Jesus took his disciples away north into the country near Tyre. There was acute need to get them away from all the deleterious influences to which they had lately been subject. Matthew’s word means “he cleared out, he fled;” and Mark seems to imply “next day,” after the violent disputation with the Pharisees. There was also need to further the apostles’ spiritual education. Their understanding of their Master must be filled out. So Jesus was glad to let go the crowd in order to concentrate on saving the Twelve from collapse of faith (cp. Mt. 16:4,6).

It is not unlikely that the house to which they came in this north-western region was put at the Lord’s disposal by one of his wealthy sympathisers, maybe one of those like the Capernaum nobleman who felt everlastingly grateful to Jesus for his miraculous help.

This is the first of a series of allusions in this part of the gospels to Jesus spending time in the more remote corners of Jewish territory and in the Gentile areas just beyond (compare Matthew 15 :39; 16 :13; 17 :1; Mk. 7 :31; 8:10). It was evidently his intention at this time to avoid the Jewish crowds who followed him so excitedly, but who were nevertheless so impervious to the essential character of his teaching.

A plea for help

Even in the neighbourhood of Tyre it was impossible to go unrecognized. A woman there immediately knew that this was Jesus of Nazareth, the one man who could help her daughter in her desperate plight. She is described as “a Canaanite”, and as “a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by race.” The first of these terms was long obsolete. It belonged properly to the races whom Israel were commanded to eliminate when they conquered the Land (Dt. 20 :17), but who had persisted right through the centuries, especially in those areas where in ancient days Jewish domination had never been well established. Perhaps Matthew has included the name so as to hint at the time when the people of Canaan and Tyre were numbered to David along with the tribes of Israel (2 Sam. 24 :7). The mention of Syrio links with the pointed allusion to Gentiles—Naaman and the widow of Sarepta, praised by Jesus for their faith (Lk 4 -.25-27). The latter had had her child restored to her by the man of God. Now there was to be a like act of grace to another Gentile mother in that area. The description “Greek” is equivalent to Gentile (Gal. 3 :28). Since she “came out from those borders” (RV), it almost seems as though she knew of the Lord’s approach, and came to meet him.

Matthew’s characteristic “Behold” emphasizes the unexpectedness of the recognition of Jesus and also the highly unusual attitude of the woman herself. This poor soul was made miserable by the calamitous condition of her little daughter who was “possessed by an unclean spirit”. Judging from the one detail given, the affliction was probably epilepsy, but it is difficult to be sure.

Out on the road this woman came crying after them: “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David.” Like the man whose epileptic son was healed just after the Transfiguration (Mk. 9 :22), she suffered acutely in the suffering of her child, hence her cry: “Have mercy on me.” That she should call Jesus “Lord” and “Son of David” showed her quality. Canaanite she might be, but she knew the Hope of Israel, believed it, and believed also that in this Jesus the great Promise to David would be fulfilled.

She was surely a “proselyte of the gate,” that is, not a full convert to Judaism but at least one who accepted the main principles of the religion of Israel.

Persistence

Her repeated cries appeared to fall on deaf ears. Jesus took no notice—or seemed to. After a while the disciples lost patience. Wasn’t it obvious to her, as it very plainly was to them, that Jesus did not intend to help her. Then why couldn’t she take “No” for an answer and go away? But she persisted, to the point of getting on their nerves as she followed them on the road. So they repeatedly asked Jesus to cope with the situation: “Send her away, for she crieth after us.” If they meant (as many have so understood) that Jesus should do what she asked and so gain peace and quiet for them from her importunity, it was a strange way of expressing it. Yet, had they stopped to think, they would have been hard put to recall a single occasion when anyone in need had gone away from Jesus empty-handed.

However it seemed that this was such a time. After all, she was only a Gentile, and they knew Jesus was set on avoiding the publicity which his wonders of healing inevitably brought. When he replied: “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” they knew that they were right. That light-hearted Puritan, Tom Fuller, called them “miserable mediators, interceding for her repulse.” Did they stop to ask themselves what lost sheep he was busy rescuing at that very time? Except for themselves, practically all the people in that area were Gentiles.

Why should Jesus appear so heedless of this moving appeal? Burgon comments: “We have often found cause to wonder at the Saviour’s words, but never till now at his silence.”

The explanation often advanced, that the seeming indifference was a deliberate testing of the quality of the woman’s faith, is anything but satisfactory. It can hardly be said to present Jesus in a good light. At least as plausible is the idea that Jesus did nothing at first because he was genuinely puzzled to know what was best to do. His natural inclination was to respond at once to this cry for help. His almost ungovernable compassion for people in need meant that only by dint of much internal conflict could he say “No”. Yet if he were to go to the woman’s home and exercise his healing power there, massive publicity was bound to follow, and the entire purpose of this retreat to the north would be brought to nought. It is a likely guess that Jesus, unable to resolve the dilemma which the woman presented him with, gave himself to silent prayer about it as he went on the road.

The answer came in the outworking of events. When they got back to their headquarters, the woman, desperate and undaunted, followed them into the house. There, with a puppy, one of the household pets, close by her, she knelt at the Lord’s feet and repeated her petition: “Lord, help me.” Nothing could be more simple, nothing more eloquent or moving.

Jesus framed his reply to fit the circumstances. With his mind obviously on the familiar fact that Jews so often referred to Gentiles as “dogs”, he countered: “Let the children first be filled: it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it unto the dogs (Gk. kunaria: puppies).” The “children” he had in mind were, of course, not the children of Israel, but the twelve. Might not his responding to her plea be the means of robbing them of the weeks of instruction and spiritual rehabilitation which this northern holiday was intended to provide? And if word got round about him going to a Gentile house to heal a Gentile child, would there not be a massive build-up of Jewish prejudice against him? Among his own people the minds of thousands would be closed to all further appeal.

Insight

“Let the children first be fed.” Here was clear implication that in due time Jesus hoped to gather Gentiles also within the scope of his gracious ministry. Whether the woman went so far, or not, in her understanding is difficult to say. But, in any case, to her, in urgent need, it was beside the point. She clamoured for the immediate aid which she was sure Jesus could give. With marvellous readiness of mind for one so distraught, she saw her opportunity and pressed it home: “Yes, Lord, yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.”

Again, Fuller comments neatly on this pertinacity: “Indeed she showed one of the best qualities of a dog, in keeping her hold where once she had well fastened, not giving over or letting go until she had gotten what she desired.” She held on, doubtless, because she detected signs of irresolution in the face of Jesus.

What marvellous insight and faith were wrapped up in her short rejoinder. With a word she accepted the inferior spiritual status of Gentiles as “dogs” compared with the true household of God. And the mighty miracle which she pleaded for was but a “crumb”, hardly worth noticing! Then what was the main repast provided for God’s own? What but the forgiveness of sins and all the gracious blessings of Messiah, the Son of David?

Her amazing confession of faith involved even more than this. In his half-playful allusion to the dogs, Jesus had also mentioned the children as having prior claims. In her reply the woman dexterously changed the word into one which also very commonly meant “servants” (just as in French “garcon” means “boy” and also “waiter”). This means that she saw Jesus as the master of the household, his disciples as the children, the rest of the Jewish nation as servants, and herself as a Gentile “puppy” scavenging for crumbs on the floor. What a contrast with the obtuseness of the twelve! (e.g. in Mt. 16:7)!

This faith and persistence and spiritual insight provided the greatest stimulus Jesus had had for a long time. What she had done for him was far greater than what she asked. “O woman, great is thy faith. For this saying go thy way, and be it unto thee even as thou wilt. The devil is gone out of they daughter.” And here again, as always in such instances, Jesus chose his words so as to imply that the cure was permanent. There was nothing to fear for the future.

Healed from a distance

And the woman went, believing, and there was no disappointment. Instead of the stertorous breathing of a contorted little body, and the fierce angry unnatural hue of the poor sufferer’s face, there was one of the loveliest sights in all God’s creation-a child peacefully asleep, relaxed and untroubled. The devil was gone (cp. Jn.4:46ff).

Thus this Gentile woman joined the honourable order of those who refused to be put off, and were blessed for their persistence: the paralytic and his loyal friends (Mk.2:4),, the leper (1:40), blind Bartimaeus (10:48), and wrestling Jacob (Gen.32:26).

There is here an impressive study in unanswered prayer: First, there were persistent requests-No! Then the disciples interceded-again, No! A further direct appeal —and still, No! Then faith seized its opportunity for persuasive expression-and the answer now is Yes! But suppose she had taken that triple refusal for an answer!

But how did the apostles know the outcome of their master’s assurance about the little girl’s recovery? Did one of them escort the woman home? Or did she promptly return to pour out her gratitude?

Many hundreds of years before, the prophecy had been spoken: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem (the Name); Canaan shall be his servant” (Gen. 9:26). Now those ancient words found a wonderful new meaning in the devotion of a thankful woman.

This was the third time that Jesus chose to work a miracle from a distance. There was the servant of the Roman centurion, and the son of the noblemen in Galilee of the Gentiles; and now this little daughter of a woman of Canaan Later, there was also the Samaritan leper. They all foreshadowed a wonderful truth-how from a distance Jesus was to bring healing to Gentiles in desperate need.

Notes: Mt. 15:21-28

22.	Behold. Thus in a word Matthew tells how extraordinary it was that the woman should know Jesus was there, and —knowing —that she should appeal to him.
	Son of David. A Messianic title used of Jesus only in 9:27; 20:30; 21:9.
28.	Great is thy faith. Besides the paralytic and Bartimaeus, already mentioned, a like commendation was reserved for the woman who touched the Lord’s robe in the crowd (9:22), the two blind men (9:29), the Samaritan leper (Lk. 17:19), and – differently—the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet (Lk. 7:50).

Their northern tour took Jesus and the twelve through the hinterland of Tyre and Zidon, and then in a circuit to the eastern side of the sea of Galilee. The RSV quite unwarrantably reads as though all this transpired soon after the healing of the daughter of the Canaanitish woman, but the text gives no time indication at all.

He was back in Decapolis (Mk7:31), the Gentile country of the Gadarenes, where, some months earlier, he had been warned off (Mk5:17).

There, in the hills, Jesus stayed for a while. Matthew’s word ”sat'” is almost certainly a Hebraism for “dwelt” (e.g. Mt 4:16). Perhaps the unusual phrasing is intended to recall how “the glory of the lord sat upon mount Sinai” (Ex. 24:16). Or is it an echo of Moses’ exhortation: “Ye have sat long enough in this mountain (Sinai). Turn you . . . and go to the mount of the Amorites (and the other Gentile peoples)” (Dt. 1:6,7)?

In this locality Jesus continued for some days, compassionately working many miracles on all kinds of afflicted people-lame, blind, dumb, maimed, “and many others” (different from these, so the text implies).

If the maimed people were restored, it surely means that those who had suffered amputation or were congenitally malformed now had limbs completely restored. (In the light of this, consider Mk.9:43). And even lame people struggled doggedly up that mountain slope, confident that soon they would be running down it.

Mark goes on to illustrate this activity with one detailed example-the healing of the man who was deaf. All of those sufferers are movingly described in one of Isaiah’s Messianic prophecies: “Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees . . . Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing; for in the (Gentile) wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert” (35:3-6).

The reaction of the people to these wonders is summed up in a phrase: “They glorified the God of Israel.” Here is clearly implied that this blessed multitude was mostly Gentile.

The feeding of the 4,000 (Gentiles) took place at this time. Although Jesus had emphatically insisted that his mission was to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, there was no restraining his compassion of the suffering and ignorance amoung the Gentiles also.

Unusual healing method

The example now cited by Mark may have been typical of the many afflicted people Jesus healed, but the manner of healing was by no means typical. This man, brought to Jesus by friends who could make their appeal heard on his behalf, was deaf and “had an impediment in his speech” (Is.35:6, just quoted, is the only other occurrence of this word in the Bible). The fact that he had some power of speech seems to imply that he had not always been deaf.

In this instance, instead of healing with a touch or a word, as was his custom, Jesus led the man away from the multitude to a lonely spot, accompanied only by the twelve There he vigorously thrust his finger into the man’s ear This, without any further gesticulation, would show the man just what was intended Then, strangely, Jesus spat on the ground and, opening the man’s mouth, he touched his tongue, and looking up to heaven he uttered an audible groan (Mk.8:12; Jn.11:41,42). Then came the word of power: “Ephphatha – Be opened”. This was spoken, of course, with reference to his hearing. The cure of his speech impediment would ensue as a result: “He spoke plain” (s.w. Dt.5:28; note v.27). And forthwith the cure happened — the man began to chatter away happily, rejoicing to find that his hearing was fully restored also. Jesus’ word of command was the exact equivalent of Isaiah’s: “the ears of the deaf unstopped.”

By this time the twelve were well used to the extraordinary works of healing done by their Leader, but this day they must surely have been much astonished, or at the very least highly curious, regarding the strange procedure which accompanied it. That is precisely what Jesus intended.

The Blind healed by stages

A short while later, a similar procedure was followed in the healing of a blind man. Those who brought this pitiful case to Jesus were confident that it needed only the Master’s touch, and sight would be restored. Instead, to save him wandering in the wrong direction, Jesus took him firmly by the hand and, again followed by the disciples, he led him out of the village until they were away from the undesired attentions of spectators.

Then he set about restoring the man’s sight; a procedure marvellously reminiscent of the earlier healing. First, he spat on the man’s eyes and smeared the spittle with his finger. Next, he laid his hand on him —whether on his head or his shoulders is uncertain. Then he asked him if he had any sight. So Jesus knew that this cure would be gradual. He intended it to be so. The man peered around, and replied, somewhat oddly: “I see the men (the apostles), for I see them like trees; they are walking.” His sight was returning but so far only partially. Then Jesus put his finger on the man’s eyes once again, and (continues Mark’s record with extra ordinary and quite untranslatable emphasis) “he saw properly and was restored and saw everything well and clear even at a distance.”

On this occasion also, as on the former, Jesus forbade publicity: “Neither go into the village, nor tell it to any in the village” (cp.7:36). The miracle was entirely for the man’s own benefit and for the disciples. Repeatedly Jesus laid this commandment on healed men and on disciples, but they were incapable of holding their peace, with the result that soon everyone knew about it. Their commentary: “He hath done all things well”, appropriated the language of the creation story (Gen. 1:31 LXX). In due time these men would come to see that their Lord was enacting in symbol the fashioning of a New Creation.

One commentator educes another valuable lesson: “If they whom our Lord forbad to preach him could not keep silence, what should the zeal be of those whom he has sent forth with a strict command to preach?”

Symbolic of the twelve

It has already been suggested (Study 94) that Jesus intended the twelve to see these marvellously similar miracles as acted parables of their own restoration to true spiritual hearing and discernment. There is pointed support for such a reading of the miracles in the context of the second one especially it is preceded (Mk.8:16-21) by an almost exasperated expostulation with the twelve: “Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?.. How is it that ye do not understand?” And ills followed (8:27-30) by a parallel between the healing of the blind man and the context of Peter’s Caesarea Philippi confession, for in that episode also the Lord first led his disciples away from Bethsaida, then he probed their insigli! concerning himself and found it woefully deficient, then — thanks to Peter – they sow clearly, and he ended by commanding them that they should tell no man.

It is not inappropriate, also, to note the relevance of the divine indignation against reluctant Moses: “Who hath made man’s mouth? or maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? (Ex.4:11). He can repair these apostolic deficiencies also —and ultimately He did.

The details of the records indicate that in each case Jesus was restoring powers which had been enjoyed earlier in life. His groaning and prayer expressed openly his own intense longing for the apostles to come to better insight’ and a more staunch loyalty to himself (cp Jn.11:41,42).

In every place in the Bible, spitting is associated with contempt or reprobation (Num.12:14; Dt.25:9; Job.30:10: ls.50:6; and the half dozen instances in the gospels associated with the ill-treatment of Jesus at his trial and crucifixion). So, in the symbolism here, along with an eager longing that the disciples should come to a more wholesome attitude regarding himself, there was also a pointed disapproval of the very limited grasp of truth regarding him which they had evinced thus far.

Or was Jesus symbolically appealing to the twelve to see more clearly the truth about himself and so prepare themselves to share the rejection he was already experiencing? “Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his Servant, that walketh in darkness and hath no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God . . . The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back … I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (Is.50:10,5,6; cp Mk.8:31).

The thrusting of his fingers into the man’s ears may have been intended also as an enactment of Ps.40:6: “mine ears hast thou opened (digged-with reference to Ex.21:6).'” These words, a prophecy of Messiah, must be true of his disciples also.

There are other common features in these miracles. Jesus led the men away from the multitude, and there in loneliness, the touch and influence of Jesus brought restoration, but only gradually.

Here, then, is summed up the purpose of that long trek to Tyre and Sidon, and again towards Caesarea Philippi. Away from the excitement of the crowd, there was hope that the influence of close contact with their Master would, by degrees, bring a more balanced outlook. “I see men as trees, walking.” Perhaps this detail is preserved in the gospel to suggest the powerful words of Ps. 1: “Like a tree planted by the rivers of water . . . the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.”

The repeated insistence that the miracles be not talked about everywhere is a further indication of their essentially private meaning. The healing of the blind man especially has, in the Greek text, a remarkable echo of Psalm 19:8 LXX “the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes“; the same key word comes also in Psalm 18:12. describing the vivid brightness of the Glory ot the Lord. It was, indeed, by a combination of these transforming influences-the educative power of Holy Scripture and the manifestation of heavenly Glory in himself—that Jesus sought to save his sheep.

How apt was that other prophecy of Isaiah?: “I will bring the blind by a way that they know not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and will not forsake them . . . Hear, ye deaf; and look ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent. . . seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not” (42:16-20)

Notes: Mark 7:31-37

32.	Impediment. This unusual Greek word derives from one meaning ‘to suffer pain, to be distressed’ (with the effort and frustration of the stammer).
35.	String. RV: bond; s.w. Lk.l3:16. Both bound by what Satan?
36.	Charged them. The tense means he repeatedly charged them, and- so it also implies (middle voice) – for H-« (Christ’s) own sake. He wanted no more public fuss.

Mark 8:22-26

23.	Spit on his eyes. The same unusual word for ‘eyes’ comes also in Pr.7:2 LXX.
23-25	The four different words for ‘see’ are worth special attention.
24.	In his excitement he kept on saying . . .(Gk. impf.)

After Peter’s great confession Jesus began to feel that he could now venture further in the spiritual education of his disciples. “From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be raised again on the third day.”

This is the first of a steady series of attempts on the part of Jesus to help the twelve understand the inevitability of his suffering. John the Baptist had bidden them see him as “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” They had also heard mysterious words about the Bridegroom being taken away, and the temple taken down, about eating his flesh, as though he

were a peace-offering-but these things made only a temporary impression, and were pushed into the back of their minds. They forgot them because they wanted to forget them.

But now, with a plainness (Mk 8:32 Gk.) not to be evaded he kept on showing them the dramatic things written in the prophets concerning himself. These things must be. There was the imperative of divine predestination about them. Written beforehand in the Scriptures, they had for Jesus all the force of a positive commandment. And they must be, because there was no other way.

The Greek of this phrase: “rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes” (Lk.) is very expressive. The one article governing three collective nouns pointedly emphasizes the evil unanimity of these men of power and prestige. And the word “rejected” clearly implies a cool analytical examination before rejection. It looks back to the great Messianic prophecy of Psalm 118:22: “the stone which the builders rejected’, a scripture which Jesus was to use with telling effect regarding himself at the end of his ministry (Mk.l2:10).

It makes an interesting and instructive piece of research (not to be followed here) to track down the various Old Testament scriptures which foretell the six separate items of precious instruction which Jesus was now seeking to inculcate as an essential foundation in the understanding of the twelve.

Alas, there was little in the way of encouragement for him, this patient misunderstood Son of man who so much needed the added strength which his followers could impart by their sympathetic understanding and encouragement.

Peter to the rescue

However, Peter understood exactly this theme of sacrifice which his Lord was now expounding, and he interposed briskly, taking Jesus on one side apart from the rest, to remonstrate with him vigorously: “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall in no wise be unto thee.” Matthew’s phrase “he began to rebuke him” surely implies that Peter said much more than is recorded here, or he intended to say much more.

It is commonly assumed that Peter personally reacted strongly from the idea of being a disciple of a suffering Messiah. But there is another possible interpretation which certain details of the context seem to make more likely-that Peter, unflinchingly loyal in all circumstances, was primarily concerned about the effect of these grim warnings on his still wavering fellow-disciples. The dissuasion he now sought to apply to Jesus as good as said: ‘Don’t you realise, Lord, that if you talk in this miserable pessimistic fashion they will all leave you? You will soon have no disciples left at all. So for your own sake provide them with a more encouraging programme and more cheerful prospects.’ Peter’s imperative was strongly expressed: his negative was actually a double negative in Greek. Yet whenever men used this mode of speech regarding Jesus, the outcome always proved them wrong (Mt.26:35; Jn.11:56; 13:8; 20:25). And so in this instance also. But maybe Peter thought himself inspired once again (Mt.l6:17).

There can be doubt that, with his marvellous flair for making well-intentioned efforts in the wrong direction, he was doing his utmost to help his Master in another critical situation. And the very sharpness of the rebuke administered by Jesus is a measure of the intensity of the temptation which his wonderful disciple all unwittingly provoked. It was the third temptation all over again (Mt.4:8)-to by-pass the road to Golgotha, and choose instead the pleasant path to human glory.

Alas, Peter! how you have misunderstood! Not only must this happen to your Lord, but it must come upon you also—a day when the sufferings of “the Christ, the Son of the living God” shall be your sufferings also, and this without complaint, reproach or rebuke. Indeed, within the year there was to be a desperate situation when Peter was to say: “Be it far from me”-and to say it with oaths and curses (Mt.26:74).

One pauses here to note that John Mark, writing Peter’s gospel for him, records this rebuke by Christ in detail, but yet has not a word about the unique blessing which Peter had from his Lord. What is said and what is left out together make a powerful witness to the veracity of this gospel and also to the humility of the man who is behind it.

What a change was to come over Peter in his attitude to the sufferings of Christ! Six months later he was to be heard saying: “Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death” (Lk.22:33). A few weeks after that he boldly required the people of Jerusalem to believe that “those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled” (Acts.3:18). And shortly before his own martyrdom he was to write: “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps (as I shortly must?)” (1 Pet.2:21). The apostle who at Caesarea Philippi would fain save his Master from suffering and death was steadily maturing in appreciation and sharing of the cross of Christ.

“Behind me, Satan!”

But just now, as he sought to wean Jesus from morbid expectations, (the disciple leading his Master!) he found his good intentions rebuffed with a vigour and disapproval which hitherto he had thought his Lord only capable of when demolishing the dialectic of scribes and Pharisees: “Away behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling stone unto me: for thou thinkest not the thinking of God, but the thinking of men.” Was it possible that Peter, who loved his master as much as did all the rest together, should cause him to stumble? Peter hadn’t even dreamed of the possibility of it. Much less was his ingenuousness capable of appreciating how subtle was the temptation he had inadvertently insinuated in his well-meaning effort to be helpful.

Satan! No longer was he speaking by the inspiration of heaven and providing Jesus with unexampled encouragement. As he now shrank bewildered and spiritually bruised by these hard words from the kindest and most compassionate of men, did he-the “stumbling stone”-recall hearing Jesus speak of the day when “the Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all that cause stumbling, and them which do iniquity”? (Mt.13.-41; and note 18:7).

What a build-up of discouragements were adding to the Lord’s problems at this time in his ministry! It began with the beheading of John the Baptist; then came the utterly wrong reaction of the five thousand after that amazing miracle for their benefit; there was the growth of doubt and uncertainty in the minds of the twelve; the contention in the synagogue at Capernaum; the head-on collision with the scribes concerning their rules about food and eating; the acrimonious demand for a sign from heaven; the apostles’ crass misunderstanding of his warnings; and now Peter, with the best will in the world, was saying the most hopelessly wrong things. (See notes).

Yet it would be a sad injustice in one’s thinking to leave Peter to bear alone the burden of his Master’s cutting rebuke. He had been moved to speak as he did by the wavering attitude of his fellow-disciples, and it was for their sake as well as to help Jesus that he had said what he did. Jesus knew this, and showed that he knew. In Mark’s record there is the valuable detail that in the very act of rebuking Peter he “turned about and looked on his disciples.” Thus, by this single glance of disapproval, he included them also in his censure of too-human thinking.

Clearly there was need for a special effort to persuade them, and all others who would give him allegiance, that the path of glory is the path of self-denial and suffering. So he gathered the twelve before him and called also to the rest (Mk) who were evidently not far away.

The challenge of the Cross

Then, very solemnly, he presented them with his new manifesto, with continuous emphasis (Lk) inviting them in effect to join him in a cause that was fore-doomed to failure, as men judge failure: “If any man wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” This was almost certainly the first time any of them had heard this austere call to commit suicide. They were to hear it repeated at least twice more in the days ahead, so hard was the lesson, and so vitally necessary.

Had not Isaiah prophesied that there would come a day when men would be called on to “deny (LXX) idols of silver and idols of gold, which your own hands have made unto you for a sin” (31:7)?

Now, more than that, “let him deny himself”-‘ Jesus used the very word which was to describe Peter’s repeated and desperate denial, not of himself but of his Master, in the courtyard of the high-priest’s palace. A man must learn to mistrust his own instincts and inclinations. He must learn that in most instances the wisest decisions are those in which he deliberately chooses to do the opposite of what he wants to do.

Describing this as ‘taking up the cross’, Jesus now added to what the twelve had already learned from him (Mt.16:21), that the death appointed for him in Jerusalem must be the dreaded crucifixion. If the disciples, horrified, failed to grasp that they were being bidden share that ghastly fate, there was correction of this in the Lord’s demand that each take up his cross daily {Lk.) and follow him (cp.l Cor.l5:31; 9:27). How long did it take them to make the startling inference that everyday they had been with Jesus he had been carrying a cross of his own? Did they also reflect on the significant fact, known to everybody, that by far the greater number of those crucified were slaves and revolutionaries?Mass crucifixions only followed a revolt against the established order!

Five Reasons

Jesus knew how unpalatable and even frightening was his demand that his followers throw their lives away. So he patiently reinforced his appeal with a set of five spiritual principles (each introduced by the word: “For”) which would only make sense when they thought patiently about them.

1. “For whosoever wishes to save his life (or soul) shall lose it: but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, this man will save it” (Lk.) This paradox becomes intelligible only when it is recognised that the word “life” or “soul” (Gk. psuche) was not infrequently used by Jesus for a man’s lower nature, and his natural inclinations, in contrast to the aspirations of the New Man in Christ (Mt.26:38; Lk.l2:19,20; Jn.12:27; Rev.18:13; Heb.4:12). lt is only when the fully dedicated disciple is ready to let go all that the natural man deems desirable and worth having (Heb.l1:15) that he finds instincts and inclinations being transformed into instruments for the service of Christ. All self-seeking is self-destruction. Self-denial aids self-preservation.
2. A commonsense reason for seeking this new life in Christ, which means denial of the old: “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?” (Lk) Whether this gaining of the world be the piling up of material wealth or a self-dedication to the making of converts (as in 1 Cor.9:19), it may become a man’s destruction. In the former case, this is almost inevitable. In the latter, only rarely (one imagines). Yet even then wrong motives can play havoc with a man’s spiritual progress.
3. With almost brutal realism the Lord underlined another commonsense reason. “For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mk.) If he lose his life, forfeit to the justice of God, he has lost all. After it has been given up for his sins, has he anything by which he may buy it back again? “They that trust in their wealth (faith in the wrong saviour!) and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother (i.e. become another man’s saviour), nor give to God a ransom for him that he should live always, that he should not see corruption” (Ps.49:6-9). Then how when God has consigned a man to the grave, can he possibly do anything to help himself!
4. And then comes Christ’s own reaction to the disciple who thinks that he can live two lives at the same time: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed” (Mk.) And since the Son of man is the only one who can give to God a ransom for a man’s soul, the door of redemption then stays shut. After the word-picture of men with crosses openly following their Leader as he bears his cross, this insistence on open witness to Christ becomes almost frightening. To think that the Lord should find it positively repugnant to consider as his own one who has no liking for open association with him! But there is also (lie comforting antithesis: “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man confess before the angels of God” (Lk.l2:8).
5. And last, there is the solemn reminder that one day a man must answer for the way he has lived his life: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works” (Mt.). This was a tremendous claim to come from the lips of a homeless peripatetic preacher. In ancient days visions of the Shekinah Glory of God had been vouchsafed to holy prophets of Israel, and in this presence they had prostrated themselves as dead men. Now Jesus clearly implies his going away to heaven, and very solemnly bids his disciples look-with fear or with gladness-to the day when he, endowed with this heavenly Glory, will bring to those who claim his Name the spiritual perspective of an honest self-assessment.

A Problem Promise

Never had the disciples heard their bra¹ in such earnest and sombre speech. He was pressing them for a decision whether they were prepared to go all the way with him or not, He held before them the reality of his own futon glory and also of his own divine authority as judge and king: “Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen (to kingdom of God come with power”(Mk.)

On the face of it this saying surely meant that the Lord’s return must come to pass in the lifeline of some who now heard him. In the normal understanding of the words this did not happen, In consequence a wide variety of explanations of the difficulty have been advanced:

1. The Transfiguration, which came a week later.
2. The Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension.
3. Pentecost and the impact of the Holy Spirit’s message.
4. The preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles,
5. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
6. The Second Coming of Christ, yet future.

The first of these is the explanation most commonly adopted. Yet it hardly copes adequately with the words. Where is the point of saying: ‘Some of you here will not die before next week’? The language Jesus used requires a much longer lapse of time. Indeed, it seems to suggest a privilege accorded to only a few, though this is perhaps not to be insisted on. The second, third and fourth explanations listed here fit neither the words nor the context.

Reference to the Fall of Jerusalem is an increasingly popular idea, but a re-reading of the passage is sufficient in itself to expose the inadequacy of the interpretation: “the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels. . . the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.” If these words do not describe the personal visible coming of Christ for judgment and a kingdom, there are no words anywhere in the New Testament adequate to prove the doctrine of the Second Coming. Those who can make this saying of Jesus refer to an invisible coming of Christ in A.D.70 without glory and without a kingdom can make any Scripture mean anything.

There is one detail which requires reference to the Second Coming. In Mark, the Greek perfect participle describing the coming of the kingdom carries a clear implication of ‘come to stay’. This means that any reference to the Transfiguration can be at best only in the nature of a token fulfilment. (More on this in study 105).

But if the actual Second Coming is the true meaning of the words, what of the promise that some would not die before that mighty climax? Another explanation, adequate to the magnitude of this problem, is the idea that, but for a massive postponement, the coming of the Lord would have taken place in A.D.70 or very soon thereafter. The details of this explanation have been set out in some detail in an appendix to ‘Revelation’, by H.A.W. (pp. 259-273).

Notes: Mt. 16:21-28

21.	from that time. The words express an important new development; cp. 4:17; 26:16.
	Must. Compare the power of the same imperative in Lk.2:49; 4:43; 13:33; 17:25; 22:37; 24:7,26,44,46; Jn.3:14; 12:34; Acts.l:16; 3:21; 17:3.
	The third day Mt. Lk. But Mk. has: after three days.
22.	Be it far from thee is literally: ‘Mercy on thee’, precisely as in Is.54:8,10 LXX. If a deliberate allusion, was Peter implying: ‘Isaiah prophesied an end to Israel’s suffering, and you are Israel’s Messiah; therefore he foretold an end to yours also’? If so, correct!-except that Peter’s timing was wrong. Contrast Peter again in Acts.3:18.
	Took him. The Gk. word means ‘took either to help or to be helped’. Here clearly, the former!
23.	Behind me, Satan. Note the echoes of the temptation in v. 1,8,16,26. Why does Rome appropriate to itself the lord’s great blessing on Peter, but not this repudiation?
24.	take up his cross. Lk. 14:27 (Study 135;Mt. 10:38). The second of these must be placed later in the ministry or even after the resu rredion (see Study 90).
25.	This saying was evidently spoken on four separate occasions: Mt.10:39; 16:25 and parallels; Lk.17:33; Jn. 12:25.
	Lose his life… find it. Mk adds to the paradox with his addition: ‘for my sake and the gospel’s (the good news.’)’. What superbly good news that a man is called to crucifixion!
26.	Lose s.w. Acts .27:10,21; lCor.3:15;2Cor.7:9;Phil 3:7,8
	Here Mk. includes:
38.	Whosoever shall be ashamed. . .
	The words ‘shame, ashamed are well worth following in the concordance. Note especially Rom.1:16; 2Tim.l:8;2:12;Heb.2:11; 11:16.

Away from the provocations of hostile Jewish leaders, Jesus settled down to divide his time between a crowd of specially faithful followers, who could not be shaken off (Mk.8:34), and the instruction of the twelve. Yet he would not seek to attempt the difficult task single-handed: “And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him” (Lk). The words— strange paradox!-means that in his prayer he ws alone, necessarily so, tor he was praying for them, that neither the strong nationalist spirit which ran so strongly just then, nor the scribes and Pharisees, nor their frequent inability to grasp his teaching, would shake their loyalty. This was by far the greatest worry of this part of his ministry. The answer to his prayer was to come almost immediately.

That phrase: “the disciples were with him” may imply more than physical presence-that together they had decided to stand by Jesus, even though their minds were full of misgivings. For a good while now it had been touch and go whether their loyalty would be sustained. So the fact that they were still “with him” needed to be said.

Opinions

When the journey was resumed (Mk.) Jesus began asking the twelve individually (Mk.) what were the opinions about himself which they had heard about him: “Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?” (Mt). The strange paradoxes in the teaching and behaviour of Jesus had made this question a great talking point (cp. Mk.6:14-16). The very way in which Jesus led them to it told them by his allusion to Daniel 7:13 the most correct answer. But there was no sign of this best of all biblical replies in the profusion of the options which the twelve now contributed with great readiness (Mk).

“Some say John the Baptist”. This was the guess which had been made by Herod (Mt.l4:2). It could only have been shared by those who had come to know about Jesus after John’s tragic death. But that such an opinion was held says much for the considerable resemblance in message, even though not in miracles, between Jesus and John. The effect of their preaching on the religious leaders was the same also!

Another point of view, lately canvassed, was that Jesus was Elijah. Everyone knew, on the strength of Malachi’s Elijah prophecy (4:5,6), that an appearance of the great prophet was a necessary prelude to Messiah’s coming. And there were so many similarities between Jesus and the ancient records about Elijah-his open conflict with the contemporary “prophets of Baal”, his ability to provide food for the needy, his power to raise the dead, his sudden comings and goings, and, just lately, his unexpected journey to the country of Tyre and Sidon.

There were other prophets besides Elijah that Jesus was equated with in the unceasing speculations that went on. Perhaps he was Joshua? After all, he bore the same name. And didn’t he lead a group of followers up and down the country, as Joshua did with his spies of Canaan? On the other hand he was often heard to refer to himself as “Son of man.” That settled it, surely. He must be Ezekiel, for was not that Ezekiel’s title no less than 89 times?

And more than once he had talked about “the sign of the prophet Jonah.” So perhaps he was Jonah? After all, Jonah came from Gath-hepher (2 Kgs.l4:25), the next village to Nazareth. One of the most mysterious of all the proposed identifications was with Jeremiah. What kind of reason could be advanced, what sort of similarity could one point to, in comparing Jesus of Nazareth with the tragic prophet of Anathoth? Was “Man of Sorrows” already written on the brow of Jesus?

“One of the ancient prophets”, they said (Lk. archaios). Then was public speculation ranging further back to Abel or Enoch or Noah?

These varied surmises at least show one thing — people of all shades of opinion were satisfied that Jesus of Nazareth was not just the humble carpenter whom people in Nazareth had been familiar with; he was something, someone, much greater than that. Yet they missed the logic of their own speculations: If any one of their (inferior) guesses concerning him were correct, they would have followed his lead with unquestioning obedience. But they didn’t.

Instead, that other phrase: “as one of the prophets” (Mk.6:15), seems to indicate a sinister attempt to represent Jesus as a false prophet like those who plagued the life out of Jeremiah.

From all these guesses and rumours there is surely one clear lesson to be learned: Follow the religious notions of the crowd, and you are almost sure to be wrong.

It is specially noteworthy that popular opinion no longer acclaimed Jesus as trie Messiah. His abrupt refusal to allow the people to make him king of the Jews had swung the pendulum of public favour against him. At the time of the feeding of the five thousand they were ready enough to identify him as “the prophet like unto Moses” (Dt.18:18; Jn.6:14), but the miraculous provision of food had not been repeated day after day, as happened in the wilderness, so he couldn’t be Moses. His public rejection of the Mosaic food laws (Study 98) made this conclusion certain.

Peter to the fore

Jesus now pressed his interrogation furttier: “But whom say ye that I am?” The answer to this was all-important. It was a rather tense anxious Jesus who paused waiting for their reply.

Once again, as on a former occasion (Jn.6:69), Peter leaped in with a quick response. He could have taken the line: When all the nation’s leaders are puzzled about you, who are we to offer an opinion? Or he could have begun with a ‘We think. . . ‘ or ‘I consider.’ or even ‘I believe . . .’ But instead, a blunt unambiguous dogmatic assertion: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt.) There was no mistaking Peter’s meaning. Once again he was giving emphatic testimony (Now with greater conviction than before) that Jesus was the promised Messiah. “Son of the living God” could only go back to the familiar Scripture in Psalm 2, where Jehovah says of “his anointed,” his Christ: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” And in this context “the living God” does not mean the true God contrasted with lifeless idols, but the God of the Cherubim, the Living Creatures (Peter had picked up his Lord’s allusion to the great vision in Dan.7:9-14).

This confession, which was Peter’s own, rather than representative of the whole group, had a wonderful effect on Jesus. In earlier days others had made their great confessions regarding him. There was Andrew’s excited declaration to Peter: “We have found the Messiah” (Jn.1:41); and Philip’s equally enthusiastic affirmation to Nathanael: “We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth” (Jn.1:45). And after the storm on Galilee: “Of a truth thou art the Son of God” (Mt. 14:33).

But since that first flush of faith there had come much disappointment, misunderstanding, and a near collapse of faith. In these circumstances Peter’s personal affirmation of faith was invaluable. It gave a firm strong lead to the rest in their doubt and hesitation, and it warmed the heart of Jesus who was himself sorely in need of encouragement during these depressing days.

What did Peter mean?

The words of this confession are reported by Matthew very differently from the brief phrases in Mark and Luke: “Thou art the Christ of God”. Probably, when asked what he meant, Peter filled out his answer.

What exactly did he mean? The double idea involved-Christ (Messianic King), and Son of God- requires that there be seen here allusion either to the Davidic Covenant in 2 Sam.7:12-16 or to Psalm 2:4: “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh” (and note Matthew 16:17: “my Father which is in heaven”).

It is easy to see why the mind of Peter should go to this scripture. His Master’s recent experience of head-on collisions with rulers had evidently set his loyal mind thinking about the appropriateness of the words: “The rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against his Christ… Thou art my Son… The Gentiles for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Land . . . Kiss the Son (bar) … in the way… Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

Inspired apostle

To be acclaimed by his disciple at such a time as both human and divine Messiah meant a lot to Jesus. Evidently his disciple meant that he was as truly Son of God as he himself was son of Jonah. Jesus said his fervent thanks to Peterond to his heavenly Father in the same breath; “Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven”(Mt.)

It has been suggested that the contrast Jesus had in mind was: “Peter, it was from my Father that you learned this tremendous truth, not front your father.”But indeed there is more to it than this.

“Bar-/ona/)”was used with allusion back to the baptism of Jesus when the Holy Spirit like a dove lighted on him, and a Voice was heard from heaven saying precisely what Peter had now declared: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased/’Through Peter, the father, knowing how sorely tried His Son was, y said it again. For Pharisees and Sadducees no sign from heaven, but for a hard-driven Jesus and disciples of wilting faith there was a sign of the prophet Bar-jonah!

A minute earlier the disciples had been telling Jesus how men speculated that he was one of the great prophets of the Lord. Now Jesus fervently put Peter in that category of men who were inspired to speak the Truth of God, and this because he did what the prophets also had done beforehand-acclaimed Jesus as the brd’s Messiah. The inspiration was the same. Yet Peter was all unaware that he was doing anything except speak his own mind.

This remarkable circumstance opens up the possibility that a man may at times be under the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit without himself ever being aware of the fact. Presumably this is what lies behind Paul’s remarkable assertion: “No man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit;”Of a similar nature, doubtless, is the heavenly help which comes to a man when he seeks divine guidance in his personal witness for the Faith or in some difficult decision calling (or wisdom above the ordinary. In such circumstances the individual is completely unaware of supra-normal guidance, so that to call this “possessing the Holy Spirit” is decidedly a misnomer. Nevertheless in a way which is past human understanding God is at work, even if it be only momentarily, as in Peter’s present experience.

There is yet more to be discerned in this grateful rejoinder by Jesus “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah” looks back, along with Peter, to Psalm 2: “Kiss the Son (bar) . . . Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.’ Also, bar derives from the familiar bara=, create; and in the mind of Jesus Jonah, dove, would have inescapable associations with the Holy Spirit at this baptism (Mt.3:16). Thus Jesus rejoiced to see his disciple as a first fruits of his New Creation, with a faith begotten by the power of the Spirit: “Thou sendest forth Thy spirit, they are created”(Ps.!04:30). “In the place where it was said unto them. Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God” (Hos.1:10).

Thjs the prayer of Jesus (Lk.9:18) had its answer: “O that I had wings like a dove (Jonah)! then would I fly away and be at rest… far off. in the wilderness”(Ps.55:6,7).

Jesus went on: “And l-also say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”(Mt). The AV: “And I say also -“, is misleading. The “also” links with “I” (Jesus), to imply that as God had spoken to Peter, so now the Son was continuing the revelation.

Papal Pretensions

“Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock” has, of course, been the centuries-old basis for preposterous papal claims to spiritual authority. Peter (petros) means “a small stone” to be thrown (2 Mac.1:16; 4:41), or stumbled over (Mt. 16:23), or used as a knife (Ex.4:25, version of Aquila).

In Lk. 22:31 Jesus made reference to Amos.9:9; “Like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain (Heb: stone) fall upon the earth.” This, spoken concerning Peter, interprets his name as meaning a very tiny stone, comparable in size to a corn of wheat.

The later altercations among the twelve as to who should be accounted greater (Mk.9:34; Lk.22:24) show clearly that they had gained no impression of Peter’s superior status. And how very odd it is that the Roman church is so eager to appropriate these words to the popes, whilst studiously ignoring the “Get behind me, satan” also spoken to Peter a short while later!

Everywhere the New Testament discourages reference to Peter as the Rock. James, Cephas, and John” were pillars in the church at Jerusalem (Gal.2:9), not just Cephas. At Antioch Peter encountered rebuke from Paul regarding a quite fundamental principle (Gal.2:11), and Peter took it. The conclusions of the Council at Jerusalem were authoritatively pronounced by James, not Peter (Acts 15:13). No other foundation for the church is possible except Christ and the truth about him (1 Cor.3:ll); and with Peter is associated not just one apostle but the entire body of apostles (Eph.2:20; Rev.21:14). Peter never was Bishop of Rome. And even if he were, there is no hint of Scripture that he was empowered to pass on his authority to any other “bishop” of Rome.

A.B. Bruce has well commented: “Christ did not fight to the death against one form of spiritual despotism to put another, if possible worse in its place.”

Enough on that profitless topic! It is more important by far to enquire just what Jesus did mean by his words to Peter.

The Rock and the Church

Linguistically, it is clear enough that Jesus was’* not appointing Peter as a rock foundation, but was pointing a contrast between the small unimportance of Peter-for all the greatness of his Messianic confession!- and the solid rock of truth concerning Christ upon which the Ecclesia was to be built. “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor.3:11). In the Old Testament one majestic passage after another speaks of Jehovah as the Rock of Israel: “Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no Rock; I know not any” (ls.44;8 RV). “He is the Rock, his work is perfect” (Dt. 32:4). So extension of this idea to the Son of God (in the same way that the Covenant Name is often applied to him in the prophecies) is natural and easy.

“On this rock I will build my church.” This was the first time Jesus had used the word ekklesia in connection with his own work. It is the Greek equivalent of the word which very frequently in the Old Testament describes the congregation of Israel. Commentators have shown a great fondness for stressing associations for this important word with the assembly of privileged citizens in the Greek city-states, yet the possibility that Jesus had this in mind is extremely remote. Following Septuagint usage his emphasis, rather, was on the idea of a Christ- community modelled on the pattern of ancient Israel-a new Israel selected on the basis of loyalty to himself as Messiah, in the same way that Israel, redeemed from Egypt, was required by God to give allegiance to Moses as His prophet.

The gates of hell

Here was the clearest indication Jesus had yet given of an aim and intention to found a new family, a new nation. Israel, the nation of special favour and blessing, was being disowned, put out of fellowship, so to speak. Instead, as Gideon had chosen his faithful few, so now the selection of a faithful remnant of Christ’s men was proceeding. And against this New Israel the gate-keepers (see Ps.24:7,9) of the present temple in Jerusalem would have no power to prevail.

Nor would the gates of hell. In ancient days the great antagonist to the calling-out of Israel from their debasing bondage was the monolithic might of Egypt, the land of graves. Now the mighty captor from whose bondage the new Israel needed deliverance was “the sin which doth so easily beset us.” Those now being offered their freedom by Christ found themselves shut In by “the gates of hell” even whilst they were alive. These gates of the grave, over which saints like David (Ps.9:13) and Hezekiah (Is.38:10) had been granted token triumphs, were to find their master in Jesus. Was it not promised that Abraham’s Seed should “possess the gate of his enemies” (Gen.22:17)? In due time Jesus would triumphantly re-assure his followers: “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and death” (Rev.l:18) which means, of course, that he now has the authority to “open the two-leaved gates” (see ls.44:28;45:l,2) and bring forth from among death’s captives those who belong to him. But with those keys he will also exercise the authority to decide who shall be locked up within death’s grim fortress for ever.

It may have seemed at the time as though the gates of hell must prevail against Jesus when “the voices of the chief priests prevailed” against Pilate (Lk.23:23), so that he “gave sentence that it should be as they required.” But the third day told another story. Jesus now promised other keys to Peter. The reward of his staunch loyalty, when others doubted and hesitated, was that he should be used by God to “open the door of faith” first to Jews at Pentecost, and then to Gentiles in the home of Cornelius, the Roman centurion. Even though the work of taking the gospel to the Gentiles was to be mainly Paul’s, it remains Peter’s lasting glory that “God made choice among them, (hot the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (Actsl5:7). The key of knowledge, left by scribes and lawyers to go rusty (Lk. 11:52), was to be put to wonderful use by Peter.

Binding and loosing

Authority to shut out was also his, as the austerity of his decisions regarding Simon the sorcerer and also Ananias and Sapphira very plainly shows (Acts.8:20-24; 5:1-11). More than this, “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Here, especially, is the basis for the vast pontifical claims of the bishops of Rome. It suits them to leave ignored the fact that though this high privilege was given to Peter first, it was not given to him only. The words were repeated to the rest of the apostles a short while later (Mt.18:18).

It was a commission handed to the new ecclesia, an authority to preach the gospel (1 Pet. 2:5), with powers of decision as to who should be accepted for baptism (Acts. 10:48], and of discipline in the new Israel of God (Acts.5:3; 1 Cor.5:3). It includes powers to forbid and to permit (Acts. 11:3; 15:10), andalso a divine guidance and inspiration such as was given to the prophets. Jeremiah was promised: “See, I have this day set thee over the nations, oid over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant” (Jer.l:10). Yet Jeremiah did none of these things. However, the message of these heavenly judgments and blessings was given through him: “Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth” (v.9) and fulfilment was sure, Peter’s faithfulness already made him, ahead of the rest, a fit vehicle for a like inspiration. And what a fervour and power there was in it when it came (Acts 2)!

Greatly heartened by the present up-turn in events, Jesus bade the twelve keep this conviction concerning his Messiahship to themselves for the present. Broadcast to the crowd, there was too big a likelihood of it being misunderstood and distorted by the people, as had already happened after the feeding of the five thousand.

Notes: Mt. 16:13-20

13.	After a fairly considerable gap in his record, Luke’s narrative now rejoins those of Mt. Mk. Why the omission since the feeding of the 5000? Is it because nearly every intervening item in the history shows the apostles in a poor light?
	Who do men say . . .? Then, as now, people preferred to speculate on religious issues rather than accept the authoritative pronouncements of Holy Scripture.
14.	Some say . . . some . . . others. When leaders back away from expressing their judgement, the rest are bewildered. A like situation has been known in more recent times.
15.	He saith unto them. The emphatic pronoun in Mk. might suggest that the disciples had been pestered with enquiries from the crowd.
16.	The living God may mean “the God of the living creatures”; consider 1 Sam. 17:26; 2 Kgs. 19:4,16; Ps.42:2; 84:2; Hos.1:l0; 2 Cor.3:3; 6:16; Heb. 3:12; 9:14; Rev.7:2.
	Thou art the Christ. s it possible that Jn. 6:66 is to be read as covering a period of weeks? In that case it is not out of the question that v.67-71 there should be equated with the present incident.
17.	Bar-Jonah. Ps.2:12 is one of the two Old Testament places (besides patronymics) where Gentile bar is used instead of Hebrew ben. This passage about Peter’s spiritual high-water mark is pointedly omitted from Mk’s (Peter’s) gospel. In Is. 32:2-4 Peter’s confession appears alongside the two healing miracles of Mk.7 and 8 (Study 100).
18.	Upon this rock. Grammatically it is not easy to refer this to Peter personally. Wouldn’t that require ‘Upon thee’?
	Rock … church (ekklesia). In LXX ‘congregation’ becomes ekklesia. The two come together in Num. 20:10; Ps. 40:2, 9-Messiah’s smiting and resurrection.
	Prevail. Lk. 23:23 is the only other New Testament occurrence.

Jesus was in a quandary. The reaction of the multitude to his miracle of feeding them and the reaction of both populace and Jewish leaders to his discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum presented him with difficult alternatives. To make up lost ground among the people, it was imperative that he appear at Jerusalem throughout that Passover week, and use the occasion to impress them afresh with the divine character of his mission. But other factors pointed to a different decision. The hostility of the Pharisees had crystallised out against his blasphemy (as they deemed it), and plans were now in train to get rid of him altogether. To go to Jerusalem would be to invite them to do their worst. Not that Jesus lacked courage to face this, but there was so much essential work still to be done. Especially, he must reclaim the faltering loyalty of the twelve, and so further their instruction that when his time came the task of nurturing the faithful remnant could safely be left to them.

Another Collision

So Jesus decided to break the commandment: “Three times in a year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” (Ex. 23 :17), in order to fulfil an even higher duty. He was now confirmed in this decision by yet another sharp clash with the same group of Pharisees and scribes, a collision which quite obviously had a seriously damaging effect on his closest followers.

This apparently took place on the same day as that momentous disputation in the synagogue about Bread of Life. These eagle-eyed adversaries saw the twelve eating some of the food which they had left over from the feeding of the multitude, and this without the normal Jewish procedure (normal to this very day) of washing hands thoroughly before beginning their meal. They had learned also of how Jesus had provided food for a great multitude the day before, and no insistence on careful hand-washing then. It was a wonderful opportunity to drive the wedge deeper between Leader and disciples. So, for at least the tenth time (see Notes), these men, sent specially from Jerusalem, came aggressively at him with their criticisms. Probably they were the more eager to use this opportunity because they had some inkling of the existing strain between Jesus and the twelve.

“Unwashen Hands”

They asked; “Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?”

No Pharisee ever ate a meal without hand-washing first of all. It was an extreme form of ceremonial caution, going far beyond what Moses had laid down, a routine item in the intricate elaboration of the straightforward precepts of their Law, as worked out by generations of hair-splitting rabbis. On no account must a man eat food “with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands.” Mark has added the parenthesis here for the sake of his Gentile readers unacquainted with the artificialities of the Pharisaic system. But the phrase also demurs from the Pharisee prejudice. Mark adds further examples of their extremism: “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not; and many other things there be, which they have received to hold, os the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.”

How were these Pharisees expecting to make capital out of this attack? They certainly hoped to create friction between Jesus and his disciples. More than this, if Jesus agreed that the preliminary hand-washing was necessary, he would in effect be accepting “the tradition of the elders” as authoritative, and since the scribes were universally regarded as the spiritual heirs of these men, this would acknowledge them as the supreme religious authority.

On the other hand, if Jesus shrugged off the value and importance of this tradition, which the scribes had succeeded in imposing on “all the Jews,” he would have the prejudices of nearly all the nation lined up against him. For, since in most minds there was only the haziest distinction between what had been taught by Moses and what had been superimposed on his teaching by the rabbis, it would be comparatively easy to represent Jesus as one who set Moses at nought. So, these evil men felt confident that one way or the other, they were sure to score over this troublesome man of Galilee.

Bitter Retort

A moment later they were almost literally reeling back from the violence of the onslaught Jesus turned on them. With biting sarcasm he quoted them their own Scriptures about themselves!

Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines die commandments of men” (Is.29:13). The text of the Septuagint Version used by Jesus (even to rabbinic scribes from Jerusalem!) is very expressive here: “their heart holds off remote from me,” is the idea behind the words. Originally the prophecy probably had reference to the hypocritical men of Jerusalem who whilst still hankering for the old evil ways pretended enthusiasm for the great reformation in the reign of Hezekiah. How wrong they were shown to be when God vindicated the king by a miraculous “resurrection” from an incurable disease and by the vanquishing in a night of the great Enemy of Israel.

That prophecy was also designed, so Jesus declared, to foretell the poisonous attitude to be adopted by the adversaries of the Son of God. And so also the context of the Isaiah quotation:

“They are drunken, but not with wine: they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes . . . And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned” (29:9-12).

It is a caustic commentary on the Biblical incompetence of the nation, and especially of the scribes.

So in more ways than one, this Scriptural hammer-blow could hardly have been more fitting. “They honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” —never was a more telling definition of a religious hypocrite. It is apt for every generation!

In launching this attack on religious tradition, Jesus had undertaken “a Herculean dangerous task” (A.B. Bruce). Bitterly he underscored the truth of the words he had just hurled at them: “laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold fast the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.”

“The oral law was professedly a ‘fence’ to the written law; in practice it took its place, and even reversed its decisions. When the two were in competition the tradition was preferred” (Swete). The issue these scribes had raised with him was no isolated instance but typical of all their attitude to the Law of God. And Jesus boiled with anger as he spoke about it.

The Witness of Law and Prophets

It was unlike him to ignore a question raised in controversy, unlike him to round on his opponents with fiery denunciation. It is a measure of his fears for the well-being of his disciples. The entire success of his work hung in the balance that day. He could have quoted against these Pharisees the powerful warning of their own Moses: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it” (Dt. 4 :2); but it was not strong enough for his purpose, for these men were worse than this. So brushing aside their remonstrations, with mordant irony he went on: “How handsomely ye reject the commandment of God, for the express purpose of keeping your own tradition!” It was a situation anticipated by the prophet Ezekiel also: “They executed not my judgements, but despised my statutes, and polluted my sabbaths … wherefore I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live” (Ez. 20:24,25). These scribes knew well both Isaiah and Ezekiel, yet they lightly shrugged off the possibility that such sayings of the prophets might have any reference to themselves.

Jesus therefore proceeded to ram the accusation home in utterly ruthless fashion. He quoted them the Fifth Commandment. God Himself said this at Sinai. And to emphasize its high importance, there was also the extension of it, given by God through Moses: “He that curseth father or mother shall be surely put to death” (Ex. 21 :17), on which the Mishna has this elusive comment: “He that curseth father or mother is not guilty unless he curses them with express mention of the Name of the Lord.” It needs to be remembered that “Honour father and mother” means financial support as well deference. (Compare the use of this Greek word in Mt. 27 :9; 1 Tim. 5 :3,17; Acts 4 :34; 5 :2,3; 7:16; 19:19).

These religious authorities had their own way of getting round such a duty to parents.

Corban

If a man wished to evade the obvious humanitarian responsibility of caring for his parents in their old age, all he need do was to dedicate all his property to the temple treasury, Corban (Mt. 27 :6), and then, since all was now God’s, none of it could be profaned by being used for such a mundane purpose as the support of aged parents. But the accomplishing of this ignoble aim did not mean that the man forthwith handed over everything to the temple. By no means! A modest token payment was regarded as sanctifying all the rest for the same holy use. However this did not stop the man from continuing to enjoy the use of it himself for the rest of his life.

The evil conspiracy went even further than this. The man need only declare his intention to give his goods to the temple. This in itself made them too holy for gift to parents. But decision when the gift should be implemented was left to himself. All remained for his own selfish use right up to the day of his death, if he so chose.

Nor was this the limit. This heartless casuistry was declared irreversible. Once the vow had been taken, the man was positively forbidden to give any kind of practical aid to his parents in their need: “And ye permit him no more to do a single thing for his father or his mother.” Indeed, the suggestion behind the whole sordid transaction was, even more hypocritically, that the poor parents themselves ought to find considerable satisfaction in the arrangement, since all was to the honour of God’s House —a much more important thing, surely, than the paltry problem of their own meagre subsistence! This kind of “honour” which these Pharisees taught a man to pay to his father was matched by the kind of “honour” they paid to their Father!

One wonders, did Jesus also quote the trenchant proverb: “Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith, It is no transgression; the same is the companion of a destroyer”—he is as good (as bad) as a murderer.

There was something ominous about the Lord’s citation of the Fifth Commandment against the Pharisees, for it was the first commandment with promise: “that thy days may be long upon the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Since their unloosing of this precept was so flagrant, and exposed as such, ought they not to infer that their days in the Land of their fathers were now numbered?—hence his acid figure of speech about an unnatural plant being rooted up (v. 13).

It was a very angry Jesus who rounded off his castigation of such spiritual small-mindedness. “Thus,” he concluded, “ye make the Word of God of none effect (s.w. Pr. 1 :25; 5 :7) through your tradition: and many such things ye do,” With what biting sarcasm would Jesus repeat that word “tradition,” for it carried also another sinister meaning: “betrayal”!

Whilst this scathing word rang in their ears, Jesus turned away from them and called the crowd around him. He had now declared open war against this spiritual wickedness in higli places. The scribes’ attempt to drive a wedge between himself and his disciples was up against unexpected retaliation —his exposure before the multitude of their own hypocrisy, The time was to come, a year later, when his invective against them would dissect yet more savagely many of the similar hypocritical things they did (cp.Mt.23, the entire chapter; Studies 167,168).

Defilement as God sees it

With the crowd around him, and the discomfited Pharisees listening from a distance, he proceeded to answer the criticism about defilement, and he did it in plain unvarnished language: “Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: there is nothing from withouto man, that entering into him can defile him: bu! the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”

Mere familiarity with the words tends to blind many a modern reader to the dramatically revolutionary character of this pronouncement At a sweep Jesus was now setting aside not only all the ridiculous accretions which had grown up round the Mosaic food laws but also the Torol principle itself of distinction between clean and unclean food. The literal application of Leviticus ch. 11 was being consigned to the waste-papei basket. This last conclusion was so radical, that even after explanation the twelve were reluctant to believe that their Teacher really meant this. So they and the multitude must have concluded that Jesus was striking only at the rabbinic food laws.

Yet even so this astonishing aspect of the Lord’s law of liberty was surely the most radical teaching they had heard from him yet. For, in those days, scrupulous observance of rules about eating and drinking were at the very heart of Judaism, and have been ever since. In the time of the apostles it was this more thoo anything else which was to turn Jewry awoy from acceptance of the gospel. Jesus knewwhaf a tremendous shock he was giving to all who heard him. From now on, as had been already exemplified in the synagogue that day, hewos resolved on making no sort of concession to either teachers or multitude for the sake of having their sympathy or support. If they found his word “a hard saying,” he would be content *o concentrate on the instruction of the faithful remnant left to him. But he went on to underline the basic importance of this issue: “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”

Reaction of the Twelve

The reaction of the people is not indicated, but probably their prejudices were offended almost as much as those of the scribes, the more so since the Lord’s earlier discourse had already gone so far towards estranging them.

The twelve heard him with incredulity and dismay. When they were alone in the house (Peter’s home, most probably), they came nearer to open rebuke of their Leader than they had ever dared: “Knowest thou not that the Pharisees were offended at this saying?” In effect: “Do you realise what you have done? You have made enemies of the most influential people in the country’ — and no wonder! This, on top of their Master’s intransigent behaviour and teaching during the past twenty-four hours, was almost more than they could stomach. Had he lost all sense of proportion? He certainly seemed to have lost his usual uncanny intuition which on so many occasions had enabled him to bow unerringly what was going on in men’s minds. This for sure, or he would hardly have flouted the opinions of the scribes as violently as he had done.

Further Denunciation

But Jesus was not to be restrained. His indignation was still running high. “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up,” he answered grimly, with pointed allusion to a proverb they knew well: “The wicked shall be cut off from the Land, and they that deal treacherously (with God’s Law) shall be rooted out of it” (Pr. 2 :22). It was another fateful reminder that, according to the commandment he had just quoted, those who failed to honour the Father in heaven would not have long to live in the Land which He had given them.

“Let them alone,” he went on, “they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit.” The injunction here can be read as meaning: “Forgive them.” But if indeed Jesus did mean it this way, it is only possible to read the words as charged with the most biting irony. The present mood of Jesus would not allow of any more tender interpretation.

Again he was harnessing the Old Testament to his diatribe. “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone,” Hosea had cried against the northern kingdom. Jesus could yet be moved with compassion by the needs of the ignorant multitude, but for these men who should, and did, know better, he had nothing but scorn and censure.

Newly come into the Land of Promise, Israel had heard the curses of God thunder out from the slopes of mount Ebal: “Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way” (Dt. 27 :18); and all the people had added their mighty Amen. Following this up, Isaiah’s scornful denunciation had anticipated the Lord’s caustic parable: “The leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed” (9 :16). “O my people they which lead thee cause thee to err, ana destroy the way of thy paths. The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgement with the elders of his people” (3 :12-14). Those who have seen Rembrandt’s marvellously vivid cartoon illustrating this parable of Jesus will need no further exposition.

Yet there is a further biting implication behind the Lord’s figure of the blind and the blind. Because of David’s intense frustration outside the walls of Jebus due to the confident taunt about the blind and the lame, it became the rule from that day forward that “the blind and the lame shall not come into the House” (2Sam.5:8).

Thus, by his angry mini-parable the Lord of the House pronounced these pernickety purveyors of spiritual trivialities disqualified from worship in the temple; and those who followed them (Mt. 23:16,24) were likewise written off.

Well-meaning Peter

Peter was worried with the way things were going. He could even envisage some of his colleagues, their faith in Jesus already badly shaken, swinging right over to the side of the Pharisees. So, with a heavy-footed attempt at tactfulness, he interposed: “Declare unto us this parable.” They had surely misunderstood him, as so many others already had done that day This talk about food and the law of defilement must be yet another of the vivid figures of speech he delighted in. It was as though Peter said to his fellows: ‘There’s no need for ail this puzzlement and indignation about these sayings. Remember his talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? This is no more meant literally than that was. Give him a chance to explain himself. Declare unto us this parable!’ But even Peter this time omitted the title “Lord.” Yet he did encourage Jesus in what he thought the right direction by using the word which Nebuchadnezzar’s magicians had chosen to describe the interpretation of their monarch’s mysterious dream (Dan. 2 :4).

At this time even Peter found the Lord’s talk difficult to accept. Later, with the vast enlightenment of the Forty Days, followed by Pentecost, he was still to be found thinking on the old lines: “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14).

So it is not to be wondered at that also in modern times loyal Peters read Mosiac proscriptions of blood and certain foods, as unclean, and proceed to make for themselves various prohibitory food rules, deeming them necessary to their obedience of Christ. It is needful to think clearly about this. If he wishes, every man is fully at liberty to come to such conclusions and decisions — for himself. But as soon as he seeks to impose them on others or to censure others for their non-conformity, he proclaims his own spiritual immaturity or blindness. More than this, he is a sinner against both his Master and his brethren, in that he makes the way of Truth narrower than Jesus did, and he condemns those who refuse a doctrine of justification by works.

Further Explanation

Peter’s well-meant effort in what he thought the right direction sickened Jesus. He turned on the twelve in dismay and discouragement. The situation was even worse than he feared. “Are ye (like them) so (completely) without understanding?” Were they as unspiritually stubborn as the scribes? Difficult as this day was for the apostles, it was proving to be at least as sore a trial for their Leader.

So Jesus settled down to explain, as to children, that he had meant literally and precisely what he said. If they, bewildered, were willing to learn, then he would spare no pains to enlighten them. But for these clever wilfully-blind academics he had only one word: “Let them alone!”

So he settled down to demonstrate to the twelve, as to children, that they were making a mystery out of a plain matter. It was only a hard saying because they were reluctant to believe it to be true.

“Whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught. It cannot defile him, because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man ” So what he had said earlier he had meant very literally: “Nothing (in the form of food) from without a man, entering into him, can defile him . because it entereth not into his heart.” A man’s mind is the only part of him that can be defiled The only food that can make a man uncleanis his bad intellectual food —his reading ad his listening —this is the nub of the argument, lit that which goes into and comes out of a man’s heart which defiles him —and when Jesus spott of the heart, he meant, of course, according It the familiar Hebrew idiom, not a man’s emotions or affections, but his mind (see Notes) By contrast the blunt words of the Lord about gastronomical processes made it very plain, that, far from a man’s food defiling him, he defiles it.

“All meats clean”

At this point Mark’s record adds a phrase translated: “purging (cleansing) all meats This, in its context, is meaningless. King James’s translators followed inferior manuscripts here The better texts have only one letter different but this is sufficient to require that the phrase be referred to Jesus himself. A parenthesis is implied and required: “(This he said) making all foods clean.” It cannot be too strongly emphasized that this is, not may be, the correct reading of the passage. It settles once and for all the question as to whether disciples of Christ are ever to allow themselves to come under a yoke of bondage by which one’s food is subject to rules and regulations.

It is true that in the earliest days of the church Gentile converts to the Faith made concessions of this kind for the sake of the tender consciences of their Jewish brethren reared under food laws all their days. This was, however, only a temporary agreement. The time came, in solidly Gentile churches, when it could be set aside.

This Paul proceeded to do in unequivocal fashion: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus (with reference to the incident now under review) that there is nothing unclean of itself” (Rom. 14 :14). “Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse’ (1 Cor. 8:8). And especially : “In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits. . . commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the Word of God (Acts 10 :15) and prayer (grace before meat)” (1 Tim.4 :l-5). There can be no arguing with words like these, no questioning of their intent.

Spiritual Defilement

In a further bluntly-spoken attempt to set this question in its proper perspective Jesus went on: “From within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness; all these things come from within, and they defile the man.”

It is a brutally frank assessment of human nature. From the first item, which comes last in the Ten Commandments-“evil thoughts or reasonings” (Jer. 4 :14)-spring all the rest. This Is the human Messiah, followed by his twelve terrible apostles, the last of whom (in the place of Judas) renders all the rest incurable. The mere enunciation of a catalogue like this was surely designed by Jesus to make evident to his twelve that no man can re-shape his own life to the glory of God by mere self-discipline, such as the scribes demanded. What is needed is regeneration, a new creature, nothing less. And then: “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life” (Pr. 4:23).

In comment on this frightful catalogue Dean Inge once inveighed against “the poisonous sentimentalism which teaches that man is always innocent, society always guilty, that we have to reform not ourselves but our institutions.”

It is noteworthy that Jesus spoke of “the heart (singular) of men (plural);” thus in a phrase he put all human nature in the same category, none is at liberty to preen himself for his moral superiority. All are made of the same stuff.

Retreat

Next day Jesus and the twelve got away from Galilee, and headed north to the very limits of the Land of Promise. In time of drought and famine Elijah had gone off in the same direction, and had found subsistence and encouragement in the humble home of a woman of Zarephath. In this the most acute period of spiritual drought and starvation in his three and a half years of unrewarding witness Jesus was similarly to have his spirits refreshed by the faith of a Gentile woman.

But it was not with this aim or hope that he turned northwards. His greatest anxiety now was the disaffection of the twelve. They were more important to him than all the crowds of Galilee. So he took them away from the subverting influence of arrogant Pharisees and from the seething nationalistic excitement of the crowds who were interested in their Master only as a political deliverer and worldly king. At all cost the Twelve must be rescued. And they went with him, these twelve lost sheep of the house of Israel, wanting to go away, yet having no one to go to. For them and for Jesus the next few weeks would be a crucial time.

Notes: Mk. 7:1-23

1.	Came together. Gk: synagogued. This, and “the bread” in v.2, and “Then” (Mt. 15:1), all combine to suggest the idea in the text.
	From Jerusalem. An official delegation, as in Mk. 3 :22. To gain an impression of the incessant attacks on Jesus, consider: Mt. 9:3,11,14; 12 :2,10,24; Jn. 4 :1,3; 5 :16; 6 :41; and also Mt. 16:1; 19 :3; Jn. 7 :32; 8 :3,48; 10 :31; 11:53.
	Certain of the scribes. This phrase seems to imply divided attitudes towards Jesus.
2.	That is to say. With this expression Mark demurs from their prejudice in this matter.
3.	Alt the Jews; i.e. all the nation. This is not the Johannine usage: Jews = the rulers.
	Except they wash. A gross misapplication of Is. 1:16 (See Jer.4 :14). Gk: “baptize”, i.e. immerse their hands. But disciples of Jesus immerse completely before they eat of the Bread of Life! Wash oft. Literally: with the fist (of wickedness? Is.58:4).
5.	Then. Gk: “thereupon” links with v.2 (with v.3,4 as a parenthesis). Why walk not…? An allusion to Halachah, the rabbinic term for standard Jewish religious practice.
6.	Esaias. Mt. gives this Isaiah quote and the Lord’s counter-charge in reverse order, but it is difficult to see why.
	You hypocrites. Careful attention to the details of verses 6,8,9, 13,14,18, Mt. 15 :3, shows how intenselyexasperated Jesus was.
	With their lips. Cp. Mt. 15 :5: “ye say”.
9.	Your tradition. In Mt. there is a very effective repetition of “Transgress . . . tradition,” with a sudden switch to “commandment.”
10.	Moses said. Mt: God commanded. At Sinai, the voice of God Himself. (But which phrase did Jesus use?).
11.	Corban. In O.T. this word 80 times means “offering.”
12.	No more. The word implies that the duty had been done hitherto.
14.	RV: He called to him the multitude again. Inclusion of “again” is textualy uncertain. But if correct it seems to imply that Jesus had been instructing the crowd, then the Pharisees took over the discussion, and now Jesus calls the people away from these evil men in order to expound the contrast between the two teachings.
16.	Characteristically, RV omits this verse in spite of the massive witness of almost all the MSS. Is it or is it not relevant? (Mt. 15:13) Every plant. . . rooted up. There are other remarkably vivid scriptures in line with this: Judeli, Dt. 29:28,22; 2 Chr.7 :20,17; Ps.52 :4,5,8; Lk. 17:6. “Let them alone” and this rooting up both suggest allusion to the parable of the tares. God had planted His Commandments; the Pharisees had sown their tradition (tares).
17.	From the people. An unfavourable reception from them also?
	The parable. And misunderstanding from the disciples also; cp. Mt. 16:7,22; Lk. 22 :38; Jn. 14 :5; 11 :13.
18.	Out of the mouth. But some of the evil things mentioned (e.g. murder, adultery) are hardly covered bylte expression.
19.	His heart. For heart = mind, consider Jer. 15:16; Ex. 36:2; 1 Kgs. 3:9; Pr.2:2; Lk.5 :22;24:25,32,38; Rom. 10 :8,9. There are a great many more.
21.	Out of the heart of man. A few Bible assessments of the quality of human nature: Ps. 39 :5; Jer. 17 :9; Mt. 7:11; 10:17; Rom.7:15; l Pet. 1 :24; Eph.2:3.
22.	Six plurals and then six singular nouns. Why? Is this to emphasize the evil of the race and of the individual?

A week was taken up with steady tramping southward to the Mount of Transfiguration, for an experience which would ever remain vivid in the memory of Peter, James and John. Luke, reckoning inclusively, says “eight days”. It is not unlikely that in both instances the time is stated in a way that will suggest a symbolic meaning. Matthew and Mark-“after six days”-have their minds on the like experience of Moses: “And the cloud covered the mount Sinai six days, and the seventh day the Lord called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud” (Ex. 24:16). Luke’s “eight days” suggests a fresh beginning. It is the number of the New Creation, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.

Where?

In the fourth century Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, following the apocryphal Gospel to the Hebrews, claimed identification of the Mount of Transfiguration with Mount Tabor. This was accepted without question for many centuries. Yet it is known that there was a village at the summit of Tabor which Josephus fortified against the Romans during the Jewish War. This makes the identification very unlikely. Today the great favourite is Hermon, near Caesarea Philippi, though some, with an eye to the toilsome climb of over 9000 feet, are content with one of its lower shoulders.

It is a matter of no little surprise that Biblical, rather than geographical, considerations have not been taken more into account. Moses ended his great work seeing the Land of Promise from Mount Nebo, 4000 feet above the Dead Sea, and was buried there (Dt.34:1-5). A careful review of the details in 2 Kgs.2 (verses 5,8,11) reveals that Elijah was on the identical mountain when he ended his public ministry. Then, do not these facts provide strong presumptive evidence that it was to this mountain that Jesus now took his disciples? The distance from Caesarea Philippi is not a valid objection, for it is easy to get from any part of the Promised Land to any other point in it within six days.

When?

Also, if-as certain details will be seen to suggest-the Transfiguration took place about the time of the Day of Atonement, there would be reason enough for a trek from the north towards Jerusalem.

The evidence for this item of chronology although indirect is not inconsiderable:

1. Peter’s “Let us build three tabernacles” makes sense from this point of view, for the Feast of Tabernacles, when the people of Israel actually camped out in booths for week, came only a few days after the Day of Atonement.
2. Moses’ experience of transfiguration (Ex 34-29-35) was the reflected glory of the angel who talked with him on Sinai. So also Stephen: “Behold I see t heavens opened, and the Son of standing on the right hand of God.” “And all that sat in the council . . . saw his face as it had been the face of an angel” (Acts 7-56; 6:15). Then what Glory did Jesus reflect? Not that of Moses, one may be sure, but the Shekinah Glory of the Father which was manifest in approval of a true sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.
3. It may be inferred that Peter interpreted the experience of Transfiguration this way “For he received from God the Father honour and glory when there came to such a voice…”(2Pet.l:17). The words are the exact equivalent of the description of the garments of the high priest “for golory and for beauty” (Ex.28:2 LXX).
4. Next day at the foot of the mountain, there was the episode of the epileptic boy. “Why could not we cast him out?” the disciples asked. “This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting” Jesus replied. (This word “fasting” is omitted from Mk!9:29 by only two manuscripts. Modern versions ought not leave out.) The Day of Atonement was the only fast appointed by the Law of Moses, and on that day the people prayed in the sanctuary court whilst the high priest ministered within. Evidently Jesus saw the healing of the lad as symbolic of the healing of Israel’s spiritual sickness by his own atoning sacrifice.
5. The Greek word anaphero (Mt.l7:l; Mk.9:2) commonly referred to the offering of sacrifice (see concordance; so also in LXX, s.w. ls.53:12; Ex. 24:5). This chimes in perfectly with Day of Atonement ideas. But otherwise it is difficult to see why the word should have been used at all. The mere notion of a mountain climb would surely have been better expressed by anago, or anabaino.
6. In this connection it is to be noted that Jesus ascended the mountain to pray, “and as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered” (Lk.) Here was the high priest ministering his own timeless sacrifice, and offering prayer for his people, as every high priest must do on the Day of Atonement.

There is fair probability that the transfiguration took place at night time: “And it came to pass, that on the next day, when they were come down from the mountain . . .” (Lk.9:37). The prayers of Jesus seem to have I been more commonly at night (Lk.6:12; 21:37; 22:39;Mk.l4:23,24_;Jn.l7).

Why only three?         ^f –

It is understandable that, after his great demonstration of loyalty, Peter should be chosen to share his Lord’s unique experience. The inclusion of James and John also implies that they had now joined him in a settled conviction that Jesus was the Messiah. Their doubts were now set at rest. Luke’s phrase: “Peter and those that were with him” carries more than a surface meaning. But Deuteronomy 17:6 takes on new meaning here: “At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he (Jesus!) that is worthy of death be put to death.” Here were two talking about his decease, and before three others also! About fifteen years later James died, a victim of Herodian savagery (Acts.l2:2). But for another twenty years after that there remained two witnesses, today all three still bear witness in their writings.

Transfigured

There, as Jesus prayed, an amazing change came over his appearance: “He was transfigured before them.” The word, used uniquely with regard to this event (2 Cor.3:18, Rom.l2:2), is a rather emphatic expression for “change”. What happened is described in all three gospels: “the fashion of his countenance was altered … his face did shine as the sun. . . his raiment became white and glistering… so as no fuller on earth can white them.” Matthew’s phrase: “white as the light” surely means “as the Light of the Shekinah Glory” (cp. ls.2:5; 10:17; 58:8; 60:1,19,20: Hab.3:4).

As already mentioned, this was the experience of Moses through his communion with the angel of the Lord when the Law was given to him (Ex.34:29). But here was no angel, nor any law of commandments. This glory was Christ’s by right, from the Father. A psalm which describes the majesty of Jehovah has this: “Thou coverest thyself with light as with a garment” (Ps. 104:2). And so also now this was true of His Son. Luke’s word: “glistering” really means “like lightning”. It is a word used in the Old Testament not infrequently for the dazzling splendour of the Shekinah Glory (Ex. 19:16; Dt. 32:41; Ps. 18:14; Hob. 3:4). Indeed, so many words and phrases are used in this narrative which have special association with the Glory that this becomes the dominating idea behind the entire remarkable episode.

Further, time after time, the reader is being reminded of other familiar passages describing the Glory of Christ and his saints: “His countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength” (Rev.l:16). “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Mt. 13:43). “And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament” (Dan.12:3). “The living creatures. . . like burning coals of fire. . . like the appearance of lamps. . . as the appearance of a flash of lightning” (Ezek.l:13,14). “Then shall ye also appear with him in glory” (Col.3:4). “They shall walk with me in white” (Rev. 3:4). “To her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen clean (i.e. gloriously bright) and white” (Rev.l9:8). Compare also: (2 Cor.3:7,8; 4:6).

Vision?

These similarities provide a solution to what has been an obsessive problem with some regarding the Transfiguration. Was it just a vision? or were Moses and Elijah actually there, in person, bodily?

The use of the word “vision” by Jesus (Mt.l7:9) is not in itself decisive either way, though its New Testament usage certainly suggests something quite abnormal. The conversation between Jesus, Moses and Elijah was real enough. And Peter certainly thought the experience real, or he would hardly have proposed the erecting of tabernacles.

The best suggestion yet advanced regarding this is that in this transcending experience, time was annihilated; there was a transition to the kingdom itself. Jesus and his apostles were all taken, so to speak, through the time barrier-the kind of experience Paul apparently had also (2 Cor.12:2). Some of the phraseology is marvellously appropriate to such an interpretation: Moses and Elijah “appeared in glory”; the disciples “saw his glory”; his garments “white as no fuller on earth can white them” might well imply immortality; “we were eye-witnesses of his majesty”, wrote Peter years later (2 Pet.1:16); “his face shone as the sun” is not accidentally like the Lord’s own description of immortality: “then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Mt.l3:43;cp.Dan.12:3).

Again, it has to be considered that the majesty of Jesus in this transfiguration far surpassed his appearance to the disciples after his resurrection. Then must not this be so much greater than that? Also, since the phraseology in both Mark and Luke is precisely that used in Daniel 10:6 LXX to describe an angel of glory (at least this!) is not the transfigured Lord to be seen as at least the physical equal of such a glorious being?

So far as one can judge, there is only one short phrase which does not harmonize perfectly with the suggestion just illustrated, and that may well be a parenthetic comment by Luke himself: “They spake of his decease – (which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem)”.

Moses and Elijah

Matthew introduces his description of the appearance of Moses and Elijah with his characteristic note of surprise: “Behold!” But so startling was the entire transaction that he is impelled to use it twice more, regarding the cloud and the heavenly voice.

The adversaries of Jesus, sarcastically demanding a sign from heaven (Mt. 16:1), had been denied it. But now such a sign as would have left those men awestruck for life was granted to three loyal disciples.

A week before. Peter had strongly reprobated the idea of a decease at Jerusalem (Mt. 16:22), but now he heard Moses and Elijah speak of it with understanding and thankfulness. The same word comes in Heb.ll:22 and 2 Pet. l:15-“the exodos which he should fulfil.” So that exodus in the days of Moses was a prophecy!

The close parallel between certain of the experiences of Moses and Elijah deserves to be noted. All that is now listed here about Moses had its counterpart in the life of Elijah: He attempted to free his people from bondage, failed, and fled to the wilderness where, hidden in a cave, he beheld a mighty theophany in mount Horeb; this happened at the bush also; provided with food and water in the wilderness, he went in the strength of it forty days and nights in the divine presence at Sinai, whilst Israel gave themselves over to calf-worship; judging his work a complete failure, he asked that he might die; but the Name of Jehovah, the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, was proclaimed to him, and assurance of an unfailing divine purpose; he was promised a successor with the name “Saviour”, and ended his own labours in the presence of the Glory of God on Mount Nebo.

Moses and Elijah also share the Old Testament’s last great prophecy of the Second Coming (Malachi 4). Then could there be anything more fitting than their appearance together with Christ in the Transfiguration?

Peter tells of ancient prophets to whom “it was revealed that not unto themselves, but unto us (the later believers) they did minister” the message about “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow” (1 Pet. 1:11,12). And Paul, looking yet further ahead, writes of “the glory that shall be revealed in us.” These things now became realities for Moses and Elijah.

“They spoke with Jesus of his exodus (Ex.3:10,ll: 2 Pet.l:15) which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” They would, of course, talk in Hebrew, and although the apostles may have had only an imperfect knowledge of that now disused language of their fathers, they would be able to pick up enough of the gist of the conversation to infer the character of those with whom their Master was so glad to talk. Not since the days when he and John the Baptist were working together had Jesus been able to enjoy the satisfaction of good talk with men near to his own spiritual level.

Moses, naturally, would speak of his own rejection by Israel, how he “suffered the reproach of Christ”, yet in due time returned to bring deliverance (an exodus foreshadowing that which was soon to be accomplished in Jerusalem). He would speak of his own need to die before entering the Promised Land, and with what intensity he had exhorted and encouraged another Jesus-Joshua upon whom the God of Israel had laid the burden of consummating the Promises of inheritance.

And Elijah, with so many experiences to look back on, would recall how he had to steel himself to maintain the truth of the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the face of concerted opposition from all the organized religion of his day. He would tell of the collapse of all his great hopes of national reformation, and of discouragement almost to the point of disaster. He would bring to mind the might and majesty of the heavenly splendour seen at Sinai, “the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof”, assuring him that God had not abandoned his wayward people. And he would surely speak of the final fruitful years-the patient ministry of the still small voice by which faith was nurtured in the faithful remnant, a mere seven thousand.

How Jesus would gain encouragement and fresh resolution and strength from these men who were alike his teachers and examples, and also his servants!

The disciples asleep

One of the strangest mysteries about the Transfiguration is that “Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep” (Lk). Is it not to be expected that in such extraordinary circumstances through sheer excitement they would have no difficulty in keeping awake? The next phrase might even imply that they did fall asleep. The Greek is rather problematical. It is difficult to be sure just what was intended. The RV margin has: “having kept awake”, however the NEB is very different: “Meanwhile Peter and his companions had been in a deep sleep; but when they awoke, they saw his glory …”

Here, where shades of meaning of a Greek verb are in some doubt, interpretation by other Biblical examples is the safest thing. Daniel’s encounter with the angel Gabriel had the like effect on him (Dan.8:18, and again in 10:9). Ezekiel’s vision of the Cherubim of Glory affected him similarly(Ez. 1:28 and 2:1,2). Zechariah’s experience was the same (4:1). And so also Abraham’s when God made the Covenant with him (Gen.15:2), Paul’s on the road to Damascus (Acts.9:3,4), the apostle John’s in Patmos (Rev.l:17), and even Balaam’s (Num.24:4).

The consistency of these experiences is remarkable. They are bound together by an extraordinary passage in Moses’ instructions for the Day of Atonement. The high priest was not to venture into the Holy of Holies except with both hands full of incense to burn in his censer. In other words, he was to appear in the divine Presence wrapped, so to speak, in a cloud of incense, “that he die not” (Lev.l6:12,13).

Presumably it was because of faith and godliness that those just listed died only a symbolic death and were awakened to appreciate the majesty of what they saw.

Three Tabernacles?

And now Peter, James and John joined the great company of these privileged men: “when they awoke, they saw his glory.” They not only saw, they listened to what was being said, until at last Jesus drew their attention to the fact that Moses and Elijah were now about to take their leave. (Lk).

Forthwith, “Peter answered and said. Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses and one for Elias” (Mk.) This, Luke adds, “not knowing what he said.” There is more behind these words than a half excuse for Peter, blurting out the first thing that came into his head.

It was a splendid idea, truly, that they should camp out there on the mountain top, and spend the whole week of the approaching Feast of Tabernacles in godly fellowship. Such an encounter was too good to let go after a matter of minutes. Somehow they must keep Moses and Elijah there.

But how Peter put his foot in it!; “One for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elias”, as though they were three equals! No! not even that! for, thoughtlessly, he addressed Jesus as “Rabbi”, giving him the status of a mere disciple and commentator on the Law and the Prophets.” “Not knowing what he said!” Mark’s apology for his mentor is: “for they were sore afraid.”

But if only Peter’s improvisation had been adopted, what an experience it would have been for them! It is to be observed that Peter did not suggest six tabernacles, so doubtless he had it in mind that as Joshua had been Moses’ minister, and Elisha had poured water in the hands of Elijah, so now three disciples would gladly minister to three men of God. ‘James and John can look after Moses and Elijah, and I will see to the needs of Jesus!’

The Glory

Peter got no answer to his excited proposition, for “while he yet spoke, a bright cloud overshadowed them.” This was, of course, the luminous cloud of the Shekinah Glory which had ratified God’s Covenant with Abraham, and led Israel to safety out of Egypt, protecting them from the final spiteful effort of Pharaoh (Ex.U:20). It was this cloud which had rested over the tabernacle in the wilderness, and had filled Solomon’s temple at the time of its dedication.

At first, in the transfiguration Moses and Elijah had appeared to be clothed with this cloud-“they appeared in glory”. Then, as Jesus talked with them, it centred itself on him. Next, as Peter was speaking, Moses and Elijah were going away and the cloud moved to enshroud the disciples along with Jesus (Lk). The experience almost paralysed them with fear. Nevertheless they actually moved towards the cloud as it moved towards them (Lk); this, perhaps, because they feared lest their Master should disappear along with Moses and Elijah. It is not difficult to imagine how Peter’s tremendous anxiety that he might lose his Lord proved more powerful than the awesome proximity of this Glory of God.

The symbolic meaning of all this would be evident enough in days to come. They had seen the transfer of the heavenly Glory, with all the authority it could impart, from the Law and the Prophets to Jesus and themselves-the Christ and his Apostles.

The Voice

The final ratification of this awe-inspiring experience came in a Voice (Jn. 12:28) out of the cloud: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear him.” At Sinai there had been a Voice out of the cloud, accompanied by thunder, lightning, and the great sound of a trumpet. Now it was just a Voice, and Jesus at their side.

This was all-sufficient.

The declaration concerning Jesus, first made at his baptism, and at that time heard only by himself, was such as could be made now only to men who had settled their doubts and were fully committed to following him through thick and thin. It is not God’s way to bulldoze obstacles to faith by theophanies of this kind.

It is profitable to analyse the phrases and their origin. There is Psalm 2:7; “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” And Isaiah 42:1: “mine elect in whom my soul delighteth.” And Moses’ prophecy of a Prophet like unto himself: “unto him ye shall hearken” (Dt.l8:15; Heb.V.1,2). Thus the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Law were all combined in this heavenly witness to Jesus. And, in addition, there is “the Beloved”. Here the Father was repeating what He had said to Abraham when bidding him offer up Isaac: “Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest” (Gen.22:l). The word in the LXX is precisely the same. This allusion to the great type of sacrifice in Genesis harmonizes well with the words: “in whom my soul delighteth”, for this key word is one which is commonly associated in the Old Testament with God’s acceptance of a pleasing sacrifice.

What wonderful encouragement there was for Jesus in this experience! What strength he would gather as his soul was knit to Moses and to Elijah whilst these men of God talked of their failures and successes. And the heavenly Voice, addressing itself primarily to the disciples, simultaneously reassured him of his status as “the prophet like unto Moses”. It told him in the words of Psalm 2 of the ultimate triumph of his Messianic work. But it bade him also brace himself to endure suffering as a well pleasing sacrifice for the sin of his people.

The disciples, on their part, would learn that their Teacher, whose word at times had sorely tested their loyalty, had all the authority of Moses, and more, for had not the Cloud of the Glory passed from Law and Prophets to him?-and also, marvel of marvels, to themselves alsol Thus they were being prepared as Apostles of the Lamb, for an authority and mission which would surpass the work of Moses.

In a rather subtle way, the words: “Hear ye him”, confirmed this. In their Greek Bible those words from Dt.18:15 implied: “Let each man hear for his own benefit”. But now, with a slight change, the implication became: “You disciples must hear him for the benefit of others.”

The words of David’s great psalm settled their minds once and for all that their Jesus truly was “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And the intimations of his role as a sacrifice for sin reinforced, even if they did not explain, the ominous instruction Jesus had himself lately given them (Mt. 16:21).

Of all the overpowering experiences that had come to these three disciples in such a short time, none was more terrifying than hearing the Voice out of the Cloud. “When the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid” (Mt.) This is now the third time that the narrative has emphasized their great fear. Afraid at the sight of Moses and Elijah! Afraid as they entered the cloud of Glory! Afraid of the Voice!

In all these respects they were repeating the experience of Israel in the wilderness. And their reaction was the same: “Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die” (Ex.20:19).

And so it came about. All at once they were aware that Moses and Elijah were gone. There was only Jesus, laying a firm hand on them (Dan 8:15; 9:21; 10:10,18), with bright beams coming out of his hand (Hab.3:4), and speaking his reassurance: “Be not afraid” (Rev.l:16-18). The authority of Law and Prophets was superseded; now their only function-always their greatest glory—was to bear witness in the memory and thinking of the disciples to the greatness of Christ.

Apostolic Reminiscences

Even though for the time being it had to remain locked up in their minds, that encounter in the Mount of Transfiguration burnt itself ineffaceably into the memories of the three apostles. Writing years later-in some instances, many years later-all three of them made allusion to it.

Peter’s recapitulation of the event (2 Pet.1:16-18) is well-known to all Bible readers. Writing shortly before “putting off his tabernacle”, he made the recollection of it one of the main grounds for Christian confidence in times of discouragement. These things which we believe are no “cunningly devised fables” like the Talmud or the Delphic oracles. “The power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” is certain, for we apostles have already seen it: “we were eye-witnesses of his majesty”. This word “majesty” has only one occurrence in the Old Testament: “the kingdom and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High” (Dan.7:27).

But Peter’s phrase: “honour and glory” (= “for glory and for beauty”; Ex.28:2), describes a high-priest. So here is the apostle’s recognition of a King-Priest. His authority for this-the transfiguration.

The First Epistle of Peter also has a probable allusion in the words: “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (5:1; note v.l), there being here an implied contrast between i the fading glory on the face of Moses when he came down from mount Sinai and the abiding glory of Christ vouched for by the foretaste of the kingdom which the transfiguration provided.

There are much better reasons than are usually recognized for believing the James who wrote the epistle to be the son of Zebedee. If, for the moment, this is assumed, then the reference to Jesus as “the Lord of Glory” (2:1) adds yet another to the long list of allusions which this epistle makes to the ministry of Jesus.

The suggestion is often made that the apostle John was alluding to the transfiguration when he wrote: “The Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn.1-.14). The words certainly take on a greater vigour when read against the background of that amazing experience.

Other words which may well be looking back to the same occasion are these: “We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn.3:2).

Most impressive of all is the symbolic description of the glorious Priest-King in Revelation 1: “His countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.” This is precisely the description given by Matthew. “His head and his hairs were white like wool” is probably the Bible’s way of describing a halo of radiant splendour. Other details in the description are also appropriate but more obviously symbolic.

Assuredly the transfiguration provided an experience these three men never forgot. One is left wondering how they achieved the self-control which kept the exciting story to themselves for the next six months!

Descent

On the easier stretches of the descent from the mountain there was much to talk about. Very solemnly Jesus laid it on the three apostles that they must not talk to anyone about what they had experienced. “Until the Son of man be risen from the dead”, this prohibition was to be binding on them (cp. 2 Kgs. 2:3,5,15).

However, it may surely be inferred that Jesus did not forbid them to tell their fellow-apostles. From this time on, the twelve reveal an eager confidence in the coming of the kingdom. Something is needed to explain such a marked change of attitude. (Note Mt.18:l, almost immediately afterwards.)

The Lord’s ban on public witness concerning the transfiguration puzzled the apostles not a little. They had just seen Moses and Elijah. Then did not this mean that the resurrection had already taken place? So “the Son of man rising from the dead” must surely be one of their Lord’s enigmatic figurative expressions such as they had often heard from his lips.

Then, too, all Israel knew that the prophets foretold the advent of Elijah to prepare the people for Messiah’s manifestation. They had just seen Elijah. So assuredly the great day of the Lord was not far away. Then why keep silence about it? Ought not all the nation to be told, and so be made the more ready to accept Jesus as its king?

Elijah as forerunner

They put their problem to Jesus: “Why do the scribes say that Elias must first come?” The adversaries of Jesus were making capital out of this just now. Quoting Malachi 4, they were able to assert: ‘No Elijah, no Messiah! This Jesus is not Messiah, because no Elijah prophet has appeared yet. John himself said he was not Elijah. He told us so (Jn.1:21). And certainly he did not bring about the national repentance Malachi foretold. So the claims of Jesus of Nazareth must be false.’

In reply, Jesus spelled out the facts in simple fashion. Yes, there is a prophecy of an Elijah forerunner. But there are also prophecies of a suffering Messiah: “How is it written of the Son of Man that he must suffer many things?” How, indeed! The scribes could point to three brief Scriptures about Messiah’s forerunner (Mal.4:5,6; 3:1; ls.40:3); but what of the copious foreshadowings of Messiah’s sufferings?

Jesus went on: John emphatically was an Elijah prophet, but the leaders of the nation (and therefore the nation itself) would not acknowledge him: “they have done unto him whatsoever they listed”-the words surely imply that the Jewish leaders had in some way given encouragement to Herod’s beheading of Job (cp. Mk.8:15; Lk.13:32). And if the forerunner were rejected, how much more emphatically would they refuse the Son of man himself! Tb the argument of the scribes turned bad at themselves. Properly assessed, it real) provided a further demonstration that Jesus w» the Messiah.

This explained, the disciples recognized how these ‘Elijah’ Scriptures could have reference!! John the Baptist, and perhaps their minds began to grope dimly towards a like experience for their own Leader.

At the same time Jesus had carefully chosen future tense when commenting on the Malachi prophecy: “he shall restore all things” (Mt: Gk. text). Yet John was already put to death by Herod. So the words require a further fulfilment in the future-another manifestation oil prophet like Elijah among the people of Israel before Christ returns as their King.

Notes: Mt. 17:1-13

1.	Six days; cp. Luke’s “eight days”. Mt. 27:63,64 is an example of inclusive and exclusive reckoning side by side. Gen.2:2 and Ex.24:16 (9,13,15,17,18) are also relevant.
2.	Transfigured. The Greek aorists in Mt. Lk. seem to suggest an instantaneous transformation; cp. 1 Cor.l5:52,
	White as the light. This surely implies that then (and habitually) Jesus wore white garments.
	Moses and Elijah raised! But the only people the disciples had seen raised from the dead were those raised by Jesus! Then these also?
3.	Talking with him. In all three gospels the verbs imply a sustained conversation.
4.	Then answered Peter must surely mean that he answered Jesus, who presumably had said to them: “Why are you fearful (Mk.9:6) of what you see and hear?”
	It is good for us. . . might also be an indirect ‘Thanks, Lord, for giving us this opportunity’ (Acts. 10:33; Phil 4:14)
	Three tabernacles. The apostles would not need to descend the mountain very far to find brushwood and branches suitable for this purpose.
8.	Jesus only. Luke’s word ‘departed from him’ is the same as Gen. 1:4 LXX- dividing the Light from the darkness.
9.	Tell the vision. Mark’s word means ‘to tell openly or in full’.
	The Son of man. A specific allusion to Dan. 7:13 when Messiah is to be transfigured again in the presence of his Father.
11.	Restore all things. The verb is definitely future. With John already dead, another fulfilment is therefore called for. Since Jesus used the very word ‘restore’ which Mal.4:4 LXX has, the phrase ‘all things’ must be taken as an abbreviation of the rest of that passage: “the heart of father to son, and the heart of a man to his fellow”.

Again, the progress across the lake of the now famous little vessel was noted by watchful eyes. So it was not long before Jesus was approached by the Pharisees who had provoked the earlier altercation after the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum. Now they were joined by a group of Sadducees, the Jewish high-priestly party, who were becoming just as anxious as the Pharisees about the activities of Jesus. Doubtless the excited talk after the feeding of the five thousand, about making Jesus king of the Jews, had seriously disturbed them. And not then, only, for it is possible to infer (Mk.8:15) that Herod, who was guessing Jesus to be John the Baptist risen from the dead, was also behind this latest move. This is understandable, for Herod thought himself to be King of the Jews.

Adversity and fear make strange bedfellows. This was not to be the only time that such an unholy alliance would go into action against Jesus. Less than a year later all these vested interests were to join together to accomplish their evil work thoroughly (Jn.18:3; Mt.27:62). The death of Jesus was to make Herod and Pilate into friends (Lk.23:12). Similarly in later days, Pharisees and Sadducees in Jerusalem were to gang up against Paul (Acts.23:6-10); and likewise Epicureans and Stoics in Athens (17:18).

A Sign from Heaven

The present campaign consisted of pressing for a sign from heaven, and they did this “arguing with him” (Mk.8:11). The point appears to have been this: You, Jesus, claim to be the Messiah. But the Scriptures declare that Messiah’s day is to be heralded by the appearance of Elijah. Don’t tell us that John the Baptist was he, because we know that he wasn’t. Elijah’s ministry ended with a manifestation of the heavenly Glory, but John ended his with his head on the block. And the same argument applies to you, Jesus. If you are the successor of a prophetic forerunner, your great work will be ushered in, as Elisha’s was, by the manifestation of the Shekinah Glory, “the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof”. So, show us the same sign from heaven, so that we may know and believe.

More than this, had they not heard John the Baptist proclaim: “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33)? ‘Then if you are he, Jesus, your abiding Spirit power should enable you to feed the whole nation every day as Moses did (cp. Jn.6:30,31); but you do nothing of the sort, therefore you are not Messiah, and, like you, John also was a false prophet!’

Their attack was now at full power.

These cunning men had noted the Lord’s constant efforts to avoid sensationalism in the good works he did. His second temptation (Mt.4:5-7) had made this a settled policy for all his ministry hitherto. And now the temptation was being renewed, was in fact being pressed with a persistence which sorely taxed his spirit (cp. Ex.l7:3,4,7; Ps.42:3,10). For, at that very moment there were twelve legions of angels eager to do his bidding. It needed only that he should will his own self-vindiction, and there would be seen such a display of heavenly majesty and power on his behalf as would put these carping adversaries in fear for the rest of their lives. But this must not be. The marvellous powers of the Holy Spirit were given him as a witness to the character of his mission, and not to bulldoze small-minded opposition out of the way. This temptation was one of the most acute Jesus had encountered, and his half-audible prayer to heaven for help was heard, and marvelled at, by the bystanders.

“Why” he asked, “does this generation seek after a sign?” Why indeed? Not out of any earnest seeking for truth, nor in any plea to have genuine doubts set at rest; but in order to score a debating point, and so that this man of Nazareth, whose sandals they were not fit to unloose, might so commit himself that they could triumphantly discredit him before the people.

A Different Kind of Sign

His reply gave them a sign from heaven of a kind they had not expected. Would they see the Shekinah Glory of God? It is there in the fiery splendour of a majestic sunset telling them that after the Son of man has slept and risen again there will be a day of wondrous blessing—this is what the gracious loveliness of his present ministry betokened, if only they could read the signs aright. But if their bitter opposition still continued, then that morning of resurrection would be for them one of dull red sky and threatening appearance, a day of heavenly glory but also a day of drastic divine displeasure. So let there be an end to their pretended puzzlement regarding his own character and his claims! They already had all the signs they needed.

There was more to this argument which lie now put to them. When Israel came out of Egypt, the same Shekinah Glory (the very sign from heaven which they were now asking for] was darkness to the Egyptians but light to the people of Israel —a portent of marvellous divine deliverance to Israelites unable to help themselves. Similarly, it was no accident that Jesus hit on this present reminder of the Glory of God in the sky. The same kind of majestic splendour in the heavens could herald a day of calm and loveliness or of foul weather with the very elements at war against puny man. Then let them learn to read the signs already available to them.

Angry Jesus

“An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.” It was a strange description to use. By it, was Jesus telling them that he knew right well that they had been encouraged in their present attack by evil and adulterous Herod (Mk.8:15)? Or was his mind still running on the Exodus, and how in the wilderness the people had disowned “this Moses” in order to redesign their own religion with its lascivious adulterous worship of the golden calf (Ex.32|! That shameful episode had ended with the threat of the utter withdrawal of the Shekinah Glory from the camp of Israel (Ex.33). It was only the fervent pleading of Moses which saved Israel from complete and final rejection. As it was, the Glory was now associated with his tent outside the camp (Ex.33:7). In harmony with this acted parable, Matthew rounds off ft section of his gospel with the abrupt words “and he left them, and departed.” It was in effect, the end of the Galilean ministry.

Jonah – a Sign

But the Lord’s last word to them was this “There shall no sign be given to this generation, but the sign of the prophet Jonah.” No sign from heaven, but instead a sign from hell-his own death and resurrection. From every angle was the most incisive thing Jesus could have slid to them, for not only would his resurrection provide the complete vindication of all hi claims, but also the outcome of it would follow the pattern of Jonah’s experience. After his death and resurrection, he went to the great concourse of godless Gentiles, calling them It repentance, and was blessed with a marvellously whole-hearted response to his warning: “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Now Jesus was, in effect proclaiming the same message, but was getting little sign of repentance to hold off this threatened judgment.

There was an even greater fitness about the sign of the prophet Jonah to this malevolent affiance of Pharisees and Sadducees. The former, like the churches of the present day, believed in the immortality of the soul. The latter disbelieved in any kind of after-life. They had no room for the Old Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Thus, Pharisees as good as denied that Jonah went into the belly of the whale; and Sadducees denied that he came out of it! Within a year the death and resurrection of Jesus exposed both errors.

At this point Mark’s record has, more briefly: “There shall no sign be given unto this generation.” This simply puts emphasis on the fact that the sign of the Lord’s death and resurrection was to be without effect on these unbelieving men: “neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.”

Saving the Disciples

Forthwith Jesus went on board the boat once again and crossed to the other side from which he had only just come. The reason for this is easy to discern. No matter what the cost in terms of personal inconvenience and dislocation of his own plans he must shield the twelve from the damaging influence of these clever and evil men. There are examples enough of the Lord’s watchful care for his “little flock” (Mk.7:24; 7:13,15; Lk.5:30,31; Mt.l2:l-9). At this time, when the faith of the twelve was in a specially precarious condition, such concern was most necessary.

During the crossing Jesus said nothing to the disciples about this encounter because some of them were needed for the handling of the boat. But when they were ashore and he could have the full attention of them all, he began to impress on them, with repeated emphasis, that they “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”

Misunderstanding

The disciples, mindful of their Master’s denunciation of the Pharisees’ attitude to the Mosaic food laws, were puzzled. Had he not lately said to them that what a man ate was of no consequence? Then why this apparent change of attitude, spoken with such emphasis? They had re-embarked hastily, and were short of food either because the seven baskets of fragments left over from their Lord’s recent miracle had been given away or because, overawed by Pharisee criticism, they had deliberately left that Gentile food behind. So they could only conclude that Jesus was warning them against buying their next stock of food from anyone who gave allegiance to either of these religious groups. As though Jesus was one to indulge in petty faction and party warfare!

It was true they had only one loaf with them— “and what is that among so many?” they doubtless queried. Indeed, if they had eyes for the symbolism of the situation, that one Loaf was more than adequate Bread for all. But just as formerly (Mk.7:17) they had taken their Lord’s words as a parable, when he spoke in strictly literal terms, so now when he adopted a readily understood figure, they tried to take him literally. In a surreptitious way and without unanimity they talked it over among themselves, and only succeeded in adding to their own bewilderment.

Jesus was aware of what was going on, and took them to task about it: “O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves?” Here once again was his most censorious reproach: “Little faith!”, deploring this time their lack of insight into the meaning of their Lord’s words and miracles. Could they not appreciate the symbolism behind his miraculous feeding of both Jews and Gentiles?

Patient Instruction

He went over the facts as one might patiently reason with little children: “Five loaves for five thousand. How many baskets of pieces left?… Seven loaves for four thousand. How many baskets?” And like children they gave him answers, groping uncertainly for his meaning.

Here, in miracles like these, was the demonstration of his authority. And these also were parables of his work and purpose. Then were they going to match the purblindness of his adversaries and doubt him because there was no sign from heaven? How slow they were to see that he was warning them against being corrupted by the cleverness of these enemies who would stick at nothing in a determination to discredit him and wreck his work!

These were hard days for the Son of God. The people seemed to appreciate him only for the physical and material blessings they could get from him. The rulers, more openly hostile than ever, were incessant in their varied attempts to undermine his standing and authority. .Worst of all, the confidence of his specially chosen followers had been shaken to its foundations, and so far all the careful efforts he had made to nurture their faith and to fill out their understanding seemed to have achieved little. Was there no way of stopping the rot?

Reproach

“Do ye not yet perceive nor understand?” he reproached them; “have ye your heart yet hardened?” Was their faith in him still paralysed with the same spirit of disaffection which had broken out after the feeding of the five thousand?

“Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?” He had just given them a reminder of their own important part in the feeding of the multitudes, and also in gathering up the fragments for the benefit of others later. But they could only fulfil the vital role intended for them if they had complete confidence in him and real insight into his work and mission. His final reproach was: “And do ye not remember?” It was (and it is) blameworthy if the disciple experiences an outstanding instance of God’s Providence and forgets it, or remembering gives little heed to its meaning.

It was a sorely discouraged Jesus who now took his little band of uneasy dispirited doubting disciples into retirement once again, this time into the northern region of Caesarea Philippi, there to be refreshed and again discouraged (Mt.16:17,23).

The sequence of events in this part of the ministry is probably so recorded because it became an acted prophecy of the experience of the twelve in later days when faced with a similar Judaist onslaught. Unable to cope with strong self-confident criticism they retreated from preaching to the Gentiles to whom they had been sent (e.g. Gal.2:12), and rested content with the One Loaf they already had; and it was left to Paul to save the situation when it was almost past repair.

There is remarkable relevance to this part of the ministry in a paragraph of Jeremiah’s prophecy:

“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes and see not; which have ears and hear not… this people hath a revolting and rebellious heart… they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they seta trap, they catch men… Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord” (5:21-29).

And see also Ezekiel:

“Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not… son of man, remove by day in their sight… I have set thee for a sign unto the House of Israel… And the prince that is among them shall go forth (Herod banished by the Romans)… They shall eat their bread with carefulness… and the land shall be desolate” (12:1-20).

Notes: Mt. 16:1-12

1.	Tempting. The temptations of Ch. 4 are renewed in this chapter: v. 4,8,16,23-25.
	A sign from heaven. It is promised that one day they shall have it; 24:30; 26:64. This demand for a sign from heaven was made three times (Mt.12:38; 16:1; Ik. 11:16,29). Realising that this was not Jesus’ intention, they made this challenge a good scoring point in argument.
2,3.	Quite unwarrantably omitted by RV because of slavish adherence to Sinaitic and Vatican MSS, yet in the face of massive witness from almost all the rest.
3.	Lowring; s.w.Dan. 2:12.
	Hypocrites. Pretending a lack of understanding concerning Jesus’ works which they didn’t have; and also hiding their present alliance with Herod.
4.	This verse repeats 12:39. Is there a problem here?
	He left them, and departed. This tautology emphasizes that Jesus now recognized that there was to be no -f progress with the nation, but only with the faithful remnant he could gather round him. Hence, in v,16-19, there is emphasis on personal confession, the establishing of an ecclesia, and authority vested in his apostles.
6.	The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Very different men with one evil intent—the corruption of the Lord’s bewildered disciples.

Mk 8:11-21

11.	Seeking.. .tempting. The verbs indicate sustained aggression in argument.
12.	Sighed deeply. What is essentially the same Greek words comes in Rom.8:26,23; Ads.7:34;l Cor. 5:3,4; 15.
15.	The leaven of Herod. Had Herod recovered his nerve (6:16), and was now set on getting rid of Jesus also?
	He charged them. He said it repeatedly.
17.	Jesus links concern about food with lack of spiritual insight!

It seems likely that in the synagogue at Capernaum Jesus delivered a formal address besides taking part in the discussion which centred round his teaching about himself as the Bread of Life. The address itself (verses 37-47) had a perceptibly different theme.

He began with pronouncements of a startling predestinarian character: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me . . .” The Greek here is puzzling. As literally as possible it runs thus: “All (neuter) that the Father giveth me he did lead to me.” The first phrase seems to refer primarily to the twelve (17:11, 12). But immediately, and throughout this passage, there is generalisation to include all who are “taught of God” and brought to Christ: “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (v.37, 39).

These words (and v.65 also) declare, in the most unequivocal fashion imaginable, a doctrine of election such as receives little emphasis in these days-and indeed little credence, in some quarters.

Yet, remarkably enough, in this very context Jesus went on to put equal emphasis on the vital importance of the right response made by an unfettered free will: “him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (v.37). This saying would be meaningless if the “coming” were not the result of individual decision. Again: “this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life” (v.40). Free response as a disciple is plainly implied here.

Contradictory ideas?

There are those who have succeeded—to their own satisfaction, at any rate-in producing a tidy reconciliation of these two ideas, which seem to be so hopelessly inconsistent with one another. Neither Jesus, here in John 6, nor Paul in Romans, makes any sort of attempt to demonstrate the consistency of these apparently contradictory principles. Yet presumably they are reconcilable in the purposes of heaven, even if not by limited human thinking. One has yet to encounter a better attitude to this bewildering problem than that which says: “The Bible teaches me to believe in the foreknowledge of God and His will to predestine certain individuals to redemption and glory; therefore I believe it. The Bible also teaches me, what I also know well enough from personal experience, that I am a creature of free will, endowed with the power of making my own decisions. Then, even if I have difficulty in reconciling these principles, I shall humbly and thankfully go on believing in them both, confident that one day, when I no longer see through a glass darkly a clearer understanding of all such problems will be vouchsafed to me.”

The same superficial contradiction is traceable here in the words of Jesus. “This is the Father’s will . . . that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing.” Yet at the end of his ministry Jesus was to say: “Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition” (17 :12). It would certainly appear that the Father’s will regarding Judas, one of those given to Jesus by Him, came to be frustrated

One way of avoiding this impasse is to assume that Judas never was given to Jesus by the Father. But such an approach only solves one problem by creating a greater, for then it is necessary to conclude that Judas was deliberately chosen in the first place for a fate so black that Jesus himself said: “It were better for that man that he had never been born.”

There is no great harm in leaving such enigmas unsolved.

Another Unsolved Problem

These verses present another problem of a very different character-one not perceptible to the reader of the English version unless he be unusually alert. In the Greek text of the words quoted, there are quite unaccountable switches of gender. “All that the Father giveth me” is neuter! “Him that cometh to me” is, of course, masculine. “Lose nothing” is, again, neuter, as also: “but should raise it up at the last day.” But “everyone which seeth the Son” is masculine, once again. The same phenomenon is even more marked in John 17. So far as one is aware, no explanation with any degree of convincingness about it has yet been offered of this strange feature.

The claim made by Jesus to have “come down from heaven” (v.38) need not worry those who have good Bible-based convictions that Jesus had no personal pre-existence in heaven. This is just one of the idioms characteristic of John’s gospel. As was observed in the previous study, the description of the manna as “bread from heaven” (v.31) cannot reasonably be read literally. The expression clearly means “of divine origin”, or “supplied by heaven,” and in this sense it is highly appropriate to Jesus also (inv.50,51,58also).

“My Will-Thy Will”

The careful reader will observe that the identical verse makes personal pre-existence of Jesus an impossibility: “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Unless it be conceded that in certain respects the “will” of Jesus-that which he wished to do—was at times different from the “will” of the Father, these words border on the nonsensical. This is not to suggest (God forbid!) that Jesus ever did anything but the will of his Father. But, apart from anything else, the record of Jesus in Gethsemane is sufficient to Illustrate the point that is being made here: “0 my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Ml. 26 :39; cp. Jn. 5 :30). Notwithstanding that clear expression of a difference of “will”, Jesus meekly endured that which was appointed for him.

At this particular time in Capernaum the Father’s will was that His Son should “lose nothing” of all that had been given to him (v.39). This emphasis reinforces strongly the idea, already elaborated, that in the strong tide of reaction after the feeding of the 5000 Jesus was in danger of losing not only many of the multitude who had followed him eagerly but even the loyalty of the twelve also.

Drawn by the Father

Far from willing that any should be “lost”, the Father (Jesus declared) was actively drawing men to him. Indeed, without this pre-disposition imparted by God, any real acceptance of the leadership of Christ is impossible. Again there is echo of the discourse to the woman of Samaria. True worshippers worship the Father in spin! and in truth, and such the Father seeks (4:23).

The classic example is that of Lydia at Philippi. She had a Bible and in Paul she also had the finest expositor in the world. But the Lord opened her heart to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul (Acts 16 :14 RV). Instruction in the truth of Christ is a vitally essential element in bringing any man to him, but it is not the only thing needful.

Here, then, are facets of Christian experience very different from the mystical emotionalism beloved of modern “come to Jesus” evangelists. “No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God” (v.44, 45). The two ideas expressed in these words are often taken to be identical rather than complementary —that the only way in which a man is drawn to Christ is by being taught. It is, of course, evident (although the modern conversionist assumes otherwise) that instruction in Christ is an absolute necessity. But clearly, as much dispiriting experience has shown, there is need also for the valve of a man’s will to be set the right way; and here, according to the copious witness of Scripture and much impressive personal experience, God is often-maybe always—silently at work to incline a man’s disposition to the receiving of the message (see Notes).

The Witness of the Prophets

In underlining the absolute need of all for instruction and understanding concerning himself, Jesus referred to what was “written in the prophets.” Yet in the summary of what he said, John quotes only from Isaiah 54:13. So it is reasonable to enquire what other Scriptures Jesus used at this time to reinforce the point he was making. Although it is not possible to be sure about this, there is fair probability that Jeremiah 31 and Hosea 11 were also used powerfully in this part of the Lord’s argument, The Isaiah and Hosea passages, especially, are beset with many obscurities, but in all of them there is a singular aptness about the context.

In Isaiah 54, the apparent withdrawing of divine favour from Israel (v.7,8) is compared to the plight of a ship in a storm: “O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted” (v.ll). Yet the prophet is emphatic that “this is as the waters of Noah unto me.” In other words, the seeming tribulation of God’s people is designed for their salvation. Thus the twelve, with the previous night’s experience on the waters of Galilee still fresh in mind, were bidden see themselves as being saved for God’s New Creation at a time when the unworthy multitude was being discarded. The present crisis in the Lord’s ministry did not mean that the bottom had fallen out of his work: “My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed.”

But the worldly efforts of those who would fashion their own salvation by rebellion against the Romans must have no place in this God-provided righteousness: “Behold, they may stir up strife, but not by me” (v.15). Strife against the Romans (Jn. 6 :15), strife amongst themselves (6 :52), were alike out of tune with the ministry of Jesus.

The next chapter begins with Isaiah’s familiar offer of the Lord’s free salvation: “Come ye to the waters. . . come ye, break (bread) and eat; yea, come, buy wine and fatness (or marrow) without money and without price” (55 ,1) It is an offer of freely provided water and bread, which somehow transform into wine and flesh of the highest quality. This is exactly the theme of Christ’s discourse: “and the bread that I will give is my flesh . . . Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”

Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant links with that of Isaiah, just quoted, and has the same theme. Amid his threnody of woe and spiritual castigation the prophet weaves a winsome appeal: “The Lord appeared to me from afar, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee” (31 :3). “After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts . . . and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and everyman his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord” (v.33,34). This New Covenant, brought to men through God’s “drawing” and “teaching” was to be ratified by Jesus in symbolic Bread and Wine: “This is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mt. 26:28).

Although Hosea 8, 10 are chapters with many Messianic overtones (Study 223), chapter 11 does not read like a prophecy of Messiah, yet for all it obscurity, phrase after phrase lights up when read against the background of the momentous events of John 6. “I taught Ephraim to go, taking them by their arms (Ephraim was the Northern Kingdom including Galilee); but they recognized not that I was healing them. I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the (Roman) yoke on their jaws, and I laid food before them (the 5000). . . the Assyrian (and Caesar) shall be his king, because they refused to return (to Me). And the sword shall fall in his cities. . . because of their own counsels (it did, in A.D. 70). And my people are bent on backsliding from me (many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him). . . How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? (God’s people doomed to become another Sodom and Gomorrah). . . my compassions are kindled together (he was moved with compassion toward them because they were as sheep not having a shepherd). . . for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee (Peter: We have believed and are sure that thou art the Holy One of God; Jn.6:69).”

Is it at all possible that the aptness of these Scriptures is accidental?

Taught of God

Jesus went on to be yet more explicit about the process of divine education: “Everyone therefore that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me” (v.45). Thus the complete sequence is set out:

a.	The Father draws him.
b.	He is taught of God.
c.	He hears, i.e. gives heed to the message,
d.	He learns (he “sees”, i.e. appreciates Christ; v.40).
e.	He comes to Christ as a disciple (“believe into’, v.40, implies baptism),
f.	“Everlasting life” (v.47).
g.	“I will raise him up at the last day.”

That expression: “heard from the Father” is very emphatic. Literally, it is: “from beside the Father.” It is matched by the similar description, in the next verse, of the Son as being “from beside God” (see Notes). Once the forceful Johannine idiom is recognized for what it is, such passages cease to be available as a springboard for any doctrine about the pre-existence of Christ.

Allusion to Moses

Here the allusion is, once again, to Moses and Israel in the wilderness. The people verily heard “from beside God” the declamation of the Ten Words at Sinai. And there in the mount, in a much more intimate and personal way, Moses had the Law of God communicated to him. As Israel heard the Divine Voice, and thereafter were content to receive God’s Word through the medium of Moses, so now in a much more fundamental sense “every man that hath heard from beside the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.”

“Not that any man (save he which is from beside God) hath seen the Father.” Here the allusion to the wilderness is being continued. The people of Israel did not see the Divine Glory in the way that Moses saw it in the mount. Yet, in truth, it was only in a very limited sense that Moses beheld God’s Glory, by comparison with the fulness of the intimacy with the Father which was normal with Jesus and which he was then making known to his own.

John 1:18 is in itself adequate commentary here: “No man hath seen God at any time (not even Moses); the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father (and not hidden in a cleft of a rock, to glimpse the receding Glory), he hath declared him.”

This discourse culminated in the same climax as the discussion on Bread of Life. There it was: “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Here: “He that believeth hath everlasting life.” The equation makes very evident that by “believing” Jesus intended something much more deep and comprehensive than a mere intellectual assent to certain Biblical propositions. “Eating his flesh and drinking his blood” goes further than that. It involves, it demands, a transformation to an outlook on life which is in all things Christ-guided, Christ-controlled, Christ-empowered.

And its outcome, emphasized by repetition (v.39, 40, 44, 54), is a resurrection at the last day. Clearly, Jesus was not speaking here of the process of resurrection, involving coming out of the grave, being brought before Christ the Lord, hearing judgment pronounced, and then being made immortal-not that, but the outcome of the process: an eternal union with Christ in his kingdom. This is New Testament usage in a fair number of places (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:21, 42, 50; Lk. 20:35; Phil. 3:11; Heb. 11:35).

Notes: John 6:37-47

37.	I will in no wise cast out. In the Pentateuch this word is often used of Israel casting Gentile nations out of Canaan Then, is Jesus here preparing the way for the rejection of Israel and the acceptance of Gentiles? And would that explain his strange use of neuter pronouns?
38.	Come down from heaven. Or is the allusion not to manna but to Moses coming down from mount Sinai; Cp. on v.46?
39.	Lose nothing. This has been linked with the Lord’s insistence (v. 12) that no fragment of the Bread be lost. Literally: “that everyone whom he gave to me I may not lose away from Him”
40.	Seeth the Son, goes on beholding the Son-an allusion to Num. 21 :8 or to Ex. 34 :30?
44.	Draw him. Consider 4:23; 12:32; (21 .-11;) 10:29. 15:16, 17:6; 18 :9, and with these contrast 1 :11,12;3.19; 12:48
45.	On the remarkable problem of this difficult verse, consider Jas 1 :5, 1 Th 3 :12,13; ;Jude 24; Heb. 13:21;2Th. 3:5;Ps. 119:18,32-36; Lk. 24:45; 1 Kgs. 8 .58
	Learned of the Father: ”from beside.” This use of para with genitive comes in 1 :14;7 :29;8 :38,40; 9 :I6:33, with reference to Christ; and in 1 6 with reference to John the Baptist

The whole tenor of the teaching of Jesus that day was more than the people could stomach. “The true Bread. . . I am come down from heaven … Work not. . . Believe . .. Eat my flesh and drink my blood . . . I will raise him up at the last day.” These were strange words. Whatever they meant, there were certain highly unwelcome implications. An end to both personal and national striving for deliverance. Instead, personal self-sacrifice both by Jesus and those who sought to follow him. Dependence on God’s leading rather than on rugged self-determination.

“This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” Even those who reckoned themselves his disciples found their confidence in him draining away. His sayings were hard to understand, hard to agree with, hard to put into practice. Worst of all, he talked in terms of dying, as though he were a needful sacrifice, of greater worth than Passover lamb or altar oblation. And they wanted him as Messiah. What good would a dying Messiah do them? Or is it possible that they found his words “hard” in the sense of “offensive” (as in Jude 15)? As seed of Abraham were they not entitled to eternal life? Who was this Jesus to talk as though without him they were lost souls?

“Ascend up”

As on so may other occasions, even though the murmuring went on out of earshot or behind his back, Jesus knew about it (cp. v.64,70), and proceeded to make matters worse by a yet more mysterious challenge: “Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”

There has been plenty of divergence of opinion as to what the Lord intended here. Reference to the actual ascension of Jesus at the end of the forty days is natural enough, especially since the mention of the “Son of man” would link readily with Daniel 7 :13, an ascension prophecy. In that case the meaning is: You will surely change your present attitude when you see me ascend to heaven. But—big difficultly!-apart from the twelve, these disciples did not themselves see the ascension take place, so that “ye shall see” will hardly bear literal meaning (1 :51; Mt. 26 :64). Also, “where he was before” would then surely imply a personal pre-existence in heaven. Orthodox expositors are happy enough with this conclusion, but those who hold the Truth in Christ will be unwilling to resolve a difficulty here at the expense of a fundamental doctrine.

Much more likely, because more suitable, is the suggestion that Jesus spoke of his own resurrection: “What and if ye shall see me ascend up out of the tomb to be with you again on the earth as I am now? Perhaps you will understand more readily then.” This interpretation harmonizes well enough with the context: “It is the Spirit that maketh alive; the flesh profiteth nothing.”

A grammatical difficulty in the way of both of these interpretations is that the question put by Jesus actually presents a contingency (see RV, RSV), not an inevitable fact (as both resurrection and ascension must have been, in his mind).

In this particular respect a third interpretation goes more smoothly. The word translated “ascend up” is used nine times in John’s gospel of Jesus going up to Jerusalem or to the temple. The same matter-of-fact meaning goes readily enough here also: ‘Suppose you were to see me setting off for Jerusalem with you this Passover (to go into the temple court once again to assert my Messianic authority there, as I did once before). There would be no stumbling over such a policy, would there?’ Of course there would not. This was the very action some of them had tried to force upon him, only the day before (v.15).

But, immediately, Jesus threw out such a scheme as morally impossible: “it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.” Neither national revival nor individual rehabilitation is possible through human plan or contrivance. Only through spiritual regeneration-the kind of thing John had taught through his rite of baptism—was there hope of any good. So, Jesus went on, even though my teaching calls you to self-sacrifice and “death”, these very words in which I so appeal to you, “they are spirit, and they are life.” With double meaning, he bade them understand his teaching spiritually, and not with rigid literalism, and then only would they make progress in understanding the spiritual life to which he called them.

The Problem of Judas

But there was no starry-eyed optimism about Jesus. Even now he knew, and told them plainly, that they were unwilling to put confidence in him— “children in whom is no faith!” “From the beginning Jesus knew who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.” If these words be taken to mean that from the earliest days of discipleship Jesus knew what would be the ultimate reaction of each disciple, they involve a serious moral difficulty, especially regarding Judas. Is if credible that when Jesus called Judas to be one of the twelve, he already saw clearly that this man would one day hand him over to his enemies? This would be predestination-to-damnation of the starkest quality.

That such is a serious mis-interpretation is shown by two other very clear sayings of Jesus. “Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them perished, but the son of perdition”(John 17 :12). So Judas was “given” to Jesus by the Father just as the rest of the apostolic band were. It was only at some subsequent time that he “perished”. Also: “In the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19 :28). This was spoken only a week before the crucifixion. So even at that late hour it was still possible to include Judas as one of the princes-elect of Israel.

Is it possible, then, that this foreknowledge of Jesus was what the Old Testament Scriptures taught him?—that his own people were they who would “believe not,” and that the traitor would come out of his specially chosen band of followers (Ps. 41 :9; 55 :12-14). Or, assigning a different meaning to the word “beginning”, was it that from the earliest moment of doubt Jesus knew when men no longer believed in him, and especially when it was that a spirit of disillusionment began to creep over Judas?

If this latter is the correct resolving of the difficulty, then these words included here can only meant that this Passover, exactly a year before the crucifixion, marked the beginning of the end for the traitor apostle.

God in control

Evidently some of those whose loyalty to Jesus was now ebbing away made some crude rejoinder to the effect that he could not expect them to go on believing in him when he said such difficult and discouraging things.

In reply Jesus reminded them of what he had already told them: “No man can come to me, except it be given him of my Father” —that is: ‘It may not appear so to you, but I know that without a special guidance from heaven none you can come to me as loyal disciples.’

In this way Jesus came to terms with what was surely one of the most difficult at disheartening situations in his ministry. And with this philosophy he would fain have his disciple in every generation face their own problems and disappointments: God knows-and He knows best!

It was a point of view which the faithless self-determinist outlook of this multitude could stomach. So, “as a result of this many oft disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” The Walking (Halakah) has always been the Jewish word for the rules of daily living lot down by the rabbis. So here is intimation that these who lapsed ceased to accept the Lord’s authority, they no longer obeyed his commandment. When they said. “This is s hard saying: who can hear it?” they meant, as in common Old Testament idiom: ‘Who can obey such a teacher?’

“Will ye also go away?”

Not without some dismay (for what leader could view such a situation and be altogether unmoved by it?), Jesus turned to the twelve with the question: “You also don’t want to desert me, do you?” By a certain dramatic irony, this the very expression which Mark was to use later on (14:10) to describe Judas going off to the chief priests (with an interesting contrast in 12:11).

Before any of the rest could muster courage to give uneasy expression to their own doubts (which were certainly real enough), Peter jumped in to assert unwavering loyalty or, behalf of all of them. In effect, he gave three reasons for standing firm:

a.	“To whom shall we go?” We need a teacher. Then if not you whom can we follow? A ruthless implacable Barabbas?
b.	Your “words of eternal life” have left their mark on us already.
c.	Even though we seem to hesitate, on experience with you has left us with a confidence of knowledge we can’t shake off.

“We believed and we still believe, and we have learned and we are still convinced that thou are the Holy One of God” (see RV). How Jesus must have warmed to Peter for this! In spite of much discouragement, twice within a few hours he had shown, that neither things present nor things to come would be able to separate him from the love of God in Christ Jesus his Lord.

“The Holy One of God”

But what made Peter refer to Jesus as “the Holy One of God”? The only other time in the gospels that this title was given to Jesus was when at the beginning of the ministry the demoniac screamed out in the synagogue. Then, has John preserved this here in his gospel because, looking back, he saw Peter as viewed in a similar light by some of his fellows? Only a lunatic would now accept Jesus of Nazareth as God’s Holy One!

Or is this detail retained in the narrative to recall the great psalm of Messiah’s resurrection?: “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Ps. 16:10). Had not Jesus repeatedly insisted: “and I will raise him up at the last day”?

Yet another possibility is that Peter, a man of real Biblical insight, had recognized his Lord’s allusions to Psalm 78, and now added his own flash of insight: “They turned back (v.66), and tempted God, and limited (LXX: provoked) the Holy One of Israel” (v.41).

Alternatively, if the suggestion made in the last study is correct that Hosea 11 was one of the prophecies Jesus had appropriated to himself in his discourse that day, then Peter may have had that in mind: “for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee” (Hos. 11 :9).

The Betrayer

“Did I not choose you the twelve?” replied Jesus, “and one of you is a devil.” The implication here would appear to be: ‘I could surely count on the loyalty of you twelve; yet even among you there is one who has begun to think wrongly of me.’ Nevertheless it took Judas a full year to make the break with a cause which he now deemed to be lost. As the months went by, and Jesus spoke increasingly of suffering and death at Jerusalem, “they understood not his saying, and were afraid to ask him” —but Judas understood. Had he understood as clearly the prophetic Scriptures about resurrection and glory, he would have been a different man. But that insight came too late.

“Have I not chosen you the twelve?” Making the link between the words “chosen” and “elect”, one ancient commentator very wisely observed: “There is therefore an election of grace from which one may fall.” The name of Judas was “written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Within a year it was to be “blotted out” (Rev.3:5). He was one of those given by the Father to His Son. Soon he was to become “the son of perdition” (Jn. 17 :12). He-Jesus’ own familiar friend—who had but a few hours before eaten of his bread, was now for the first time of a mind to lift up his heel against him (Ps. 41 :9).

Notes: John 6:60-71

60.	A hard saying. But not too hard, as the prophecy In Dt. 30 :11 RV insists. Whocanhearit(him)?.e. Who can be a disciple of such a man?
62.	It is the Spirit that quickeneth. The Spirit, the word of God (Is. 40 -.7,8), either shrivels humanity away to nothing, or it gives life. Here begins the very common New Testament idiom which uses Spirit for the new life in Christ; e.g. 2 Cor. 3:4,6; Rom. 8:9,10; 1 Cor. 15:45.
63.	They are spirit; i.e. to be understood spiritually, and not literally. Is there another Ps. 78 allusion here?: “He remembered that they (Israel in the wilderness) were but flesh, a wind (spirit) that passeth away, and comethnot again” (v.39).
65.	Except it were given him; cp. v.39,44.
66.	Went back. Ps. 78 :41 (again!) In v.68 Peter’s word for “go” supports the idea of going off to join Barabbas or some such leader.
67.	The twelve. John tacitly assumes that this detail (12 special apostles) is known to his readers from the other gospels. Similarly, in ch .18, 19, he introduces Pilate and also Mary Magdalene without a word of explanation.
69.	Believed and are sure (have learned). Then why the different order in 17 :8 and 1 Jn. 4 :16? A thing of no importance?
	RV: the Holy One of God. There is excellent textual support for both AV and RV. But Ps. 78:41 surely settles that RV is correct here.
70.	Is a devil. Not: has a devil, as orthodox ides would require.
71.	RV: Son of Simon Iscariot is correct. Does this imply that Simon was known to some readers of this gospel?

In this intensely busy time in the ministry of Jesus, the reader is sometimes left wondering when he found time for sleep or any kind of rest. Consider this sequence — a busy morning beset by crowds (Mk. 6:31), crossing Galilee, more teaching and healing throughout the afternoon (Mt. 14:15), the feeding of the multitude, he goes into the hills for prayer (did he snatch an hour or two of sleep also?), before dawn he walks three or four miles across the water to join the disciples, from the time of arrival in port (just about daylight?) he is beset with people who seek to be healed, and now (later the same day) he spends what must have amounted to a considerable time teaching and reasoning in the synagogue at Capernaum. As feats of physical stamina, apart from anything else, these days of Jesus take one’s breath away.

Of the great multitude who had been fed by him on the other side of the lake, many had probably continued their Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem, many more must have found their way to their own homes, but a considerable number had got back to Capernaum almost as quickly as Jesus. The overnight gale had forced many boats from the vicinity of Tiberias (not far from Capernaum on the western shore) to seek shelter on the eastern side. Thus they were available next morning as ferry boats for considerable numbers of people who, finding that Jesus had gone away, wanted to get home to Capernaum.

The Crowd puzzled

Many of these, crowding into the synagogue because they heard that Jesus had already gone there, openly expressed their mystification as to how he had crossed over from the eastern shore. They had seen the disciples go off without Jesus. They knew there had been no other boat to pick him up. They were sure he had not been ferried over during the morning, as they had been. Surely he had not walked round the northern shore in record time! How had he done it? “Rabbi, when earnest thou hither?” Surely not a passage through the water, like Moses and Joshua! They scented another miracle, and this made them keener than ever in their desire to see him King of the Jews.

Two Discourses?

From this point John frames his narrative as though reporting a long discourse by Jesus in the synagogue, interrupted by questions and objections from his hearers. Careful scrutiny reveals, however, that there are two sections which plainly belong to each other and which are altogether different in theme and style from all the rest. Omitting these, one is left with a continuous coherent discourse on the theme: Bread of Life. At the same time there is little doubt that these two paragraphs belong to the same occasion. This is shown by their common use of the refrain: “and I will raise him up at the last day “ (v. 39, 40, 44, 54).

It seems not unlikely, then — though, of course, one cannot be sure about this — that in the synagogue Jesus delivered a formal discourse which John reports in the two parentheses (v. 37-40, 44-47), and that during another part of the service members of the congregation had opportunity to ask questions and put their point of view (it is known that this was a feature of some synagogue services in ancient days).

An alternative view is that the parentheses were actually spoken to the twelve when the encounter in the synagogue had concluded. They have much that could be appropriate to such a situation. But, then, the words are also very appropriate to the attitude of the crowd in the synagogue, and this would explain why John chose to insert these two sections where he did.

In this review, for convenience, consideration of the parentheses will be omitted here and instead will be dealt with separately in the next study.

Unspiritual Attitude

Jesus ignored the people’s enquiries about his crossing the lake and addressed himself instead to their motive: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles (signs, emphasizing the meaning of them), but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled”. Of course they had seen his miracles. Indeed, by this time they had seen many of them. But they did not see them as anything but wonders. To the spiritual significance of them, as signs, they were blind.

There is both rebuke and a hint of scorn in the way Jesus put this, for he used a word normally applied to the foddering of animals, thus implying that they were interested in him only because he had filled their bellies.

It was the first of about ten allusions in this discourse to Psalm 78 (see note at end of this study) and its withering censure of the unspiritual attitude of Israel to the marvels of God’s providence in delivering them from Egypt (the first Passover) and caring for them in the wilderness.

This theme — Moses, Passover, manna in the desert — became the dominant theme in the Lord’s lengthy discourse this day. From the very first his tone was austere and reproving. The previous day’s experience had come as a mighty shock to him. It had startled him to find that the higher appeal of his teaching had made no impression on the multitude whatever. Apparently it had gone right over their heads. All they could think of was the immediate material gain which could accrue to themselves from the miracles of Jesus, and the political revolution (again material advantage!) which was bound to succeed if only they could get him to lead it.

Manna and manna

So Jesus tried hard to lift their aspirations and their attitude to himself on to a higher plane. They had just enjoyed God-given food in the wilderness. Israel’s similar experience of manna in their wilderness provided a splendid illustration: “Do not keep working or striving for the food which perishes, but for that food which lasts, continuing even to eternal life. I, the Son of man, will give you that, for I have been sealed by the Father” (6:27). The manna which Israel gathered did not last, it “bred worms and stank” (Ex. 16:20). But there was other manna which never corrupted — that which was laid up before the Lord in an earthenware jar covered with gold.

The purpose behind this incorruptible manna was “that they may see the bread wherewith I fed you in the wilderness” (Ex. 16:32). How they were to see it is explained in “Exploring the Bible” (H.A.W.), p. 91. Jesus echoed that key word in his discourse (v. 36). The lintel of the door of that Capernaum synagogue (or, just possibly, its successor) has been found. Carved on it is a representation of the pot of manna which was “sealed” before the Lord. The LXX version uses “sealed” as an equivalent for “laid up in store before God” (Dt. 32:34).

That manna and its container both represented Jesus, a man with ordinary human nature which was not ordinary, the mortal and corruptible soon to become immortal and incorruptible in the presence of the Father (and hence, of course, “the hidden manna” of Rev. 2:17). The allusion to “the Son of man” was designed to take their minds also to Daniel’s picture (7:13) of a Son of man brought to the heavenly glory of the Ancient days to share His immortality and then giving his people deliverance and an indestructible kingdom of heavenly glory (contrast Jn.6:15). “Which the Son of man shall give you” was designed to look back to Daniel 7:27: “And the kingdom and dominion… shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High”-in striking contrast with their own intentions to win freedom for themselves (Jn. 6:15).

The Works of God

But the key phrase in the Lord’s challenge was the first: “Work not…” Self-justification before God through one’s own work and efforts was ingrained in the Jewish outlook, as indeed it always has been, and still is. They were and they continue to be, “children in whom is no faith”, except for faith in their own power to redeem themselves.

In spite of Jesus’ allusion to the Messianic kingdom to be given them by their Messiah (himself), they thought only in terms of taking the kingdom from the Romans by their own efforts, just as Israel under Joshua had defeated all Gentile efforts at resistance: “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?’ — such works as were done in those ancient days.

In reply Jesus laid down the first necessary condition. Just as in Egypt the first essential was unquestioning acceptance of the authority of first Moses and then Joshua-Jesus as their God-sent leader, so now: “This is the work of God, that ye believe and go on believing (Gk) on him whom he hath sent”.

Here, and not for the first time, Jesus was presenting a new definition of righteousness which the human mind assimilates only with difficulty. It is ingrained in all human thinking, and especially in Jewish thinking, that good works are essentially unselfish activity on God’s behalf or unselfish beneficence to one’s fellow-men. Jesus, and after him the apostles, had to insist over and over again that what, more than anything else, makes a man acceptable to God is faith in Christ and in God’s Purpose centred in him. Such a faith is, in the sight of God, and therefore intrinsically, a higher righteousness than acts of pious service or humanitarian goodness can ever be.

In the more restricted context in which these words were first spoken Jesus probably meant: The first condition for national redemption is unfaltering acceptance of my authority and leadership.

Challenge

They took him up on this immediately: “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee?” After the miracle of the feeding of the multitude they had compared him to Moses: “This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world” (v. 14). Now, less sure of the truth of this, they screwed up their demands for unshakable proof. Any doubts about Moses’ authority from God had been stifled by a series of shattering plagues on the land of Egypt and a mighty theophany at Sinai. Let Jesus do the same against their Roman overlords and in their presence, and they would follow him readily enough. They had had from him lots of unostentatious spiritual signs. Let him give them one massive national political sign, and they were behind him to a man.

After all, by itself the feeding of five thousand people once was hardly comparable with the marvellous provision in the time of Moses, when all Israel had been fed more than ten thousand times: “Our fathers did eat manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat”. They quoted (and misused) Nehemiah’s enthusiastic summary of Israel’s great experience (9:15), thus hinting at another deliverance from captivity, such as happened in Nehemiah’s day.

The True Bread

Jesus responded to their challenge in startling fashion; ‘It was not Moses who gave your fathers the bread from heaven, but my Father. Your Nehemiah passage says so. And that provision of food was only a type of something greater. He is now giving to you the true Bread from heaven. For this true Bread is of divine origin, as the manna was, and he is offering Life to all Israel’ (v. 32, 33).

“Bread of God” was a designedly ambiguous expression. In this context those hearing Jesus would inevitably take it as allusion to the manna in the wilderness, but in the Law the same phrase was used repeatedly for the sacrifices offered in the sanctuary (e.g. Lev. 3:11; 21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; 22:25), and-in harmony with this idiom — the altar was spoken of as “the table of the Lord” (Mal. 1:7, 12). Thus, the discourse of Jesus was taking on overtones of sacrifice — a theme which was to come out much more strongly before he was done.

But the ingrained materialism of the people would not allow them to go beyond the most literal meaning. They had asked for yesterday’s miracle to become a permanent institution. Now, still thinking only of their bellies, with incurable unspirituality they pressed once again for unceasing bread and circuses: “Lord, evermore give us this bread”.

Two Similar Discourses

There are marked resemblances here to the conversation with the woman of Samaria. Jesus had said to her: “Whosoever drinketh of this water (from Jacob’s well) shall thirst again: but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst” (4:13, 14). Here he had already warned them “Labour not for the meat which perisheth (such as Moses gave to your forefathers), but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life…“ She had begged: “Lord, give me this water, that I thirst not, nor come hither to draw”. Similarly, they insisted: “Lord, evermore give us this bread”. In reply to which he promised an appetite which was self-assuaging: “He that cometh to me shall never hunger” — just as he had assured the Samaritan woman: “The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life”. Doubtless John framed his reporting of these discourses specially to stress these similarities, and thus to demonstrate that spiritually the Jews were no better than Samaritans. Indeed the synagogue would soon demonstrate that they were a lot worse (6:60, 66; 4:40-42).

Greater than Moses

The Lord’s attempt to wean their attention from material advantage to the spiritual blessings he could offer, now brought about a dramatic change in the people’s attitude: “/ am the bread of life: he that keeps on coming to me shall never hunger (v. 41, 51), and he that believeth on me (as the smitten Rock) shall never thirst”. It was a point blank claim to be greater than Moses, providing superior benefits to manna in the wilderness and water from the smitten rock. Jesus brought in here what was to become one of the great words of John’s writing: alethinos, which means “true”, not in contrast to what is false or a lie, but which distinguishes between the type which foreshadows and the greater intrinsic truth to which the type points (e.g. 1:9; 15:1; 1 Jn. 5:20; Rev. 3:7, 14). The bread given by Moses, that marvel of power and loving-kindness, was only a type. The true Bread was now being continuously offered (like daily manna) by a provident heavenly Father — if only they would gather it.

Yet even as he made these claims Jesus knew that there was no hope that he would be accepted for what he truly was. Their vision of the Messianic kingdom was too mundane, too materialistic, for they had no thought of regeneration, the personal fitness qualifying them for Messiah’s blessings. So, very sadly, he added: “But I said unto you, that even though ye have seen (my miracles) ye do not believe”. The past tense “said” may be an allusion to his disapproval of their attitude, already expressed in verse 26, or — more probably — to what he had said to them the previous day because of their unsatisfactory reaction to his feeding of the multitude. It was the same reproach which he had addressed to the rulers in Jerusalem (5:37-44) because of their stubborn determination to reject or misinterpret the evidence of his miracles.

However the blunt warning left them untouched, for in their hopelessly inadequate unspiritual attitude they were reinforced by their religious leaders. At this time it was evidently the policy of these Pharisees and legalists to keep Jesus under continual supervision (Mt. 15:1; Mk. 7:1 follow on immediately from this). Possibly they even saw to it that frequent opportunity came his way to teach in the synagogues because they were confident that sooner or later his own words would so thoroughly condemn him that they would have a watertight case against him before the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities.

Pre-existence?

Now they felt they had something to fasten on to. “I am the bread which came down from heaven” reminded them of the extravagance of his earlier claim to be the Son to whom the Father had committed all judgment (Jn. 5:22) How could they let this go without censure? So they “murmured at him”. It is the same word which the LXX uses to describe the murmuring of Israel against Moses before they were given manna for the first time (Ex. 16:6-9; Num. 11:4, 10). To the people the Lord’s assertion had meant no more than a claim to have a divine mission. The Scripture they had quoted to him: “He gave them bread from heaven to eat”, was not taken to mean that the manna had been literally brought from some heavenly storehouse by angels, but simply that by divine provision the manna was made to appear when it was needed. Similarly, the fourfold claim (6:38, 50, 51, 58) to be “bread from heaven” meant a mission and a message with God-given authority. The present tense in v. 33 is also worth noting: “He which is (now) coming down from heaven” (cp. v. 50). But Jesus as a man had been amongst them for thirty years and more. When orthodox contemporaries argue from these words for a personal pre-existence of Jesus in heaven, this is now their error may be exposed.

Criticism

But to these men of consequence, bent on pressing home a damaging criticism, Jesus was apparently claiming to be greater than Moses. By what right dare he say, “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father is (now) giving you the true bread from heaven”? Every separate phrase here horrified them. Who did he think he was? “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” They had taken good care to investigate his origins (as far as they could!). Then why should he talk as though he had some specially close relationship to God in heaven? It had been the same with the manna in the wilderness. There was, and still is, a commodity called manna produced in the wilderness — an exudation from the tamarisk tree — and Israel, seeing the heavenly food for the first time, had promptly confused it with this natural product: “It is manna (which we are already familiar with)” (Ex. 16:15). And later they were to complain; “Our soul loatheth this light bread” (Num. 21:5). Now, with the true Bread set before them, they were more than willing similarly to denigrate the gift of God. “How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” They did not ask “Why?” but “How?”- was this mighty claim made by divine inspiration or as a wicked fraud? They had their own confident answer to this ready.

Bread of Life

Jesus rebuked their carping attitude with a reiteration of his claim: “I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and they died”. The curt phrase would quickly remind these critics why they died — because they rejected the call to faith which came to them from Jesus-Joshua (see Num. 14:7-9). With the scornful expression: “your fathers”, Jesus now rejected these faithless descendants of faithless men.

He was, he repeated, offering them true bread “which a man may eat thereof, and not die… if a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever” (cp. Ps. 22:26). At this point they would surely realise that he alluded to his own teaching. Yet there were some among them so perversely literal-minded that they were resolved to make nonsense of what he said. When Jesus went on: “and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world”, he meant, as in many other places (e.g. 7:4, 7; 12:19), the saving of the Jewish world; and he must have been so understood, or there would have been uproar in that synagogue (as at Nazareth) at mention of a mission to Gentiles.

Mention of my “flesh” in the sense of “the flesh I will provide” (v. 52) sent their minds to Israel glutted with quails in the wilderness (Num. 11:18, 31). “How can this man give us flesh to eat?”

Division

At this point contention actually broke out amongst the Pharisees present: “The Jews strove among themselves”. It is the first of a series of indications that the work and claims of Jesus had split the party of the Pharisees down the middle (e.g. Jn. 9:16, 40; 10:19-21; 12:42; 8:31; 3:2; 7:12; Lk. 13; 31?). The word “strove” normally implies physical fighting. It was probably used here by John to remind his readers that it was “two men of the Hebrews striving together” (Ex. 2:13) which led to Israel’s rejection of Moses so that his experience foreshadowed “the reproach of Christ” (Heb. 11:26).There is an acute appropriateness about the inclusion of this detail here, for — as the rest of this Passover record goes on to make very clear-this discourse on Bread of Life proved to be the turning point in Christ’s ministry.

“Flesh and Blood”

In his reply to their niggling objections Jesus pulled them abruptly away from an over-literal interpretation of his words: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”. None of them could be such a fool as to take him literally now. But the words jarred on their minds, for had not the Law dinned into them that God would “set his face against that soul that eateth blood”, for “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:10, 11)? Yet four times over Jesus insisted that eating his flesh and drinking his blood is the only true life (v. 53-56). What did he mean?

The expressions “the flesh” and “flesh and blood”, both of which were used by Jesus in this discourse, occur often in the New Testament in a non-literal sense. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven”, Jesus was to say to Peter after his confession (Mt. 16:17). “Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood… but I went into Arabia”, wrote Paul in reminiscence of his early days in Christ (Gal. 1:16). Here allusion to literal flesh and literal blood is out of question. ‘Human nature’ is what is meant.

Similarly, “the flesh”, by itself, often signifies the weakness and frailty of human nature (cp. 1 Jn. 4:2, 3). Romans 8 is a chapter with lots of clear examples; “Them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit…they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh…the mind of the flesh is enmity against God…we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh…” and so on.

So, when Jesus appropriated these expressions to himself, he was first of all declaring the wonderful truth that, although Son of God, he truly and fully shared fallen human nature with all its innate propensity to evil. In this way he took the curse of Adam’s race upon himself (Heb. 2:14, 18; 4:15).

But yet there was a difference, for in Christ’s human nature — his flesh and blood — sin met its match. His was a flesh and blood where righteousness triumphed. And in his resurrection flesh and blood became transformed into incorruptible divine nature.

Against this background of ideas, the idiom used by the Lord to his wilfully blind critics clearly meant that the only way to life is to forsake ordinary flesh and blood for Christ’s flesh and blood — to let go the nature one is born with in exchange for the new nature which he offers. As Jesus was born of both human and divine parentage, and was called to live a life in which flesh and Spirit were always at odds, so also the new-born disciple of Christ finds himself with a comparable double nature. From the time that he is born again, flesh and spirit contend for the ascendancy.

Then, for a man to “eat Christ’s flesh, and drink his blood” is to assimilate and share the kind of flesh-spirit life which he himself lived (cp. the idiom in Ez. 3:3; Jer. 15:16; Pr. 9:5; Rev. 10:9, 10). That was a life in which the Spirit was victor. This too is a life of similar victory — what Jesus himself called “eternal life”, such as is assured of resurrection at the last day (v. 54).

The True Life

There is no other way to “eternal life” and resurrection. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (v. 53). It is not sufficient that Jesus shall have “taught in our streets” (Lk.13:26). It is not sufficient to have eaten the symbol of his flesh countless times and to have drunk the token of his blood. It is not sufficient to belong to the right community — Israel were the Covenant people, but “your fathers did eat manna, and died: it is he (the individual believer) that eateth this bread that shall live for ever” (v. 58).

A man eats food for one of two reasons. Either he is in desperate need of it to keep himself alive, and he craves it above all else; or he eats out of pure enjoyment, because the food is so pleasant to his palate. Both of these have their place in the proper partaking of the Bread of Life. As is the natural, so also is the spiritual. The first motive dominates, but graduates into the second.

“These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum” (v. 59), and thereby bade farewell to present success in his ministry. The decision was taken. The crowd wanted him for his wonders and miracles and the physical benefit they got from them. But there must be an end to futile appeal to superficial multitudes. From now on he would concentrate on the faithful remnant who were willing to take his message to themselves with intense personal seriousness. They would learn to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” by appropriating to themselves the life of self-denial which becomes life indeed.

The strange phrase just quoted was used by Jesus four times in quick succession (v. 52-56); and “meat indeed…drink indeed” means true spiritual reality by contrast with symbol or type, such as the manna or the smitten rock.

There can be little doubt that Jesus chose to use this figure which he employed with such eloquent repetition because he now foresaw that the outworking of his ministry could have only one result—failure, rejection, shame and death. His flesh was to be given for the life of the world.

By one simple device John bade his readers see the miracle of the feeding of the multitude, and this discourse springing out of it, as carrying deep sacramental significance. In his account of the Last Supper he has omitted any record of the actual institution of the memorial rite, which the synoptists all give in detail. Thus he bids his readers go back for its equivalent to “the place where they did eat bread, offer that the Lord had given thanks” (v. 23).

	Psalm 78		John 6
7,32	The works of God	28,29	The works of God
8,9	spirit not steadfast…went back	66	Many…went back and walked no more with him
11	Forgot his wonders	26	Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles
18,19	Asking meat for their lust. . Can God furnish a table?	30,31	What sign shewest thou?…Manna in the desert
20	Bread…can he provide flesh?	35,52	I am the Bread of Life…How can this man give his flesh to eat?
22	Believed not in God	36	Ye also have seen me, and believe not.
23	Opened the doors of heaven	33	He which cometh down from heaven
24,25	Manna…the corn of heaven	31,32	Manna…the true bread from heaven
29	They did eat, and were well filled	26	Because ye did eat…and were filled
31	The wrath of God upon them	49	Your fathers…died
36,37	They lied unto him…	34	Lord, evermore give us this bread
39	Flesh…a wind (spirit) that passeth away	63	The flesh profiteth nothing… the words that 1 speak they are spirit and they are life
41	They turned back…and limited the Holy One of Israel	66	Many went back
56-72	(A prophetic parable of the selection of “David” and the casting off of Israel)	69	RV. The Holy one of God

Notes: Jn. 6:22-59

23.	After that the Lord had given thanks. The phrase became a kind of technical term in the early church for the
	Breaking of Bread. Here it prepares the way for v. 53-56.
	The Lord. In John this title is used only in 4:1; 6:23; and the Resurrection record. Why? Were the two earlier places seen as foreshadowing Baptism and the Breaking of Bread, both of which have their roots in the Resurrection?
25.	Rabbi. They were in the synagogue; v. 59. But note the deterioration of the people’s attitude to him — from v. 25, 34 to v. 41, 42, 52, 60, 66, 71.
27.	Labour not (cont. v.) for the meat which perisheth. They were already hungry again.
	Shall give unto you; v. 32, 51; 4:14.
	Sealed. The word also carries the meaning consecrated; Rev. 7:3; 9:4.
30.	Believe thee. There is a subtle difference between this and the normal phrase: believe into.
33.	He which cometh down from heaven. The Gk. is ambiguous. It could read: “that which”, with reference to the manna; hence v. 34; cp. v. 31, 50.
36.	Seen me. This verb very commonly refers to the experience ot seeing divine power at work.
42.	We know. This present tense sorely implies that Joseph was still alive.
48.	Bread of life. Note the sequence:
	v26	Loaves
	v32	Bread from heaven
	v33	Bread of God
	v35, 48	Bread of life
	v51	The living Bread
50.	Cometh down from heaven. This continuous present tense strongly disallows of any “pre-existence argument being based on this verse or its context: cp. v. 33.
51.	The living bread. Here there is sharp contrast, of course, with the corruptive manna.
	My flesh, cp. 1:14. The synoptists’ equivalent is “body, blood”.
53.	No life in you; 15:4; 20:31.
54.	Eateth my flesh. Here and in v. 56, 57, 58b Jesus switches to a different word for “eat” to indicate a sacramental partaking of Bread and Wine, which otherwise goes without specific mention in John’s gospel. Only in this way is the omission to be explained. A contrasting word for “eat” is used in v. 58a.
56.	Dwelleth in me, and I in him. One commentator over aptly says: “We abide in him because we are his members: but he abides in us because we are his temple”. See 1 Jn. 3;24; 4:15,16 — both places referring to the Breaking of Bread (see “First Epistle of John”, by H.A.W.).
56.	The living Father. The heavenly Father has eternal life, and therefore I have eternal life; so whoever abides in me has eternal life.
57.	Sent me. See on 1:6.
	Live by the Father…by me. In both places, “because of”; i.e. because of the redeeming Purpose initiated by the Father and being fulfilled in the Son.
59.	In the synagogue. Probably a mid-week assembly, for would such a crowd have crossed Galilee on a sabbath?