly the divergence between Judas and the rest.

It is a question on which the highest experts differ. Some are emphatic that the Last Supper was a true Passover meal. Others are just as confident that it was an ordinary supper, taken twenty-four hours before the Passover celebrations. One of these two must be correct.

The compromise suggested by some, that Jesus and the disciples ate the Passover twenty-four hours earlier than normal, simply will not do. The lambs must be slain at the temple (Dt.16 :5,6), and the blood poured out at the base of the altar by a priest-but no priest in Israel would be willing to do this except at the time recognized by the temple authorities, the afternoon of the 14th Nisan. It would have been an outrage against all Jewish sentiment to have asked for the slaying of the lamb before the proper time, or to have killed it privately elsewhere. So this desperate expedient of an explanation must be disallowed.

At first sight, there appears to be strong evidence in the gospels for both of the other points of view. Here is a summary: Evidence that the last Supper was a Passover meal:

(Here, for convenience, the words of Luke’s Gospel are used, but most of the points have parallels in Matthew and Mark):

A.	Luke 22 :7,8: “Then came the day of unleavened bread when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.” The most natural way of reading this is with reference to preparation, on the morning of the 14th,of a Passover meal to be eaten the same evening, the beginning of the 15th-the usual Passover pattern.
B.	v.13: “And they made ready the passover.”
C.	v.15: “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.”
D.	Mention of two cups by Luke (v.17,20) ‘ suggests the ritual Passover, which actually included four.

Evidence that the last Supper took place on thenight before Passover:

a.	John introduces his account with the words: “Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come . . .” (ch.13 ;1); and v.2 continues: “and supper being ready” (not “ended”, as in AV; the Greek participle, and also v.26, both prove AV to be in error here); see Study 184.
b.	John 13 :29: “For some of them thought . . . that Jesus had said unto him (Judas), Buy those things that we have need of against the feast: or that he should give something to the poor.” But immediately after the slaying of the lambs in the temple court, the Passover sabbath began (Lev. 2 3 :6,7); so if this was the Passover celebration, no shops would be open at that time. And the needs of the poor for the feast, would have been dealt with long before.
c.	Joseph of Arimathea “bought fine linen” for the interment of Jesus (Mk.15 :46). This goes along with (b), and is a useful corrective to the claim that the synoptic gospels are solid in their evidence that the Last Supper was a Passover. (See also paragraphs g and h on this).
d.	“For that sabbath (the day after the crucifixion) was an high day” (Jn.19 :31)can only mean that it was the Passover sabbath, in the early hours of which (about 8 p.m.?) the Passover meal was eaten.
e.	The chief priests “went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover” (J n . 1 8 :2 8) . This seems to be decisive enough, unless the suggestion (not too convincing) be accepted that the word “passover” here covers the ensuing celebration which seven days of unleavened bread involved.
f.	“And it (the day of crucifixion) was the preparation of the passover” (Jn.19 :14) ). The word “preparation” was normally used for Friday, as the day on which preparation was made for the sabbath. Edersheim (“Temple/’ p. 188) makes the point that the rabbinic writings never use the name “preparation” for the day preceding the Passover sabbath, but commonly use it as a synonym for Friday. This “preparation”, then, was the Friday preceding an ordinary sabbath which in this year coincided with the Passover sabbath.
g.	Mark 15 :42 and Matthew 27 :62 say the something.
h.	The citation of the foregoing details is hardly necessary, since if Jesus did actually partake of the Passover, then all the irreligious and blasphemous transactions associated with his arrest and interrogation, the convening of the Sanhedrin and his trial, the rousing of the mob and the release of Barabbas, the crucifixion itself and the subsequent deriding of Jesus—all of these took place on the Passover sabbath which should have been given over to holiness and special religious observance.
i.	A different kind of fact which will carry special weight with those who are impressed with the accuracy of Old Testament prophecy: If Jesus did not keep the Passover, then his death on the cross at the ninth hour coincided precisely with the time when the Passover lambs began to be slain in the temple court—”the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” And, further, his resurrection would then be at approximately the same time as the special offering in the temple of another identical lamb along with the wave-sheaf of first fruits barley on the morning after the Passover sabbath (Lev.23 :11,12), for all the world as though the Passover lamb had come to life again and was being re-consecrated to God!
j	For the first three hundred years after the apostles all the early Christian writers who comment on this question say that the Last Supper was not a Jewish Passover. Chrysostom (350-400) was the first to teach that it was. And until the 9th century the church uniformly used leavened bread at the Eucharist. The change to unleavened bread was a Roman Catholic institution.
k.	Jewish tradition preserved in the Talmud says that Jesus died on the 14th Nisan.
l.	If Jesus had actually eaten the Jewish Passover, would not this have provided a powerful argument for the Judaisers in the first century church that Christians should do the same?
m.	The walk of Jesus and the eleven to Gethsemane was an infringement of Exodus 12 :22. It may be argued, of course, that this commandment was regarded as being in abeyance at that time. But would not the Law of Moses be more mandatory upon Jesus than current tradition?
n.	In the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, there is no mention, not even the slightest hint, of the lamb which was the main feature of the Passover meal. Plummer, on the one hand, regards this as decisive. On the other, Jeremias, the chief modern advocate that the Last Supper was a Passover, dismisses this with the observation that “this silence is no longer surprising, when we reflect that Mark 14 :22-24 is a cultic formula, not purporting to give a description of the Last Supper, but recording the constituent elements of the celebrations of the primitive church.” A typical modernist way of evading an uncomfortable fact! And what about the other three records?
o.	It is very clear from John 13 :5 that the group betook themselves to the supper table without any foot-washing taking place first. Because of the high-festival character of the Passover it is very difficult to believe that the disciples would contemplate beginning their Passover meal without prior attention to this detail.

Resolving the “contradiction”

The enigma presented by this assembly of facts has met with several different “solutions”; e.g.

(i)	John, writing last of the four, is quietly trying to correct the chronology of the others. (But this won’t do because items c.g.h. belong to the Synoptics also. Mark, for example, appears not only to contradict John, but also to contradict himself; contrast 14:12ff with 14:26).
(ii)	Errors of fact are to be expected in tk« gospels. They were written many years after the events, memories had become blurred, and in any case the writers were men untrained in the accurate observation and recording of detail. For most readers of this study, who have not so learned Christ, such a solution is utterly unacceptable.
(iii)	One set of facts must be explicable in harmony with the other set. This should be possible. The rest of this study aims at showing that it is possible.

In brief, the case presented by the first set of passages is not as clear-cut as it seems at first, whereas the evidence of the second set is irrefutable: Jesus did not eat the Passover.

A re-examination of A, B, C, D is called for.

The Passover lambs were to be slain “between the two evenings” (Ex.12 :6mg), i.e. in the late afternoon (this is demonstrated by Matthew 14 :15,23—the previous passover!), and eaten, according to custom, soon after sunset. So when the western reader comes to the words: “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John saying, Go and prepare us the passover”, he naturally thinks of this instruction being given in the morning for the preparation of a passover meal which took place later the same evening.

This almost instinctive interpretation overlooks the fact that for the Jew the day of the 14th Nisan, when the lambs were slain in the late afternoon, actually began at sunset on the preceding day (“the evening and the morning were the first day”)

So when the disciples approached Jesus (Mt.26 :17) with the enquiry as to their Passover observance, it was probably on the evening before, in the very first hour of 14th Nisan. It is difficult to imagine that they would take no thought for the keeping of the feast until less than twelve hours before its actual celebration. Indeed, considering the elaborate nature of the preparations to be made, it is remarkable that they did not raise the matter with their Master several days before this. “

It should be understood, then, that it was in the early evening of the Thursday that the disciples went into the city to make arrangements for the keeping of the Passover by Jesus and the twelve some twenty-four hours later. But Jesus and the rest followed them to the house that same evening and there partook of an ordinary supper in the upper room where, in the normal course of things, the Passover would be eaten on the Friday night.

On this view the chronology of the last hours of Jesus works out thus:

The 14th Nisan

6	Peter and John go ahead to make arrangements for a Passover meal.
9	Jesus and the rest follow to the same – room. The last Supper, an ordinary meal, takes place.
12	Arrest in Gethsemane.
3	Illegal trial during the night.
6	Formal condemnation by Sanhedrin. Trial and condemnation by Pilate.
9	Crucifixion.
12
3	Death of Jesus. Slaying of the Passover lambs begins. His burial.
6
9	Passover meal eaten by the nation.

So far as one can tell there is no chronological detail in the gospels which goes against such a reading of the facts. But what of the other evidence?—the mention of two cups, and the words of Jesus: “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer?” These call for separate detailed consideration in a later study (188).

Meantime it is worthwhile to consider why Passover language should be so closely associated with the gospel narrative of the Last Supper.

“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” wrote Paul (1 Cor.5 :7). At a very early time the believers appropriated to the sacrifice of Jesus the language of the Jewish Passover. When all the instances of this are assembled, they become quite impressive.

	a.	“The cup of blessing” (1 Cor. 10 :16) was the name given by the Jews to one of the four cups of wine at the Passover feast,
	b.	“Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat . . . Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?” To the disciples these words meant one thing, but in the mind of Jesus they had a different connotation. For him it was to be the memorial feast of a greater deliverance than that from Egypt. And it is this sense, doubtless, that the author of the gospel meant when he wrote significantly: “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed’—for in retrospect he could see that it not only behoved the Christ to suffer, but to suffer then. No other time was fitting.
	c.	“And when the hour was come” (Lk.22 :14) reads as though with reference to the Jewish Passover, but equally certainly was meant for the hour of the Lord’s tribulation and glory: “The hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify Thee.” A quite superb double entendre!
	d.	Compare also the intensely dramatic force of: “The feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him (the Lamb of God)” (Lk.22 :2). To the student who reads with his eyes open, the gospels abound in delicate touches of this kind—nuances which so easily lose their flavour when one attempts to explain them.
	e.	“This is my body’—compare the Mishna’s reference to the roasted lamb as “the body of the Passover.”
	f.	“He broke it and gave it to the disciples;” the action was very similar to a certain part of the Passover ritual. The Mishna also has the comment: “the poor have not whole cakes, but broken pieces.”
	g.	“Ye do show forth the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor.ll :26) is a clear allusion to Exodus 13 :8: “Thou shalt show thy son in that day . . . “, a part of the Passover ritual called Haggadah, the showing forth. The verbal connection is very marked.
	h.	The sop given to Judas probably came to be compared with the bitter herbs dipped in the sauce and shared by all participants at the Passover table.
	i.	It may be possible to go further and see in the searching of the hearts of the disciples counterpart to the searching of the house for leaven (Ex.12 :19).
	j.	“Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Cor.ll :27,28). The warning is a direct and more searching counterpart to the responsibility laid upon every Jew to be purified for the Passover (Jn.11:55).
	k.	Peter’s allusions in his First Epistle appropriate Passover language in a quite systematic fashion:
		i.	“Redeemed … with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1:19).
		ii.	“Obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ” (v.2; Ex.12 :22).
		iii.	“Not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold” (v.18; with reference to Ex.12 :35).
		iv.	“Gird up the loins of your mind” (v.13) similarly looks back to Ex.12 :11

These four are not the only instances in this chapter.

The words of Jesus appear to be explicit: “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you. . .”, until they are read again with a special emphasis on the word “this”. He was speaking about the New Passover which he was now about to institute, and not the Jewish passover which all the nation was making preparation for.

The words that follow completely establish the truth of this view: “For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

What is it which will be fulfilled in the kingdom of God?—the Passover celebrating deliverance from Egypt by the hand of Moses, or the Passover celebrating deliverance from sin by the hand of Jesus?

What is it which Jesus will himself partake of, again, in the Kingdom?-the roasted lamb of the Passover, or the Bread and Wine symbolic of his own sacrifice? And, in any case, why should Jesus be consumed with eagerness to eat a Jewish Passover with the twelve?

To ask such questions is to answer them. Undoubtedly Jesus was speaking of his new and better Passover.

Note: The next Study, although chronologically displaced, deals with a problem closely related to what has just been discussed.

In the two preceding studies, so many indications have been found suggesting a fulfilment of the whole of this prophecy in the last Jays that it may be worth while to review briefly Ike relevance of a number of the details which have commonly been assumed to have only an A.D.70 fulfilment.

One question which is not easy to resolve is the scope of the fulfilment to be looked for in the present era. There can be little doubt that in its primary reference the prophecy is about events in the Holy Land. Then to what extent is the interpreter justified in generalising any later application to world-wide conditions?

Clearly, this is right regarding such details as “the gospel of the kingdom preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations.” And the fact has to be faced that even though the efforts of those most blessed with Bible Truth are relatively meagre (and not just because of fewness of numbers and smallness of resources), the main aspects of the gospel are going out far and wide through the efforts of Bible Societies and other organizations, especially through the medium of broadcasting.

The modern media also seem to match the Lord’s warning: “When ye hear of wars and rumours (literally: reportings) of wars, see that ye be not troubled.” The efficiency of the newsmen today conspires with modern violence ond lawlessness to make such an exhortation as this, highly necessary everywhere.

Some have also fastened on the Lord’s prophecy of persecution (Mt.24:9,10) as ground for a frightening expectation that in the last days the Lord’s faithful remnant will be put to the test perhaps more ruthlessly than any preceding generation of disciples. Such a conclusion has become almost popular! How true is it?

So far as can be seen this interpretation rests on the two verses referred to and a very idiosyncratic interpretation of a couple of passages in Apocaiypse. is this an adequate foundation for a dogmatic conclusion?

Since the Olivet prophecy, in its primary fulfillment, clearly has specific reference to the Holy Land, isn’t it fairly likely that he same restriction will hold good for the more important application yet to come? And if, as plenty of Scriptures indicate (“The Time of the End” ch.2), there is to be a faithful remnant in Israel in the last days (and signs of their emergence are already traceable), then is it not likely that the persecution foretold will be directed specially against such?—and maybe by their Jewish brethren!

Christ’s word: “the beginning of travail” has special fitness. The rabbis had a phrase: “the birth-pangs of the Messiah,” to describe the troubled prelude to the Messianic kingdom.

“Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.” These words, difficult of application to the era when Roman might imposed Roman peace everywhere, are appropriate enough to the twentieth century, and specially to the Holy Land and the surrounding countries. The last forty years have seen wars enough in that area, and obviously there are more to come.

“Earthquakes, famines, and pestilences” have been known in every era, but never in any age has there been such a massive world-wide combination of these evils as in recent times. Yet it may be that the real fulfilment is yet to be looked for in and around Israel. The “time of trouble such as never was” is still to come (Am.8:8; Zech.l4:4; Is.2:21).

Of special importance here is the warning against a collapse of faith because of the difficulties of the times—many becoming offended, many false teachers leading disciples astray, the love of “the majority” growing cold. The New Israel is to endure much discouragment before it comes to rejoice in the vision of Heavenly Glory. It may be surmised that one trial of faith especially will do a great amount of damage in days to come—so many have been encouraged to hold strongly dogmatic convictions about the sequence of events in the last days (and have even been taught to regard such interpretations as an essential element of the True Faith!), that when events turn out very differently, as they well might, the collapse of faith could be both dramatic and tragic.

It has already been shown (in Study 174) that there is ample evidence in the text for believing that the “abomination of desolation” passage (24:15-22) about the siege of Jerusalem should be read with reference to events yet future. Those who have so ably and devotedly re-built the state of Israel will flee to the mountains, hoping to evade the horrors of invasion. Nevertheless many will suffer the worst horrors of war, and many will be led away captive (Dt.28 :68; ls.19 :18-22; Joel 3 :2ff,19). Will the fugitives in that evil time have to face the rigours of winter? Or may it be that then, as formerly, for the elect’s sake there will be an easing of the severities of the “great distress and wrath upon this people”? And for the elect’s sake will those days be shortened? The saints in Christ may yet have a mighty work to achieve in their “praying for the peace of Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is to be trodden down of the Gentiles once again until the times of the Gentiles (“a time, times, and an half”; Dan.12 :7) have had their literal fulfilment (Zech.U :2; Obad.12,13; Ez: 36 :2; 35 :5).

False teachers

Just as the first century was plagued with false Messiahs and false prophets (Acts 5 :36,37; 8 :10; 21 :38), so also, in a somewhat different sense, the same phenomenon is here in the days before the Lord’s return—one false Christ is modern science showing signs and wonders and leading men off into the wilderness; but also, the charismatic leader influencing more by personality, or by false claims to Holy Spirit power, than by the Word of God; the delusions of nationalist or political aspiration; the false teaching that Christ is here already, invisible yet powerful, and has been for a generation. Plenty of them I

“Behold, I have told you before,” warned Jesus. And Peter and Paul, seeing clearly the need for renewed admonition, repeated it to their converts (2 Pet.3 :17; 1 Th.5 :1,2).

The Lord became even more explicit. Any claim that his coming has already transpired, in some secret or remote place, is to be given no credence—nor any teaching that it will so happen: “Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert (of mount Sinai); go not forth: if they shall say, Behold, he is in the secret chambers (J.W. doctrine); believe it not.”

“As the lightning”

As a corrective to such twisted notions Jesus emphasized the true expectation with the most vigorous simile available: “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Lightning is always vivid, impressive, startling. More than this, it is always readily recognizable for what it is. Its sudden flash, seen from an enormous distance, is anything but secret or obscure.

But why should the Lord describe it as flashing from east to west? In no country of the world is lightning known to have preference for any particular point of the compass. As might be expected, explanation is supplied by the Old Testament. Jesus was not alluding to commonplace natural lightning, but to the lightning of the Lord.

In the early part of his ministry Ezekiel saw the Chariot of the Cherubim—flashing with fire and lightning (1 :4,14)—leave the temple, cross to the mount of Olives on the east of the city, and so disappear heavenward (10 :19; 11 :22,23), When the new temple was revealed to him, he saw the Glory return to the mount of Olives, and so “by the way of the east” into the sanctuary (43 :2-4). “So shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

This interpretation harmonizes excellently with the repeated declarations that when the Lord returns he comes “in the glory of his Father” (Mt.16 :27), “in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24 :30).

Eagles and carcase

But what did the Lord mean by his strange mini-parable: “For wheresoever the carcase is, there will be the eagles (vultures) be gathered together”? The same words are to be found also in Luke 17 in a somewhat different context. A suggested explanation can only be given serious consideration if it fits the context in both places. Nearly every proposed interpretation falls down in the face of this test.

Thus, reference to Jerusalem and the Roman eagles in A.D.70 is clean out of context in bold places.

Another popular interpretation, that here is a figure of the saints being gathered to Christ at his coming must be discarded on the grounds of sheer unseemliness, for it requires that the brd of Glory be equated with a carcase and his saints with an assembly of voracious vultures,

Again, the carcase is Jerusalem, and the vultures are the invaders of the Land in the last days (Heb.l :8; Jer.4 :13). This is better, but still it does not easily fit the context in Matthew, and not at all in Luke.

There is a better alternative.

Jesus was warning against false prophets teaching error concerning his coming. He then continues: If you (my disciples) show yourselves to be spiritually a carcase (as in Rev.3 :1), you will certainly find yourselves the prey of these “vultures,” the false teachers.

So also in Luke 17:

“One shall be taken and the other left.” The question: “Where, Lord?” is commonly taken to mean: “Taken where?” in spite of the plain fact that the Greek text does not say “Whither?” (see notes). But the meaning could just as easily be: “Left where?” Grammatically this has more to recommend it. It is also intrinsically more likely, for is not “Taken where?” a needless question, its answer being, fairly obviously: “Taken to meet their Messiah, of course.” But, “What shall be the fate of those left behind?” is a natural enough question. And to this Jesus gave answer: ‘Those who are spiritually dead will be left to the godless influences where they feel more at home.’ (See “The Last Days,” chs.11, 12).

Notes: Mt.24:23-28

23.	Believe it not. Gk. aorist implies: Don’t give it credence for a moment.
24.	False prophets. Note Dt.13 :3.
25.	I have told you before, as God warned Abraham; Gen. 18 :17.
26.	He is in the secret chambers. Catholics make this claim, regarding “the very Body of Christ” kept in the aumbry in church. Mystics say that he comes to their secret chamber in moments of prayer and contemplation (s.w. Mt.6 :6). Neither of these has the remotest connection with the real Second Coming.
27.	As the lightning. Lightning and thunder are inseparable. So, as might be expected, the seven Thunders of Revelation 10,14 belong to the same time of the Lord’s manifestation in glory. Cp. also Ps.29 : “the voice of the Lord.”
	Shineth. This verb—phaino—always has reference to divine phanerosis; cp. v.30: “appear.”
	The Son of man occurs 8 times in Mt.24,25, to emphasize not his human weakness but his divine right as Messiah; Dan.7:13.
28.	Wheresoever the carcase is. In. Lk.17 :37 this is in answer to the disciples’ question: “Where, Lord?’—not “Whither?”, as the question is usually read. It is true that John uses pou in the sense of “Whither,” but Luke never.

“Immediately, after the tribulation of those days (Mk: in those days, after that tribulation), shall the sun be darkened, and the moon will not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven” (Mt.). Jesus was now becoming more and more explicit about the signs of his return. Luke’s phrase is “signs in the sun, and in the moon and in the stars,” but he goes on to add: “and upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity (s.w. Gen.32 :7; ls.8 :22; Lev.26 :6), the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear and for looking after (s.w. 2 Pet.3 :12-14) those things which are coming on the earth.”

Identification of the “tribulation” alluded to is not exactly easy. If this is a reference back to the earlier part of the prophecy (Mt.24 :9,21), then in the last days the expectant believer is bidden look either for a persecution of a faithful remnant (“Then shall they deliver you up unto tribulation”) or else for a devastation of the state of Israel (“Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be”).

Sun, moon, and stars

With the passing of years there is, rightly, a steadily decreasing enthusiasm for the political and ecclesiastical interpretation of the symbolism of “sun, moon, and stars” which was first propagated by Daubuz, the French Protestant expositor. The idea that “heaven is a figure for political power” has only the flimsiest support in Scripture. There are hardly any passages which help out this figurative interpretation of the “sun”, and none at all for the “moon”. It is high time this unsatisfactory notion were let go, especially since there are so many plain Bible passages which associate these symbols with Israel. For study of the Olivet prophecy, the outstanding one, which is by itself altogether decisive, is Jeremiah 31 :35,36; “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 divideth 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.” Here again, and here only, is the remarkable combination of “sun, moon, and stars” with “sea and waves roaring,” as in Luke 21. Clearly, Jesus was making deliberate allusion to the Jeremiah passage. The one Scripture interprets the other.

An Isaiah passage also is relevant here: “I am the Lord thy God, that divided the sea (i.e. at the Exodus), whose waves roared” (51:15). Thus, “the sea and the waves roaring” suggests another stupendous divine deliverance at a time when His people are at the limit of endurance. The next verse goes on: “I will plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth (i.e. a completely new order), and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.”

Thus the signs given by Jesus call for an essentially Jewish interpretation. Bible prophecy takes account of world politics or other world forces only when they are intimately concerned with Israel. This is a principle never to be lost sight of. (See Notes).

In this prophecy, however, Jesus gives hints of wider scope regarding Israel’s tribulation in the last days: “On the earth distress of nations (Gentiles) with perplexity . . . men’s hearts failing them (men dropping dead) for fear and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth” Whilst the first of these expressions could mean “distress caused by Gentiles in the Land”-and the word “perplexity” has special association with the tribulation of Israel (Lev. 26 :I6; Dt. 28 :22; Is. 5:30; 8:20 LXX) -the final word (oikoumene; here translated ‘earth’) requires wider reference outside Israel. And the figure of roaring waves might suggest the destruction of a civilisation (Jer.51 :55; 50 :42). In some places it is also an expression of irrepressible joy at the powerful presence of the Lord (Ps.96:11-13; 98 :7-9), but is that possible here?

But what did Jesus mean by the portentous expression: “the powers of heaven shall be shaken”? Was he returning yet again to the familiar figure for Israel? Or is the phrase starkly literal, intimating rather frighteningly that the terrifying surge of evil in the world will then be so chaotic and fierce as to be almost beyond the competence of the angels, “the powers of heaven,” to control. When consideration is given to such a mysterious incident as he combined experience of archangels Gabriel and Michael, described in Daniel 10 :12,13, this suggestion is hardly as outlandish as might at first be thought. Even when Michael the chief prince stands up on behalf of God’s people there is nevertheless a time of trouble for Israel such as never was (Dan.12:l).

There is, of course, the possibility of a more literal meaning. Not infrequently Bible figures of speech prove to have a remarkable element of literality about them (e.g. 2 Pet.3 :7,10,12; ls.24 :18). The sophistication of the signs in the sky in this generation has become almost common place; and what further signs are yet to be seen is past the imagination of a layman to conceive. It is known that Russia’s sputniks now orbiting the earth number nearly five hundred. And the amount of hardware put into space by the Americans must be something of the same order. These immense projects (leaving out of consideration such awe-inspiring operations as moon and Mars landings) are clearly intended to be of a grim practical use when the childish rivalries of the super-powers reach detonation point. Then, assuredly, there will be many a literal sign in the heavens; the powers of the heavens will be shaken!

The sign of the Son of man

And at such a time, Jesus assured his disciples in specially impressive terms, “shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven.” These words can only mean a sign portending the personal return of Christ. In “The Last Days,” chapter 9, it has been argued in detail that these words make most sense when taken literally as intimating an extraordinary sign in the sky, seen by all the world. To assume some figurative meaning as, for example, the uprise of the state of Israel, is to strain the language in a most unBiblical fashion. The word “appear” (phaino) in nearly every occurrence describes a vision of divine glory, And, in any case, this “sign of the Son of man” is to be apparent after the other signs have all been witnessed.

At the birth of Jesus there was an unmistakable sign in the sky-the Shekinah Glory of the Lord (Study 9), And, time and again, Jesus assured his disciples that he would return “in the glory of his Father” (Mt.16 :27; 26 :64). indeed there is hardly a Scripture which speaks in any detail about the coming of the Lord which does not employ, in some way or another, the idiom of Ezekiel’s description or the Cherubim of Glory.

Thus, the actual sight of Jesus returning “In power and great glory” will be the sign that his advent is imminent. Some find difficulty in idea of the Son of man being himself the sign, but indeed they ought not; cp. Lk.2:12,34; ls.7 :14; Jn.2 :18,19; Rev. l:7; Num.24 :17; compare also the idea in Ex.3 :12.

To be sure, the astonishing unique spectacle will not be understood by the vast majority of the world’s population. Completely sold on the idea that science can find a naturalistic explanation for everything, they will shrug off this last momentous warning as some new kind of Russian (or American) space device.

However, there are indications in more than one prophecy of the end time that this awe-inspiring return of the Lord will be in a day of supernatural darkness comparable to that which the gospels associate with the day of crucifixion (Mt.27:45; see Notes).

Mourning

An immediate consequence of the appearance of the sign will be that “all tribes of the earth mourn”. If here, as in so many other places, the word “earth” should be replaced by “the Land” (see Notes); then this is the equivalent of Zechariah 12 :10,12: “they shall look upon me (Heb. unto me) whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son . . . And the land shall mourn, every family apart . . .” This is the national repentance of Israel when face to face with their rejected Messiah . . .” all the tribes of the Land will mourn.”

The difficulty in this view is that the passage precedes that which announces Christ’s actual return: “and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Revelation 1 :7 reverses the order of these details: “Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all the tribes of the earth (the Land?) shall wail because of him.” “See” in the sense of mental perception will not do here. The Greek word commonly describes a literal seeing, often of divine glory (cp. also Mt.24 :26,27; 2 Th. 2 :7-10). The close resemblance of this Zechariah passage to Matthew 24 :30 should surely require it to be read as an interpretation. In that case, there is •here a strong indication that the details in Matthew 24 are not always given in precisely the order in which they will transpire. This phenomenon in prophecies of the Last Days is by no means unusual (Zech.14, Ez.38, Rev.19, 20 are familiar examples; see “Revelation”, H.A.W.p.76).

The alternative interpretation disregards any possible alignment with Zechariah 12 and Revelation 1, and gives “all the tribes of the earth” a world-wide reference to a period of universal misery and suffering at the time of the Lord’s coming. This will almost certainly be the case, as Luke 21 :25,26 very ominously requires. So perhaps the distinction between the two views is merely technical. However, where Israel is concerned, Zechariah 12 :10 supplies the special reason—the nation will at last turn in deep self-humiliation to God because in their extremity they will have no-one else to turn to.

“The clouds of heaven”

The picture of “the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven” is taken straight from Daniel 7:14. The only difference of any consequence is that in Daniel the Son of man is brought to the Ancient of Days, i.e. at the Ascension; whereas now the same language is harnessed to describe the Lord’s return in glory from the Ancient of Days.

There is little to recommend the view that the Ancient of Days is Christ, and the Son of man is the saints. None of the frequent New Testament allusions to this passage offers a vestige of support: e.g. Mt. 26 :64; 16 :27; Rev. l :7,13; 14 :14; Acts 7:55; Jn. 3 :13; 5 :27. Mt. 24,25 uses the title “Son of man” no less than eight times.

The phrase “clouds of heaven” is explained by “power and great glory.” There is invariable association of these ideas. When Israel was in the wilderness the Glory of the Lord was seen in the pillar of cloud and fire. The same cloud filled the temple of Solomon at its dedication (1 Kgs.8 :10). Ezekiel saw the Cherubim of Glory in “a great cloud and a fire infolding itself” (1 :4). At the Transfiguration, the Cloud of the Glory moved from Law and Prophets to Christ and the preachers of the Gospel (Lk.9 :34). The same Cloud received Jesus at his ascension (Acts 1 :9), and will be manifest to “the tribes of the earth” when he returns. The concordance suggests some interesting extensions of this idea.

When?

There is a strange paradox in the teaching of Jesus about the time of his coming again. He was most emphatic that “of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mk.). Nevertheless he insisted that his disciples be watchful and prepared, and he thereupon gave emphatic signs by which the epoch might be anticipated.

The Lord’s personal ignorance of the precise time of his coming again is, to say the least, remarkable. One conclusion, of special importance to enthusiasts for computation of prophetic periods, seems inescapable-this finest Bible student of all time, who had himself commended the prophecy of Daniel to the special attention of his disciples (Mt.24 :15), was evidently unable to use his inspired skill on that inspired book to learn when the Last Day would be, and therefore it ill becomes any of his disciples to assume an insight which will outmatch that of the Master in its results. Fuller, a level-headed but unexpectedly humourous Puritan commentator, puts it this way: “In such peremptory particularising of the very years, such as pretend to plough with the heifers of God’s Spirit may be suspected to be drawn away with the wild bulls of their own imaginations” (Pisgah Sight; p.634). It would be well to face the fact honestly that the methods used for the calculation of prophetic periods have been inherited from writers of the apostasy who are all known to be hopelessly astray on a score of basic Bible truths. Then is it likely that such men may be followed with confidence in their speculations regarding abstruse and mysterious prophecies of Scripture? No less than four times in the rest of His Olivet prophecy (Mt.24 :42,44,50; 25 :13) Jesus declared with all possible emphasis: “Ye know neither the day nor the hour.” “It shall be one day (i.e. a day of outstanding importance) which is known unto the Lord” (Zech. 14 :7) — and only to Him—the day when “the Lord my God shall come, and all the holy ones with thee.”

Nevertheless, the scanning of signs of the Lord’s return is not to be neglected. He wished his disciples to be alerted-even though they could not know the precise time-by an eagerness to “discern the signs of the times.”

The fig tree

Foremost among these warnings is the sign of the fig tree:

“Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand” (Lk.). The emphasis here is intended to be put on the fig tree. Matthew and Mark omit “and all the trees.”

The parable of the fig tree in the vineyard (Lk.13 :6-9; Study 131) and the acted parable of the cursing of the fig tree (Mk.11 :12-14; Study 159) both reinforce the meaning of this new fig tree parable. Its springing to life portends the revival of national Israel, a remarkable historical development witnessed by this generation.

Job’s little parable is an eloquent parallel worthy to be set alongside that of his Redeemer: “There is hope of a tree if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground (Mk. 11:20); yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant” (Job 14 :7-9). But as yet (at the time of writing) Israel has hardly caught “the scent of water”. The signs of repentance in the nation are there, but only in meagre fashion.

But in his parable Jesus made no mention of fruit. The resurrection of the state of Israel has been purely political. The Chosen Race is little nearer to faith in God or His Messiah than they were when the dispersion began. Leaves only! But a sign, nevertheless, as specific in character as anyone could wish for.

“Behold the fig tree and all the trees.” This century which has seen Israel re-established has also seen the same kind of remarkable politico! revival, though for vastly different reasons, in the nations which surround Israel. Oil and the rivalries of the super-powers have given the Arab neighbours, ringing Israel, a political consciousness and importance which it was beyond the power of any 19th century student of Bible prophecy to foresee. Thus, today, this shortest of all parables provides in all its details as plain an intimation as could be wished for that “the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.”

“This generation”

How nigh? The Lord’s answer is: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled.” The phrase: “this generation” was designedly ambiguous (e.g. Lk.7 :31), but today it can only mean: “this generation which witnesses the reviving of life in the ‘fig tree.’ When Jesus was foretelling the tribulation of Israel he said explicitly: “All these things shall come on this generation.” Within forty years (as also in Heb.3 :10) all was fully accomplished. Then from what date is this final forty year period to be measured? From 1948? This should provide a definitive terminus ad quern. So even though the Lord’s pronouncement allows of fulfilment before the end the of the generation specified, readers of his words cannot take the warning too seriously: “even at the doors” (Lk.l2:36; Rev.3:20; Jas.5:9).

As though his emphasis was still woefully inadequate, Jesus added: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words (about this coming in glory) shall not pass away.” Was this a hyperbole to drive home his exhortation? Or was it an interpretative allusion to the warning and comfort of Isaiah? : “The heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die like gnats: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished” (51 :6-the entire context regarding Israel is worth careful attention; cp. Jer.31 :35,36).

The days of Noah

The Lord added further signs to be heeded by the faithful remnant alert for his coming: “As it was in the days of Noah . . . as it was in the days of Lot. . .even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Lk.17 :26-30). These comparisons are more strong and exact than the AV “as”, would seem to indicate. Accordingly, the Flood is pointedly used by Peter as a figure of the more horrific destruction by fire which is yet to come (2 Pet.3 :6,7). The same cataclysm provides also a type of the Lord’s faithful in safety-the water which destroyed the wicked was the very means of ensuring the safety of the elect (1 Pet.3 :20,21).

It is surely significant here that Jesus made a distinction between “the day that Noah entered into the ark” and the day when “the flood came and took them all away.” The Genesis narrative (7 :1,10) interposes an interval of one week here. The Almighty’s judgment of an evil generation does not involve the elect. Compare the angel’s words to Lot: “I cannot do anything till thou be come thither” (Gen . 1 9 :22) .

“Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” is the aspect of antediluvian life which Jesus specially reprobated. Not that any of these things is wrong in itself. It is obsession with this materialistic and self-indulgent level of human existence which is to bring the judgment of God on this world of the ungodly. There are four aspects of this spreading corruption which call for special attention.

1. The blurring of the lines of distinction between those marked out as the Lord’s people and those with no such pretensions (Gen.6:2,3).
2. “The earth was filled with violence” (6:11).
3. “The earth was corrupt before Cod” (6 :11), i.e. its religion was entirely apostate.
4. “Every imagination of the thought of man’s heart was only evil continually” (6 :5)-a deliberate wilful dedication to all forms of evil. There is no need for any elaborate demonstration of the close resemblance provided by modern society. The days of Noah and the present year of dis-grace fit each other as a hand fits a glove.
5. “They knew not until the flood came” (Mt.24 :39). But they did know, for they had Noah, a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet. 2:5), and the witness of the building of the ark. So the Lord’s words must mean: ‘they refused to know, they were disobedient'(1 Pet. 3:20).

The days of Lot

And so also with the days of Lot, only here Christ’s stress on the close similarity with the last days is even more emphatic: “after the same manner” (RV). (Note the force of the Greek adverbs: homoios . . . kathos . . . kata to auto; Lk. 17:28, 30).

Again the type in Genesis 19 suggested by these words is instructive: Sodom’s wickedness before God; its particular vice; Lot’s reprobation of the evil; his prayers about it; Abraham’s intercession for the faithful; the mission of angels; their reception with unleavened bread; persecution; few worthy to be brought out; the last warning rejected; instead, mockery; flight to safety as day dawns; destruction held back; a city of refuge provided; “do not look back”; but Lot’s wife did, and shared the fate of the wicked; fire and brimstone as the sun arises.

Again Jesus painted a picture of a civilisation wholly concerned with its materialistic way of life (though apparently the people of Sodom were even further gone in wickedness-they did not bother to “marry or give in marriage”!)

Both positively and negatively Jesus warned against involvement with the world of the ungodly and its materialism: “Remember Lot’s wife … he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away.” The words counsel not so much haste as separateness: “Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord” (ls.52 :11). It is he who is willing to “lose his life (Gk: soul-the natural man; Studies 129,169) who shall preserve it.”

Angels and the elect

Emphasis on God’s protection of the faithful in these typical judgments is not to be missed. Not only in the times of Noah and Lot, but also in the days of Hezekiah and Jeremiah and Daniel, and in A.D. 70. And in all these instances there was first warning, and then judgment.

But how preserved from a devastation comparable to the Flood or to the extinction of Sodom? The Lord’s answer is: “The Son of man shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the one end of heaven to the other” (Mt.). In the New Testament, without exception, the “elect” are the saints in Christ. But other terminology in this passage seems more appropriate to Israel. The “trumpet” suggests the means of rallying the tribes of Israel or a summons calling the elders of the people (Num.10 :2,4,7,10; Lev.23 :24). And the “four winds” is an expression specially associated with Israel (Dt. 4:32; 30:4; Zech.2:6LXX; Ez.37 :9). For these reasons some have interpreted this verse with reference solely to the Jews, the elect nation. However, other New Testament passages appropriate these “Israel” features to the saints, the New Israel of God; e.g. “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first” (1 Th. 4:16). “The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Cor.15 :52). “Four angels . . . holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth . . . till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads” (Rev. 7 :1,4). Also, 2 Thessalonians 2 :1 seems to be a clear allusion to this Olivet prediction: “our gathering together unto him.” Compare also Mt.13:41,49; ls.27:13.

This gathering of the saints is not to be associated with a secret unperceived coming of their Lord, for the words in Mark are quite explicit: “Then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels . . . (13 ;26,27). How is it that this detail has come to be overlooked through so many generations by those who have persuaded themselves otherwise?

There is some difficulty with what follows: “… gather his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven” (13 :27). This last phrase perhaps becomes most intelligible when equated with Paul’s description of saints being “caught away in (Shekinah) clouds, into the air, for the purpose of meeting the Lord (at Jerusalem)” (1 Th.4 :17). But a similar use of Greek prepositions elsewhere (e.g. Acts 8 :10; Heb.8 :11) suggests the idea of a complete gathering of the elect from wherever they are to be found.

But where the meeting with the Lord is to take place will doubtless remain a matter for difference of opinion until it has actually happened. Only Seventh Day Adventists and such argue that it will be in mid-air or in heaven. Some locate it at Mount Sinai, but much more specific Bible evidence points to Jerusalem. (The details are explored in “The Last Days”, chapter 10).

The Lord gave a series of dramatic snapshots of the actual removal of his saints from their normal routine: a woman is snatched away from grinding corn, a man disappears from his ploughing, another leaves his bedfellow and is gone. “One taken, and the other left.” But equally possible is the view that the Lord speaks of two believers, one of whom is willing to respond to the angelic call and the other not. “Remember Lot’s wife” chimes in remarkably well with this idea.

Eagles and carcase

So also does the Lord’s little parable about vultures and carcase. The disciples, intrigued by what Jesus had revealed, asked: “Where, Lord?” The usual assumption that they meant: “Taken where, Lord?” is possible. But this requires that, in the parable, Christ to whom they are taken is represented by the carcase, and the saints by vultures. The mind revolts at the gross unseemliness of such a similitude.

Alternatively, the question could mean: “Left where, Lord?”-with the implication: We know that those taken away are taken to safety, as happened to Lot, but what is the fate of those who are left? The Lord’s answer would now mean: “Those who are spiritually dead, a carcase, are left to the vultures—they share all the evil which the world experiences in that time of turmoil.”

One advantage of this interpretation is that in the completely different context in which the parable was spoken in Matthew (24 :28), a remarkably similar meaning is clearly required. There Jesus had been warning against false prophets. “Wherefore, if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: if they say, Behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not . . .” In this context, the meaning would appear to be : If you show yourselves to be spiritually dead, a carcase, you will surely get these vultures, the false teachers, round you.

Read thus, in both places where Jesus used it, this vigorous gruesome little parable becomes a very grim warning to saints in Christ who are not eager and alert for the coming of their Lord.

Precisely when, in the divine programme, this gathering of believers unto the Lord will take place is not a question to be answered with confidence. But there are four considerations which suggest that this will be after he is enthroned in Jerusalem as King of the Jews:

	a.	“Then shall he send his angels. . . (Mk.13 :27], i.e. after he has been seen coming in power and glory.
	b.	When the judgment of those gathered before him takes place, the king sits on the throne of his glory, i.e. in Jerusalem (Mt.25:31).
	c.	“First that which is natural; then that which is spiritual” (1 Cor.15 :46). If this is a general principle, the issue is settled.
	d.	Revelation 11 :17-19 strongly suggests this sequence:
		i	The reign of Christ established (in Jerusalem).
		ii	The kings of the earth rise up, in vain, against the Messiah.
		iii	The resurrection.
		iv	The rewarding of the saints.
		v	Judgment on an ungodly world.
		vi	A climax of theophany

Notes: Mt.24:29-41

29.	Immediately. Here, unexpectedly, is one “of Mark’s favourite words appropriated by Matthew-and not used in the parallel passage by Mark.
	Sun, moon, stars. Other passages in which Israel is alluded to by this symbolism: Gen.37 :9,10; 15 :5; 22 :17; Amos 8 :8-10; Micah 3 :6; S.of S. 6 :10; ls.24 :23; Jer.33 :20-26; JI.2 :10,30-32; 3 :15; Acts 2 :20; Rev.6 :12; 8:12; 12:1. For details see “The Time of the End” (by H.A.W.), chapter 11. Also ls.13 :10; 34 :4, when properly interpreted.
30.	They shall see. Why the change of pronoun to “ye” in v.33?
	The sign of the Son of man, accompanied by unnatural darkness: Mt.24 :19; Zech.14 :6; JI.2 :2; Zeph.l :15; Am.5 :20; 8 :9; ls.13 :10;5 :30; 24 :23.
	All the tribes of the earth mourn. The N.T. has over 40 examples of this use of the Greek word ge, and LXX has over a thousand, with the meaning “Land”.
	Mourn… see, Gk: kopsontai… opsontai – a designed paronomasia, only possible if Jesus spoke this in Gk. Is theros, thurais – summer, doors (v.32,33) – another example?
31.	Send his angels. This anticipates 28:18 -the authority of Christ in heaven.
32.	The fig tree. Lk: “and all the trees” might be derived from Jl. 1:12. In that case, another allusion to Israel, but in what sense?
33.	It is near. Lk. 21:31 defines “it” as “the kingdom of God.”
34.	This generation. In classical usage genea means “race”, but in the LXX it carries the meaning assigned here.
36.	“If all the Olivet prophecy were an invention (as many moderns say) this verse could not be.”
37.	Coming. The J.W reading of this as an invisible parousia is vetoed by Lk. 17:30: “apocalypsed.”
38.	Marrying and giving in marriage, to ensure a next generation. What a dramatic irony!

The Lord’s solemn warnings—already given concerning the day of his coming, that his servants be prepared-were now reinforced with repeated earnest exhortations on the same theme.

In a vivid mini-parable he pictured an eastern burglar quietly and patiently working away at the cement holding the stones of a house in place. He can do this without detection because the house-holder is away from home, occupied with business or pleasure. After a while the stone is loose and can be pulled away; and then another, and another, so that now there is room for the lithe body of this nefarious rogue to worm his way through. The valuables of the house are now at mercy.

Later the owner returns to the sickening experience of finding money, jewels, treasured ornaments, fine clothes, all spirited away. As every minute reveals the greater extent of the depredations, he mutters angrily to himself: “Fool! you fool! were you not warned that house thieves have been active lately in this locality? Then why did you not stay at home and guard the house?”

Or even if he had been at home, would it have helped if whilst the thief was stealthily making his burglarious entry he had been in bed snoring his head off?

Like a thief

From this parable, and from one or two similar passages, the false inference has often been made that the Lord’s coming will be utterly unperceived by all the world, saints and pagans alike. This view not only ignores Christ’s very plain declarations to the contrary (e.g. Mt.24 :23-27,30), but it also misses the point of the parable-that it is to the unprepared, unwatchful disciple that his Lord comes as a thief. And in every other place in Scripture where this figure is used (Rev.3 :3; 16 :15; 1 Th.5 :2; Lk. 12 :39) the same basic idea dominates the context (“The Time of the End”, chapter 16). This also is the emphasis of Christ’s exhortation: “Therefore become ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh”.

Peter’s response to this warning was: “Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even unto all?” (Lk.12 :41). Since the Master’s parables were more often addressed to the multitude or to Pharisees, he doubted whether this latest example could have special reference to themselves as the Lord’s stewards.

The faithful steward

The Lord’s next parable did not answer Peter’s questions explicitly: “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household?” Anyone bearing special responsibilities of administration and guidance in the Lord’s house needs both qualities. What use is the man who is faithful and yet foolish? What sort of an influence will he exercise who is capable, but with evident lack of dedication to his Master’s work? And that work is, first and last, “to give them their portion of meat in due season.” This is an imitation of the Fatherly care of God Himself: “The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand (cp. the finger of God; Lk.ll :20), and satisfiest the desire of every living thing” (Ps.145 :15,16). This faithful concern is excellently exemplified in Joseph’s care and provision for his own family (Gen.47:12 LXX).

The Lord pronounced a special blessing on those who are thus faithfully and discreetly occupied at the time of his return-and also a special destiny: “He will set him over all that he hath.” What this reward may mean, in practical terms, it is hardly within the powers of such servants to assess in this day of small things. Faith accepts that it will be a great blessedness, even though present imagination cannot conceive what it might be.

The unfaithful steward

The obverse side of the picture was now painted yet more vividly, its warning being the more needful: “But if that servant (the same servant?) say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the men-servants and maidservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; the lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware.”

Here is a hint that Peter’s later warning concerning those who speak with doubt or indifference about the Lord’s return-“Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Pet.3 :4)-are within the ecclesia, and not its critics from outside. Of course, no servant of Christ puts this into so many words, but not a few proclaim it by their attitude. Yet how little such individuals (who dare to treat uncertainty about the time of the Master’s return as equivalent to certainty that he will not return soon) realise that it is themselves who are largely responsible for the delay! “If that hope (of the Lord’s early return) is allowed to perish, it will soon be supplanted by the hope that he will nor come soon” (Plummer).

The scepticism regarding the Lord’s coming is to be manifest alongside another unhappy development-a rough dictarorial attitude towards “fellowservants” (Mt.). To equate this detail of the parable with papal authoritarianism or any other characteristic of the apostasy would be a grievous error, for Jesus was speaking entirely with reference to his own household, and not about those with false pretensions to be such.

However, the word “begin” implies that such a crude ungracious exercise of power will have no time to ripen in the last days, because the Master’s return will interrupt its progress. Perhaps it may be seen as a unique sign of the times that today tendencies of this kind are unexpectedly perceptible in some quarters.

The parable also hints at a trend of another sort: “Eating and drinking with the drunken” (Mt.) suggests the formation of cliques obsessed with and intoxicated by certain shibboleths. The Lord’s faithful remnant have eagerly strained their spiritual sight, peering into outer darkness for signs that he is near, when one of the best signs is within their own community.

Comparable warnings

The first century had a splendid exemplification of these attitudes: “Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come (cp. Lk. 12 :46), I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would, he forbiddeth, and casteth them out of the church” (3Jn 9-10).

It is possible that, when Paul wrote words of good counsel to Titus regarding the qualities to be looked for in an ecclesial leader, both positively and negatively, he had in mind the stewards, both faithful and unworthy, described in the Lord’s parable: “A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not angry, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but given to hospitality” (Tit.1:7,8). Paul seems to have come as near as possible to taking the parable literally!

The self-willed steward of the parable and the details of his fate were apparently created by Jesus out of the warning given by Moses to Israel: “Lest there should be among you a man . . . whose heart turneth away this day from the Lord his God … and it come to pass . . . that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace (“My lord delayeth his coming”; cp. lTh.5 :3), though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst (i.e. to lust after evil, and to indulge that desire with impunity). The Lord will not spare him, but then k anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man . . . And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel” (Dt.29:18-21).

In the parable the fate of the evil servant is similarly described: “He shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites” (Mt.). The verb used here means, literally: “cut Mm in two (Gk: dichotomize!).” It has usually been taken figuratively as a close equivalent to “separate him unto evil.” But it may be that there is a fairly literal intention behind it, for such a pseudo-servant of Christ is really a double personality, a spiritual schizophrenic. Openly, he is dedicated to the service of his Master, but in actuality he seeks the honour and pleasure of a different master-Self. Appropriately, then, in the day of reckoning he is “appointed his portion (Jer.13 :25 LXX) with the hypocrites”, because hypocrite means play-actor, a man who pretends in public to be a character altogether different from what he really is—also with hypocrites because he intended to act the part of a faithful steward in the presence of his returned Master. In Luke (12 :46) the word corresponding to “hypocrites” is “the unfaithful”, to point a contrast with the “faithful and wise steward” whom the Lord appreciates and honours.

Yet another possibility about this “cutting in two” is an allusion to the idea of a covenant. When a covenant was made, why did the contracting parties pass between the pieces of the covenant sacrifice? (Hence the Hebrew expression “to cut a covenant”). Surely the implicit idea was: ‘If I fail to honour this agreement, then may I be cut in two as was this solemn sacrifice!

“Few and many stripes”

Jesus went on to enunciate a principle of graded retribution according to varying degrees of knowledge and responsibility. “And that servant which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not (his fellow-servants), nor (himself) did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.” There is fairness in this even by human standards. A fairly considerable catalogue of Scriptures (see Notes) emphasizes it as a divine principle also, right from the giving of the Law.

Let it be noted that the servant who knows not his Lord’s will is none-the-less reckoned blameworthy, for he could have known it, had he been possessed with any sort of eagerness for it. The very fact that he continues in ignorance argues a lack of concern for the will and honour of his Master. But regarding the one who already knows well what his Lord’s mind is, there is palpably far less excuse. “To whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more (in return)”-and so also the heavenly Master.

Watchfulness and duty

But however well or incompletely men are equipped for the service of Christ, in one respect they are all the same-all know that their absent Master purposes to return one day and judge the quality of their service in his absence. “For it (the time of return) is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch” (Mk.). The last phrase here clearly implies a special responsibility on the shoulders of anyone who is a leader«in an ecclesia.

Never must there be any relaxation of the spirit of wakeful alertness for the Lord’s return, because that awe-ful occasion may happen at any time. No man can ever be in a position to assert with sureness that “the time is not yet.” In what light do the blithe and ingenious computers of prophetic dates appear alongside their Master’s emphatic word: “Ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning” (Mk.). Was Jesus speaking literally about the time of day, or figuratively about the season of the year, or about a time in one’s life, or about an epoch in history? Whichever it is (and he may have been deliberately ambiguous), there is no mistaking the solemn emphasis of his warning: “Watch ye therefore.. lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch.” And there, Peter, you have plain answer to your question: “Unto us, or unto all?” It is to you specially who have the responsibility of leadership, but in almost equal degree it is to all the rest also. Their Lord’s exhortation must surely have brought to the apostles’ minds the familiar temple practice of setting a night watch at no less than twenty-one specific points, and in addition a regular tour of inspection by others to ensure that all the watchmen stayed awake.

The unready

In Luke’s gospel this earnest warning to all is drawn out in a most graphic fashion. There is need for watchfulness not only regarding the signs of his coming but also the signs of one’s own spiritual condition: “Take heed to yourselves (contrast Mt.24 :45), lest at any time your hearts be overcharged (weighed down) with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life.” The first of these reprobated vices describes “the morning after the night before,” the nausea of it. The second is present dissipation. The third is worry about the future (Lk.12 :22). Thus, the evils of life yesterday, today, and tomorrow are wrapped up in one parcel and together pronounced illicit for the faithful and expectant disciple, because preoccupation with any of these things necessarily makes a man unready for his Lord’s coming. To all such, that day inevitably comes “unawares”-“for as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.” This last phrase is very close to Jer.25 :29 LXX; and note also v.27: “Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more.”

Was Jesus laying the vigorous figure of Ecclesiastes under contribution: “For as the birds that are caught in the snare, so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it (the evil time) falleth suddenly upon them” (9 :12)? Or was he directing his disciples to give special heed to the apocalyptic prophecy in Isaiah: “Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon thee, O inhabitant of the earth” (24 :17). This latter is the more probable reference. Its context (in LXX) has also “surfeiting, drunkenness, perplexity, worthy to escape.” (See “The Time of the End”, chapter 20).

“Watch ye therefore, and pray always in order that ye may be accounted worthy to escape (flee from) all these things that shall come to pass (distress of nations with perplexity, men’s hearts failing them for fear; v.25,26).” The comprehensive character of this crisis is emphasized by a repetition which is obscured in translation:

“all them on

all the earth…

all the time pray… to escape

all these things.”

Escape

A plain implication, also, is that escape from these dire troubles will be possible—not through any human contrivance but by the purposeful providence of God. A means of escape and safety was provided for Noah and his family, and for Lot (note how these come together in Lk.17 :26-29), for Rahab also (Josh.6 :17,22), and for the faithful observers of the Passover in Hezekiah’s time (Is. 31 :5); and for the early believers in Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Lk.21:10,21). Clearly this is God’s method. And deliverance, by some means not specified, is promised also for His faithful remnant in the Last Days: “Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity . . .” (ls.26 :20,21; cp. ch.4 and 25 :4).

Rather remarkably, Jesus quoted this passage on an earlier occasion: “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy chamber, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret” (Mt.6 :6). And now, in Luke 21, Jesus insisted that “escape” depends on prayer and watchfulness. So it would seem that, for God’s true servants, the place of safety is the place of prayer.

These who are watchful will be not only “worthy to escape” but also “worthy to stand before the Son of man,” as he was counted worthy to stand before the Ancient of Days (Dan.7 :13). The verb is actually passive in form, and implies: “worthy to be stood (by the angels who gather the elect; Mt.24 :31) before the Son of man.” Here is a further indication of safety through removal to the Lord’s presence at the time of his manifestation.

This use of the word “stand” becomes the more impressive, when it is considered that both Ezekiel (1 :28; 3 :23) and Daniel (8 :17) fell upon their faces in the Divine Presence, and had to be lifted up before Him. “Who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth?” (Mal.3 :2; Ps.130:3; l:3; Eph.6:13).

It is an awe-inspiring climax to a breath-lolling prophecy. The essence of it is watchfulness. Combining the three gospels, it may be seen that no less than six times in the course of his peroration Jesus bade his disciples watch (Mt.24:42, 44; Mk.13:35, 37_; Lk. 21:36; Mt. 25:13 – noneof these coincide): The repetition expresses his intense concern because of foreknowledge of evil times and their debilitating effect on the faith of his servants. Strange that the Lord gave no indication that his sombre warnings are really for a generation coming 2000 years later, and not for those who heard them spoken! See “Revelation” (by H.A.W), p. 259ff.

In this present time, of which Jesus spoke so portentously, watchfulness brings its own immediate reward: “When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.” Jesus was alluding to Psalm 24 :7,9. Note the similarities:

	Luke 21		Psalm 24
25.	The sea and the waves roaring.	2.	The sea and the floods.
36.	Stand before the Son of man.	3.	Stand in his holy place.
28.	Lift up your heads	7, 9.	Lift up your heads,
Mk.13:34	Commanded the porter to watch.		O ye gates (i.e. gate keepers).
28.	Your redemption draweth nigh.	5.	Righteousness from the God of his salvation.
Mt.24 :31	He shall send his angels to gather his elect.	10.	The Lord of hosts.

As the days become more corrupt and violent and frightening, the faithful, bowed down with the burden of an ungodly world (Lk. 13:11 uses the same word about the bent woman in the synagogue), are uplifted in spirit at the imminent prospect of seeing Christ in glory. With outstretched neck (Rom. 8 :19) they look away from all these evils to the coming of the King.

Notes: Mt.24:42-51

47.	Clearly, all rewards will not be the same. Contrast the reward in Lk. 12 :37.
50.	Day… hour. These words look back to v.42RV, 44. See also 25 :13.
	When he looketh not. The idea is: When he is confident that he will not come.
51.	Cut him asunder; s.w. Rom.16 :17; 1 Cor.3 :3. In this way he smote his fellow-servants!
	A portion with the hypocrites. This seems to imply that before the ultimate fate of the rejected there will be first a living exposure of the unworthiness of these unfaithful ones. Cp: “a sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed” (ls.65:20). What a contrast with v.47!
	Gnashing of teeth. Ps.112 :10, and Studies 154,163.

Lk. 12:35-48

	Problem: Why should Luke insert this paragraph here?
42.	Household A remarkable double-meaning word: (a) an act seeking the special favour of God (as in Jl. 2:15; 1:14 LXX); (b) healing the sick! (English: therapy).
47, 48	Lev.4 :3,13,22,27; 27 :8; Num.11 :1 (contrast before the Law was given: Ex.14 :11-14; 15 :24,25; 16 :2-8; 17 17:3-7; Heb.10:26-29) 2Sam.6:7(cf. 1 Sam.6:7-8); Jas.3:lRV; Mt,10:15.

Lk. 21:34-36

35.	Upon all the face of the earth must surely be read with reference to the Land. Else why did Luke not use oikoumene ? The allusions to Is.24 seem to have an “Israel” context. The word for “dwell” supports this; cp. also Jl.2:32.
	Watch. Here, and in Mk.13 :33, our Lord used the much less common word which means “chase sleep away” (Heb.13 :17; Eph.6:18). In other places in this Olivet exhortation “watch” is equivalent to O.T. paqad, act as overseer
	Always RV; at every season. The word here may refer to one of the feasts of the Lord (LXX usage). If so, here is a pointer that the Lord will come at Passover or Pentecost or Day of Atonement or Tabernacles. The first?

This parable and the other two in Matthew 25 that go with it form the logical conclusion to the Olivet Prophecy. That discourse was not intended simply to satisfy the curiosity of some of the apostles, or of more recent disciples, regarding dramatic events in the end of the age. Its main purpose was to impart admonition and exhortation to those specially involved in the events it described. Filling out the knowledge of watchers for the Lord’s return, it imparts greater reality to what is shadowy and unclear, and thus faith is strengthened.

With this aim, Jesus began: “Then (at that time) shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins . . .”. The parable was intended for the special benefit of the generation which sees the Lord’s coming in glory. Its interpretation and application necessarily relate to the call of those who live to see Christ’s return. Thus any equation of the slumbering virgins with those asleep in the grave is vetoed by the very first word.

Perhaps ten virgins are specified because, traditionally, ten is the minimum number for a synagogue. Here, appropriately, it suggests the community of the New Israel. These have “gone forth to meet the Bridegroom” as he comes in a happy company bringing his Bride to the home he has prepared for her. The Bride herself is not mentioned in the parable-for the simple reason that, in a different but related sense, the Ecclesia of Christ is represented by the ten virgins, the main point of the parable being division between wise and foolish. All parables are found to involve some element of unreality or discordance (because they are parables and not the thing itself). Here the fact is easy to perceive. There is then no special difficulty about the interpretation.

All ten believe and know that the Bridegroom will soon be returning. Their going to meet him proclaims that his happiness is theirs also. This is now their chief concern. But five of them are foolish. Outwardly they are indistinguishable from the others—like the tares among the wheat, and the house built on sand standing beside the house built on a rock foundation. But time will tell.

Although the foolish go with lighted lamps, they give no thought to the possibility that they may have mis-estimated the time of the Bridegroom’s coming. So they have with them no reserve supply of oil. The other five, guarding against the shameful possibility of a wedding procession without lights and of the consequent disappointment of the Bridegroom, are careful to carry flasks of oil with them.

It would be a mistake to make any inference from the five and five regarding the ratio of worthy to unworthy in the Day of Judgment. In the parable of the Sower the proportion of unworthy is three in four, in the Talents one in three, in the Pounds one in ten, in the Wedding Garment one in a great many.

The hour grows late; eager expectation and lively talk about the Bridegroom’s coming gradually give place to drowsiness, until at last all of them have abandoned the attempt to stay awake. Making themselves as comfortable as they can, they settle down to sleep. Thus the cry: “Behold the Bridegroom! Come ye forth to meet him,” takes all of them by surprise. In greater or less degree all are unprepared.

As already shown, the slumbering of the virgins cannot answer to the sleep of death. Is it possible to imagine some who have been raised from the dead making frantic efforts to equip themselves adequately to meet their Lord before actually going to his presence?

Rather, this sleep of the virgins implies that, with the best intentions in the world, even the most dedicated of Christ’s servants will be caught unawares by theevent itself (1 Th.5:6,10), No matter how a man may school himself by devoted service and spiritual exercises, his Lord’s coming will suddenly provoke in him a tremendous sense of personal shortcoming and inadequacy. This is bound to be the case with a/I, in spite of every good intention and high aspiration. Such is human nature. The experience of all the ten is that “lamps are going out” (RV). In earlier studies the point has been made, not infrequently, that often in some detail or other the parables lack verisimiltude. Here is a further example. It is difficult to believe that the lamps of all the foolish virgins would be simultaneously on the point of going out just at the time when the warning cry is heard. Yet, when the spiritual significance is considered, nothing could be more accurate. For all who should be ready to meet Christ when he comes, but are not, there is bound to come a moment of intense honest self-awareness (and panic!) as the stark realisation floods into the mind of neglected opportunity and personal unworthiness. Of course this will be true, in some degree, for all, wise and foolish alike; for no man will be in a position to face his Lord in that day preening himself because of his own fine spiritual qualities. But the essential difference between wise and foolish then will be this-that the former will have reserves to fall back on, and the others will not.

No oil!

The interpretation of this “oil in their vessels” (besides what has already burned in their lamps) is not easy. The lit lamp is what makes the virgin acceptable as a member of the wedding party. This suggests that the light of the lamp means personal godliness and spirituality. From one point of view, all suddenly recognize how ill-equipped they are in this respect-lamps going out. But those with a well-balanced faith, based on the patient acquisition of the Bible’s instruction in righteousness (Pr.6 :23), will quickly be able to adjust themselves to this dramatic call to meet their Lord.

On the other hand, nothing is more certain than the panicky reaction in some: “I am not ready to appear before him now, but give me only a little time and I very soon will be.” This, too, is human nature-unregenerate human nature, alas, for only those who believe in salvation by works and in their own ability to make themselves spiritually presentable, would adopt such an attitude. Only those imperfectly schooled in the wholesome principles of Holy Scripture would assume themselves capable of quickly achieving a saving self-reformation.

The foolish ones will instinctively seek the aid of those better equipped than themselves-a natural human reaction-only to find that when the moment of reckoning comes, “no man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him” (Ps.49 :7; cp. 1 Pet.4 :18), for then “every man shall bear his own burden.”

At such a time the only alternative to vigorous self-help is a humble faith-full dependence on the grace of Christ. In the parable-and, alas, in what the parable represents-the foolish ones consider the former of these courses of greater use to them, and with the energetic frenzy of anxious minds they rush off to knock up the proprietor of the village store, and so make good their lack of oil.

It may well be asked: Why did not the wise virgins counsel differently: ‘No oil? Then come with us without it. The Bridegroom is a gracious understanding man. He will forgive you.’ The simple answer is: Foolish virgins do not see the Bridegroom in this light (cp. v.24).

Meantime, the bridal procession draws near, and joined by the five virgins with brightly burning lamps, all go on to the new home and its inaugural festivities, “and the door was shut.” “That door was shut,” wrote Burgon, “which received Aaron after his idolatry, which admitted David after his adultery, which not only did not repel Peter after his three-fold denial, but even delivered its keys to him” (by all means compare also Gen. 7:16).

In a wedding such as this parable describes, would not the Bridegroom have been told that other virgins were on their way? But not so here. It is another instance of the parable not being true to ordinary life.

By and by, then, the others come to the place of the marriage feast. (The worthy always receive attention before the unworthy, Mt.25 :24,41; 13 :48). Feeling that now they have not only got their lamps burning brightly but also have made themselves a trifle more fit for appearance, they knock, begging admission. But now, what use their pathetic lamps in a feast which is already a blaze of light? To claim a place there when they have insulted the Bridegroom with their unpreparedness and non-appearance is an added impertinence. The Bridegroom has no use for them. “Verily I say unto you, I know you not.” It is a mutual ignorance. The Good Shepherd knows his sheep, and is known by them (Jn.10 :14). “Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer . . . for that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord” (Pr.l :28,29).

Thus Jesus added fresh solemnity to his much-repeated warning: “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”

A call and optional response

If there is any kind of fundamental resemblance between this parable and the experiences of disciples witnessing the Lord’s coming, it surely requires that in the Last Day there be some attempt at spiritual refurbishing as counterpart to this last-minute effort to get guttering lamps re-equipped with oil. It may be taken for certain that many, when called by angelic messengers to meet the Lord will wish for more time and further opportunity to spruce themselves up for the day of reckoning. This is the almost automatic reaction of spiritual immaturity. Those who, perhaps unthinkingly, believe in justification by works, will ask for a little more time in which to make themselves spiritually presentable. Yet there is no more fundamental Bible teaching than the principle that human nature cannot upgrade itself.

On the other hand, those who respond immediately to the midnight cry will do so not out of any conviction that they are already fit to share the joy of blessing in the Marriage of the Lamb, but because they have learned the grace and compassion and forgiveness of Christ.

This parable seems to have as an integral part of its message the idea that when the Lord’s disciples receive the call to meet him, there will be no compulsion to obey the call forthwith. Of course, sooner or later it must be obeyed, for “we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” But the implication behind the experience of the foolish virgins seems to be that some will seek deferment of this “conscription”, in the hope that an interval of time, be it ever so short, will provide opportunity for a personal re-dedication to the imitation of Christ, and-in consequence-a better prospect of acceptance by the Judge of all the earth.

In the parable preparedness to meet the Bridegroom meant sharing the wedding rejoicing with him. But the delayed preparation of the others ensured that they were shut out. It would seem likely, then, that similarly, when the parable becomes reality, the waiting disciples will (in general) decide their own destinies by the kind of response they give to the angelic call. In that moment of shock a man will be able to act only according to his own essential character.

This concept has not received the degree of careful consideration which it deserves. The number of Bible passages which speak of the call of the saints to judgment is really quite small, but most of them have this idea explicitly stated, or by implication.

1. Luke 17:28-33: “Just as it was in the days of Lot … even thus shall it be … Remember Lot’s wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” No compulsion, but only direction, was applied by the angels then. And, also, “as it was in the days of Noah …”. Then God said: “Come thou . . . into the ark” (Gen.7:l).
2. Luke 12 :36: “Be ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord . . . that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.” What point is there in the inclusion of this final word unless there be some special blessing associated with prompt response to the call?
3. Luke 21 :36: “Watch ye therefore and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.” Is there here an implication that some disciples will not escape the evils of that time, and will not “stand” (in the sense of Malachi 3 :2)?
4. Matthew 24 :31. It is the elect who are gathered together by the angels “with a great sound of a trumpet.” When only one trumpet was used in the wilderness, it was to summon the princes of Israel, and not the entire congregation (Num.10 :4).
5. 1 Thessalonians 4:17: “And so shall we ever be with the Lord.” There is pointed omission in this passage of the judgment which must necessarily precede everlasting blessedness. Is this because those called away have already sorted themselves out by the response which they give?
6. Psalm 89 :15: “Blessed is the people that knows the trumpet sound: they shall walk, 0 lord, in the light of thy countenance.” the context suggests judgment and the kingdom: “Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne . . . the Holy One of Israel is our king.”
7. Exodus 3 :6: Moses, unworthy and rebellious (4 :14,24), was “afraid to look upon God.” But Moses, faithful and meek and an importunate intercessor for his people, insisted: “I beseech thee, shew me thy glory” (33:18).
8. Matthew 13 :41,49: “The angels sever the wicked from among the just.” At first sight this is a direct contradiction of the many Scriptures which declare Christ to be the Judge. The theme of this study effectively establishes harmony here. (For further details: “The Last Days,” chapter 12.)

In “Nazareth Revisited” (page 173a) R.R. has a speculation on similar lines, but without any Biblical exposition: “There may be an attempt on the part of the self-condemned during the interval between emergence from the grave and appearance at the judgment-seat, to make good their short-coming case. And while so engaged the actual summons to Christ’s presence may arrive to the others assembled (in the parable the sequence is different from this), and those may be accepted, and the others afterwards arrive to find the door of the kingdom closed against unavailing cries of ‘Lord, Lord, open to us’.

Notes: Mt.25:1-13

1.	lamps. Gk: torches. But the mention of oil settles that these must be the usual earthenware lamps.
5.	Slumbered and slept. The Gk. tenses imply: They nodded off, and then slept on.
6.	A cry. The equivalent in this parable of 24:31 and 1 Th. 4:16. By whom is this cry made?—by members of the wedding party going ahead. In the fulfilment, the angels.
9.	Lest there be not enough. The original text is far more emphatic than this AV reading. It has a triple negative.
10.	Went in, the qualifications being that one be “faithful and wise” (24:45).

Jesus brought his long Olivet prophecy to an appropriate conclusion with what is certainly the most detailed picture of the Last Judgment to be found in the Bible. He introduced it with a striking allusion to a vigorous Old Testament prophecy of the Last Days: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory (24 :30), and all the (holy) angels with him …” This is very much like Zechariah 14 :5. Some manuscripts have actually assimilated the word “holy” from Zechariah (“saints, holy ones”).

“Then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations.” This last phrase has been the subject of much misunderstanding. Not infrequently the conclusion has been drawn from this that the ensuing picture is not a judgment of those in Christ, but a tribunal at which the nations of the world are judged on their past treatment of “these my brethren” (often taken to mean the Jews). There are so many difficulties in the way of this interpretation, and so many arguments in support of the obvious alternative—that this is The Judgment at which Christ will call his own servants to account—that no room is left for the idea of a judgment of nations. The pros and cons are worth tabulating.

1. Where else does the Bible speak of nations being judged in the Last Day? Is there a single verse? It looks as though this doctrine is left supported by this solitary text. Does the point need to be emphasized that any teaching based on only one text is probably not taught even by that? An idea which appears to be propounded in one place only in the volumes of Holy Scripture is best left alone. It is almost certainly mistaken. (There are, of course, lots of prophecies about nations being judged in the sense of “punished,” but that is a very different matter.)
2. Judgment on a national footing is humanly incomprehensible. Not a few nations of the world have had practically no contact at all with Jews. How do they come into this? And how can judgment be meted out fairly to nations in the lump, since all kinds of disposition towards Jews (or saints), from one extreme to the other, have been known in the same generation of the same people; e.g. England has known Fascist anti-Semites and Christadelphians in about equal numbers! Then is England to be blessed or cursed for its attitude to the Jews? Or is the decisive factor to be national policy? In that case a nation may find itself wonderfully blessed (or cursed) because of decisions taken round a table by a handful of politicians for the usual political motives and not at all for humanitarian or spiritual reasons. Very strange!
3. The basis of acceptance in this judgment is the kind of life only possible in individuals -food and drink to the needy, helping the sick, giving hospitality, visiting those in prison.
4. The rejection intimated here (v.41-45) has no element of anti-Jewish feeling behind it (or anti-anything). The reason given is sheer neglect of simple duty to others.
5. “Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (v.34). Is it possible to apply such language to any unregenerate nation in the world? It belongs only to those chosen in Christ before the world began (Eph.l :4). This consideration, by itself, would appear to settle the question. But there are plenty more reasons.
6. “When saw we thee hungry, thirsty, sick, in prison, and did not minister unto thee?” These are the words of people conscious of having lived lives of “Christian service.” Godless, or even godly, nations of the world could hardly speak of themselves in this fashion.
7. “These my brethren” requires that those alluded to be actually present. The most obvious reference is to those already approved and set at the Lord’s right hand. And gospel usage is emphatic that “his brethren” (Jn.l :11; 7:3), and “my brethren” are his disciples (Mt.l2:49,50; 28 :10;Jn.20:17).
8. All the associated parables-the faithful and unfaithful stewards, the wise and foolish virgins, the talents—have a strong emphasis on personal responsibility to Christ. Is it possible that Jesus switched suddenly to a very different theme? Is it not much more likely that this Last Judgment is an extension of the parables just mentioned?
9. The Greek text of verse 32 pointedly indicates emphasis on individuals rather than nations. (Details in “The Time of the End,” chapter 17). The grammatical technicalities, hardly suitable for inclusion here, are obvious enough to any reader of the Greek New Testament.
10. This parable of sheep and goats is very clearly borrowed from Ez.34 :17,20, a prophecy which is about unworthy treatment of Israelites by Israelites. It is easy to see how Jesus has adapted this for a similar picture of attitudes in the New Israel of God. But it is not at all easy to see why it should suddenly refer to the treatment of Jews by Gentiles.
11. The expression: “all nations” (or “all the Gentiles”-same phrase) is not infrequently used in the Bible for “those who are called out of all nations.” A specially good example is ls.25 :7: “And he will destroy in this mountain (mount Zion, where Christ sits on the throne of his glory) the face of the covering that is cast over all people,, and the vail that is spread over all nations.” The next verse shows very clearly that saints out of all nations are meant, for it is for them that the Lord “will swallow up death in victory.” In 1 Corinthians 15 :54 there is Paul’s authority for this interpretation. Other examples: Gal.3 :8; Rom.4 :17,18; 15 :11; Acts 15 :17; Ps.9 :17 (Heb.) and especially Mt.28 :19, where the phrasing in the Greek text follows exactly the same pattern as in 25 :32.

With such reasons in its favour, the reference of this concluding section of the Olivet prophecy to the day when Christ judges his saints appears to be well founded.

A Gospel of Judgment

Teaching concerning Judgment is much more strongly emphasized in Matthew’s gospel than in any of the others. There is the separation of wheat from chaff, and of the sincere from the hypocrites, of wise and foolish builders, wheat and tares, good fish and bad, profitable and unprofitable servants (3:12; 6:2,5,16; 7 :24-27; 13 :30,48,49; 25:14-30), and now sheep and goats. There are also parables of this character—the unmerciful servant, the labourers, in the vineyard, the wicked husbandmen, the wedding garment, the faithful and unfaithful servants, and the wise and foolish virgins (18:23-34; 20:1-16; 21:33-41; 22:1-14; 24:45-51; 25:1-13).

When the judgment takes place, Christ sits “on the throne of his glory.” This looks back to Ezekiel’s description of the glorious throne of God (1 :26-28). Christ’s coming is “in the glory of his Father”(Mt.l6:27).

This throne of glory will be, unquestionably, in Jerusalem (Lk.l :32). In the parable of the pounds, it is when the nobleman has “received the kingdom” that he calls together his servants so that they may give account of their service. And since a large number of Scriptures indicate that the saints will receive their blessing of immortality in Jerusalem (see Notes), there is good reason for believing that they will be judged there.

The process of judgment

The figure of a shepherd separating sheep and goats tells all that it is necessary to know about the actual process of judgment. A good shepherd can distinguish sheep from goats at a glance. No need for prolonged scrutiny. The shepherd knows at once and without any possibility of a mistake which is a sheep and which is a goat. Indeed, as the passage under consideration goes on to suggest, both sheep and goats are readily recognizable by their voices! In the face of these considerations all the surmises about a Judgment lasting 40 (or 75) years are shown to be mere guesses.

Those on the right hand are greeted as “ye blessed of my Father,” because now they experience the supreme blessing of knowing sin put away for ever. This specialised meaning of the word “bless” is not uncommon in the Bible. In this way it is specially associated with God’s promises to Abraham (Gen.22:18; Acts 3:25,26; Gal.3:8,9).

The invitation to “inherit the kingdom” contrasts splendidly with the rich young ruler who thought to “inherit eternal life” through the keeping of commandments. These inherit because they are “children of God . . . heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ” (Rom.8 :16,17); “suffering with him, they are glorified together with him.”

Acts of kindness?

The simply phrased but telling examples of Christian piety in action can easily be read mistakenly as a declaration that humanitarianism is the highest virtue and that this in itself qualifies for everlasting blessedness. “An eternal kingdom in return for such insignificant acts of kindness!” is the comment of one misguided writer. Such a point of view exalts the second commandment above the first. It can only be sustained by setting aside the massive teaching of both Old and New testaments regarding justification by faith. The examples given here are necessarily practical because it is practical expressions of faith such as these which are capable of being appreciated by those who are rejected. That there is here no justification by works is readily seen from the fact that these who are praised for their acts of sympathy and unselfishness are apparently unaware of having done anything of any consequence: “When saw we thee. . .?” -a remarkable contrast with the contributor to Parity who signs himself: “Inasmuch.”

Christ and his brethren

In many a place the gospels emphasize the way in which the suffering or difficulties of others moved the deep compassion of Jesus, but amongst them all is there any more telling than this? When any humble disciple suffers from longer or thirst or nakedness or hardship, Jesus himself hungers and is thirsty and shares the pangs of suffering. When the disciple is sick, so also is Jesus. When persecution and imprisonment fall on the faithful, Jesus also is afflicted and behind bars.

Scripture has many examples of this identification which is true fellowship. “God had mercy on him,” wrote Paul about Epaphroditus, “and on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon arrow.” When Samson prayed: “Let me die with the Philistines” (Jud.16 :30), he was at last perfectly identifying himself with the cause of his oppressed people, and not at all with the Philistine foes. “Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” sums up the highest happiness of the faithful servant (Mt.25 :23).

There are also examples in plenty of the spirit which proudly holds itself aloof. “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not as other men.” The same self-righteous Pharisees (Lk.18 :11) “sit in Moses’ seat. . . they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers” (Mt.23 :2-4).

But Jesus, the Lord of glory, not only shares the burden and yoke of his humble followers (Mt. 11:28-30), but also in the day of his kingdom he delights to acknowledge them as his brethren: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one (one Father? or one nature?): for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb.2 :11). “Go tell my brethren,” he said, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (Jn.20 :17). And in the “great congregation” at the Last Judgment “I will declare thy name unto my brethren” (Ps.22 :22).

It is specially noteworthy that in these words of approbation at the Judgment, the Lord will not say: “Ye did it to me also.” But absolutely: “Ye did it unto me.” And especially when “the least of these my brethren” are seen to be not socially but spiritually the least, faith becomes the motive power in such a manifestation of true Christian spirit. Accordingly, good fellowship with humble unattractive fellow-disciples is called faith by the apostle James: “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the lord of glory with respect of persons …”(2:1).

The contrasting picture of the rejected is all the more stark because of point for point correspondence with the blessed:

Then shall the King say unto them	Then shall he say also to them
on his right hand …	on the left hand…
Come, ye blessed of my Father,	Depart from me, ye cursed,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you	(depart) unto fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
from the foundation of the world.	(fire) which is eternal.

The devil and his angels

The “everlasting fire” spoken of here presents no difficulty to those who have already recognized the idiom of Gehenna destruction which Jesus not infrequently made use of. This is total destruction, and for ever (cp. Mt.13 :42; Mk.9:43-49).

But who are “the devil and his angels”? Two possible meanings present themselves. The very closeness of the parallelism just tabulated suggests that just as the blessing of the kingdom is “prepared for you”, i.e. the worthy, so also the eternal retribution is “prepared for the devil and his angels”, i.e. the unworthy. They are called this because although nominally Christ’s, they have been dedicated to an ecclesia of evil.

Alternatively, this may be read as an anticipation of the vigorous symbolism of the Book of Revelation-the Beast and the False Prophet are both cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone! (19 :20); “the dragon fought, and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven” (that is, within the scope of God’s purpose, the heavenly tabernacle). This opens up the possibility that the Lord’s condemnation of the unworthy will sentence them to share the fate of the ungodly world in the same way that Lot’s wife was involved in the fate of Sodom. There is something inherently fitting about this-that those who, though in Christ, have been worldly in spirit, should share the holocaust of tribulation which the world will experience at that time. The destiny of the foolish virgins, shut out of the wedding feast (Mt.25 :10), and of the man without a wedding garment consigned to weeping and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness, both suggest the same idea.

What punishment?

Perhaps there is the same implication behind the final censure: “these shall go away into everlasting punishment.” It is doubtful whether the word here translated “punishment” is appropriate to describe the nothingness of eternal oblivion, which indeed many of the godless today deem to be no punishment at all. It may be that the “punishment of the (millennial) age” will actually consist of further mortal existence which not only experiences the dire troubles of the chaos which begets a new world but also involves living on for a while into the blessed peace and loveliness of Messiah’s kingdom. What better punishment to fit the crime of doing despite to the gospel of the kingdom of God? Then, truly, “a sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed” (Is.65 :20) and positively pitied instead of being congratulated on his longevity.

The self-vindication of the rejected is a concentrated essence of self-righteousness: “Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?” It has been well said that “the righteous in their answer dwell on each particular, in each respect finding themselves wanting, whereas the unrighteous in their reply, pass over all these neglected duties in a more summary, self-confident way.” This is king Saul’s self-justification when he was discarded: “I have performed the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 15 :13). And in Christ’s earlier picture of the Last Judgment: “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” Assuredly in that day there will be small encouragement for any who would depend on their own achievements.

Jesus turned abruptly from this sad prospect to the happiness of others: “the righteous shall go into life eternal.” What a conclusion for his great prophecy!

Notes: Mt. 25:31-46.

31.	Immortality at Jerusalem: ls.25 :7,8; 4:2,3; Ps.133; 87:5,6; 102:18-21; Joel 2 :28,32;Mt.27:52,53.
33.	Set the sheep; s.w. Lk.21 :36.
40.	Ye have done it unto me. For further emphatic development of this theme, consider: Mt.10 :40-42; 18 :5; Jn.13 :20; Acts 9:4; Heb.6 :6,10; Pr.19 :17; 1 Cor.8 :12.

From warning his disciples Jesus turned to the Pharisees, still present in the crowd round him, and unleashed the full force of his invective against their pseudo-godliness. Some interpreters suggest that this trenchant series of Woes was spoken in quiet sadness or as a solemn judicial verdict and not in scarce pent-up anger; but such attempts to water down the hot indignation of the Son of God are not very successful. The language is too powerful. Searing and savage in its imagery and caricature, it moves on like the surge of an Atlantic roller, to a climax which no reader can interpret as sorrow or gentle reproach: “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell!”

These men, deemed to be the spiritual elite of the nation, were drunk with power and prestige. And in their determination to hold on to the fence and reputation they had acquired, fey were ready to harness any methods of unscrupulous corruption of the law of God, even if this meant deliberately blinding or misdirecting the mass of the nation to such an extent that a true approach to the God of their fathers became almost impossible.

There was no saving these men from themselves. They were past redemption. Underneath their outward trappings of religiosity was a tough core of evil which nothing could change. Instead of a repentant response to the appeal of Jesus there was only consolidated self-justification and a smouldering dislike for One whom they knew to be far above themselves in ability and character alike.

So the blistering exposure which Jesus had already begun, he now continued to their faces with all the biting scorn of an Old Testament prophet. Just as Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard had been followed by seven Woes (5 :8—6 :5), so now with Jesus. The first three Woes describe the Pharisees’ teaching, the last three their religious character, whilst the fourth partakes of both.

The Lord’s purpose in pronouncing these Woes is not difficult to discern. It was necessary that in the days ahead the minds of the apostles should be insulated against the domineering influence of these powerful and unscrupulous men. The twelve would never forget this awesome experience of their Lord’s hot indignation.

But neither did the Pharisees! That day Jesus sealed his own fate. The Good Shepherd was giving his life for the sheep (Pr.30 :11-14).

Hypocrites

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, playactors!” That, precisely, is what they were—men hiding their true characters and personalities from view, and with self-interest and skill presenting themselves before the nation in a role of let’s pretend.

“Ye lock up the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces,” using “the key of knowledge” (Lk. 11 :52) for an utterly wrong purpose.

“Ye compass sea and land (nothing was too much trouble) to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him two-fold more the child of hell than yourselves.”

What a contrast with Elijah whom they pretended to venerate so much! His influence begat in his disciple a consuming ambition to be two-fold more a child of heaven than his master: “I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me”(2Kgs.2:9).

Since this word “proselyte” normally signified a Gentile convert to Judaism, Jesus probably meant that when brought into close contact with Pharisee hypocrisy the new-made disciple was sure to react strongly against it into a confirmed heathenism. But it may be that Jesus had in mind the conversion of a Jew to extreme Pharisaism, though this is hardly likely, for this exclusive fraternity—Josephus says they numbered only six thousand—cherished its esoteric character.

False oaths

Examples of Pharisaic casuistry now poured in caustic exposure from the lips of Jesus. “Ye blind guides which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple (the inner sanctuary), it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple (the incense altar or the mercy-seat) he is bound by his oath.” How Ps.11 :4 condemned them in this: “The Lord is in his holy temple … his eyes behold, his eyelids try the children of men.”

A strange situation, truly, when men of God had become incapable of seeing that any affirmation, whether sworn nor not, must mean what it says. And that certain oaths be binding and others not was surely the quintessence of deceitfulness. But these men were so much given to equivocation and sophistry that in large degree they had lost the power to recognize the falsity of their own conclusions. It was a blindness which defeated the miraculous healing power of Christ. Let a man swear to an undertaking by the altar of burnt offering, and he could thereafter behave as though no word of promise had passed his lips. But if instead he swore by the sacrifice being consumed on the altar, then his commitment was solemnly binding. As though their righteousness, represented by the sacrifice, could impart greater sanctity to the altar of God than it already had! “It shall be an altar most holy,” God had expressly declared to His people (Ex.29 :37).

“It is grievous enough that people should be encouraged to think that there are two kinds of truth, one of which is important and the other not—that which is sworn to, and that which is stated without an oath. That leads men to think that, unless they take an oath, they may tell lies with little or no blame. But to tell men that, even when they have sworn, they are not bound to tell the truth or abide by their promise, unless the oath is taken in a particular way, is far worse, and far more destructive of men’s sense of honour and love of truthfulness.” So comments Plummer.

In any case, could these clever men not see that both altar and sacrifice were inanimate witnesses, of no value at all to the strengthening of an oath? Could they not see that all solemn affirmations had God for their witness, the One whose presence sanctified temple and altar and offering? Were they short-sighted or wilfully blind?

No wonder Jesus four times called them “blind guides” (v. 16,17,24,26). It was evidently common to call these men “guides of the blind” (Rom.2 :19). But in truth it was the blind leading the blind (Mt.15 :14). No wonder, then, that Jesus called them “fools” for thinking that they could deceive God.

Tithes

It was just the same in other aspects of religious duty. The Law bade the faithful Israelite pay tithe of the increase of the field and of his flocks and herds (Dt.U :22,23). With characteristic ostentation the Pharisee took this to the absurd limit of even measuring out one tenth of the pot herbs grown in a corner of his kitchen garden. The Lord had no censure for this in itself: “These things (the paying of tithes) it was necessary for you to do (under the Law of Moses), and not to leave the other undone.” But Jesus did not here counsel tithing of garden herbs, surely. Were these not specifically excluded by Dt.U :22,23? (But note Lk.18 :12: “all”!). How could men with such a lack of sense of proportion pose as leaders and teachers of the nation?

In his exposure of this lop-sided posture the Lord harnessed Micah’s great diatribe against the same false religious spirit in Hezekiah’s time: “Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil (the meal offering? Lev.2 :2) . . . He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Mic.6 :7,8). The bitter reproof matched these words, phrase for phrase. “Judgment, mercy, and faith (Lk._: the love of God).”

But these Pharisees were more interested in the punctilios of outward observance than in the life of the spirit. They spoke another language, lived a different life, belonged to another world from that of Jesus. This showed at every turn.

Gnat and camel, cup and platter

“Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.” The more familiar “strain at a gnat” came in as a misprint in the 1611 edition of the King James Version. Jesus was probably alluding to another prophetic reprobation in Amos 6:6 (LXX): “which drink strained wine…”

Here, then, is a biting caricature of Pharisaic attitude. This pious fraud is pictured as taking his concern for purity so far that he sieves his drink through muslin to eliminate the tiny midge which has fallen in. Yet he is all indifference to the great hairy camel which flops past his filter into his cup, thence to be gulped down with sublime unconcern for its hair and dirt and fleas and ritual uncleanness (Lev. 11 :3,21).

The picture is as grotesque as Toad of Toad Hall, yet marvellously true to the spiritual facts. With a change of figure Jesus continued his withering denunciation:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.” This fool of a Pharisee is now seen carefully wiping and polishing with pietistic zeal the outside of the vessels on his meal table, whilst all the time blithely indifferent to the stinking inedible mess which they contain—extortion and excess! Classically this last word described the man who drank his wine unmixed with water so as to get drunk the sooner. As though it is more right to be concerned about the superficial look of things than about their essential character and how they are gotten!

The Lord had used the same sharpness of speech on an earlier occasion when bidden too meal at a Pharisee’s house (Lk.ll :38,39;cp, Mk.7 :4). His language then implied that this particular obsession was a new development in their concentration on religious trivialities. “Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms (instead of practising extortion) … and behold, all things are clean unto you” (Lk. 11:41) – by which he surely meant: ‘Give your meal to the poor, and then whatever you find for yourself God will sanctify, whether scrupulously cleansed or not.’ When would these men get their priorities right? “Behold, thou desires! truth in the inward parts (that which is within): and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom” (Ps.51 :6).

Whited sepulchres

The imagery of Christ’s hyperbole moved from the grotesque to the ghoulish: “Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and all uncleanness.”

A month before Passover all the caves in the vicinity of Jerusalem which had been used for burial were white-washed so that pilgrims going to the feast would know to avoid defilement through inadvertent contact with them |Num. 19 :16). The simile could hardly be more apt. Like these tombs, the Pharisees were ostentatious in their dedication to holy things, but it was a beauty which was only skin-deep. They were charnel houses, not temples. Within was only a ghastly collection of dry bones (the prophet’s figure for a cast-off people; Ez.37:1 -11) – all the defiling corruption of decay with the smell of death upon it.

Men, looking on the outward appearance, reverenced these impostors for their assumed holiness, but the Lord looked on the heart (1 Sam.16:7): “Ye outwardly appear righteous unto men’—the Shekinah Glory of hypocrisy! This Greek word phaino, in every other place, refers to the Glory of God (Study 13). Here it served to put a keener edge to the Lord’s irony. “But within (Jesus went on) ye are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (cp. 1 Sam.l6:7b). That last word was a specially keen thrust, for the whole life of these Pharisees was directed towards keeping the Law, down to the very smallest detail. Yet, in fact, they had utterly lost the spirit of it.

In his earlier tirade against them, Jesus had used this figure with a different emphasis; “Ye ore as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them” (Lk. 11:44). For all their holy posturing, they were an unclean influence, for they corrupted the godliness and sincerity of all amongst whom they lived, and that very often without people being aware of the defilement.

The lawyers, those hair-splitting specialists in the interpretation of fine points of the Law of Moses in its application to the everyday business of life, very rightly took Christ’s onslaught as involving themselves, and they protested: “Teacher, thus saying thou revilest us also” (a strong word, this, in all its usages).

An angry Christ

But Jesus would not retract a single word. He turned on them too: “Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.” Their entire effort was directed to loading burdens of religious duty on to the backs of others. What a contrast with the easy yoke and light burden of Christ (Mt. 11:29,20).

But the “burden of the lord” against this generation of hypocrites was crushing in its weight and power. “Ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous”. An elegant tomb, said to be that of Jeremiah, was almost in sight, down there in the Kidron valley. “And ye say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.” Plenty of zeal for the tombs of holy men—but you have more use for them dead than alive! And remember that the men who treated them so vilely were your fathers. You have inherited the same traits, only worse! And now you plan to slay a greater prophet than any that your fathers persecuted!

“The wrath of the Lamb” (Mk.3 :5; Rev.6 :16) moved on to a mighty crescendo of denunciation: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. (Ex.20:5; 1 Th.2 :16). Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Every phrase of this intense concentration of white-hot indignation had its origin in the Old Testament. Even in his most impassioned moments, this Son of God thought instinctively in terms of his Father’s earlier revelation of truth.

They were the seed of the serpent which wrought such damage in Eden, now destined to share the fate of the serpent which the curse of Genesis 3 :15 foretold. (Cp. Ps.140:3, and indeed most of the psalm). In their attempt to destroy the Seed of the woman, they would find themselves “crushed in the head.” And “the judgment of Gehenna” was similarly foretold for disobedient Israel, “a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith … for a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the Land with her increase” (Dt.32 :20,22).

In the days of Abraham the promised inheritance of the Land was held back for four hundred years because “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (Gen.15 :16). But now, worse in the sight of God than those God-less brutalized Canaanites, these adversaries of the Lord would fill up the measure of their iniquity in a tenth of the time. Then, with fire and sword, they would be cast out as were their predecessors. Their obdurate hostility to the gospel of Christ would ensure this.

Persecution foretold

“Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles (and wise men and scribes; Mt.23 :34), and some of them ye shall slay and persecute.”

By these words Jesus appointed the prophets and leaders and inspired writers of the early church as the spiritual successors of the long line of prophetic witnesses through all human history (cp. 1 Pet.l : 10-12). And the triple repetition of the word “blood” foretold that their work also would often be at the cost of their own lives.

The comment Jesus appended here is remarkable: “so that (Lk.: in order that] the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required (Gen.42 :22) of this generation.”

There seems to be here the bewildering implication that God, with patience exhausted, would let the Jews run to the full limit of their wilfulness, in order to justify openly His bringing on them the punishment for all that the nation had already done. There comes a time when men have so flouted God’s remonstrations that He ceases to restrain, lets them go the whole hog, so to speak.

All past guilt of this nature incurred “from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias who perished between the altar and the temple” (Lam.4 :13)—for all this the wayward nation was to be held accountable.

It is far from easy to understand why God should choose to exercise judgment in this way. But in this field—and in mercy! (ls.55 :6-8)—the ways of Heaven’s wisdom are beyond men’s comprehension.

Abel to Zacharias

There has been difficulty in identifying the Zacharias Jesus alluded to. The post-exilic prophet was “the son of Berechiah” (Zech.l :1), but nothing is known of his death, and it is precarious to depend on the assumption of a floating oral tradition about which there is now complete ignorance. Shortly before the Roman War began, there was a Zacharias, the son of Baruch, who was assassinated by the Zealots in the presence of the Sanhedrin for his open rebuke of their excesses (Josephus B.J. 4.5.4). But he was a wealthy citizen and not a prophet. Nor was he slain between the temple and the altar.

In all respects except one the most satisfying identification is equation with Zechariah, the son (grandson?) of Jehoiada the high priest, who was stoned to death in the court of the house of the Lord at the commandment of king Joash (2 Chr.24 :19-22). This explanation is particularly suitable because 2 Chronicles is the last book in the Hebrew Bible, and thus Jesus, using a past tense—”murdered”—was bringing together the first and last martyrdoms for righteousness’ sake narrated in the Old Testament, a kind of spiritual “Dan to Beersheba”. The blood of Abel cried unto God from the ground (Gen.4 :10). And Zechariah,as he died, said: “The Lord look upon it, and require it.” It is not unlikely that Jesus referred to Jehoida, the greatest of all high priests, as Berechiah—the blessed of the Lord—because of his long years of faithful service in one of the most difficult epochs of J udah’s history. It was his wife who saved the infant Joash from the murderous intentions of Athaliah. Years later the king ill-repaid his debt of gratitude to this godly family.

Abel was slain out of envy of his good standing before God, and Zechariah because of his denunciation of wickedness. One day more, and the same combination of evils would crucify Jesus also. This he well knew, hence his use of an otherwise anomalous present participle: “all the righteous blood being shed,”

There is something very unusual about the way this passage begins. “Said the wisdom of God” seems to be introducing a quotation. But where from? Whose words? If Jesus meant: lam speaking this through a special gift of wisdom, why the past tense “said”?

A somewhat similar allusion: “Wisdom is justified of all her children” (Lk.7:35) comes in a passage full of allusion to John the Baptist. Is it possible, then, that in this later pronouncement Jesus was quoting an impressive utterance made by John in the course of his preaching?

If so, “I will send them prophets and apostles” foretold how the ministry of Jesus would be filled out through the efforts of the disciples. And John’s grim prophecy of retribution on Jewry for “the blood of all the prophets” from Abel to the end of the Old Testament is what could be expected from the one who bridged the gap between the two dispensations.

And Jesus, now on the threshold of his own martyrdom, would readily give John’s words a further reference to himself and his men, appropriating the “righteous Abel” type to his own imminent death, and the “Zacharias” allusion to the witness of the same name, who died in the midst of the temple for his righteousness shortly before the temple itself died. Thus in two brief phrases—Abel, Zechariah—the whole of Old Testament martyrdom and also New Testament witness is comprehended, and all of it laid at Jewry’s door.

This climactic sin of Israel and the recompense it was doomed to bring were long fore-known in the counsels of heaven: “Behold, it is written before me (see Dt.29 :20,21; 32 :34,41): I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom, your iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the Lard” (ls.65:6,7).

The doom of Jerusalem

The intense outburst of Jesus was blanketed by sadness as he contemplated this melancholy destiny of his people. To think that such a fate must come to this generation! “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together!” (he alluded to ls.49:5).

How often! Yet this is the first time the synoptic gospels tell of Jesus appealing to Jerusalem. And in John’s gospel, which concentrates on the Judaean ministry of Christ, it is only the sixth. The lament implies a long sequence of bitter disappointments.

He would have gathered them “as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings” (cp. Ps.91 :4), to save them from being a prey to Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Herods. But all in vain! They were snatched away by the Roman eagle. This dire fate must come upon them because, although he “would”, they “would not.”

Their ancient history could have taught them something of the regard the God of Israel had for the city of His choice. In the days of Hezekiah, “as birds flying so the Lord of hosts defended Jerusalem; defending also, he delivered it; and passing over, he preserved it” (ls.31 :5). And now, once again “in returning (to God) and rest (in Him) shall ye be saved; in this quietness and confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not” (30 :15).

“Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Ez.10 :19; 11 :23). That wonderful edifice which a few days earlier had been “the temple of God” (Mt.21 :12; cp.22 :7) was now “your house”, disowned by the One for whose glory it was erected: “let their habitation be desolate … Let their table (the altar of sacrifice) become a snare before them” (Ps.69 :25,22}. In this sombre conclusion Jesus was yet again harnessing the grave warning of Jeremiah: “If ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation” (22:5, where note also v.3,4).

But long before it was reduced to rubble, that majestic pile was deserted by the Son of God: “I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye say, Blessed (cf. Gal.3 :13) is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” During the next few days these very words—part of the Passover Hallel (Ps.118 :26)—would be repeated in Jerusalem. Did these learned men whom Jesus now apostrophized ponder what he had said, as they heard the familiar phrases again in the temple service? Even if they did, the spirit of that Scripture was lacking. It might just as well not have been uttered. Not until hearts are changed in Israel and those words are said in true sincerity will Israel’s estrangement be ended and their Messiah appear once again in their midst. There is a remarkable saying in the Talmud (true, for once!): “If Israel were to make repentance for a single day, Messiah son of David would come.”

Before that afternoon was out, Jesus left the temple, never to return to it, except to be condemned to death by the men he had condemned to death. The Glory was departed.

Notes: Mt.23:13-39

13.	The Lord’s ministry began with 7 Blessings. It ends with 7 Woes. These sevens were spoken from two different mountains: Dt.27:12, 13.
	Hypocrites. See the powerful passage in Farrar’s “Life of Paul”, ch.4.
	The kingdom of heaven. Here a present experience or one in prospect? (21 :43).
14.	Omitted by a great many manuscripts. Apparently, at some time it was imported here from Mk. 12 :40.
	Greater damnation. So there are varying degrees of punishment!
15.	The child of hell (Gehenna). A son of Hinnom, not of Abraham.
17.	Fools and blind. Fools especially, for thinking they could deceive God. And because blind, unfit for the temple; 2Sam.5:8.
23.	These ought ye to have done. So scrupulousness in religion is right; cp. 1 Cor. 11:16.
	Weightier matters, as summed up in 22 :37.
25.	Full of (Gk. from) extortion and excess; i.e. it was extortion and excess by which that food was provided.
27.	Beautiful. In Gen. 3 :7 LXX the same word describes the tree of knowledge.
31.	Witnesses and in Lk. ye allow s.w. Acts7:58; 8:l.
32.	Fill ye up. 1 Th.2 :15 uses the very phrases of Lk.11:49.
34.	And some of them shall ye kill and crucify. In Lk. this describes the fate of “prophets (NT. prophets) and apostles.” There is some historical reason to suspect that Peter, crucified in the Nero persecution, died through Jewish instigation. Nero’s favourite concubine was a proselyte to the Jewish religion.
36.	Shall come. Once again, as in all its occurrences, this word heko emphasizes God at work
37.	Stonest. Dt.13 :10; Acts 7 :59.