The Gospels mention two occasions when Jesus found himself in discussion with a scribe or lawyer about the first great commandment. So inevitably the question arises whether perhaps they are different versions of the same incident.

Whenever there are two versions of an incident with marked similarities and yet with differences, can it be assumed that they are the same (with differences that can be reconciled), or should the divergences lead to the conclusion that the occasions are distinct?

Most modern commentators assume that John’s and Mark’s accounts of the cleansings of the temple are the same (which they certainly are not). And the Companion Bible, normally very dependable, treats the gospel accounts of malefactors crucified with our Lord as not the same,-not very convincingly thus making five crucifixions and not three.

All such instances need to be treated on their merits, and not according to a pre-conceived idea.

Here, in Luke 10, a certain lawyer “tempted” Jesus, asking: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” When challenged to answer his own question he himself quoted: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God” (Dt. 6 :5), adding on to it: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Lev.19 :18). When encouraged, he pressed his enquiry further: “Who is my neighbour?” This happened, if the Lucan context is to be taken account of, when Jesus was neither in Galilee nor Jerusalem.

The differences from Mark 12: 28-34 are very marked. That encounter took place in the temple court in Jerusalem. The enquiry was different: “Which is the great commandment?” The quotation of Deuteronomy 6 was made by Jesus himself, and led to a much more encouraging outcome.

So it seems highly probable that the two occasions are not to be equated with each other.

A worthy question

It is unlikely that there was any element of hostility about the lawyer’s question. The word “tempted” does not have to be read in that sense. Such problems usually came from adversaries who were hoping to score points against Jesus, but this occasion hardly lends itself to that kind of interpretation. That the crux of both encounters should involve: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” is not surprising, for this commandment was recited by devout Jews morning and evening, and would often be invoked in arguments about religious priorities.

In this case Jesus was addressed with respect, being accorded the honourable title of “Teacher”, This from a man who was university-trained! And he “stood up” to ask his question. So he had surely been sitting before Jesus as a learner, a disciple.

The question itself could hardly have been more fundamental: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life? As phrased, its implications were all wrong, for a man inherits that which he has a right to, and no human being has a right to eternal life. Again, the emphasis on “What shall I do ...?” assumed that a man can earn eternal life, if only he shows enough diligence in a life of godly activity; in other words, justification by works. More than this, the form of the Greek verb suggests some special act of sacrifice or self-discipline over and above the lawyer’s normal way of life.

For answer, Jesus sent him back to the Law in which he was a specialist. “How readest thou?” The question went behind the Scripture he was about to quote in order to probe also his understanding of it.

The man’s summary of what is needful can only be described as brilliant. To be sure, it was comparatively easy for a college-trained scribe to go to: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind” (from Dt. 6:5). But by what superb flash of insight did he couple with this: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (from Lev. 19:18)?

Text variations

It is worth while to divert from the gospel record briefly to note the remarkable variations with which this first commandment appears. The Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 6 has: “heart, soul, and might.” The LXX version turns these into “mind, soul, and power”—an interesting illustration of the much-neglected truth that in the Bible “heart” often stands for “mind, intelligence, thought,” and only rarely for the feelings, emotions or instincts (which are probably better represented by the word “soul”). Matthew 22 :37 has “heart, soul, mind,” but Luke 10 :27 (the text under discussion) and Mark 12 :30 both have “heart, soul, strength, mind” (or mind, strength). Here the extra word may be added as a paraphrase of the two verses succeeding the commandment in the Hebrew text: “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them, when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” This would illuminate the phrase used by the second lawyer:”with all the understanding” (Mk. 12:33). Alternatively the word “strength” is taken to mean both “strength of body” and “strength of mind’.

Rather remarkably, in all other New Testament occurrences this word ischus means God’s strength or that which He imparts to men!

There are also strange variations in the prepositions (especially in Lk.10 :27) which are difficult to include in the present discussion. The problem of verbal inspiration comes in very pointedly in passages of this sort.

Clearly Jesus was well pleased with the admirable answer suggested by his questioner: “Thou hast answered right. Keep on doing this, and thou shalt live”-meaning, of course, gain everlasting life (Lev.l8:5), for the enquiry was about that. It is easy to imagine that as Jesus said: “Do this,” he pointed to the man’s phylactery which certainly had the first of these two commandments written on it.

The question had been so easily disposed of that the lawyer probably felt that he had to excuse himself for putting such a straightforward problem. So he added a ‘supplementary’: “But who is my neighbour whom I am to love?” How wide a scope was such a general commandment to be given? Apparently, and somewhat strangely, he found little difficulty in the commandment about the love of God. But since “a man and his neighbour” is normal Jewish idiom for “anyone” (e.g. Jer.7 :5), it is not unlikely that contemporary rabbis had made ingenious attempts to evade the evident force of the words. For example, the Talmud has this: “If a Jew see a Gentile fallen into the sea, let him by no means lift him out thence. It is written: Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour. But this man is not thy neighbour.”

In a parable quite beyond compare in its appeal to both intellect and emotions Jesus showed how far from this nationalistic exclusiveness the true meaning of the commandment really is. Any man, and especially the man in trouble and to whom you can bring direct personal aid, is your neighbour, regardless of race or religion or status or character. This is the main but by no means the only lesson Jesus sought to inculcate. It is specially important to remember that the question he was answering now was not: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” but: “Who is my neighbour?”

A telling story

In the story a man went on the rough and often steep downhill road—twenty-one miles of it-from Jerusalem to Jericho, a descent of nearly 4000 feet. It is fairly probable that Jesus told this parable just before or just after he had walked that road, for the very next paragraph in Luke’s gospel finds Jesus in the home of his friends at Bethany. The road was known in ancient times as the Ascent of Adummim-the Red Climb-because, according to Conder, a section of it is on red marl. But over the years it became a favourite haunt of brigands and robbers, so its name took on a more sinister meaning: the Ascent of Blood. A hundred years before the time of Jesus, Pompey had led a Roman legion against the brigand strongholds there. And in later times a Roman outpost was maintained on that road.

The lone traveller, going down to Jericho, was set upon by robbers and suffered grievously. Apparently he had nothing of value, so they even stripped him of his garments, and, still exasperated at the lack of plunder, they beat the man severely and then went off, leaving him helpless and sure to die.

By and by, down that road there came a priest, just off duty in the temple and going home to Jericho, which (Farrar says) was a priestly city. The common version reads that he came there “by chance.” The Greek expression is unique in the New Testament and is rare in other Greek texts. There is a distinct possibility that it should carry exactly the opposite meaning: “according to the Lord’s appointment.” This would chime in not only with the idea of a priest just concluding service in the temple, but also with the New Testament’s complete avoidance of any phrase which might imply chance or unforeseen coincidence.

From some distance away this priest saw the poor sufferer’s plight. So he kept well away, and hastened on his road. He knew, of course, the commandment in the Law that there must be prompt readiness to care for the straying ox or sheep or ass of a fellow-Israelite (Dt. 22 :l-4). Then how much more ought he not to be immediately ready to give all possible help to a fellow-traveller (cp. ls.58 :7).

In his own mind this callous attitude would be fully justified without any difficulty. He had nothing wherewith to tend the man’s wounds. It was hopeless to think that he miqht hoist the man on his back and carry him to safety. Besides, the man might die, and he suffer defilement, thus entailing all kinds of ceremonial inconvenience. Strongest reason of all, there were violent men in that vicinity. If he did not move as fast as his legs could carry him, his fate could be the same. “Whoso . . . seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” comments the apostle John (1 Jn.3 :17). Yet this priest was an instructor in the law of God!

He was followed by a Levite who did at least come near enough to look at the poor man’s plight, but then he too went away without raising a finger to help. It has been suggested that here the Lord was deliberately introducing an instance of the power of an evil example, the Levite having already seen the priest’s avoidance of moral duty. But this will hardly do, for if the priest and Levite were travelling within sight of each other, they would surely have travelled together for the sake of greater safety. The alternative is that Jesus deliberately framed this detail this way for its instructive value, even though (as in so many others of his parables) it meant abandoning verisimilitude.

Then came a fourth traveller, who was not going down from Jerusalem. He, as soon as he set eyes on the stricken man, came up to him, all compassion (see Study 88) and eagerness to help—and he was one of the despised and hated Samaritans. Thus Jesus adroitly corrected the prejudices of his apostles who would have called fire down from heaven on a hostile Samaritan village.

This outsider proceeded to enact a finer interpretation of “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself/’ such as put priest and Levite to shame.

He used the wine and oil he had with him to cleanse and mollify the victim’s cuts and bruises, and tore his own garment into strips for bandaging (see Notes). Then, hoisting him as gently as possible on to the back of his ass, he brought him with all possible care to the nearest inn. This was not a khan of the kind where people had to fend for themselves, but a hostelry where service was available. Nevertheless, the Samaritan, still moved with compassion for the man in his suffering, took upon himself to do all that was needful to ease his pains and give him comfort.

This part of the story appears to have been inspired by a remarkable episode in the reign of king Ahaz. The northern kingdom of Israel had had a particularly successful campaign against their brethren in Judah, taking many prisoners. However, responding to the exhortation of Oded the prophet, certain of the men of Samaria re-equipped their captives, succoured the wounded among them, and, setting them on asses, brought them to Jericho. There they handed them over to the care of their own folk (2 Chr.28 :9-15). The whole point of this incident is that Jews and men of Samaria are brothers.

In the parable the Samaritan went even further in his solicitude. He paid to the innkeeper enough for the sick man’s immediate needs (£30-40 in 1983) and, his credit being good, he undertook to cover on his return all further expense which might be incurred before the man was well enough to go on his way. Fully as valuable as the financial aid now assured was the strong personal injunction to the innkeeper: “Take care of him.” The sufferer was left in good hands.

Thus Jesus taught not only who was the neighbour to be loved—the man, whoever he is, whose need is before you and whom you have the means to help—but also how he is to be loved, with every degree of compasssion and personal involvement that is possible.

“Which now,” Jesus asked, “of these three, thinkest thou, became and continued to be neighbour to him that fell among the thieves?’

There could be only one answer, yet even in giving it the scribe could not bring himself to pronounce the hated word “Samarita”. He had asked for a definition of “neighbour” and had got it. But this theoretical comprehension was not enough to satisfy Jesus. There must be application of the lesson learned: “Go, and do thou likewise’—and he used a continuous imperative. This love of one’s neighbour must be a way of life.

Significant Details

For those who believe that in telling his parables Jesus was always aiming at teaching one needful moral lesson, the Good Samaritan is a perfect illustration. But it is also the best possible example for those who are convinced that Jesus intended every detail of his parable to be significant. When interpreted point by point, this parable turns “neighbour” into “Neighbour.”

“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves.” Jerusalem is the city of peace with God. Jericho was the city associated with yielding to temptation (Josh. 7:1), and therefore with curse and destruction (Josh. 7:15), and there is hardly a more downhill road in all the world. Here, then, is a picture of the human race in its natural state.

The evil work of the thieves shows each man as a prey to his own personal sins as well as his inherited condition. As this wayfarer was “stripped of his raiment, wounded and half dead”, so each sinner, whilst not yet dead, is in a dying and utterly hopeless condition. He can do nothing to help himself. His own robe of “righteousness” is torn from him. He is naked and helpless.

The sacrificial and the moral law, represented by priest and Levite, only served to emphasize the hopelessness of his case. If they could not help him, who could? They also were going downhill. “By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified … By the Law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).

But then came one who was despised and rejected of men – it does not say he was going downhill!-and this man “came where he was.” This unexpected Saviour identified himself with the stricken man as closely as possible-Jesus shared the very nature of those he came to redeem. Contrast the priest and Levite “on the other side”-the Old Testament doctrine of holiness put a wide separation between God and the worshipper.

This Saviour, moved with compassion, (for “God so loved the world”) bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine-“the oil of the Word, and the wine of the Sacrament,” says one writer. Here the gracious ministry of Jesus is clearly shown. Would the Samaritan travel equipped with bandaging? What wrapping for those wounds and that naked body except his own garments? (Is. l:6;61:l; Ps. 147:8).

“Then he set him on his beast, and brought him to an inn.” Thus, without any effort on his part, the wretched castaway found himself where normally his Saviour would have been. And the beast this Saviour rode was an ass (Jn. 12 :14,15), a token of his meek character and his kingship, both of them now shared with the one he rescued. Thus, identified with his Saviour (baptism pre-figured?), the sinner is brought to a resting place where he is cared for. “In my Father’s house” said Jesus, “are many abiding places.” There he “took care of him”- it is a picture of the continuing care of repentant sinners by their Saviour.

“On the morrow, when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host” (2Cor.8:9). The Greek work here means: “One who receives all men.” This “two pence” is the exact equivalent of the half-shekel of the sanctuary (Ex.30:15; and study 113) which was to be paid, under the Law, by all, whether rich or poor, “to make an atonement for your souls.” ls it accident, then, that this particular sum of money found its way into the parable? Jesus might just as easily have said “one penny” or “three pence.” How remarkable that he did not!

And is it accident that this was “on the morrow” and not “the same day” or “two days later”? For this implies that the Samaritan slept and rose again before he went a way-the Saviour was “raised again for our justification.” Could details be more apt than these? But there is more behind.

“Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay idee.” Here is the promise of a personal return, and also a guarantee that everything needful for the man’s restoration will be fully provided. The sacrifice of Christ is all-sufficient, not only to cover sins done aforetime, but also those which call for the exercise of divine grace in the days to come.

Not neighbour, but Neighbour

And now comes one of the most subtle, and certainly one of the most lovely touches of all.

Jesus had said: “Thou shalt love the lord thy God … and thy neighbour…”

“But who is my neighbour?”

For answer there followed the parable ending with:

“Which now . . . was neighbour to him that fell among thieves?”

“He that showed mercy on him.”

The Samaritan, representing Jesus, was “neighbour” to the wayfarer, representing the sinner. The parable is usually and carelessly misread the other way round-that the sinner was “neighbour” to the Samaritan and therefore the Samaritan loved him.

But again it can hardly be accident that Jesus phrased it the reverse way. The stricken wayfarer is bidden love his “neighbour”, the Samaritan. The sinner is bidden love his Saviour Jesus. Is there any other commandment big enough to stand alongside: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God”? And if a man loves Jesus as he should, will he not honour his Saviour by loving his fellow-men also, even as he did?

It may be that this lawyer, no fool, saw the force of this aspect of the parable also, for, when challenged to identify the true neighbour to the stricken man, he answered: “He that shewed mercy on him.” The words spendidly describe the saving work of the Samaritan. But they happen also to be an Old Testament phrase for the forgiveness of sins! (Micah 7 :18; Dan.9:4; Num. 14:18; Ps.86:5; 103 :8-10; and many more).

Notes: Lk. 10:25-37

25.	A certain lawyer. The Greek here might imply a known lawyer, one well-known in the early church?
	What shall I do… ?The same question was the chief anxiety of another would-be disciple; Lk.18 :18. *S
27.	With all thy heart. Consider: Jer.15 :16; Ex.36:2; 1 Kgs.3 :9; Lk.5 :22; 24 :32,38; Rom.10:8,9.
	Thy neighbour as thyself More likely quoted not by sudden intuition but as a long-pondered conclusion.
30.	Jesus answering said. A somewhat unusual Gk. word, apparently implying: “taking up the challenge.”
31.	By chance. The word does not imply fluke. Gk: sun-kuria might even have been chosen because it suggests “with the Lord”-the very opposite of chance.
33.	A Samaritan. A neat indirect lesson to James and John; 9:54.
34.	Went to him. The word for “neighbour” means literally “one who is near.”
	Bound up his wounds. Alternative to the explanation already offered: He was a medical man (Luke himself?), and carried bandages and medicines.
	Brought. This word suggests a picture of the Samaritan leading his beast with the stricken man on it.
35.	Whatsoever. This translation is not too emphatic. When I come again; s.w. 19:15 only.
36.	Thinkest thou… ? Here dokei implies: ‘You know, don’t you?’
	Was neighbour. As a translation, quite inadequate: “became and continued to be neighbour.”
	Mercy on him. Here again the Gk preposition (not pros or epior eis, but meta) suggests fellowship and at the same time a distinction. The Gk. of this paragraph is full of delightful, almost untranslatable, inflections.

It is not clear just where in the Lord’s ministry this fascinating vignette of Martha and Mary belongs. It may be that the opening phrase: “as they were going,” refers to the mission of the seventy (10 :1), during which time Jesus and the twelve were making their December visit to Jerusalem (Jn.10 :22). Or it may be that Luke has deliberately inserted these few verses here as further answer to the lawyer’s questions: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life? … Who is the neighbour I am to love?”

The answer now is: “Love your Neighbour” by a generous hospitality offered to Him, and to those who are His (Mt.25 :40), and-better still-by an avid attention to His teaching. Indeed, the insertion of this episode here is probably intended to correct any false inference from “Go thou and do likewise” about justification by works.

There is a studied vagueness about Luke’s mention of “a certain village” as the home of Martha and Mary. Presumably they were still living there at the time when he wrote his gospel (c. A.D.60), and the omission of “Bethany” would be to save them from the embarrassing enthusiasm and curiosity of early disciples visiting Jerusalem.

Since there is good reason to believe that this home at Bethany was also where Simon the leper lived (Mk.14 :3), it seems likely that Simon was Martha’s husband, for “a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.” The narrative very neatly implies (note the word “also” in verse 39) that Mary too joined in the welcome given to Jesus. And well she might, if she was “the woman in the city, which was a sinner,” whose moving story Luke had already narrated (7:36-50; Study 74).

Because of that redeeming experience, her proper place was at the feet of Jesus on every possible occasion. This time she was torn between duties. The Greek text implies that she gave some help to Martha in the kitchen, but from time to time broke off to sit at the Lord’s feet, facing him (cp. 2 Kgs.4 :38). Then the domestic chores were let go altogether, and she continued there, listening to his talk, drinking in every word. Minor Crisis

With mounting indignation Martha put up with this for a while. Then, unable to restrain herself any longer, she came and stood over Jesus, and burst in on his discourse abruptly; “Lord, dost thou not care that my sister has kept leaving me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.”

There is a problem here. Was Martha preparing the meal single-handed? It was a wealthy household with high social standing (Jn.12:5; 11 :19). Then were there no servants? Or is it that the mere superintendence of arrangements called for more than one? Or is Martha’s “explosion” to be taken as an indication of her frustration?—she too wanted to sit and listen to Jesus. But then what about the meal? Jesus was accompanied by his disciples, so Martha had the responsibility of providing the equivalent of a Christmas dinner (for it may have been Chanukah; Jn.10 :22) for at least seventeen people! So perhaps there was some justification for her indignition. Naturally enough, with Jesus as the chief guest, she wished the hospitality provided for him to be as splendid as possible.

It is noteworthy that her excusably blunt words were not directed at her sister, but were addressed to Jesus-as who should say: ‘She won’t take any notice of what I say. Surely, Lord, you will back me up in this.’ But her words involved a reproach of both of them: “Lord, dost not thou care that she left me. . .?”

Mild rebuke

Challenged thus, there was nothing for it but to set things in perspective. Up to this point Jesus had spoken no word of rebuke.

There are lessons to be learned here, for often enough comparable situations recur in both home and ecclesia. Yet there was no rebuke for Martha until her misplaced diligence and her frustration made impact on others. And in this difficult situation Mary apparently said never a word.

Only now, when he must, did Jesus speak his reproach, and with the utmost gentleness (for “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister and Lazarus”; Jn.11 :5): “Martha, Martha, thou art worried and troubled about many things; but one thing is needful; Mary indeed hath chosen that good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”

The words are simple. Yet nearly all of them need some explanation. Martha’s “many things” were, of course, the mass of culinary operations she was superintending. The expression: ‘one thing needful’ was a double entendre, it is as though Jesus said: ‘One course only, Martha—and the one I mean is that which Mary is now sharing with me; that is the best of them all’ (cp.Ps27:4).

A lively discussion with the Samaritan woman at the well had had a marvellously invigorating effect on Jesus. So it may be taken as certain that the understanding and appreciation of Mary was as good a “meal” as could be set before him. It was even more true that Mary also was enjoying such a “meal” as she had never known before. What Mary had that day was not to be token away from her. It was hers for ever. The word used by Luke is that which describes the special portion assigned by Joseph to Benjamin, the favourite brother (Gen .43 :34).

It is certainly a correct inference from Mary’s choice that no material preoccupation can rank alongside eagerness to receive the Lord’s instruction. But it is important to avoid the assumption that Martha had chosen a bad part, even though the word “troubled” is that which comes twice over in Ecclesiastes 3 :10: “the travail which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith;” for Martha’s motive undoubtedly was: ‘Jesus is our guest. The very best I can provide is hardly good enough for him’ (contrast Lk. 9:58).

It is important that the attitude of the two sisters should not be regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives. Both expressed a high degree of devotion to the Lord. But, when challenged, in honesty Jesus had to say which gave him the greater pleasure. It is the age-old tension between faith and works. For every one who seeks heaven’s blessing through faith in the Lord’s teaching and increasing insight into it, there are ten who are happier serving with their hands or feet.

This Martha-Mary problem seems to have been specifically in Paul’s mind when he wrote: “The unmarried woman (Mary) careth for the things of the Lord” how she may “attend upon the Lord (Lk.10 :40) without distraction” … she that is married (Martha) careth for the things of the world” (1 Cor. 7 :34,35). In the Greek text the same key words come in both places (“cumbered, part, care, the Lord”).

Notes: Lk. 10:38-42

39.	Sat at his feet And so always, see Study 74. That Mary was first and for a while torn between two duties is implied by “also” (v.39), and the imperfects “heard” (v.39), “left” (v.40).
40.	Help me, A very expressive Greek word: Num.11 :17LXX; Rom.8 :26. “Lend a hand” comes fairly near to the meaning.
41.	Martha, Martha. How often a name repeated becomes a means of reproach; cp. 22 :31.

There is real difficulty in establishing just when this next development in the Lord’s Jerusalem ministry took place. Verse 1 : “And as he passed by” seems to be intended as a direct link with the end of chapter 8 : “he went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” According to this, chapter 9 also belongs to the Feast of Tabernacles (October).

However, this conclusion is challenged by those who stress the omission by a notable collection of early manuscripts of the words just quoted.

Also, there is the strong consideration that the parable of the Good Shepherd (ch.10) follows on perfectly from the healing of the blind man, and the allusion there to his healing (10:21) seems to require that that miracle was very fresh in mind. Yet, according to verse 22, chapter 10 (and therefore chapter 9?) belongs definitely to the Feast of the Dedication of the temple (i.e. Christmas).

Thus there are chronological pointers to two different times of the year.

The discordance is readily resolved by the mention of the man being excommunicated (v.34). It is known that such a drastic decision was never reached hastily. First, with solemn warning, an offender would be suspended from religious fellowship for thirty days. If this were ineffective, another thirty days’ suspension might follow. If after that the offender were still recalcitrant, then permanent excommunication could be imposed.

Thus it is likely that between verse 1 and verse 34 a period of about two months is interposed; and indeed there are clear signs of breaks in the narrative (e.g. at v.15,24,35). So the time problem is probably to be solved by reading the story as beginning at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles, and concluding near the end of December. During most of this time Jesus would be absent from Jerusalem, being busy with the great preaching tour (Lk.10:l) in which he and his disciples were making a special appeal to the southern half of the country.

The miracle

When Jesus and the twelve paused to read the rough inscription on the man’s board: “Blind from birth,” and to discuss the problem presented by his blindness, the quick-witted fellow would readily identify the group before him. Possibly, also, he become aware of the means by which Jesus made a paste to smear on his eyes—spitting on the ground to soften a small handful of the soil. It may be taken as certain that Jesus did not need to follow this method, but evidently he specially wished to emphasize personal contact with himself in the working of the miracle. There is also more symbolism here, to be discussed later.

The commentators have some strange and unimpressive ideas here about “the healing value attributed in old time to saliva,” and about “the medical use of clay.” These notions are fit only to be bound in with Grimm’s fairy stories. As though the Lord would choose to identify himself with the ignoramuses and charlatans of that age!

Jesus offered up a prayer to God for the gift of sight (v.31; cp.11 -.41), anointed the man’s eyes, and bade him: “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.” Ever since the days of Hezekiah an important part of the city’s water supply had come via the conduit which had been driven through solid rock from the Virgin’s Pool in the Kidron valley. Approach to it was down an awkward flight of steps such as the blind man could hardly hope to negotiate without guidance, even if he had the resourcefulness to find his way across the city to the right spot. So, very probably, he was piloted there by one of the apostles who would witness his incoherent gladness as he moved into a new world of light, shape and colour.

From the outset the man had faith in the word and act of Jesus. He could have protested that clay rubbed into his eyes could only make him more hopelessly blind. He could have argued that never in history had the waters of Siloam brought sight to anyone. Instead, he obeyed implicitly, and had the reward of his faith.

By the time this happened Jesus was gone, probably to Bethany, so the man went happily home. Then began a highly excited discussion among the neighbours. Was he really the blind man they had known so long? Perhaps he had been an impostor all the time. Some were dubious, but thought he must be the same. Others were confident of his identity. Others, certain that such miracles do not happen, decided it was somebody else like the blind man they knew. But he settled it with a peremptory “I am he.”

So a lively enquiry arose as to how the cure had been wrought. He told his story, simply, factually, without trimmings, ascribing it to “the man that is called Jesus”— the man whom every one had heard about; he was rot only called Jesus but truly was this man’s Saviour. And where was this Jesus? The man could not say. He had had contact with him for only a few minutes at most whilst his eyes were being smeared with mud. It may be taken as highly probable that other blind men, hearing the story, would try anointing their own eyes with clay and then washing it off at Siloam, yet all to no purpose.

Official Enquiry

Next day these neighbours insisted on the man appearing before the Small Sanhedrin in the temple. The Great Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-two members and was convened only for consideration of questions of highest importance. There were also three “subcommittees” of twenty-three members each.

But why should it be deemed necessary to bring the man before the rulers at all? Many a miracle of Jesus had gone without official investigation. Were the man’s friends so excited about the cure that they wanted it to convert the Pharisees whom they knew to be mostly hostile to Jesus?

The bombardment of questions recommenced. In response to repeated interrogation (so the Greek verb implies) the man once again told a simple factual story and stuck to it. The result was that the learned men who heard him were divided in their opinions. Said some: ‘This man (Jesus) is not from God-he makes clay on the sabbath!’ The marvellous blessing brought into a poor man’s life was nothing to them! So they wrote Jesus off as an impostor. ‘Not of God! therefore of the devil’ was their clear implication.

Others on the committee were impressed: “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” (cp. 3 :2). The sharp dissension between them became more important than the blind man. This is yet another indication of how the party of the Pharisees had become split down the middle in its attitude to Jesus of Nazareth. The die-hards could find no good word to say about him. The others, with some reluctance doubtless, were steadily being persuaded of the divine character of his work.

But whatever the opinion held, from beginning to end of these long discussions there was never any doubt in anybody’s mind of the vital part played in the cure by Jesus, even though he was a long way off when it happened.

So the questioning began again: “What sayest thou, because he opened thine eyes?’— mat is: What opinion have you formea about this Jesus? The question was probably put by the party more disposed to accept Jesus. They knew the man’s answer was bound to favour their judgement regarding him. And it did. “He is a prophet,” the man declared, remembering Christ’s words (v.3-5), and utterly unabashed by the high dignity of the rabbis sitting before him. This answer did not please the others, so they succeeded in getting the question referred to a fresh committee (so the change from “Pharisees” to “J ews” suggests; v. 16, 18).

Bullying tactics

In the new enquiry, there was at first flat refusal to agree that the man had ever been blind. But now the man’s parents were available for interrogation, and their testimony settled that point. Then the rulers had to believe (so v. 18 implies). With their son removed from the court these poor people were subjected to such keen cross-questioning that, already put in fear by a report, carefully leaked, that one good word about Jesus would mean religious excommunication, they were almost too afraid to speak.

Yes, this was their son, for certain. Yes, he was born without sight. No, they had no information to offer about the marvellous change in him, other than what he himself had told; and since he was an adult capable of giving legal evidence, why not get the story directly from himself? The increasing agitation of these poor folk in face of the learned bullying of the rulers comes out strongly in the Greek text.

The threat that they might be “put out of the synagogue” for confessing belief in Jesus was a very serious matter, even in its mildest form for a period of thirty days. So, although the timidity of the old people in not boldly supporting all that their son testified, is hardly a thing to admire, it is easy to understand.

Next, with the man himself before the court once again, different tactics were attempted. Pretending to have come by some information which showed the whole story to be an impojture, the rulers said to him: “Give God the glory. We know that this Jesus is a sinner.” It is a mistake to read these words as implying: “Jesus has nothing to do with the restoring of your sight; it was God in heaven who did it,” for as yet these men were not prepared to admit that a miracle had taken place. The expression: “Give God the glory” was used by Joshua when urging Achan to make confession of his sin at Jericho (Josh.7 :19). So now their implication was: “You may as well confess that the whole thing is a fraud. We have special information about the character of this Galilean.”

Yet, in truth, in two eloquent passages in the prophets, there was special information about their own blindness and deafness:

“Hear ye, and give ear (Jn. 9:27a). Be not proud; for the Lord hath spoken: Give glory to the Lord your Cod, before he cause darkness (Jn.9 :39c), and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains” (Jer.13 :15,16). “Hearthe word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed” (ls.66:5).

Undismayed, the man, secure in the possession of his wonderful new gift of sight, stoutly and very shrewdly stuck to the stark incontrovertible facts: “Whether he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.” Here was a solid fact which all the argument in the world could not push on one side.

Finding him unbudgeable, they attempted the age-old device of fresh cross-examination in the hope of finding inconsistencies in the repetition of his story: “What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes?”

But he saw through their intention, and, hot in the least cowed by their official dignity, he talked back to them as man to man. With his rough well-practised wit, which had doubtless stood him in good stead in his begging days, he countered: ‘I told you just now. Didn’t you hear me? You need Jesus to heal your deafness, as he did my sight. And why do you want to hear it all again? Do you also want to be disciples of his, as I mean to be?’

The rulers fastened on this to divert attention away from the uncomfortable fact that a blind man was now undeniably seeing: “So you are a disciple of his!’—as much as to say: ‘That explains your story. You are willing to tell any lies to boost his reputation.’

They went on: “We are disciples of Moses. We know that God spake unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is.” Thus they leaped at the opportunity to jibe again (with a double entendre) at the disreputable origin of Jesus, as they chose to construe it. Did it not occur to them that, when Moses was growing up in the royal palace in Egypt, the same sneer was made behind the back of Pharaoh’s daughter?

The man was not to be side-tracked from staunch perseverance in his testimony. The more they tried to bully him, the firmer became his witness about his benefactor, and this with a biting sarcasm such as these rulers had never experienced from a man of the people: “Why, here is the real marvel—more astonishing by far than the healing of my blindness—that he has opened my eyes, and you clever men do not know by what power he has done it. God does not hear the prayers of men who are wilful impenitent sinners (he said this with reference to the prayer Jesus had offered up audibly as he put the clay on his eyes). In all the Scriptures is there any miracle of healing to compare with this (for all his blindness the man knew his Bible!)? If Jesus did not have God behind him, he couldn’t do a single thing (here was a neat side-allusion to the other miracles Jesus was known to have done).

It was a brave and powerful witness, its solid facts not to be impugned, its rugged common-sense not to be argued against. So, losing their tempers completely, these rulers shouted: ‘Altogether born in sins—you! And do you presume to teach us, Israel’s supreme authorities in godliness?—and they had him thrown out of the council chamber. His excommunication from the synagogue would follow as a matter of course (16:2).

It is a testimony to the uncontrolled exasperation of these men, that in their raving against this erstwhile blind beggar, they inadvertently conceded the truth of the very thing they were eager to deny, for “altogether born in sins” was meaningless except with reference to his blindness. Yet, such was the irony of the situation, they were in their sins, whilst he by dauntless thankful loyalty to Jesus was newborn, with the forgiveness of every sin freely available. The power to endow with sight showed that Jesus could do this greater thing also.

The disconsolate comforted

For all his bold front it must have been a bitter experience when the man found himself shut out of the religious communion of Israel. From the time of David, the blind and the lame had been excluded from worship at the sanctuary of the Lord (2 Sam.5 ;8). This man’s new endowment of sight had meant that now he too could share in the temple service. His delight in it may well be imagined. And now from this new privilege he was roughly thrust out. It was a hard blow.

The news of this official enquiry and its outcome went round the city as by radio. Hearing it, Jesus knew that, for all his courageous witness, the man he had befriended was now for that very reason a social and religious outcast. With the anger of the rulers openly declared against him, few among the people would dare to have anything to do with him. So Jesus sought him out.

“Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” he asked. The man recognized the voice at once (10 :4), and knew that he stood before his benefactor, the one he had stoutly declared to be a prophet of the Lord. Now he felt sure he was being led on to accept Jesus as greater even than that. But he sought confirmation: “Who then is this Son of God you speak of, that I may believe on him?’—as who should say: ‘I am willing to follow anyone you bid me follow.’

With characteristic indirect allusion to the miracle, Jesus replied: “Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee” (cp. Is. 52:6,8).

There was immediate and complete response. The man fell to the ground worshipping. “Lord, I believe,” was all he had to say, all that he needed to say.

Growing faith

The maturing of this conviction and witness concerning Christ is impressive:

1. He tells the simple facts of his healing: “He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see”(v.!5).
2. “He is a prophet” (v.17).
3. “Whether he be a sinner, or no, I know not: one thing I know. . .” (v.25).
4. “Do you also wish to be his disciples?’—i.e. as I intend to be.
5. “God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth” (v.31).
6. “Lord, I believe” (v.38; contrast the tone of v.27).
7. He worshipped him (v.38)

What a sequence!

There his story ends. Yet it is almost impossible to believe that a man of such lively mentality and with such a vigorous attractive personality was not brought by unflagging gratitude and faith in Christ to activity of some prominence in the early church. Is it possible that he is to be found again later in the New Testament story?

Notes: John 9.

1.	Earlier healings of the blind: Mk. 8:22-26 (and its meaning in 27-29); Mt. 9:27-34; 12:22-27. And later: Lk. 18:35-43. The apostolic commentary on all these comes in Eph. 5:7-14.
3.	The works of Cod manifest in him. But manifested to whom?—the man himself? the men of the temple? the nation generally? Cp. 11:4. What works of God?; 6:28,29 explains; cp. Ps. 145:10: men and women new-made.
4.	The fairly well-supported reading: “We must work the works of God …” might imply apostolic participation in the sign, as suggested in the text.
	Him that sent me disallows the Trinity. Jesus sent by God, and the healing water (a symbol of Holy Scripture) was also sent by God (v.7)
7.	Sent. .Siloam does not represent Christ, for he was the Sender. It represents the revelation about Christ.
9.	I am he. Gk. I am. Definitely not the Covenant Name of God (Ex. 3:14). But this is often claimed for other occurrences; e.g. 10:11; 15:1; 18:5.
10.	How opened he thine eyes? In the literal sense those eyes were open all the time, but were unseeing until Siloam. “Opened” is used idiomatically for “cured”.
16.	Division among them. The evidence of this gradual sorting-out process amongst the Pharisees is very much to the fore in John: 6:52; 8:31; 9:40; 20:19-21; 11:45.
22.	Put out of the synagogue. And so it is always when a man confesses faith in Christ.
	This man is a sinner. Were they giving a sinister twist to the known fact that Jesus had been baptized by John?
29.	We know not from whence he is. Contrast 7:27; Mt. 21:23.
31.	God heareth not sinners. Pr. 15:29; 1:28; 28:9; Ps. 66:18,19; Is. 1:11-15; 59:2,3; Mic. 3:4; Jer. 14:12
	A worshipper of God. LXX applies this term to Job three times.
35.	Found him. Like the Father, Jesus “seeketh such to worship him” (v.38; 4:23; Lk. 15:4).
38.	He worshipped him In 4:20-24; 12:20 this word describes the worship of God.
39.	Made blind. Consider: Jn. 3:17; 12:46-48; 1 Pet. 2:7,8; 2 Cor. 2:16; Is. 6:20; Rom. 11:7-10,25. And thus blind Israel found itself cast out of God’s temple (2 Sam. 5:8).
	Hoskyns draws attention to the similarities with the miracle of ch. 5: a. Signs on the sabbath. b. Official investigation by the rulers. c. Jesus meeting again with the healed man. d. A long-lasting affliction. e. “Son of God” (Son of man). f. Ignorance who Jesus was. g. Reference to “the man” (no name). h. Blind and lame mentioned together.

When Jesus sent out the seventy on their preaching mission, he gave them detailed instructions how they were to go about it. These have been discussed at some length in Study 89. He added also the charge that any place which rejected the message concerning him should be given clear warning of its intransigence and folly: “Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this: that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you” Lk. 10:11).

In demonstration of the kind of reprobation intended, the gospels give examples of how Jesus shook the dust of the Galilean towns from his feet: “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, had been done in Tyre and Sidon which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” Most probably the Lord uttered this remarkable apostrophe publicly (Lk.10:13) and with considerable vehemence in the very cities he denounced, or at some spot within sight of the place named, at the time when he left them to undertake his southern ministry.

Gospel omissions

Bethsaida, already mentioned often enough in the gospels, was probably the fishing port attached to Capernaum. It had provided Jesus tith no less than three of his apostles—Peter, Andrew, and Philip (and possibly James, John, and Matthew). Yet although the crowds there had been at least as big as anywhere else, there was very little response of the kind Jesus sought, Chorazin, two miles further north, is not given another mention in the gospels. Yet it was one of places where most of his mighty works were done. Other places heard members of his band of preachers, and responded. These heard the Son of God himself, and yet did not repent.

Here, surely, is one of the most impressive and unsuspected indications of the fragmentary nature of the gospel records. But for this passage it would have been possible for critics to argue that Jesus never went to Chorazin. And, but for a passing allusion to it in the Talmud, as a splendid wheat-growing locality (Chorazin means “threshing instrument”) the very existence of the town would have remained unknown.

The gospels are like this. Before the death of Lazarus, there is only one mention of Jesus visiting his home, yet the family at Bethany were obviously among the very closest friends of Jesus.

“How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings,” Jesus lamented over Jerusalem (Lk. 13:34). Yet the synoptics give no mention of even a single visit of Jesus to the capital before the last week of the ministry! And John, who concentrates on the Lord’s work in Jerusalem, mentions only four, or perhaps five, such visits.

There is only one specific instance told of Jesus going to the garden of Gethsemane. Yet John says “he offtimes resorted thither with his disciples” (18:2). The nearest approach to any other mention is Luke’s hint that “he went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives” (22:39).

Such examples bring to mind the impressive conclusion to John’s gospel: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written (21:25). Perhaps that is not an example of flamboyant eastern hyperbole after all!

The natural meaning of the text is that more than half the Lord’s miracles were witnessed by the inhabitants of these three places, and yet, after the early surprise, they evidently began to take them for granted. Human nature can acclimatise to anything. It is just possible that the word “most” may mean “more there than anywhere else”; but even with this dilution the language is still impressive.

To the discouraged twentieth century preacher of an unheeded gospel these bitter words of Jesus addressed to Chorazin and Bethsaida are almost a comfort. For, whilst there may be healthy misgivings and self-reproaches at the seeming ineffectiveness of the message today, it remains inescapably true that the finest preacher in the world, with an incomparable message backed by copious demonstrations of the gracious powers of the Holy Spirit, was able to achieve no more in some of the towns and cities where he preached the gospel.

The experience of Jesus demonstrates just how true are the Scriptures which speak of Israel as a “gainsaying and disobedient generation.” a people “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears”, “children in whom is no faith”.

Contrast Tyre and Sidon

Witnessing the same wonderful works, “Tyre and Sidon would have repented long ago.” Jesus meant precisely what he said and not: “I feel sure they would have repented.” There came to his mind, doubtless, the profound encouragement when he had retired with the twelve to the region of Tyre and Sidon, and had there experienced the tonic exhilarating faith of an importunate Gentile woman (Mt. 15:21ff).

Tyre and Sidon would have repented long ago clothed in sack-cloth and with ashes on their heads, as though lamenting the inevitable destruction of their proud city (Ez 27:30,31). No places were less suitable for the preaching of the gospel than Tyre and Sidon, yet they were not hopeless, even though in earlier times they had had the truth of Israel’s religion, and had debased it, even though they had sent Jezebel as a missionary to defile Israel with their Phoenician Baal.

That phrase “long ago” tells a story of a long drawn-out campaign in the Galilean towns—no brief peremptory call to repentance such as Jonah had made in Nineveh. Yet hard Assyrians had repented forthwith. So also—’long ago” would those Phoenicians now dedicated to the worship of Mammon. How ruefully Jesus must have read the word of the Lord to the son-of-man Ezekiel: “Surely, had I sent thee to them (the Gentiles), they would have hearkened unto thee” (Ezek. 3:6)

So, “it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon” than for “Chorazin and Bethsaida”. That future tense has been read as a prophecy of complete destruction in the Roman War, AD. 67-70. But the meaning surely is that men from these cities will rise for judgment in the last day (cp.Mt. 11:24).

In Paul’s time Tyre had its company of faithful Spirit-guided brethren (Acts 21:3,4; and cp. Mk. 3:8). And, if the words of Jesus mean anything, it may be inferred that even those in Tyre who did not accept the Faith adopted a sympathetic attitude, thus shaming the cold hostility or self-centred indifference of Jewry.

Capernaum and Sodom

Next came a comparable apostrophe addressed to the city which had seen more of the works of Jesus and heard more of his message than any other place in all the Land: “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day,” such would have been the transforming effect on it. Capernaum had been the home of Jesus (so far as he had a home) for most of his ministry. Time and again, the people had heard his word in the synagogue, on the beach, on the hillside, in the street. In all the world and in all history noplace could match its privileges. Exalted to heaven!

Sodom, having this Man and this message, would have been brought to its knees and would have lived to tell the tale of its rescue from Gehenna, instead of being smitten with blindness and treating the Man of God as one that mocked (Gen. 19:11,14). The logic of this grim admonition should have told the people of Capernaum to flee from the wrath to come. But they went blithely about their affairs, supercilious and critical of Jesus of Nazareth in their minds, and giving no heed to the obvious truth that “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required (Lk. 12:48; Jn. 12:48).

“Thou shalt be thrust down to hell.” Capernaum could not muster even ten righteous. Instead it has gone down to history as the town where “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (Jn. 6:59,66). The place itself suffered the wrath of God. It disappeared from sight. And it is only within the past fifty years that archaeologists have settles the argument about its location as Tell Hum.

But that divine judgment on the stones of Capernaum, a site long unpopulated, was only on outward token of heaven’s rejection of a people who rejected the God of heaven and His Son. Sodom scorned the warnings of “righteous Lot” and will answer one day for its frivolous wickedness. Yet “it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom” than for heedless Capernaum.

Capernaum and “Babylon”

This bitter censure of a hard unresponsive people presents a problem by the form in which it was cast by Jesus. “Exalted to heaven … cast down to hell” was the judgment pronounced against the enemy of God’s people by Isaiah 14:13,15; cp Lam. 2:1). (Lk. 10:19 has another allusion to Is. 14:29,30). The target of his tirade was the contemporary king of Assyria, called also by Isaiah “king of Babylon” (14:25, 4) because he gloried in his recent conquest of that city. Then, why should Jesus use the words of this prophecy with reference to the fate of Capernaum?

The problem is no easy one. The prophet’s picture of the Assyrian invader (who actually overran and despoiled all Galilee) is one of a cocksure braggart, boastfully relying on what he feels sure he can achieve by his own unaided powers. Later in the prophecy, the picture is drawn in even more vivid colours (ch. 36,37). The men of Capernaum were not warriors, but with their tongues and their faithless hearts they had contended with the Son of God with just as much perverse self-assurance as the Assyrian in his campaign.

‘You know what happened to him,’ challenged Jesus, ‘then think you that your own fate will be any less drastic?’ No man snaps his fingers in the face of Almighty God, or of His messengers, and gets away with it.

With reminder of this solemn warning Jesus sent his men to their task. “He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” (cp 1 Th. 4:8) The dignity of their calling must never be forgotten. “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them,” said God to Samuel. And in very different circumstances but the same vein, Jesus, the Lord of Glory, was to reproach his new apostle: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

Today the message is treated with comparable despite, but its dignity is unchanged.

Notes: Mt. 11:20-24

20.	Were done; not “had been done”; these wonders were still going on.
23.	Israel like Sodom: Dt. 32:32; Is. 1:10; 3:9; Rev. 11:8.
	Worse than Sodom: Lam. 4:6; Ez. 16:46-49.
	Capernaum: It is tempting to think of Jesus as seeing his rejection by Nazareth and Capernaum as a type of Jewish and Gentile indifference to the gospel.

It is not inappropriate that Luke should bring together and insert at the beginning of his account of the Lord’s great tour of appeal, the record of three disciples who reacted very differently to his call.

Following Luke’s arrangement (what did he mean by “in order”?; 1 :3) it has been deemed desirable to consider this section of the gospels here rather than earlier, where inserted by Matthew. And the fitness of the passage for inclusion at this place in Luke none can question. Yet there are hints that Matthew’s arrangement is chronologically more likely:

1. “The Son of man hath not where to lay his head” follows on appropriately enough from verses 17,18: “Took our infirmities . . . bear our sicknesses,” and the command to leave the crowd; and in turn the words are followed by the picture of Jesus in the storm-tossed boat “asleep on a pillow.”
2. “Follow me” (v.22); then “his disciples followed him” (v.23)
3. In Matthew it is shortly after these encounters that the Twelve are definitely chosen.

Apparently, Luke, impressed by the appropriateness of this section in Matthew to a later period, deliberately transplanted it, and added something not unlike Matthew’s personal response to the Lord’s “Follow me.”

Eager disciple

The first of the three was a scribe-Saul among the prophets! It would not require Matthew’s distinctive Hebraism to pick him out as a very unusual scribe: “Teacher, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.” What sort of a man was this, openly to acknowledge Jesus as his rabbi?

It might be thought that Jesus would be greatly delighted to have so influential and eager a follower. But the protestation of devotion was a trifle too effusive, and Jesus mistrusted it, as he did all that class of men. There were other occasions when he quietly discouraged emotional impulsiveness of this kind — when the woman cried out in the crowd: ‘Why didn’t God give me a son like you? (Lk.ll :27); and the time when Peter rashly asserted that his devotion to Christ was without limit (22 :33;cp. also 14:28).

On this occasion the Lord bade the man consider what sort of life it meant for him if he, reared in the comfort and ease which a scribe could count on in those days, fulfilled his promise: “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have their roosting places, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” It is one of the few glimpses which the gospels afford of the Lord’s life of austerity and discomfort. It is even possible that at this time in the ministry, there was a rabbinic ban on the offering of hospitality to Jesus (note Lk.10 :38,39). As will be seen later, the invitation described in Luke 14 :ltt was a hostile act, not a friendly one. He began the days of his flesh in a borrowed manger, and ended them in a borrowed tomb. And throughout them he was no stranger to the hardships of David the outlaw or of his other great ancestor who set a stone for his pillow. “In the day the drought consumed him, and the frost by night; and his sleep departed from his eyes” (Gen.28:11; 31:40).

The sparrow could find herself a house, and the swallow a nest where she may lay her young, but the heart and flesh of Jesus cried out for no creature comforts, but only for the living God and His altars of self-consecration, prayer and expiation of sin (Ps.84 :2,3). Another , psalm (8 :6-8) held out a promise to the Son of man of a crown of glory and honour, with dominion over the works of God’s hands- sheep and oxen, the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea; but at this present time he was “made lower than the angels” and in some material respects scarcely knew the blessings of the birds and foxes.

Religiously also the Lord’s discouraging words were just as true. Jesus was at home with none of the variegated segments of Jewish religious life. How would a scribe like that?

It is not said whether the Lord’s unemotional realism put this fervent disciple off. But if, after this, he persisted in his allegiance, it would be in a more sober spirit of clear-sighted resolution and tenacity than his earlier avowal gave promise of.

Fence-sitter

The next disciple was one of very different temperament. Far from needing to have the brake applied to his racing fervour, he-already a disciple-had to be helped with a blunt imperative delivered point blank. So Jesus gave it, twice. First, there was the peremptory: “Follow me.” The reaction to this was a timid uncertain: ‘Yes, Lord, but later on, when I am not hampered by other responsibilities. Suffer me first to go and bury my father.’ There lie spoke for thousands of would-be followers of Jesus who have sought the kingdom of God and His righteousness, but have not sought it first.

It is not clear whether the man’s father had just died, and there remained only to see him decently interred, or whether the excuse was: “I have a responsibility to look after my aged parent. When this is no longer necessary, then I will follow you.” But it was seventeen years before Jacob died when the angel of the Lord assured him that “Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes” (Gen.46:4).

If indeed it was only the actual burial which detained him, it is difficult to believe that Jesus would have been so peremptory about the loss of one day’s dedication to the work of the gospel. But whilst with the Jews interment took place very promptly (see Acts 5 :6), there are rabbinic indications of a long period (perhaps ten days) during which the mourners did not leave the house. Or it may be that the lord’s i insight discerned ulterior motives-the man was j anxious about the will and what would become ₍ of his share of the inheritance if he were not present to thwart the scheming of greedy relatives. Human nature is always at its worst as it leaves the cemetery.

It would appear that this was the Lord’s assessment of the situation. Otherwise it is difficult to account for the harsh flavour of his peremptory “Let the dead bury their dead,” This was the spirit of the Law of Moses. The high priest and also the Nazirite, who sought to emulate the high priest’s dedication to the service of God, were forbidden to defile themselves with the dead (Lev. 21:1-4; Num. 6:6,7). Ezekiel’s experience was even more harrowing. He lost his wife at a stroke, and was forbidden any kind of open mourning (24:16-18). And the Bride of the Lamb is bidden: “Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house” (Ps.45:10).

“Let the spiritually dead bury their own dead,” who when they were alive were like them-spiritually dead. There is no lack of other places in the New Testament where people still walking about are written off as already dead. Paul’s trenchant phrase: “dead in trespasses and sins,” comes to mind. “This do, and thou shalt live,” said Jesus to an enquiring lawyer who did not know himself to be a corpse. And die idiom is frequent in John’s gospel: “He that heareth my word, and believeth . . . hath everlasting life … he hath passed from death unto life . . . The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (Jn.5:24,25). “We know that we have passed from death unto life …” (1 Jn. 3 :14; cp. also 1Tim.5:6;Mt. 18:8).

It is doubtless praiseworthy to bury the dead and to pay due respect to them whilst so doing; but it is better by far to give people resurrection from a living death. Mourning at the grave-side is right and proper, but proclaiming the glad message of the resurrection far surpasses this in positive value.

It is noteworthy that Jesus did not advise this disciple nor appeal‘to him to seek the higher duty first. He unequivocally commanded him to do this. The fact has to be faced that there are some indecisive individuals who need saving from themselves. Well intentioned enough, they lack the resolution to commit themselves fully to loyal discipleship of Christ. With such it is an act of Christian charity to give them a good shove in the right direction. This is what Jesus did. “Go thou, and preach the kingdom of God” was a directive allowing of no quibble or argument. And within hours of obeying, this hesitating fearful fellow would know that he had done the right thing. Yet how easily he might have lost his opportunity.

In two worlds

Another disciple showed everv willingness to join in the big project, but wished to add his own conditions: “Let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.” That ominous word “first” showed that here was another who had his priorities wrong. It is hardly likely that he would choose an expression like “them which are at home at my house” to describe wife or children or parents, so there must have been social connections which competed for his time and interest (2Tim.2:4).

However, the Lord’s business brooked no squandering of good time on things, or people, of lesser importance. Abraham’s steward, once be was convinced that he had been guided to the right wife for his master’s son, would not stay for farewell feasting: “Hinder me not, I seeing the Lord hath prospered my way” (Gen. 24:56). This was God’s work, and must not be cluttered up with mere social indulgence.

Many years later this forthright single-mindedness was matched by that of Paul: “Yea, doubtless (menounge, a very emphatic expression), and I do count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ” (Phil.3:8).

The figure of speech with which Jesus quietly reproved his disciple’s attempt to live in two worlds can be interpreted in two differing ways, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (cp. Pr. 20:4). There is the familiar notion of the ploughman spoiling his work in the field by looking back instead of keeping his eye on the mark ahead so as to plough a dead straight furrow. The analogy needs no explaining.

But if Biblical allusion has any authority to guide students of Scripture in interpretation, the undoubted reference here to the call of Elisha must be given more weight than any personal judgement.

Elisha was ploughing with twelve yoke of oxen when Elijah cast his mantle on him. He promptly sought permission to bid farewell to those at home. Elijah’s enigmatic reply should probably read: “Go, return (to my service). Wherefore did I do (this thing) to thee?” meaning: ‘Don’t forget what receiving my mantle must mean for you.’ So Elisha slew two oxen as a peace offering, and putting his hand to the plough, he broke it up for fuel on the altar fire. This was his formal act of self-consecration (comparable to Levi’s feast). Then he said his farewells, and followed after Elijah.

Clearly the disciple of Jesus did not use Elisha’s words by accident. Nor was it chance which shaped the reply with reference to the same occasion. Thus it would seem to mean: ‘No man having put his hand to the plough, as Elisha did, to offer sacrifice consecrating himself to follow the Prophet of the Lord, can thereafter look back as though he would pick up the old life once again. The plough (an obvious symbol of the former allegiance) has been burnt. There can be no going back.’ For this disciple to be looking back longingly to the old life after he had already declared himself a disciple, was to insinuate doubts about his fitness for the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

In this interpretation the essential meaning of Christ’s words is not radically changed, but the symbolism of the plough is. Instead of it being a symbol of present service in Christ, it is a yet more suitable figure for the old way of life prior to the call of Christ.

In the three examples of discipleship considered here in some detail, it is specially impressive that in each instance Jesus bade the man suspect his own inclinations. Is he all eagerness and buoyant enthusiasm? Let him pause and consider what he is putting his hand to, whether he can face up to its hardships and win his way through all discouragements with unflagging resolution. Does he falter in his confidence to follow Christ, preferring to put off the day of decision? Then let him give himself a good shake, and make up his mind right away. Does he feel tempted to try living in two different worlds at the same time? Then let him forthwith shrug off the old life with all its allurements, remembering that without true dedication and sacrifice his discipleship is empty and worthless.

Here in these examples Jesus was enunciating for all time a valuable principle by which his brethren may know how to reach decisions in problems of personal conduct. In which direction would my own inclinations take me? Then I will resolutely travel the alternative road; this is almost bound to be the right one-such is the genius of human nature for inclining to the wrong direction.

It would be interesting to know what was the outcome of these three encounters, yet the gospels give no hint. But it is difficult to believe that the very direct admonition given by Jesus did not have its effect.

Three Apostles?

In his “Studies in the Gospels”, Trench diffidently but persuasively makes the suggestion that these three disciples were three apostles being called to full time service, and that they may perhaps be identified with Judas Iscariot, Thomas, and Matthew.

In support of the first point he notes:

1. Luke 10:1: “seventy other (different) also…” can be read as implying that the three mentioned at the end of Luke 9 were already enrolled, and with a different status,
2. The repeated “follow me” matches the call of apostles in other narratives: Mt.9 :9; Lk.5:27;Jn.l :43.

As to the identification of the three-

The emphasis to the first on complete absent of worldly advantage in following such a Teacher would be appropriate enough to one of Judas’s temperament. But this, it must be conceded, is somewhat meagre ground for such an identification.

It is certainly remarkable that the repeated mention of death and burial, regarding the second of the three, chimes in well enough with the fact that in other places (Jn.11:16; 20 :24,25) Thomas has similar personal associations. And his rather gloomy pessimist outlook matches the unsureness of this one I whom the Lord said, very abruptly: “Follow me”- ‘Forget the world of death with which you are obsessed, and go preach life-the kingdom of God.’

The third in Luke’s list was not explicitly told to eliminate his farewells; he was warned against the dangers involved.

In Matthew’s case, the farewell feast was held, but only after a definite decision had been made to follow a life of discipleship. And Matthew made sure that his new Master was present at the feast to reinforce the public profession of faith and to save his new disciple from seduction by prosperous fellow-publicans or by casuistic Pharisees.

To the seventy (Lk.10 :1) Jesus gave a charge similar to that he had addressed to the twelve when they first went out preaching, except that now there may be just a hint of evangelization of the Samaritans also. These eighty-two messengers of the gospel he now sent out in twos “before his face into every city and place whither he himself would come.”

The idea presented by these words is almost past believing. In a period of about two month, how many places would each of these forty-one teams cover? And to every one of these town: and villages Jesus intended to come in person, In terms of sheer physical effort, apart from any other consideration, what a gargantuan programme this was which Jesus had worked out for himself! The Great Appeal was under way.

Notes: Mt. 8:19-22

19.	Of course Mt. has to add a third example to these two, for his mind rejoiced in triplets (There are many suit scattered through his gospel. Note the three triplets of miracles in ch.8,9). So in ch. 9:9,10 he inserts his own experience.
	Whithersoever thou goest. Jesus had just commanded a crossing of Galilee to get away from, or to sort out the crowd; v.24,18. Cp. 2 Sam.15 :20,21.
20.	The Son of man. This, it must be remembered, is a title of Messiah (Dan.7 :13). Then what a paradox that such should be so comfortless!
	Where to lay his head. The same phrase comes in Jn. 19:30. Cp. Elijah: 1 Kgs. 17:1-6; 19;4-8.

Lk. 9:51-62

60.	Preach. Not the usual euangetto, but diangello: s.w. Josh. 6: 10LXX “bid”; it is the downfall of the kingdom of’ ignorance, and the beginning of the kingdom of God. It is also the proclamation of a Jubilee of freedom (s.w. Lev. 25:9).
61.	Bid farewell. The form of the Greek verb here implies self-interest rather than concern for others.

Illustrating the wholesome Christ-like disposition which can ignore all pride of place, Jesus had taken a little child in his arms: “Whosoever receiveth one of such children in my name, receiveth me.” John realised that the scope of this commandment went a long way beyond children of the kind Jesus was now holding. It meant adults also. Then here was a problem. Who were they to consider as included among Christ’s “little ones”?

A Competitor?

So, with uneasy conscience, John told of a recent experience: “We saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us.” The question in John’s voice added: ‘We did the right thing, didn’t we?’ There may even have been a suggestion of sour grapes about the apostles’ antagonism, for this man was succeeding just where they had failed (Mk.9 :38). John’s implication may also have been: ‘Since he does not follow us, of course we have not “received” him. So he can hardly reckon as one of your ‘littleones’, Lord, can he?”

Yet it may be inferred that the man in question was a true believer in Jesus, for he was casting out devils, not merely attempting to do this. He was not like the evil sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14), dressing up a mountebank performance with an appeal to the well-known name of Jesus of Nazareth.

More than this, the Greek imperfect tense implies that several of the apostles had demanded time after time that the man desist from this practice which they disapproved of. But evidently, the man had taken no notice.

Another useful detail to observe is that when John said: “He followeth not us,” he meant the “us” to include Jesus and the twelve, for this is the meaning of the “us” used by Jesus in his reply (Mk.9 :40). Thus John’s words imply a marked sense of superiority over this lone disciple. What is worse, they breathe a distinctly sectarian spirit. There is no complaint of false teaching or unworthy character, but simply that “He doesn’t belong to our fellowship!” For long generations this very thing has been the greatest evil in the Ecclesia of the Lord.

The Lord’s comment on this situation is worthy of close study: “Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.” The actual doing of miracles was itself an evident sign of God’s approval and support. Then who was John, to take upon himself the authority to forbid what was being done? And was it likely that a man who found power in the name of Jesus would be disposed to say anything damaging about Jesus?

Moses and Paul

The situation was exactly that which faced Moses when he chose the seventy elders to share his labours (Num.11 -.24-30). He gathered them at his tent outside the camp, and there the Spirit of God was poured upon them so that they “prophesied”. But unexpectedly the Spirit also overflowed on to Eldad and Medad in the camp itself. Learning about this, and jealous for the authority of his leader, Joshua cried out: “My lord Moses, forbid them.” But Moses’ mature reply calmed him: “Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets!’—and he promptly went and joined them! (Cp. 1 Cor.12 :3). The exclusive attitude of Joshua was well-intentioned but wrong.

In Rome Paul had to cope with a much more provoking experience of this kind. Whilst he was a prisoner chained to a Roman soldier, certain of the brethren in the Rome ecclesia took advantage of his being under restraint to proclaim a slanted gospel in a contentious and factious spirit: “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife… of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds.” The surmise is almost certainly correct that these were Judaists, glad of the opportunity to spoil with their own dogmatic sectarianism the gospel Paul preached. They made hay while the sun shone. Paul, without his freedom, heard what was afoot but was unable personally to counter or correct their deleterious work.

Yet there is no hint of him writing sweeping censure of their activities, no hint of vexed, frustrated indignation. Instead: “What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice” (Phil.1:15:18).

The quiet steadfast faith that God can bring good out of men’s evil intentions or imperfect understanding does not flourish in many minds. All too often the egotistic attitude is this: If /do not save the Truth of Christ, it will perish.

As was his wont, Jesus summed up the present problem with a governing principle: “He that is not against us is on our part.” Separatists, who find little comfort or encouragement for their attitudes in this incident, are more at home with the complementary saying which Jesus had used on an earlier occasion: “He that is not with me is against me” (Mt.12 :30).

It seems necessary to supply the ellipsis (for it is obvious that there is an ellipsis) thus: “He that is not against us (when he might be expected to be) is on our part.” Those who attempted the casting out of devils in the time of Jesus were usually people of the character of the sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14ff)-charlatans, impostors, rivals, rather than disciples. So the rare phenomenon represented by this lone healer who was also a firm believer in Jesus was one to rejoice in.

On the other hand, the scribes and Pharisees were able, Bible-instructed men who should surely have been among the first to recognize and acclaim Jesus as the Son of God. Instead, in a desperate effort to besmirch his character they blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, basely misrepresenting his gracious miracles as inspired by the Devil. So concerning them Jesus said: “He that is not with me (when there is every reason why he should be with me) is against me.”

Offences

Jesus went on to warn against the grievous sin of discouraging one whom he is glad to recognize as “one of these little ones, that believe in me.” And how needful such a warning is! lf apostles could blunder into this serious error, what likelihood is there that smaller men will avoid it?

A remarkable aspect of this present episode is this. By his earlier question: “What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?” the Lord had given further proof of his remarkable ability to read the minds of his disciples. Then must he not have been equally aware of their exclusive behaviour towards this “loner”? Yet he did nothing about it until they brought the problem to him!

But when they did so, how weighty was his disapproval! “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, (as though he were a dangerous mad dog), and he were cast into the sea . . .” to stay there, so the Greek text seems to imply. In other words, better for such a man to die without any prospect of resurrection than to have to rise from the dead in the Last Day to give account for such an action! (But, for such a one, is a peaceful uninterrupted oblivion possible?)

Here, for the spiritual seed of Abraham, is the counterpart to that element in the earlier promise: “I will curse him that curseth thee” (Gen.l2 :3). On the other hand, the smallest gesture of goodwill-a mere cup of water-offered to a disciple, because he is a disciple, does not go unrewarded by heaven. The destitute and desperate widow of Zarephath gave a drink to Elijah, recognizing him to be prophet of the Lord, and thereupon received a reward beyond her wildest dreams (1 Kgs.17 :8ff). Think you, asks Jesus, that you are any less important than Elijah?

Gehenna

The Lord now turned from the much-needed lessons of toleration and kindliness, to the exact opposite—a ruthless intolerance of one’s own besetting sins; and, appropriately, he employed some of the most vigorous language to be found anywhere in the gospels. The picture of a man (lilting off hand or foot or plucking out an eye, in order to save himself from the smoky destruction of Gehenna is not matched by any of the Lord’s vivid figures of speech.

First, it is well to recognize how hopelessly mistaken are the misapplications of these words in support of the old and still widely held doctrine of hell torments. Taken literally, this language makes nonsense. “It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, halt, with one eye, than to go fully equipped into hell.” Is it possible to conceive of enjoyment of everlasting life bereft of powers and faculties with which God graciously endows a man in this life?

Again, “where their worm dieth not” positively refuses a literal interpretation. So also does the picture of a man plucking out one of his eyes, because it is a cause of offence, for obviously with his one remaining eye his vision is not drastically impaired; he is, for example, still well able to “look on a woman to lust after her.”

Self discipline

Of far greater importance than the misapplications of these words is their far-reaching relevance to the problems of daily living. The Law of Moses has a very dramatic picture (Dt.13 :6) of drastic action against others who would draw away the people of God from their loyalty to Him. Now Jesus bids his follower direct the same intense spirit of intolerance against the evils of his own life. Whereas there is to be every possible allowance made for weakness in others, and forgiveness extended unto seventy times seven, with the faults in oneself the Lord calls for relentless ruthlessness. A man is always in love with his besetting sins. That is why they are always with him. So, very honest and frank appraisal of one’s own spiritual hindrances is a responsibility no true disciple would want to evade. Especially do the practical activities of life represented by hand, foot, and eye, need to come under constant scrutiny in a spirit of self-mistrust.

It is something of a puzzle why Jesus selected these three examples. The high priest was anointed on hand, foot, and ear (Lev. 8:23). Perhaps the third item was intended to signify the consecration of a man’s head to the service of God—all the faculties of mind, speech and hearing being included. More likely, both in Law and Gospel the three powers mentioned are no more than examples, to remind the man of God that in all life’s activities there is a call to rigorous self-discipline and the fullest possible consecration to God of whatever a man finds himself endowed with.

The hand stands, of course, for a man’s daily work and for the special skills with which God has blessed him. The younger generation, planning careers for themselves, are well advised not only to choose such callings.as are reasonably clear from worldly defilement or temptation, but also to aim at a means of livelihood which makes a positive contribution to the well-being of society and is not parasitic.

The hand also represents hobbies and ploys to which a man turns in his leisure time. Some of these can be dangerous, luring him into undesirable company. Some are obsessive, capturing imagination and enthusiasm to such an extent that, instead of filling the odd hour of relaxation, they become insatiable. Bridge and billiards fall readily enough into this category. But it is little realised that the more respectable diversions such as music, chess and gardening can be every bit as evil. Elegant time-wasters, all of them!

Very expressively, when the Old Testament wants to say “dedicate” it makes use of the idiom: “fill the hand” (e.g. 1 Chr.29 :5; 2 Chr.29 :31). This goes back to the consecration of Aaron as high-priest. In that ritual the Lord’s portion of the sacrifice was put “upon Aaron’s hands, and upon his sons’ hands”, and thus it was presented before the Lord (Lev.8 :27). Now the exhortation of Jesus bids a man take care to consecrate all the activities of daily life to God. He is to “fill his hand” with that which pleases his Maker. And where there is risk of diversion or perversion of effort, He calls for unhesitating self-discipline.

“It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell.” This, one may be sure, is how it may appear to limited human judgement. To worldly acquaintances many a saint in Christ appears to live a cramped and stunted life. But that individual, who has, for Christ’s sake, foregone interests and activities which are deemed by the world desirable or even fascinating, knows that he has made a good exchange, finding profound satisfaction in this life, whatever the life to come may have to offer. And what value have all the fine cultural and entertaining diversions of this life if the end of them is an irreversible fate in Gehenna?

During the reign of some of the apostate kings of Judah, the valley of the son of Hinnom had been given over to the worship of Moloch. There little children had been passed through the fire in an act of dedication to Moloch, most of them—one may be sure—not surviving the frightful ordeal. Later Josiah’s reformation devoted that valley to the disposal of the city’s rubbish and sewage. Thus the fires constantly burning there became a well-understood figure for utter destruction. It was a place where “their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (cp.Jer.7:20; 17:27).

The figure of speech went right back to Isaiah. He used it to add vigour to his prophecy of a Jerusalem finally cleansed of all abuses: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me.”

It is their “worm that dieth not.” It is they who shall be an “abhorring unto all flesh” (ls.66:24).

With powerful admonitory repetition, the Lord said it all again about the foot and the eye. In not a few Scriptures the foot is associated wild the religious side of one’s life: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet . . . holy ground!” (Ex.3 :i). “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God” (Ecc.5 :1) “Trampling my courts” is Isaiah’s caustic phrase for heedless insincere worship (1 :12). At other times the warning is against intimate social contact with the godless

There are dangers both ways. It is often a big temptation to let the outward forms of religious service do duty for true piety and the realities of a dedicated life. Attendance at Fraternal Gathering or Bible School may afford much religious and social pleasure without adding appreciably to the joy in heaven. It all depends on the attitude of mind.

Young people especially need to be alert to the dangers of where their feet— or their wheels — may carry them. Choice of friends and social activities is a far more serious matter than is usually assessed. It is so easy to drift thoughtlessly into friendships and activities harmless enough in themselves, yet fraught wild many a subtle unspiritual risk.

The eye, similarly, may be the cause of many another danger. In these sex-ridden days there is no need for warning against the havoc which the lust of the eyes can let loose. The saint in Christ who weakens his own defences with time spent on bad novels, salacious magazines, blue radio and TV programmes, is a fool (cp. Jud.16 :21). Corruption spreads fast in our time. There is no need to give it a helping hand, “Flee also youthful lusts” (2 Tim.2:22). “If thine eye cause thee to stumble, pluck it out.”

In many another way, the eye may be the gateway of evil. Looking at oneself or one’s belongings with pride! Looking at the possessions or the happiness of others with envy! Such attitudes, always evil, may become positively cancerous.

And is it not evident that Jesus also intended reference to the imagination? One of the most spiritually enervating habits it is possible to cultivate is that of idle reverie and unwholesome fantasy. Here again is a a vice to which young people are specially prone. It never does any good. It often works serious damage on mind or character.

Whatever kind of self-indulgence calls (or self-discipline, the counsel of Jesus is: “Cut it off… pluck it out.” The world in its plausible cynical wisdom says to its cigarette smokers: “Phase it out gradually.” There is no false wisdom of this kind to be found in the Bible. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth” (Col.3 ;5)—and “mortify” means “put to death.” Regarding other, and worse, things than smoking, the world’s rotten pseudo-science of psychology says: “This is your inheritance from your parents or youir upbringing. These guilty feelings are uncalled (or, they are themselves a guilt. So, follow your inclinations, express your personality, work it out of your system. You are burdened not with a besettting sin but with a complex. Do your own thing, and you will be all the better for it.” Alas, they do not add: “But all the worse in the sight of me Lord you say you follow.”

Hi’s counsel is: “Pluck it out, and cast it from thee.” Follow this road of self-discipline, and the world will deem you to be mutilated, handicapped, disfigured. But Jesus would rather see you like that, and entering into “life.” Nor does he lack the power to make the loss good. “When they saw . . . the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see, they glorified the God of Israel” (Mt.15 :31-hand, foot, and eyes, both eyes).

Also, as far as possible, let there be positive effort at replacing unworthy activities and habits with the healthy directives of a Bible-guided outlook on all the routine of life: “These words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest in the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shall bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes… (Dt.6:6-8).

“Salted with salt”

At this point the thought of Jesus appears to go off, somewhat enigmatically, at a tangent: “For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” The meaning is not exactly obvious, but two observations can be immediately made with fair confidence. There is a definite link with what has gone before. The conjunction “for” requires this. Also, “salted with fire” is a meaningless expression, since it is only possible to salt with salt. But “salted for the fire” (a perfectly valid translation; see Notes) makes sense. Thus the idea is that, as in the temple every sacrifice must be salted (Lev.2 :13) before being given to the fire which devotes it to the glory of God, so also the salt of self-discipline is needful in the life of every disciple before he may consider himself worthy of God. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom.12 :1,2).

But, Jesus warned, to be of real value self-discipline must be lasting: “If the salt become saltless, wherewith will ye season it?” Whilst salt is valuable to impart flavour to many a food otherwise insipid, there is nothing that can similarly add a tang to the taste of salt. Then the only alternative is the fire and salt of heaven’s reprobation: “The whole land thereof shall be brimstone, and salt, and burning . . . like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah” (Dt.29:23).

Concluding this part of his discourse Jesus came back to the problem of relationship with other disciples, as it had been raised by John: “Have salt in yourselves, and (so) be at peace one with another.’—meaning, fairly obviously: Cease this concern about applying discipline to others; concentrate on the discipline of yourselves; in this way you will establish, and maintain, a wholesome fellowship in Christ with one another.

In this century has there been any commandment of Christ more blatantly disregarded than this?—and by those who call themselves disciples!

Notes: Mk. 9:38-50

38.	John answered him. In the synoptic gospels, these are the only words attributed to John, acting alone (Mk.10:35; 13:3). In the fourth gospel, 13 -.25 and 21 :7.
	One casting out devils in thy name. Gk.: a certain man in thy name casting out devils. There seems to be the implied query: “But, lord, when is a man in thy name?” Contrast 3 Jn.7,8,9.
	He followeth not us. Lk: with us. Which of these readings represents John’s ipsissima verbal Is Luke diluting the strength of the more contentious assertion?
41.	In my name links with v.37-39.
42.	In the parallel passage in Mt.18 there is a closer connection than is usually recognized between v.6-14 and v.15-35
	Cast. Mt. uses the same word as in Mt. 14:30
47.	Enter into the kingdom This and v. 43,45: “into life,” explain each other.
48.	Where their worm dieth not. Manna gone bad through ignoring of God’s precept; Ex. 16:20.
49.	Salted with fire “for the fire (of the altar).” Compare the force of the Greek dative in Rev.21 :2; Heb.6;4; Jn.3 :26; Mt.6 :25;2 Cor.2 :1;5:13.

	CHRIST			ELIJAH-ELISHA
	Luke			1, 2 Kings
1.	9:4;	“Into whatsoever house ye enter	17:9	Given hospitality by widow woman
	10:7	there abide
2.	9:6	Healing the sick	17: 17-23	Widow’s son healed.
3.	9:8	“Some said that Elias had appeared.”
4.	9:9	“Herod . . . desired to see him”	18:10	Sought by King Ahab.
5.	9:16	Feeding the five thousand.	17:14	Widow’s food miraculously multiplied.
			4:42-44	20 loaves feed 100 people
6.	9:19	“Some say, Elias”
7.	9:22	Rejected, raised the third day; 1Kgs. 19:2-8. Then, 40 days.	19:2-8	After third day, went forty days to the presence of God.
8.	9:23	‘Let him take up his cross daily, and follow me.”	18:21	“If the Lord be God, follow him”
9.	9:28-35	Theophany in the mount of God	19:11,12	Wind, earthquake, fire and – voice at Horeb.
10.	9:30	Elijah at the Transfiguration.
11.	9:37-42	Restored (dead) child when disciples failed.	4:31 -35	Restored dead child when Gehazi failed.
12.	9:46	Disciples eager for greatness	5:22-26	Gehazi’s ambition.
13.	9:51	“The time was come that he should be received up.”	2:1	“When the Lord would take Elijah up to heaven.”
14.	9:54	“Fire from heaven, as Elias did?”	1:10	“Let fire come down from heaven, and consume…”
15.	9:55	What manner of spirit.	2:9	A double portion of Elijah’s spirit.
16.	9:56	“Not to destroy, but to save.”	2:9	Elisha- “God saves.”
17.	9:58	“Nowhere to lay his head.”	19:5	Lay and slept under a juniper tree.
18.	9:61	“Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell which are at home. “	19:20	“Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee.”
19.	. 9:62	“No man, having put his hand to the plough…”	19:19,21	“Elisha plowing . . . boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen.”
20.	10:4	“Salute no man by the way”	4:29	“If thou meet any man, salute him not.”
21.	10:7	“Eating and drinking such things as they give.”	17:9ff	Lodging with the widow.
22.	10:13,14	. “If the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Zidon.”	17:9 16:31	A widow of Zidon. Jezebel of Zidon.
23.	10:19	“I give unto you power…”	2:9	Elijah’s power given to Elisha.
24.	10:38	“Martha received him into her house”	4:8ff	Shunamite woman received Elisha “as often as he passed by”
25.		(and received her brother back to life)		(and received her son back to life).
26.	12:24	“Consider the ravens…; God feedeth them.”	17:4	“I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.”
27.	13:32	“Herod (Herodias!) will kill thee. . . Go ye, and tell that vixen.”	19:2	Jezebel’s threat, and Elijah’s flight

Notes on the fore-going

A.	Some of these items, if they stood alone, would be of doubtful force, but together they make an impressive case.
B.	This set of allusions suggests a different interpretation of 9:61,62 from what is usually advanced.
C.	10:4 “Salute no man by the way” now implies: “Your errand is to go and raise the dead”.
D.	12:24 “raven.” Contrast Matthew’s more general: “fowls of the air” (6:26).
E.	What is Luke trying to teach by such a catalogue as this?

Jesus had spoken very earnestly about the responsibility of exercising special care that those whom he calls his “little ones” shall not be caused to stumble. Then he broke off to enlarge on the dangers of inadequate self-examination and self-discipline. Now he returned to his original theme. It is a measure of the importance he attached to it. Apparently he had specially in mind the big responsibility which the apostles would bear as leaders of his Ecclesia after his ascension.

So he warned them: “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones.” “Little ones” and shepherding of the flock (v.12,13) come together in Zech.13 :7. “For (he went on) I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”

The care of angels

The Bible doctrine of angels is considerable in its scope and complex in its detail—much too big a topic for elaboration here. One thing at least is clear—a good deal more clear than modern thinking on the subject would normally allow— that one of the functions of the angels of God is the providential care of His chosen the control and guidance of their lives. Whether it be good or what men with their limited horizons deem to be “evil,” all these things are committed by Almighty God to his angels.”Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” (Heb.l :14). It is a doctrine which can greatly help limited human understanding to a higher faith in God’s providence. Lk.15 :7,10 has the same truth and the same emphasis.

Nevertheless, these words of Jesus are not without their difficulty. For how can angels (the highest angels for the humblest folk! Lk.1 :19) “always behold the face of the Father in heaven” and simultaneously “encamp round about them that fear him”? The seeming contradiction arises through failure to recognize that both expressions are figures of speech The one describes direct contact with the Lord in heaven, the other direct contact (though unperceived) with the “little one” who belongs to the heavenly family.

There is also this fact to take into consideration that whereas God’s people on earth are necessarily creatures of a three-dimensional world, angels are outside this framework, and therefore superior to (lie limitations which are part of it.

It is perhaps not amiss here to issue a warning, in passing, against allowing the modern scientific world to impose too much of its mode of thinking. Science insists always on cause and effect and on the rigid authority of “laws of Nature.” The Bible never mentions any of these, but instead always refers all happenings, big or small, normal or abnormal to the will and act of God. Laws of nature are simply the smokescreen which the scientist interposes between God and His world. By this means he seek to put God out of sight, and if possible out of action. The Bible in many places, and Jesus in this place in particular, insists that in the life of the lowliest disciple all is under God’s control through the agency of His angels. And, strangely enough, it is the lowliest disciple who is usually most aware of this truth. This, as much as anything, is what makes the “little one” precious in the Lord’s sight.

A lost sheep

Therefore there is special responsibility to do all in one’s power to save any disciple from going astray. So Jesus told his lovely parable of the lost sheep. Here he introduced it differently from the other occasion when he told the same story (Lk.15 :4). The Greek phrase seems to imply a shepherd’s responsibility falling almost unexpectedly on a man: “If a hundred sheep come (or, happen) to a man, and one of them is led astray. . .” In neither detail is this normally true to life. But the words are apt enough with reference to ecclesial responsibility and how sheep are lost from its care. This tender parable is lifted almost bodily out of the teaching of austere Ezekiel (34 :6,11,12,16). The good shepherd goes to the mountain, taking endless trouble and wearying himself, because he deems the search worthwhile. In the first century “the mountain” of the temple held the greatest danger to the flock, for the pull back to Judaism was considerable. Today it is in the city (or in the ecclesia!) where most sheep are lost.

The eager search of the shepherd, neglecting (at least, for the time being) those who are safe, is the Lord’s strong imperative that whenever any are caused to stumble or to lose faith in the Truth of Christ or are lured by illicit desires, nothing should have higher priority in the ecclesia’s concern than the finding and recovery of the lost sheep.

There are few ecclesias which do not have experiences of this kind. Unhappily success rarely follows. The Lord’s “if so be” plainly recognizes this fact beforehand. But no situation should ever be accepted as one of final irremediable failure. Even where there is failure, contact should be maintained, or at least details carefully preserved of how contact may be renewed. From time to time every ecclesia should mount an Operation Lost Sheep. If this were done systematically by every ecclesia in the world, the results would far surpass the mightiest preaching efforts ever planned. “It is not a thing wished before your Father (by the angels; v.10) that one of these little ones should perish.” What an understatement of the eagerness of the heavenly host to see the lost ones of the Lord restored to his fold! And it needs to be remembered that “the ninety-and-nine which were not led astray” are silly sheep just like the hundredth. There is little room for self-congratulation.

“We be brethren”

Jesus next moved on to the problem of reconciliation of brethren between whom fellowship has broken down.The Lord’s idealism was not so finely drawn that he lacked the realism to recognize the inevitability of discord among his disciples. He knew what was in man! And throughout his ministry had not the twelve time and again given him reminders enough?

The ideal reaction to any personal offence is a steady determination not to be offended. If the one whose susceptibilities would normally be injured by some thoughtless or offensive action is not susceptible, then no breach of fellowship ensues. If, in spite of sustained provocation, this policy is patiently persisted in, then in due course the offender ceases to offend. He is gained as a brother in the true sense of the term.

This hard road to the healing of bad personal relationships is by far the best, when it can be made to work. But there are those not to be won even by such gracious methods. Those who can pocket pride and put up with continued provocation, the while maintaining a tolerant unresentful attitude are a very rare breed.

So when one’s spirit is tried to the point where offences are not to be shrugged off, even with the help of prayer and self-discipline, then a resolving of the strained situation must be sought through personal encounter of the right, not the wrong, sort, for a continuing enmity is a dead loss to both parties.

Jesus couched his instruction in plain unambiguous terms: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone” (cp.Pr.25:9). There can be little doubt that the two words “against thee,” omitted by some of the modern versions really belong to this place. Quite apart from the preponderant textual evidence, the parallel passage in Luke 17 :3 is unambiguous and emphatic on this. The context in Matthew (see v.21) points to the same conclusion.

The spirit in which this reproof of the offending brother is to be undertaken is clearly seen from the words: “If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” Breach of harmony means that a brother has been lost, no matter how technically correct the fellowship position between the two may be. The whole purpose, then, of any attempt to “talk it out”, must be reconciliation, and not “getting it off my chest” or “giving him a piece of my mind.”

In the precept of Moses on which this wisdom of Christ is built, there is a slightly different but comparable emphasis: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev.19 :17,18). Here is the important reminder that when two brethren in Christ are at odds, there is sin in the heart of at least one of them, a sin not to be resentfully cherished but to be expurgated by reconciliation. The motive of “gaining thy brother” must be paramount.

Thus the words: “Go tell him his fault”, carry no hint of an angry tit for tat. Rather they suggest a persuasive attempt to present facts in a different light—to convict the offender of his fault.

“If he hear thee’—in the sense of ‘give heed—’thou hast gained thy brother.” This means more than mere reconciliation, highly desirable though that is in itself. A brother offending or a brother smouldering with resentment is in a false position before God. For this higher reason there must be reconciliation.

But “a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and contentions are like the bars of a castle” (Pr.18 :19). So it may well turn out that, with the best will in the world, there is no progress towards mutual understanding.

Then, “if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” The mere presence of others may serve to import a better spirit into the discussion. The insertion of a few questions as to the facts of the case may do much to elucidate a tangled .situation.

Again, the principle of having “two or three witnesses” was that of the Law of Moses. But, so far as one can discover, no one has yet come up with an explanation of why two or three. If two witnesses are sufficient why should it be necessary ever to specify three? Is it possible that three witnesses were to be insisted on when one of them happened to be a relation of the protagonist or had some close personal involvement in the problem?

If it should prove that even with witnesses present there is no progress towards agreement, the next step is an appeal to the ecclesia, that through its elders the community may offer a balanced opinion not lightly to be set aside. The individual who will stubbornly assert the correctness of his own judgement against that of the ecclesia is a rarity. Indeed it is difficult to envisage such situations arising at all in the early church, when ecclesial leaders were guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Today, even though the counsel of a completed New Testament is available, it is conceivable that ecclesial misjudgements may happen and under present ecclesial organization there is then no further court of appeal.

What has just been written envisages a distinctly unusual situation. More likely is the other which Jesus went on to legislate for: “lf he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee .as a heathen man and a publican.” Even when not convinced that the ecclesia’s pronouncement, is the best possible, the individual who refuses to.’ accept it demonstrates very plainly that he is too wilful to accept the Lord’s authority either—for in this discourse Jesus plainly makes the ecclesia’s judgement final. Even when not content with the attitude adopted by the ecclesia, a man should have the meekness to accept it, willing to persuade himself that his own judgement may be untrustworthy.

To be treated as a Gentile or a publican means neither religious nor social fellowship But it also means, as Burgon has well put it, that such a brother is “one for whose repentance and conversion the church toils night and day.”’ It is surely significant that Jesus said: “Let him be unto thee (not, the ecclesia) as a heathen man and a publican.” This describes the attitude of the one originally offended. The words could mean that there is no official exclusion from the fellowship of the ecclesia, but that the individual offended is left to implement his own personal attitude to the offender. However, Paul’s practical insistence on ecclesial discipline (2 Th.3:6,14) suggest that he gave these words of the Lord a wider reference.

Ecclesial authority.

A further conclusion from this prescribed appeal to the ecclesia is worth noting. By saying: “Let the ecclesia decide,” Jesus was in effect forbidding recourse to any of the world’s courts of law. Evidently this was how Paul understood his words, for in his familiar ruling to the ecclesia at Corinth he wrote with censure and scorn of brethren who invoked the processes of Gentile law (1 Cor.6 :l-6) to settle differences between one another.

Jesus rounded off his very practical precept regarding this unhappy problem with a blunt reminder that the ecclesia’s assessment hostile ratification of heaven: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In those days synagogue decisions required, and usually got, ratification from the Sanhedrin. Behind apostolic judgements stood a higher court than that in Jerusalem.

It is not difficult to see how true these words of Jesus must be regarding decisions and actions of the apostles, for they were men consciously guided by the Lord’s special authority. But to assume that the same stands true in this twentieth century is not at all easy. Yet it is even conceivable that an imperfect ecclesial judgement may be used by God as a test of the Christ-like spirit of those involved.

Nor is it easy to believe that the Lord’s next words have a completely literal application today: “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven” [cp.Dan.2:18; Acts 1:14).

The context clearly restricts this to requests helping forward the well-being of the ecclesia. But the Father only gives “good things” to His children (Mt.7:11). Therefore the things asked for must be good (contrast Jas.4 :3). And with the best will in the world this is not always the case (cp. 2 Cor. 12:7-9).

James and John agreed enthusiastically enough regarding that which they asked of Jesus (Mk.10 :35), but this was not done for them, nor will be, as Scripture plainly proves (Rev.3 :21), Even so there is a positive teaching in this Scripture which no good ecclesia will ignore today—the importance and efficacy of united prayer regarding specific needs or problems.

“Two or three gathered together”

The saying with which the Lord rounded off this part of his discourse is one of the best-known and most misapplied: “For where two or three ore gathered together in my name, there am I in tke midst of them.” In the present context—a long discussion on how best to save a lost brother and how to bring reconciliation in place of discord—reference to the Breaking of Bread Service (which is the meaning most commonly assigned) is hardly possible, especially since the institution of that memorial rite only came some: six months later.

Instead, possible meaning are these:

1. The gathering of two or three for earnest prayer regarding the needs of the ecclesia (this could follow directly from the previous verse.)
2. The meeting of the elders of the ecclesia to decide on disciplinary action against an uncooperative brother (this goes back to verse 17).
3. The gathering together in reconciliation of those who have been estranged. This is most likely, since the Greek expression is, strictly: “gathered together into my name.” If this is accepted, then extension to the Breaking of Bread service is easy enough inasmuch as that expresses the close fellowship of brethren in Christ better than anything else.

Notes: Mt. 18:10-20

10.	For I say unto you. Lk.l5:7, 10 has the same truth and the same emphasis.
	Their angels Ps.91 :11; Lk.15 :7, 10;Acts 12 :7,23; contrast23 :8.
	Always. Literally: through everything.
11.	That which was lost. Gk. middle voice might imply ‘wanted to get lost—true of not a few lost sheep in this generation also.
15.	The little one (v.14) is now thy brother,
16.	In 2 Cor. 13 :1 Paul refers to these words of Jesus and not to Dt.19 :15. This evident from his phrases: “the second time, the third time,” precisely as in Mt. 18 :15-17.
17.	Neglect to hear them; s.w. Is.65 :12 LXX only.
	Tell it to the church. 1 Cor.5 :4,5; 6 :l-6; 1 Th.5 -.20; v.17,20 seem to imply Christ’s absence. It is possible that v.15-20 were originally part of the 40 days’ instruction?

After his very blunt counsel regarding the resolving of differences between brethren, the brd used the opportunity to emphasize that there is an even better way through such difficulties: Let a man foster in his mind such a spirit of toleration and forgiveness that no offence is felt!

This is no easy solution. Human nature instinctively resents unfair or malicious actions. It is the most natural thing in the world to react badly to bad treatment, either in self-justification or to get one’s own back. But Jesus forbad all this in a brief warning that his disciples be ever on the alert against showing or even feeling resentment: “Take heed to yourselves.” In such an encounter it is natural enough to train an analytical spot-light on the faults of the offender rather than on one’s own almost equally reprehensible reactions. How important, therefore, so to cultivate such a sense of self-awareness as to be able to recognize immediately the storm signals in one’s own spirit.

In a very practical down-to-earth fashion, Jesus counselled: “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.” Once again, the omission, by some of the modern versions, of the words: “against thee,” seems hardly to be warranted (note the context). Their inclusion appears to be required by the command to forgive. If the sin is against God or against my brother, what right have / to pronounce absolution?

The rebuke of the sin is, of course, not to be an explosive “telling him off” or “putting him in his place.” Any such rebuke is really an infringement of the commandment: “Judge not that ye be not judged.” The only valid rebuke springs directly from the Word of God. The ideal reproof is by means of a simple citation of a relevant passage of Holy Scripture, “profitable for reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.” Yet how very rarely is this use made of it!

Forgive seven times?

Evidently Peter was learning. He now took up this point in a spirit of great earnestness: “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?” If a fault confessed is to be a fault forgiven (v.15), how often does this go on? No doubt the well-intentioned apostle thought that with a guideline such as this he was setting his standards pretty high. The rabbis were in the habit of quoting the familiar phrase from Amos: “For three transgressions and for four . . .”(1 :3). From this they inferred that the forgiving of three offences was as much as could reasonably be laid on any godly man. Peter went far beyond that, adding the three and the four together.

Judge, then, of his surprise when Jesus screwed even this exceptional standard higher and yet higher: “If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.”

Peter might well have protested at this as beyond the limits of what is reasonable. Forgiving the same individual seven times in the short space of one day! Surely a man who repeats an offence so soon and so frequently is incorrigible. More than this, if his repentance is just as frequent, is it not too facile to be genuine? What wisdom is there in putting a premium on insincerity?

Nevertheless it may be taken as fairly likely that Jesus knew what he was about. He insisted that every possible concession be made to on offending brother. If he say: “I repent,” then any inclination to doubt his sincerity must be promptly stifled. Against all lurking suspicion,a man must be taken at his word. To do otherwise is to set oneself up as an infallible judge of motives and mental attitudes. “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Seventy times seven

Even now Jesus had not finished his underscoring of this cardinal principle of forgiveness: “I say not unto thee, Forgive until seven times; but, until seventy times seven.” From which of two very different sources did Jesus quarry this fantastic total?

In the early days of the race, when Lamech’s son, Tubal-cain, developed extensive skills in fashioning of brass and iron, Lamech, with the world’s first armaments factory to back him up, celebrated this splendid advance in early civilisation with the taunt-song: “I have slain a man for wounding me, and a young man for bruising me. If Cain be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and seven fold”(Gen.4 .-22-24], Here the LXX has the exact phrase used by Jesus: “seventy times seven.” So whereas this old villain in the line of Cain gloried in his power to take vengeance, the Lord’s disciple is to glory in the piling up of forgiveness to a positively unreasonable extent. “Out of Lamech’s formula of revenge Jesus makes a formula of forgiveness” (Gundry).

Or, was Jesus aiming at a comparison, and not a contrast? In Daniel 9 a unique prophecy foretells a period of seventy sevens to Messiah the Prince. At the end of this time “Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing.” Thus he will “make reconciliation for iniquity.” Then, is it possible that Jesus was bidding his disciple go on forgiving until he has matched his Master’s atoning work?—and his love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8).

And since no disciple can hope ever to emulate his Lord’s patient bearing of contumely and cruelty, endured without any deserving, and for the undeserving, the “seventy times seven” forgiveness must mean: “Go on forgiving all your days.”

Indeed this is the conclusion to which any attempt at literal application of the commandment must lead. Long before the 490 total is reached, a man will surely weary of keeping the reckoning (at least, if he does not, it means that he is not really forgiving at all!). Also, before ever the target total is achieved, forgiving must have become such a habit as to have transformed a man’s whole outlook on life.

Whilst this commandment to forgive may appear to be one of the most rigorous precepts ever promulgated, it is actually one of the most comforting. For if Jesus lays down such a standard for his disciple to follow, will he not himself be at least equally forgiving?

Thus there is here an indirect assurance of such merciful loving kindness from Jesus as his blowers might hardly consider possible!

A king and his debtor

Jesus now rounded off all that he had to leach on this difficult topic in a parable of tremendous interest and power.

A king, suspecting peculation by officers of his administration, commanded investigation into the state of his national exchequer. Almost at once there was brought to him one whose accounts were wrong to the extent of many millions of pounds. The man had sequestrated the revenues of a province.

Since the modern equivalents of ancient money values, as given in Bible marginal notes and works of reference, are almost all hopelessly astray from reality, it may be of we to diverge from the story for a moment to attempt a more accurate estimate of the money values involved here. The Greek-Roman talent was the equivalent of 6000 denarii (Hast. Bib. Diet.), the coin which in the New Testament is called a penny. This denarius was evidently a normal day’s wage for an agricultural labourer (Mt.20:2)-in modern terms (in this year of gracious inflation 1983) equivalent in Britain to £15, at least. Then the ten thousand talents of the parable=60 million denarii=£900million.

This sum was Haman’s estimate of the plunder to be had from all the Jews in the Persian empire (Esth.3 :9). It was also a large proportion of the resources set aside by David for the building of the temple (1 Chr.29 :7). So evidently this defaulter had defrauded his king for a considerable period.

There can be no mistake that a rascal who could misappropriate such a massive sum of money deserved drastic punishment. The king’s decision was that he and all his family and all his property be sold so that at any rate some payment might be made. The implication is that his living style was nearly as splendid as the king’s, or what sort of impression on that enormous debt could such a sale produce? (Ps.44 :12). The Law of Moses provided that a thief be sold as a slave to make repayment (Ex.22 :3). In this instance, as frequently happens, the man’s sins dragged others down with him. His wife and children must suffer also.

Even though there was the comfort of a merciful release at jubilee (lev.25 :39_/41), the man, utterly horrified at the prospect before him, made an agonized and quite unpractical plea for clemency: “Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.”

What an amazing confidence this scoundrel had in his own powers! How could anyone hope ever to repay such a debt? In the interpretation, what is this but justification by works? That and the unforgiving spirit he was soon to show not infrequently go together! In the parable the word for “debt” really means “a loan’— and how appropriately, for this is most men’s attitude to their sins; always, always they mean to pay back one day, there is always some unrealised future when black strains of character will be cleaned up – but of course they never are.

Moved to unexampled mercy and kindness, the king let the man go scot free (Ps.130 :4; Eph.3 :20). The entire debt was remitted, simply on the ground of frank acknowledgment of guilt (Ps.32 :l-5; Lk.15 :21,22)— and, apparently, he was allowed to continue in office, for at the end of the story (v.32) he is still a “servant”. With such a happy outcome from a desperate situation the man’s reaction would surely be a burst of overflowing thankfulness showing itself in emulation of his master’s kindness.

But no! An unforgiven debtor         ^:

With such a memory still strong in his mind, this creature went out from the presence of his gracious king (the unforgiving spirit takes a man away from the presence of God!) and forthwith hunted down some minor official in the king’s service who owed him an inconsiderable debt compared with his own. Grabbing the man by the throat, with fierce threats he demanded immediate payment. The scene just now enacted in the royal presence took place again, but with a very different outcome. No cancelling of the debt this time! Not even a concession of more time in which to pay (2 Pet.1 :7-9; Tit.3 :3; 1Jn 4:11).

The poor fellow pleased with great persistence, even using by chance the very words which his creditor had just been using to gain mercy from the king, but the echo of that experience did nothing to change this unfeeling ruthlessness. With stubborn rejection of this importunity, and making peremptory exercise of official powers, he had the piteous debtor flung into prison “till he should pay the debt’—and how then could such a thing ever come about? The creditor did this even though there was fair prospect that, given time, such a relatively modest sum would be paid. This unregenerate character would rather have his vengeance than his money!

He was evidently quite shameless about his unfeeling action, for what he did he did openly, so that fellow-servants at the king’s court knew about it. Their revulsion of indignant feeling expressed itself in a vivid re-telling of every detail to the king himself.

What ensued was precisely what might be expected.

Retribution

Brought once again before the throne to answer for his misdeeds, there was now no opportunity for the man to plead his own cause (what plea could he possibly offer?). Instead, there was only bitter upbraiding from the king: “Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt (even the king thought it an awful lot), because thou besoughtest me. Shouldest not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on thee?” And the man was speechless (cp. 22:12).

It was only now that the king became angry. In cold contempt of such small minded unfeeling selfishness, he commanded that the man be punished—not merely shut up in prison, but handed over to the court specialists in beating and torture (contrast v.25), till his own vast indebtedness should be discharged. The man’s case was now hopeless. None, even if some fellow cabinet-minister had the resources to do so, would dream of coming to the rescue of such a wretch. He had forfeited the sympathies of all. Even the mercy of a jubilee release was now denied him.

There is here a feature of the parable which is specially not true to life. In human dealings when a debt is cancelled it is cancelled. But in this instance the debt was, so to sped, regenerated. Men cannot do this, but God can—and He does.

Forgive! Forgive!

So Jesus rounded off this grim conclusion with the solemn warning: “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts (Eph.4 :31,32) forgive not everyone his brother.” Here the unexpected “my heavenly Father”, in place of the more usual “your heavenly Father, was doubtless designed lo suggest the estrangement which an unforgiving spirit is bound to create. And that vital phrase “from your hearts,” is a pointed reminder that there can never be any kind of substitute for genuine whole-hearted forgiveness. Formal handshake, brief spoken apology, or whatever other outward token of restored fellowship there may be, these are of no consequence at all in the Lord’s eyes if bygones be not truly bygones. The man who can “forgive but not forget” has in him no true spirit of reconciliation.

Elsewhere in his teaching Jesus is at pains to stress that except there be forgiveness of one’s fellows there can be no forgiveness from heaven: “For if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Mt.6 :15). In this parable, the converse of the proposition holds good; “Shouldst not thou have had mercy on thy fellowservant, even as I had mercy on thee?” The one who knows “the calm of sins forgiven” will want to extend the same to his brother, and this all the more readily because of the vast disparity between the mighty “debt” God has forgiven him and the triviality his brother owes to him.

Notes: Mt. 18:21-35

23.	His servants. This word slaves would apply also to high officials; e.g. Naaman (2 Kgs.5 :6). Such a usage served to exalt the majesty and authority of the king.
24.	Talents. The figures given in Ex.38 :25-28 would double the estimate given in the text, and would make one debt 1,200,000 times as big as the other.
28.	Pay me that thou owest. The reading in the best manuscripts: “Pay me, if thou owest,” might perhaps imply: “and so it shall be with all my debtors.”
31.	Fellowservants. In the interpretation who are these?
33.	Thou wicked servant. It was his lack of compassion that was his wickedness.
	I forgave thee . . . because thou desiredst me. Because thou didst beseech me. The man had asked for time, not for cancellation, yet he got it!
	Shouldest not thou.. .? Gk: was it not necessary? (morally necessary).
34.	Jas. 2:13 surely refers to this. Cp. also Ps.l8:25,26

From time to time a spirit of envy showed itself in the apostles. As they became more convinced that their Master would one day be king of the Jews, so their ambitions and rivalries grew. One day, when they were travelling, a lively disputation broke out about the status of each in their Lord’s kingdom. Were they not his shadow cabinet? So each one of them wanted to earmark for himself a place of outstanding honour and influence.

As on so many occasions, even without tearing what they were saying, Jesus knew what was afoot. But he said nothing until they were in the house (Mk.) in Capernaum —Peter’s house, most probably, for it is hardly likely that the family of Jesus, also living there (Jn.2 :12), would welcome the group of apostles. Then he challenged them: “What was it ye disputed among yourselves by the way?” To this he got no answer. Only silence. Ashamed of themselves, or, if not that, fearful that he might disapprove of the entire topic, they had no word to say. Jesus had already made his first point effectively enough.

By and by some of them (Mt.18 :1; Mk.9 :35) decided to raise the question with him quietly apart from the rest. They came to him asking: “Who then is the greatest (or, greater) in the kingdom of heaven?” (Mt.) Both readings are possible. If the latter, then the question meant: “Who will be prime minister?-will it be Peter or, perhaps, John, James, Andrew, Matthew, Judas? It is difficult for a modern reader to put his finger on a clear-cut alternative. However, they assumed that this was something that could and should be settled in good time before the kingdom was set up.

A priority principle about priority

Jesus knew they were all in need of education on right attitudes to this problem, so he sat down and called all the rest to join them (Mk). As they saw it the issue was not whether they should have honour in his kingdom, but who should have more than the others. So he enunciated one of the most important principles to be found in all his teaching: “If any man desires to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mk.). This does not mean that the man full of ambition will be punished for his self-seeking by being brought down to the lowest place. Rather: the disciple who would have the highest honour from his Master can achieve it by readily accepting the role to which no kind of honour attaches—being everybody’s slave.

Here, as so often happened in the teaching of Jesus, there is a complete inversion of human standards and judgments. The world’s sense of values is always wrong. The principle which Jesus now laid before the twelve is so fundamental that he repeated it on no less than three other occasions. It is profitable to note the circumstances.

1. The correction of James and John when they privately sought the chief places in the kingdom (Mk. 10:4.3,44).
2. The rebuke when similar bickering broke out among the twelve at the Last Supper (Lk.22:25,26).
3. The warning against emulating the pride of place so much in evidence among Pharisees and rabbis (Mt.23:11,12).

The attitudes reprobated are all essentially the same. Whenever a man finds himself eager for prominence, reputation, or power, whenever he feels resentful because his abilities or industry are inadequately appreciated, he needs to repeat to himself this four times repeated counsel of Jesus in the words which Jesus himself used.

On the present occasion the Lord gave the twelve a vivid object lesson. As he sat there he called to a little child – Peter’s, most likely-to come to him. The boy came at once, and Jesus stood him in the middle of this ring of grown men (Mt.). Shy and embarrassed, he found himself the object of contemplation of them all. Were they wondering what Jesus was about? Or did the point register immediately in the minds of some of them?

“Be converted”

Then Jesus reached forward” and drew him to his side (Lk.). The child now stood there, with the arm of Jesus round him. How little he realised that he was now in the place of honour which, later on, James and John were to ask for. Then, very seriously, Jesus went on: “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt.). Here were men given to him by the Father (Jn.17:12), and a//of them in danger of becoming sons of perdition over a matter which nobody but Jesus deemed to be reprehensible.

Rarely could these disciples have had such a surprise. Confidently seeking high honour in a kingdom of splendour, they were now told there would be no place for them at all unless they altered fundamentally. The word “convert” simply means “turn” or “change”.

Hadn’t they all been “converted” either by John the Baptist, in the early days, or when Jesus himself called, and selected, them?

But a man needs conversion more than once. In Peter’s case, several times over (Jn.l :41; Lk.5:8-ll; Mt.16 :23; Lk.22 :32; 24 :12,34; Jn.21:3,15;Gal.2:14).

Jesus was now bidding them all abandon all their forward-looking aspirations, and grow back to childhood. Not to childishness, but to the spirit now exemplified in the wee lad by his side. Called by Jesus, he had obeyed at once, and was glad to stay there quietly, even though he did not understand all that was going on around and about him. Thus, even when his obedience and love of Jesus was being held up for emulation, it did not occur to him that the simple thing he had done was praiseworthy. So there was no pride, either, but rather the reverse-a shyness at being the centre of so much attention from grown men. “Heaven lies about us in our infancy”-Wordsworth was right in one way if not in another.

True greatness –

Jesus went on: “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt.). It is true, of course, that children are not alway> models of Christ-like behaviour. Even at an early age they can be quarrelsome self-assertive little devils. But Jesus was commending the characteristics of this little child at this particular time. A normal child instinctively recognizes the authority of parents, accepts instructions and explanations without questioning, and does not even think to impose its own opinions or wishes on grown-ups.

This was the spirit Jesus sought-and seeks-to inculcate. “All of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility” (1 Pet.5:5). “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (Jas.4 :10). That phrase: ‘in the sight of the Lord,” is all-important. When a man seeks to show humility among his fellows, he mostly succeeds in being proud of his efforts- such is human nature!

– and its reward

As he spoke, Jesus picked his little friend up, and, cradling him in his arms, gave him a warm cuddle (Mk.). “Whosoever shall receive this little child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me” (Mk.). Thus the Lord’s own recipe for a humble spirit is to seek the company of the humble and to try to bless and benefit them as unselfishly as possible. It is as though such humble service were dedicated to Christ himself.

It is evident that here the Lord’s instruction was moving away from the literal child in his arms to the wider Biblical reference. There is no misunderstanding Zechariah’s language: “I will turn mine hand upon the little ones (for good]” (13:7). “Who hath despised the day of the little ones?” (4 :10). Isaiah similarly: “A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation” (60 :22). These are they who are so often spoken of in the Psalms as “the meek of the earth.” These “little ones who believe in me” are the Lord’s faithful remnant, unpretentious in worldly aspiration, content to live in humble obscurity, rendering such dedicated service to Christ and to their fellows as they are able. “He that is essentially, basically, truly and sincerely least among you all, the same is great.” It is to be noted that Jesus made no mention of being greatest, nor of glory in the kingdom. His present tense emphasizes present worth in the sight of the King. The future can be left to take care of itself.

Causes of stumbling

It was needful, also, to add a warning: “But I whoso shall become a stumbling stone to one of I these little ones which believe in me, it is “profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea” (Mk.). It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that the Lord can hardly conceive of a greater sin than the sell-seeking behaviour which causes one of his humble disciples to lose hold and go away from faith in him. For such an offender it would be a happier destiny if he could so die as to be assured of no resurrection and judgment. Or did Jesus mean: Happier if he should so die before committing such an offence?

With human life as it is, continued Jesus, there is bound to be many an occasion of stumbling in the variegated experience of the disciples: “Woe unto the world because of causes of stumbling, for it is inevitable (necessary?) that they happen: but woe to that man through whom the cause of stumbling comes!” (Mk.). Nothing is more needful for the follower of Christ than the discipline of adversity or hard circumstance. Nevertheless, when such trying situations are provoked through the wilfulness, selfishness, or maybe mere thoughtlessness, of some human agent, he will be held answerable to God if there be stumbling, even though (all unsuspected) divine wisdom is making use of such perversity. At the same time, this saying of the Lord is an assurance to the bewildered harassed disciple of the ultimate justice of God. With this conviction he can fend off the temptation to make right triumph over wrong through his own efforts. All such provocations can be safely left in God’s hands. He knows best!

Notes: Mt.18:1-7

1.	Who then is greatest. . .? Could this question have arisen if indeed Peter had already been given a papal priority over all in the church? The present tense “is” implies an expectation of an immediate kingdom. The story of the Transfiguration had evidently gone round the apostolic band (17:19 notwithstanding).
2.	Jesus called a little child. Jesus was at home with children, and they with him: 1421; 19:13,14;21 :15,16.
3.	Shall not enter. Gk: in no wise. What a contrast with “being greatest”!
	Be converted; i.e. turn round, and grow into children again.