The eastern shore of Galilee which that battered fishing vessel approached offer the storm was much less densely populated than the Capernaum side. Here there is one stretch where the land sweeps down abruptly to the waters edge though not from a great height.

The gospels present a tangle of different textual readings of the local name-Gadara, Gergesa, Gerasa, all seeming to have fairly good evidence in their favour. The city of Gadara was six miles from Galilee. Gerasa was much further to the east, verging on the edge of me desert. But there is also identifiable another Gerasa (Khersa) on the eastern shore of Galilee, where the topographical details seem to be right also.

Here excitement now followed on excitement, and wonder on wonder.

Matthew’s doublets

In this rough unpopulated stretch of hillside was a wild ungovernable lunatic — the gospels use their usual term “demoniac”. Matthew adds to the difficulty by mentioning “two possessed with devils”. The plausible suggestion has been made that the second was actually a guard stationed to keep an eye on the poor wretch who lived there (and similarly when Matthew mentions two blind men), but this hardly takes the language at its face value. Alternatively, has Matthew brought together two separate demoniac healings? (Mk. 1:23 has been suggested, but neither is this without its difficulty).

There are several examples of such duplication in this gospel. Not only two blind men at Jericho (20:30) but also on an earlier occasion (9:27). There is mention of both ass and colt at the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (21:2). And there is the miraculous feeding of the multitude on two occasions (this is mentioned in Mark also). On the other hand, Matthew specifies only one angel at the resurrection of Jesus (28:2), whereas Luke says there were two (Lk. 24:4).

At least two of the foregoing examples suggest that Matthew’s “duplications”, certainly factually correct, are given because of their symbolic value. In a considerable number of places (see Study 171) there are signs that in his gospel Matthew was seeking to commend to his Jewish readers the acceptance of Gentiles along with Jews into the community of the Messiah.

Since Mark and Luke speak of only one demoniac, it may be assumed that one of the two specially occupied the Lord’s attention. He was so notorious as to be well-known through all Decapolis (so Mt. 8:28 implies). The story centres round him-and again for symbolic reasons, as will be seen by and by.

Violent lunacy

The vivid detail given regarding this demoniac is one of the most impressive bits of descriptive writing in the gospels. He came from the town near-by (Lk.), but lived in the hill-side caves which had formerly been used as burial places (Lk). His madness, which was intermittent (Lk. v. 29), made him so violent that all attempts at restraint had proved useless. Chains had been forced apart or snapped (Mk.). Stout ropes had been rubbed through. The man’s madness seemed to impart superhuman strength. Mark’s triple negative is specially impressive: “No man could bind him, no, not with chains”. So now jn wild animal nakedness (Lk.) he roamed the rough open country (Mk.). All who came that way were scared (Mt.) by the wild cries and howls with which, night and day, he banished peace and stillness from that lovely locality (Mk.). His lunacy was fierce, violent, and homicidal, scaring away even the strongest and bravest (Mt.). The poor wretch even bruised and battered himself in his dementia (Mk.). Here was another kind of storm to be stilled.

As the boat drew to shore the demoniac recognized Jesus (Mk.) from a long way off (in his saner moments he must have had personal contact with the Lord during one of those tours of preaching in the Decapolis), and he came charging down the hillside (Mk.) uttering wild cries as he came. The obvious thing was to change course and land further along the coast, well away from this fearsome creature. But evidently Jesus bade his disciples pull in to shore as at first intended. He feared no demoniac, and at least the poor lunatic’s presence guaranteed that no multitude would gather.

Jesus in control

As he jumped out of the boat, the demoniac rushed towards him (Mk.). Matthew’s characteristic “Behold!” comes into his record no less than three times (8:29,32,34), thus indicating the apprehension of the disciples. But, to their surprise, the man threw himself at the feet of Jesus in an attitude of worship (Mk, Lk). Would a wicked “spirit” do this?

Jesus began immediately to speak in tones of command: “Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit”. The words were being repeated (Mk, Lk —Gk.), but the demoniac interrupted, shouting out: “What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God?” Here, obviously, was sanity fighting its way through. Clearly, the man had known Jesus at a time when there was mental health to appreciate the acts and claims of the Son of God. But now any further sense was drowned in a sea of delusion: “Art thou come hither to torment us before the time? (Mt.) / adjure thee by Cod that thou torment me not” (Mk.). Strange, truly, that he should address Jesus as though he-the calm, strong healer-were the one possessed with a devil. The picture of this wild, naked, unkempt creature adjuring the Son of God in this way has a very sad irony about it.

But what did his strange language signify? There must have been some coherent idea in his bemused mind. If these words were just the meaningless ramblings and ravings of a brain gone sick, would they be preserved in all three records? “Beat me not” probably meant “as they have often done, to drive the demons out of me”. And it may be that his own mad habit of cutting (or, beating) himself with stones was the result of having this ignorant idea planted in his unbalanced mind. But “come to torment us before the time” must mean more than this.

As already suggested, this man had apparently known the Lord earlier in the days of his sanity (“Jesus, thou Son of God most high”). If the man had notions of Jesus being the Messiah who would judge the unworthy in Israel and unleash the divine wrath against Rome and its legions, his irrational fears are seen to have more than a grain of sense in them.

The repeated command of Jesus: “Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit”, was beginning to have its effect (this is yet another example of a gradual miracle), for there is insight in that question: “Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” The only usage of this word “torment” in the Old Testament Scriptures is with regard to the plague which God brought on the Philistines when the ark of God was in their midst, so that they would fain be rid of it (1 Sam. 5,6)!

The Jews expected, in their crude Messianic aspiration, that one day the kingdom of God would mean not only their own exaltation as a nation but also the torment of Gentile oppressors. So the man recognized Jesus as Messiah, but knew also that the time was not yet ripe for the assertion of his royal majesty. A few years later, with this atonishing episode in mind. James, one of the witnesses of it was to recall the surprise of it: “The devils also believe and tremble” (Jas. 2:19).

“What is thy name?”

Partly to calm the distraught creature, and partly to further his purpose with him, Jesus asked: “What is thy name?” There was more in this than a desire to know who the man was. Indeed, Luke’s phrase implies that when sane he had been a person of some importance and known to those he now met.

Long centuries before, Jacob, violent and desperate, was asked by the one he deemed to be his adversary: “What is thy name?” – and then found himself endowed with a new name meaning “God rules”. From that time on, Jacob was a new man, with a new and better outlook on life, for thenceforward he recognized (what should have been clear to him long before) that in wrestling against those he thought were his human adversaries he had really been wrestling against the control of heaven.

Now, another Jacob, with even more distorted thinking, failed to realise that his present disability came from an exercise of angelic power. In an earlier chapter (Study 30) attention was drawn to the close connection between ‘demons’ and Bible truth about angelic control of both good and ‘evil’.

But this poor creature had had one distortion added to another: “My name is Legion, for we are many”. It is easy to see how the man came to reply in this fashion. In his saner moments he must often have had foolish people din into him: ‘You are possessed with a devil – but not just one devil, an entire legion of spirits! Else why should you be so violent?’

“Come out of him”, Jesus commanded. This was no kindly falling in with the man’s-and the aposfles’?-delusion. For if you agree with a lunatic that he is Adolf Hitler, you may make him more tractable for the moment, but you certainly make the likelihood of his cure smaller than ever. No, this was an assertion by the Lord of Truth of his authority over God’s angels of evil.

“Legion” and ancient Israel

The poor crazy fellow, apparently not without a certain logic, saw himself as living afresh the experience of ancient Israel. Here he was/naked and miserable, amongst tombs, as Israel had been in Egypt, the land of graves, and he now pleaded his unworthiness to share Israel’s deliverance: “Not out of the country (Mk.), not into the wilderness, not into the deep (Lk.)”-the same word ‘abyss’ is used in Isaiah 63:13 LXX about Israel’s passage through the Red Sea. >

Instead: “Send us away into the herd of swine”-this with reference to the tremendous herd which was being tended “a great way off” (Mt.). This sensible yet insane request was pressed with most pathetic earnestness (Mk.). So Jesus assented.

Then was witnessed a sight such as Galilee had never seen before. The pigs suddenly turned and charged violently down the short hillside and, like a swarm of overgrown lemmings, followed their leader into the deep inshore waters and were drowned, for (experts say) the pig is one of the very few animals unable to swim.

Thus, as “Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore”, so also now this pathetic slave to powers beyond his control saw the symbols of his suffering destroyed.

Why the stampede of swine?

It was, of course, no accident. The stampede of swine was another miracle added to the healing of the demoniac. But why? The explanation often advanced makes this the Lord’s rebuke of Jewish tending of unclean animals (Num. 19:16).

This is hardly as satisfactory as it seems at first hearing. Besides the dubious morality of this destruction, there is the consideration that these animals may have been intended for a Gentile market (eg. the local Roman garrison). Also, this side of the lake was Galilee of the Gentiles, having been settled by ex-servicemen from the army of Alexander the Great. And Josephus says that in that . area were many hellenized Jews.

The possibility does not seem to have been taken account of that if, as has been suggested, the demoniac was a man of consequence, these swine may well have been his property. Certainly this hypothesis copes adequately enough with the moral problem, which has otherwise to be faced, of Jesus causing the destruction of other people’s property.

But what was the point of it? Could not Jesus have healed the man without this bizarre accompaniment? Of course he could. So it may safely be assumed that there was purpose and value in this decidedly grotesque addition to the miracle.

Already there have been indications in the narrative that the lunatic’s malady was intermittent. This is a common enough phenomenon. Then, although restored to sanity, he would very soon be anxiously asking himself: “How long before I am once again in the grip of this evil? Jesus has healed me-but how long will this last? Is it merely a temporary restoration such as I have known before, or is it a cure?”

Here lies the wisdom in the Lord’s assent to the crazy request: “Send us into the swine”. Whenever this man, healed of his terrible infirmity, found himself beset with doubts whether he was blessed with a lasting cure, there would always be the vivid memory of that great herd of swine stampeding uncontrollably into the sea. It was the lasting guarantee to him that the demon possession was gone for good. Never again would he experience the horror of a lapse into the irrational world of maniac fury and ferocity which he had known so often.

Popular reaction

Whilst the man rejoiced in his restored health, the pig-keepers took fright at the weird behaviour of their herd, and went off to tell their strange experience to the townsfolk near by. They had no reason for connecting the loss of the swine with the recovery of the demoniac, for they had been too far away (Mt.), but possibly as they passed Jesus and the disciples they learned that story also and added to it the extraordinary tale they had to tell (Mt.). They went not only to the near-by town but also to the country-folk (Mk.), evidently warning them to beware of this Jesus of Nazareth lest he demonize their stock also!

Inevitably a great crowd of people came out to the scene and there they found the party from the boat resting on the shore, and no doubt preparing a meal. Among them, sitting at the feet of Jesus (Lk.) was the demoniac whose uncontrollable rages they had so often feared. Now he was as sane and normal as any, clean and tidy, and decently clothed in spare garments out of the boat. They stared incredulously, heard the story once again from the disciples who had witnessed it all (Lk.), and shrank back in fear from the man of Nazareth who had such powers at his command.

Within a few hours, as the news spread and the crowd grew, there came a serious build-up of feeling against Jesus. But they dared not do anything against him. Instead he was approached by a delegation begging him to go away and leave them undisturbed, for all the people were gripped with a great dread of his presence. And at the first intimation (Mk.) Jesus meekly assented!

Plea rejected

Forthwith preparations were made to embark and return to Capernaum. As Jesus himself was about to go on board (Mk.), the man who had been healed begged and pleaded that he too might come and be thenceforward a follower of Jesus. But the Lord, mindful of the recent slander of the Pharisees that his ability to cast out devils was through alliance with the prince of the devils, foresaw the possibility of more harm than good in such a decision and quietly rejected his plea (contrast Lk. 9:59,60; 18:22).

But he gave him also a positive commission: “Go home to your own people, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and has had mercy on you”. The last phrases here are not the same. The first refers to the actual restoration to sanity. But the word ‘mercy’ means ‘forgiveness of sins’. Jesus was never content merely to bring physical or temporal blessing. So here he emphasized the greater gift which he had brought into this poor sufferer’s life.

His words carried also a further implication. Doubtless another reason why the man should want to be with Jesus was his fear of recurrence of his violent mental upheavals. But the Greek expression (a perfect tense) which Jesus used when he said: “How much the Lord 4ias done for you”, implied that restoration was permanent. There would be no need of further healing.

The man did as he was bidden. In his delight and thankfulness he proclaimed the greatness of the prophet of Nazareth (Lk.) and not only in his own place but also through Decapolis (Mk.), wherever people had known about his sorry plight. His story, and with it, no doubt the details of how Jesus had stilled both the storm and the sea, made people more aware than ever that God was at work in their midst. And they marvelled (Mk). But the gospels do not say they believed.

Answered prayer

There are two important corollaries to this unique incident. The first is its remarkable illustrations of positive and negative answers to prayer.

The deranged man besought Jesus that he would not send the demons away (Mk. 5:10), but Jesus did, because it was for the man’s good that it should be so.

Next, he asked that the demons might go into the swine. And Jesus agreed. This because it was an aid to the man’s peace of mind later

Then, when he was healed, he begged Jesus to let him accompany him, but this was refused. This for the Lord’s own sake, but also for the good of those to whom the man would witness at home (Ps. 51:10-13). After all, his family had been deprived of him for a long while (Lk. 8:27).

There was also the plea of the local inhabitants that Jesus would leave their country. *’ They feared what else he might do. And Jesus,’ did as they asked, even though it was to their detriment. Just as Israel clamoured for flesh in the wilderness and were given it, to their/ destruction (Num. 11; Ps. 78:18-33), so new, these purblind Gergesenes had proved to be the true spiritual descendants of the Girgashites,” whose name they bore. “Thou shalt make no covenant with them”, the Law commanded (Dt. 7:1,2), so Jesus answered their prayer and went away.

“Legion” and Israel

Finally, it is important to re-consider this miracle as a sign, in the way that so many of the lord’s miracles have asked for interpretation.

Already hints have been picked up suggesting a parallel between the demoniac and Israel needing Jesus to restore the nation to sanity (see pages 3 and 4). There are others:

1. Isaiah’s prophecy about light being brought to “them that dwell in the region and shadow of death” (9:1,2; Mt. 4:15,16) takes on a new significance when set alongside this story of the poor wretch who lived in tombs in Galilee of the Gentiles. Even more pointed is Isaiah’s prophecy about “a rebellious people that walketh in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts…which dwell among the graves, and lodge in the monuments” (65:2-4).
2. There is the vigorous description of the demoniac as “crying out and cutting himself with stones”; the close resemblance to Jezebel’s priests of Baal makes the figure of /srael in apostasy all the more pointed.
3. “Dwelling among the tombs” comes also in Ps. 68:6 LXX (but not in the Hebrew text) with reference to Israel. Similarly, the word “fierce” (Mt. 8:28) is applied to Israel in Is. 18:2 (LXX). There is hardly any other occurrence of it.
4. The only two other injurious acts done by Jesus-the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree-were both intended to be symbolic of judgement against rebellious Israel. This suggests that the drowning of the swine is to be interpreted in the same fashion.
5. The word “tame” comes only in Dan. 2:40, and there with reference specially to Israel; for Judaea was the only province which the Romans devastated; to all other conquered countries they gave peace, law, and order.
6. “Besought… that he would not send them away out of the country” (Mk. 5:10) suggests (Ez. 34:25: “I will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land”; and also: “I will cause the unclean spirit to pass out of the land” (Zech. 13:2).
7. Since this violent lunatic was well-known, it would seem that Jesus deliberately chose to land on the shore there. It would have been easy to land half a mile or so further north or south. But this healing of the demonized man now makes a most telling commentary on the demons parable (Mt. 12:43) which Jesus had told on the previous day shortly after the Baalzebub encounter. And that parable was about “this wicked generation” in Israel,
8. Christ’s final exhortation to the healed man was to go and tell “how great things the Lord hath done for thee” (Mk). Where else is there clear evidence that in his teaching Jesus used the Covenant Name of God?

An acted prophecy

The man presents an apt picture of Israel needing to be healed by the gospel, then, in the first century. It is an even more apt picture of Israel in later days with everyman’s hand against it, yet always re-asserting its vigour and individuality, so that the world marvels, even when there is no wish for fellowship.

Reduced to pitiable nakedness, Israel will one day acknowledge Messiah’s authority when he comes (after a night of terrible storm and a morning of incredible calm), and only then will the nation be restored to spiritual health. “The evil beasts will cease out of the Land” (Ez. 34:25), and Jewry will be found sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed with the garment of his providing, and now at last in their right mind. Nevertheless they will not be “with Jesus” in the intimate sense that the closest friends of Jesus will then rejoice in.

But they will be given a mission to the Gentiles, that mission which God committed to them at Sinai, to be “a kingdom of priests”, that is, a missionary nation. This they will now at last fulfill, to the glory of Christ.

Notes: Mk. 5:1-20

Notes: Lk. 8:26-39

It makes an interesting exercise in the study of the gospels to seek out all the occasions when men or women were at the feet of Jesus.

A. They sat there to learn:

B. They came pleading for help:

C. They prostrated themselves in thanksgiving for mercies received:

D. They were there in mourning:

E. They cast themselves down in adoration:

This discourse of Jesus, the like of which men had never heard before, ended with an appeal for honesty. No use to reckon yourselves among my disciples unless you face frankly and with clear-sighted resolution the challenge which my teaching presents. The warning was, ana always is, necessary, for there is no lack of those who want their membership of the body of Christ on easy terms, and even by deferred payments.

The unpractical idealism behind some of the principles of Christian behaviour laid down by Jesus presents a repeated temptation to argue to oneself, and even out loud, that of course the Lord did not mean just what he said, nor even what he seemed clearly to imply. The inclination to “bend” the moral principles of Christ-or, more especially, the direct personal application of these principles-is both strong and subtle. Often enough expediency says: “But of course Jesus cannot have meant his words to be taken this way. It’s just not practical. “And forthwith the admittedly exacting demands which the Sermon on the Mount makes are watered down to something so much more congenial and easy of achievement.

So, anticipating this (how he read human nature!), the Lord expostulated: “And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Why? With many the simple answer is: We like to be associated with you, Jesus, we love the graciousness of your personality, we are fascinated by the power and freshness of your teaching, we marvel at your wonderful works, and we are happy to accept you as Leader-only don’t ask us to follow where we find the going difficult or unattractive.

A Parable from Proverbs

So Jesus put the right and the wrong attitudes into a parable which, like so many he was to fascinate men with, he quarried out of the Book of Proverbs: “As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation” (10:25]. Here “the righteous one” is Jesus himself, “for other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11; Mt. 16:18). Also it is noteworthy that in Proverbs the counterpart to the man who “heareth, and doeth not” is “the wicked.” This is not the kind of antithesis one would expect, but the standard of judgment of both Old Testament and New Testament differ drastically from ordinary human estimates. In the parable of the talents the lord of the servants addresses as wicked and slothful” the servant who has done precisely nothing (25:26).

Again, “the wicked are overthrown, and are not; but the house of the righteous shall stand” (Pr. 12:7; cp. also 14:11; 1:26-33). The close resemblance to the parable of Jesus is not to be missed. This time “the righteous” is the man who builds well and truly on the foundation provided by Christ, “rooted and built up in him, and established in the truth as ye have been taught” (Col. 2:7).

Jesus has warned about two ways (Mt. 7:13, 14) and about two kinds of tree (7:16-20). And now, two men — the wise and the fool. Always there is a sharp differentiation, not a gradual shading off from the highly commendable to the hopeless reprobate, but just sheep and goats, wise and foolish virgins. But always the judgment is his. The fellow-disciple is forbidden to write off his brother as a “fool” (5:22), even though it be suspected that here is a religion of cheap imitation.

The Details

It is not always appreciated just how vivid and exact is the little drama which Jesus depicted. It is the side of a wadi, but well clear, surely, of any rising water. There on a ledge side by side these two men build their houses. It is implicit in the story that their former homes have been abandoned as unsatisfactory (there is obvious meaning in this!), and also there is the implication that they chose this new site because they must have water without which life is so difficult as to be almost impossible.

The spot chosen is a bank of earth (Lk) and sand (Mt). The wise one of the two proceeds to dig deep in order to find the solid rock as foundation. The other, considering it hardly poetical to spend all this time and labour on excavation, goes to his building without delay. And indeed he might well do this with adequate justification in his own mind for this policy. It is a well-recognized principle in building that where there is no risk from water a sandy soil makes a good building foundation. More than this, was it not true that the Tabernacle in the wilderness was built on sand? But it did have its heavy silver sockets as foundations!

The builder who did not trouble about getting down to rock would be seen to make very spectacular progress by comparison with his more thorough neighbour. And whilst weather conditions were good it would seem to everybody that he was every bit as well off as the other who had chosen to add so much apparently unnecessary labour to his task.

But at the first serious test (Lk: immediately) there came disaster for the one and vindication of his fellow. Heavy rain, fierce winds, and rising waters all combined in an onslaught of the elements. The storm brought down a sudden rush of floodwater, more heavy in character than could have been foreseen. Very speedily the unsolid foundations of the one house were eroded by the torrent. The ensuing instability was unable to withstand the blast of the storm, and the whole place fell in, “and great was the fall of it” as it buried its builder in a dramatic collapse. The water of life which made that site so desirable, and even necessary, had brought destruction.

The Lesson

The main point which Jesus sought to make here is, very simply, that the closer a man comes to Christ in the life he lives, the more secure he is in present trials and in the Day of Judgment. And the less close he is to Christ, the greater his danger. To any superficial judgement he may appear to be well equipped and safe, but the crises of life and-yet more certainly the ultimate judgment of Almighty God will differentiate between the genuine and the sham. Then, “why do ye call me Lord, Lord, and yet do not the things which I say?” The answer given by the parable is: Because of spiritual laziness and/or because of desire to put on a show of religion without the inner transformation and personal dedication to Christ which is discipleship.

The symbolism may even hint at a confident dependence on earthly descent from Abraham, whose seed are as the sand, rather than on Christ, the true foundation. Israel’s temple had this unsubstantial foundation, even though it seemed to be secure on the rock of Zion, whereas the apparently unsubstantial temple of the Lord has permanence, being made secure on “the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20), that is, on the foundation which they have helped to provide.

It was a grim note on which the Lord ended his manifesto. And the same sombre emphasis was to recur, especially in the last year of his ministry.

Matthew’s Sub-divisions

Here, in the rounding off of the Sermon on the Mount comes the first of five occurrences of the formula used by Matthew to indicate the conclusion of one of the well-defined sections of his gospel: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings…” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). The similarity with Dt. 31:24 is certainly not accidental: “And it came to pass when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book…” The five-fold repetition in Matthew was no doubt intended to remind the reader of the five books of Moses. Here was one greater than Moses/ speaking God’s words to the people-not from Sinai in the wilderness, nor from Nebo giving prospect of the Land of Promise, but from a mountain which was within his own inheritance.

Reactions to the Lord’s teaching

The teaching of Jesus provoked an amazement in the people which showed no sign of abating (Greek imperfect): “the people were astonished at his doctrine”-on this occasion especially because “he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes, ” who never dared pronounce an opinion without quoting the revered Rabbi This or That. Jesus’ abandonment of such a time-honoured practice was perhaps susceptible of the interpretation that he had not the rabbinic learning nor the detailed acquaintance with the standard Jewish authorities to be able to follow the classic methods.

The reaction of the people shows, rather, that there was such authority about the tone and demeanour of Jesus as to put him in a class by himself. And the Greek text implies that this was habitual with him. It was an authority received from his Father (Mt. 28:18; Jn. 5:27; 10:18; 17:2).

It makes an interesting survey to review the reactions of the crowd and the rulers to the teaching of Jesus at different times in his ministry. On two occasions it is said that the people marvelled at his teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum, because “his word was with power”: he was “glorified of all”. And in the synagogue at Nazareth: they “wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth”, yet only a short while later in fierce anger they sought to destroy him.

All the other available examples belong to the last six months of the minstry. At the last Feast of Tabernacles the leaders of the Jews marvelled at his teaching ability, since he was not college-trained. On the same occasion the effect on the crowd of worshippers was very marked. Many were prepared to concede that, Jesus was the promised prophet like unto Moses, or perhaps the Elijah-prophet who should prepare the way for Messiah. Others baldly and bluntly asserted their conviction that he was the Messiah. The officers of the temple guard, sent to arrest him, came back empty-handed and clearly over-awed by his authority and power: “Never man spake like this man”.

The action of Jesus in cleansing the temple a second time, together with the remarkable character of his teaching in the temple court, again left the crowds astonished, but the same things only goaded the chief priests and scribes into further plots on his life.

Last of all, his learned adversaries among the Pharisees threw at him in quick succession the most searching problems they could find as a challenge to his teaching, but this carpenter from Nazareth sent them away marvelling at the wisdom and effectiveness of his answers. If only it were possible to recapture today a brief impression of the power and effectiveness of Jesus as a teacher! But all that is left is a record of some of the things he said and a catalogue of varied summaries describing the reactions of those who heard. Amazing man!

Notes: Mt. 7:24-29

Either version of the Sermon on the Mount can be read comfortably in less than half an hour. Of course there was a good deal more to it than this. Luke implies as much; “he filled all his sayings in the ears of the people” (7:1), a summary which could well be a designed allusion to the prophecy about a prophet like unto Moses (Dt.18: 18, 19). Presumably Jesus

added a good deal of explanation and illustration.

And now, the first preaching tour concluded, he returned to Capernaum accompanied by the great crowd which almost always beset him at this period in his ministry.

Back home, he was approached by a deputation of elders from Capernaum’s only synagogue (Mk. 1:21). Among these, almost certainly, was Jairus, who not long after this was to become a suppliant on his own account.

Just now they came hoping to enlist the sympathy and aid of Jesus on behalf of a Roman centurion — of all people — living nearby. Every NT mention of centurions shows them in a good light (Lk. 23:47; Acts 10:1, 2; 22:25; 23:17; 27:43). This man was deeply concerned over the sickness and suffering of a valued servant struck down by some incurable disease. That he should be so distraught was an eloquent testimony to the characters of both master and man. The fact that leading Jews should bestir themselves on behalf of these two bore additional witness to their qualities. It was a most extraordinary situation.

Sympathy for Israel Unlike almost all other Romans in the country, this man enjoyed the close friendship of the Jews: “he loves our nation, and himself built us our synagogue” (Lk.). He was what the Jews called “a proselyte of the gate”-a Gentile who understood and believed the Jewish religion, but who accepted neither circumcision nor the food laws nor other religious obligations which kept the Jews a race apart.

That he should have taken his sympathies so far as to finance the building of a synagogue is a measure of his marked friendship for the Jews, and of his enthusiasm for their religion. It also indicates that he had considerable wealth.

He was now desperate with anxiety regarding his sick slave. The story of the healing of the sick son of the Capernaum nobleman must have come to his knowledge. Indeed it is not unlikely that the two men were good friends. If so, the appeal would be made to Jesus all the more confidently.

A Suffering Slave

The servant’s intense suffering is described in vivid terms — though, strangely enough, not by Luke the physician whose strong professional interest in clinical details is so often discernible, but by Matthew: “sick of the palsy, grievously tormented”. Identification of this disease is not easy. Clearly if was some form of paralysis. But those afflicted with a stroke or paraplegia do not usually suffer terrible agony continuously. So perhaps the most likely diagnosis is tetanus, which brings on acute muscular spasm and with it intense pain.

Here is the first of a remarkable sequence in the Lord’s mighty works. The centurion’s servant was “ready to die”. Jairus’s daughter had just died when Jesus came (Mt. 9:18). At Nain the widow’s son was about to be buried (Lk. 7:12). Lazarus was raised after being four days dead (Jn. 11:39).

The widow made no appeal to Jesus, save by her own lamentation and misery. On behalf of the centurion it was witnessed: “He is worthy for whom thou shouldst do this.” Jairus was urgent: “Come quickly…” Martha and Mary were despondent and perhaps mildly reproachful: “Lord, if thou hadst been here, our brother had not died.”

Contradiction?

Some have experienced difficulty with the apparent divergences in the narratives of Matthew and Luke. The former writes as though the centurion approached Jesus in person, whereas the latter is explicit that the elders of the Jews were sent on the centurion’s behalf. There is here a feature which is commonplace in the gospels, and throughout Bible narrative-the, omission of mention of the agent employed. For example, the expression: “himself built us our synagogue”, although so emphatic, would not be interpreted by anyone as meaning that the centurion did the actual building with his own two hands. Again, when the record says that “Pilate took Jesus and scourged him” (Jn. 19:1), | no one assumes that this was done by the! governor in person; nor when it declares that! “Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross”! (19:19). In Mark, James and John appear tol make their own personal plea for priority! (10:35), yet Matthew makes it clear that they did so through the advocacy of their mother (20:20).

Consideration for Jesus

The fact that the elders pressed their plea with Jesus time after time (Greek imperfect tense) suggests perhaps that they doubted whether Jesus would accede to the request or, more probably, that the Lord himself was hesitating, as well he might, for if word went round that he had visited the home of a Gentile, a Roman, most of the nation would marshal all its prejudices against him (Acts 10:28), and thus his ministry would die an early death.

This hesitance seems also to be suggested in another detail of Luke’s text (apecho; v. 6) which in LXX commonly has the meaning; “to hold off” or “abstain”.

However, not put off, Jesus agreed to their request; “I will come and heal him”. And no doubt a messenger was promptly sent off to let the centurion know that Jesus was coming. The Roman’s reaction was remarkable. He forthwith sent other friends, Gentiles this time-who met Jesus “now not far from the house”. Their message expressed concern for Jesus, not for the servant: “Lord, trouble not thyself (to come to the house)”. It was not solicitude lest Jesus fatigue himself which lay behind this. The Lord was already not far away, so the extra distance now involved would have meant nothing to him.

There is here a quite exceptional insight and thoughtfulness. The centurion was sufficiently familiar with Jewish prejudices to recognize that for Jesus to enter his Gentile home would be sure to provoke keen Jewish criticism and thus hamper his teaching work. He was not willing that Jesus should handicap himself for his sake. So, with recollection of how the nobleman’s son had been healed by a word spoken miles away, he urged: “I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof (no mean roof, either!)…but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.”

“Not worthy”! By that very phrase he proved how worthy he was.

Personal Approach

From certain details it is possible to infer that the centurion himself came out also to meet Jesus when he saw how near he was to the house: “Jesus marvelled at him” (Lk.) and “Go thy way; as thou hast believed, so shall it be done unto thee (Mt.). The words seem to require that they were spoken to the centurion himself.

Insight

This faithful man’s reasoning regarding the Lord’s power to heal has often been read rather carelessly. He did not say: “For I am a man set in authority, having under me soldiers, and I say to one, Go, and he goeth.” What he did say was: “For I also am a man set under authority.” The word “also” pointedly stresses a similarity in status between himself and Jesus. What was it? In effect, he declared: ‘My men obey every command of mine because I am under the authority of Caesar, They do my bidding because behind me is the supreme power of the Emperor. But I recognize that you, Jesus, are under the direction of One greater than Tiberius. Behind you is the authority of Almighty God. So you have only to speak the word of command, and my slave will be well again’. To complete the parallel it is perhaps possible to see an angel of heaven doing the will of the Son of God (Mt. 26:53) as the counterpart to the centurion’s underling immediately responsive to his officer’s commands.

Jesus greatly pleased

At this remarkable expression of faith by a Gentile, Jesus marvelled openly. Later he was to marvel at the inability of the people of Nazareth to believe him (Mk. 6:6 — the only other time this word is used of Jesus). The present situation was in happy contrast with that, and the delight of Jesus was not to be restrained. Turning round, he addressed the expectant crowd: “Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” Both the encomium and the implied reproach were well deserved. At this time had any other individual beside this centurion come to so clear and definite a conviction concerning Jesus?

Praised by Jesus

The list of those whom Jesus praised is instructive:

The list includes:

Prophetic Psalm

The gladness of Jesus expressed itself in a sweeping prophecy of the coming day when the doors of the kingdom would be thrown wide open to eager Gentiles: “And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west (cp. Lk. 13: 28, 29), and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom of heaven”.

There is an echo here of Psalm 107:3, where the redeemed of the Lord are “gathered out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south” (cp. also Gen. 28:14; Mal. 1:11). This call of faithful Gentiles is foretold also by a delightful figure of speech; “He turneth the wilderness into a standing water, and dry ground into water

springs” (v. 35). Appropriate to the present miracle, the same psalm tells how men in sickness nigh unto death “cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses. He sent his Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions (v. 19, 20).

Nor is this all. This amazing psalm also anticipates the storm on Galilee (v. 25-29), the healing and forgiveness of the paralytic let down through the roof (v. 17), and the feeding of the multitude in the wilderness (v. 2).

Then, was Psalm 107 divinely inspired to proclaim beforehand “the goodness and the wonderful works” of the Son of God? or did he frame his miracles according to that Scripture?

The saddening contrast between the centurion and the meagre response the message of the kingdom was evoking from Israel drove Jesus to add sombre words of warning to the crowd around him: “The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”. In this context it is tempting to interpret the outer darkness with reference to the dispersion and persecution of Israel, but elsewhere the phrase seems always to referto the last judgment.

The Miracle

Turning to the centurion Jesus bade him: “Go thy way; as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee”. But this man of faith had not asked anything for himself (except in so far as the healing of his servant would greatly ease his own sympathetic distress). So perhaps the words should be translated: “So be it done for thee.” The similar expression in Mt. 9:29 suggests the more familiar AV reading. If this is accepted, it must mean that Jesus looked beyond the immediate benefit-the healing of the stricken slave-to the lasting blessing of faith and its reward which would accrue to the centurion himself.

Luke’s expression: “They that were sent returned to the house…” probably implies that in spite of the Lord’s explicit “Go thy way”, the centurion remained with him, with all faith that the miracle had happened, and needed no personal verification of the fact. Thus the man’s attitude to Jesus rose to even greater heights. Although eager that his servant be restored, it was more important to him that one whom he deemed greater than Caesar be fitly honoured and thanked by a respectful presence rather than by a hasty departure which might imply disrespect.

This was the second miracle Jesus had performed at a distance without even setting eyes on the one to whom he brought such blessing (see Jn. 4:46-54). And again it was a Gentile who was healed. At least one other example of the same kind was to follow (Mt. 15:28). More and more, as the ministry of Jesus proceeded, it became evident to those who were not too blind even for the Lord to heal, that his miracles were more than miracles, they were signs.

Notes: Mt. 8:5-13

Lk. 7:1-10

The next miracle done by Jesus took place on the very next day. It is perhaps unique in that almost the precise spot where it happened is identifiable. Nain was a small place about ten miles south of Nazareth. The site makes it highly probable that the main exit was on the south side, where at some distance there are a number of limestone caves anciently used as burial places. This track is joined by another along which Jesus and his apostles and the accompanying crowd came from Capernaum. Almost certainly it was at this junction where the Lord encountered a funeral procession.

Grief and Compassion

A widow, evidently greatly esteemed in the town, if one is to judge by the multitude of sympathizing mourners, had been bereaved of her only son. “The mourning of an only son” is perhaps the most poignant expression of grief to be found in the Old Testament (Jer. 6:26; Zech. 12:10; Amos 8:10), “most bitter lamentation”.

The compassion in the soul of Jesus was immediately clamant for action. Without doubt he would have preferred to render aid away from the curious eyes of the crowds, but this was hardly possible. So first he spoke kindly to the distressed woman and bade her cease from weeping. This was no platitudinous conventional sympathy but an implicit promise that soon all would be well. Then, before she could realise what was afoot, he moved to the bier and stopped the bearers by laying a firm hand upon it. This action in itself was unexpected, for who would wish any risk of ceremonial defilement from the pallet on which the corpse lay?

Then came the word of authority complementary to what Jesus had just spoken to the widow: “Young man, unto thee I say, Arise.” Forthwith the dead man came to life. Sitting up on the bier, he looked around in astonishment, unanswered questions tumbling from his lips in quick succession. But without a moment’s delay Jesus helped him to his feet and led him to his awed, incredulous, happy mother.

There in the gate of the city Jesus gave proof that he was the promised Seed of Abraham who will one day “possess the gate of his enemies” and especially “the last enemy that shall be destroyed” (Gen. 22:17; 1 Cor. 15:26).

But, as Jesus symbolically intimated, the leprosy of sin (Mt. 8:3) and the desolation of death are only to be done away through this sharing of the defilement of them both.

And his “weep not!” anticipated the reassurance to John in Patmos when he was weeping many tears because in the hand of God was seen the Book of Life, and yet “no man was found worthy to open the Book, or to look thereon”, until there appeared “a Lamb as it had been slain” (Rev. 5:1-9).

It is because of this that “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes (did Jesus do this for the widow?), and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying” (Rev. 21:4).

This act of compassion was a lovely token of the happy reunions which are yet to take place in the day of resurrection. The widow’s experience proved that the Lord’s beatitude for mourners was, and will be, very truth.

The Widow of Zarephath

There are outstanding resemblances here to Elijah’s restoration of the son of the widow of Zarephath (1 Kgs. 17). The man of God met her in the gate of the city; there is the reassurance spoken to the stricken mother, and the arresting word: “behold!”; the only son is raised from death, and “he delivered him to his mother” (a verbatim quotation); and the reaction to the miracle is the same: “Now by this I know that thou art a man of God” -“A great prophet is risen up among us” (why did the people choose there a word appropriate to resurrection, the same as in verse 22: “the dead are raised”?).

This Zarephath resurrection leads on to a problem. When Elijah assuaged the widow’s grief, he embraced the child three times; Elisha twice with the Shunamite’s son; Paul once in the restoration of Eutychus; but Jesus merely touched the bier, and spoke the needful word. What is a progression such as this intended to teach?

Women and Resurrection

It is a remarkable fact that in almost every instance of resurrection in the Bible it was “women who had their dead raised to life” (Heb. 11:35). Besides these two widows there are the Shunamite who befriended Elisha (2 Kgs. 4:36), the widows lamenting the beloved Dorcas (Acts 9:41), Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus (Jn. 11:22, 32), and-most important of all-Mary Magdalene on the third day after the crucifixion (Jn.20:15). The raising of Jalrus’ daughter is hardly an exception (Mk. 5:40).

This consistency doubtless has its roots in Eden. The rabbis encouraged the practice of having the funeral procession led by the bereaved mother or widow, because it was through a woman that death came into the world.

In each case the one raised from the sleep of death was restored to whoever had closest affection for them. But in the resurrection that is , coming, a resurrection which leaves all merely human ties behind (because now “they neither marry nor are given in marriage”), those who are raised will be brought to the Lord, for it is he who has the greatest affection for them and with whom they should have the closest bonds.

An Acted Parable

In yet another way this miracle was a remarkable parable. The time is not far off when Israel, reduced to friendless destitution, will be as a widow without solace of any kind. If then she mourns for the Christ who was crucified “as one mourns for an only son, and is in bitterness for him, as one is in bitterness for a Firstborn” (Zech. 12:10), there will come immediate restoration of the Son and a sudden transformation to unspeakable joy, whilst the close disciples of the Lord and two multitudes of spectators look on, speechless with amazement.

Contacts with Job?

Such an approach to this brief record is encouraged by certain rather problematical resemblances to a remarkable passage in Job concerning “him that knoweth not God” (18:21). The name Nain is perhaps derived from a Hebrew word for “pleasant”, but it is also… practically identical with another rare word for “son” occurring in Job. 18:19: “He shall neither have son (nin) nor son’s son among his people, nor any remaining in his dwellings”. “The firstborn of death shall devour his strength” (v. 13). “His roots shall be dried up beneath, and above shall his branch be cut off” (v. 16) – an apt figure of the widow left all alone. “They that come after shall be astonished at his day, as they that went before were affrighted” (v. 20). One is loath to explain these resemblances as mere coincidence. But if the parabolic interpretation regarding Israel be not accepted, it is difficult to see what alternative remains.

It is rather remarkable that Luke chronicles neither the delight of the mother nor the excitement of the two multitudes, but only their fear.

There was fear after the healing of the paralytic let down through the roof, fear after the cure of the Gadarene demoniac, fear after the stilling of the storm on Galilee (Lk. 5:26; 8:37: Mk. 4:41). But why? Is this the kind of human reaction to be expected on witnessing such gracious acts of power?

The Crowd

Lastly, the reaction of the crowd has to be considered: “They glorified God, saying, A great prophet is risen up among us; and, God hath visited his people”. These are not two ways of saying the same thing. The first probably means that, since they had (quite rightly) been in the habit of comparing John the Baptist with Elijah, now they instinctively associated Jesus with Elisha-Shunem (2 Kgs. 4) is at most a mile or two from Nain!

“God hath visited his people” might mean either a visitation of wrath or of deliverance. In this instance it is, fairly obviously, the latter, for the words quote Exodus 4:31, the reaction of the people of Israel when Moses showed his signs that God was about to save them out of Egyptian bondage. And those signs were, first, sharing and curing the sin-disease; then, overcoming the serpent enemy and transforming it into a token of divine authority and redemption.

These oppressed Jews in the time of Jesus iwere not slow to draw their own conclusions , regarding the future work of Jesus. But alas, how mistaken they were, for they evidently chose to believe that he would soon be leading them to freedom from the Romans. It was the beginning of the build-up of a very difficult situation which was to have tremendous repercussions on the work of Jesus before another year was past.

Notes: Lk. 7:11-17

The imprisonment, and later the beheading, of John the Baptist is attributed by Josephus (Ant.18.5.2) to Herod’s fear “lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion”. This shows that Josephus knew little about John personally or he would have known how far out such an assessment of the prophet’s character was. The gospels are unquestionably much more accurate when they attribute John’s imprisonment and death to his rebuke of Herod’s evil union with an evil woman.

A very persuasive case can be made for believing that all the details about Herod, even to his plans and motives, were supplied to the gospel writers by Manaen “which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch”(Acts.!3:1; “Acts”byH.A.W.).

The tidings of the latest marvels wrought by Jesus, and carried to John the Baptist in prison, are described by Matthew as “the works of the Christ”. Thus he supplies beforehand his own emphatic answer to the uncertainties about to be raised in the next paragraph of his record.

The fact that contact with the prophet in the castle of Machaerus was possible suggests that the conditions of his imprisonment were not too rigorous.

John’s Problem

John’s reaction, after pondering the news for a while, was to entrust two of his own followers visiting him in prison with a special enquiry to Jesus: “Art thou he that should come, or look we for another?”

The view is often advanced that John did this not to set at rest doubts of his own, but for the benefit of his disciples. This explanation – a kind of half-apology for John-is set aside by the Lord’s answer: “Go your way, and tell John…”

Yet it is not difficult to understand why John was perplexed. He had proclaimed Jesus to the nation as the Lamb of God who should take away the sin of the world (Jn.1:29). Hehadalso bade them see him as the Messiah coming in

judgment on a nation in need of repentance “whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor” (Mt. 3:12). The initial cleansing of the temple had looked as though the second of these roles was to emerge with full authority.

But now more than a year had gone by, and no further sign of judgment from heaven. Nor was there even a hint that in some mysterious way Jesus might become, either directly, or in some secondary fashion as Hezekiah and Jeremiah had been, a bearer of the sins of the nation before God.

Instead, it had been a year of preaching, preaching, interspersed by many a breathtaking miracle. Jesus was on the crest of a wave of popularity-a popularity quite impossible to harmonize with the Baptist’s other Bible-founded expectations.

So John might well be puzzled: “Art thou the Coming One? or look we for another?” He knew that his own mission, as forerunner preparing the people of God for Messiah’s advent, had been ultimately a failure. The leaders of the nation remained unaffected, and so far as positive reformation went, so also did the mass of the people. There didn’t even seem to be any sign of Jesus fulfilling the role John had foretold for him of baptizing believers in Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11). Then was it because of failure that Jesus appeared to be content with a less dramatic role than that which had been expected of him?

In comparable circumstances Jeremiah had verged on bitterness: “O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived…I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me” (20:7). But with John it was puzzlement rather than despair.

Doubtless he had also a personal difficulty. Part of Messiah’s work was to be: “proclaiming liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound”. Why then did Jesus go about performing such wonderful works as to set the whole country talking, and yet leave his best friend and helper languishing in the power of an ungodly princeling? Could it be that both of them-John and Jesus-were forerunners of one yet greater than either, as the days of Elijah and Elisha had led on to the stirring days of Hezekiah who had sought to complete the reformation of the Northern Kingdom?

So John was uncertain. “Art thou he that should come, or look we for another”-one different in character from yourself?

“He that cometh”

The expression “He that cometh” or “the Coming One” was sufficient in itself to make John’s meaning clear. No further definition was needed, for this description of Messiah was familiar to every Jew. It was the highest common factor of many precious prophecies. Ezekiel foretold that sceptre and mitre should be taken away from Israel “until He come whose right it is, and I (God Himself) will give it to him” (21:26, 27). That prophecy in its turn, leaned on Jacob’s well-known prophecy concerning Judah: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah… until he come whose it is” (Gen. 49:10). The Psalms greeted Messiah with: “Hosanna! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (118:26). They spoke of his self-dedication: “Lo, I come: in the volume of the Book it is written of me: (40:7). In a highly important scripture for John the Baptist (as it turned out by and by), Isaiah acclaimed him: “Behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense”-or, just possibly: “your God will come, raised up (from the dead), even your God rewarded” (35:4). Another prophecy, specially relevant to the Baptist’s enquiry, comes in Malachi: “And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple” (3:1). Yet other Scriptures were to take on a greater fulness of meaning before long: “Behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass” (Zech. 9:9); “One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days” (Dan. 7:13).

John himself had appropriated the same terminology: “One mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose” (Lk. 3:16). And again: “After me cometh a man which is preferred before me” (Jn. 1:30). “The true light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world” (Jn. 1:9). Jesus also took up the familiar idiom: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not” (Jn. 5:43). The common people had the phrase in their familiar speech: “This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world” (Jn.6:14). Paul used it, speaking of Adam as “a figure of him that was to come” (Rom.5:14) And Hebrews is specially emphatic: “He that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (10:37).

What an answer!

It was not the Lord’s way to give a brief categorical answer to John’s plea for doubt to be set at rest. Far better to leave the ultimate answer to the judgement and faith of the one who now cried for help. So “in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.” What an hour to remember! Those two disciples of John would talk about it to their dying day. They were bidden to talk about it to their leader: “Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard”. Besides the signs which they saw, they heard also a great deal of excited talk about recent impressive miracles they had not seen-the centurion’s servant and the son of the widow of Nain.

The relating of these experiences was intended to remind John of his own commission in earlier days: “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). Here was breath-taking evidence that the Spirit did indeed abide on Jesus. His earlier works were no flash in the pan. So all doubt could be put aside.

What a circumstantial tale these disciples would have to tell! They had seen blind men describing with astonished happiness the colour and movement and loveliness they had not known. Lame men threw away their crutches and leaped with the exuberance and agility of schoolboys. Before their incredulous gaze the foul and rotten flesh of lepers grew to the smooth firmness of robust health. They marked in the faces of those stone deaf the dramatic change from impassive woodenness to the wonder and ecstasy of suddenly experiencing a whole new world of sound. Even those in that vicinity who had died that day they now saw restored in perfect health to their families delirious with delight. Besides all this, the message John had proclaimed was now made known more persuasively than ever to a pathetic and oppressed people in desperate need of good news: “to the poor the gospel was preached”. The shape of this sentence (Lk. 7:22) requires the meaning: “To the poor wealth is given”. Here is an instruction to social reformers that the best blessings to impart to the poor are the riches of the gospel. Isaiah’s phrase is: “the poor among men rejoice in the Holy One of Israel” (29:19); (cp. Mk. 12:37). There is no higher contentment.

All these wonders, and the very phrases in which Jesus had recapitulated them, were an echo of one of Isaiah’s most gracious Messianic prophecies: “Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God.. . 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 shall sing… sorrow and sighing shall flee away” (ls.35:4-6, 10). The primary reason for the allusion to this prophecy was, of course, its exhortation to John himself; “Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees” (v. 3). Whatever else, John must keep on praying.

“Hold on to faith”

Jesus added his own personal encouragement: “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me”. When it is realised that the word “offended” means “to trip over a stumbling stone”, the allusion to another familiar element of Isaiah’s message is more evident: “Neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary, but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence… and many shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken” (8:12-15). When the background to the prophecy is understood, there are seen the alternatives of either accepting Messiah as an altar of sacrifice, or else stumbling to destruction over his claims. Thus the concluding words of the Lord’s message to John bade him prepare to see Jesus as an altar of reconciliation-this first, before ever he should be manifest with authority and power.

“Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me”. Jesus meant his word of encouragement specially for John, but also for more than John. He knew that over the years ahead the same access of doubts and problems would beset the minds of thousands of his disciples. This is human nature. And in effect the Lord’s present answer to such crises is: “Hang on, regardless”. It is a lesson for all to learn thoroughly in times when faith burns bright and clear, against the day of difficulty and discouragement when intellectual doubts or hard circumstances make loyalty to Christ a strain so that one’s first love falters. Jesus promised a special blessing to those who maintain a fighting faith in him no matter what the odds.

Doubting Thomas was to prove a shining example of how stumbling faith may receive the reward of tenacious loyalty. The moment came when all the apostles except himself were now fully convinced that their Lord was risen from the dead. In this most vital item of faith he was now completely out of step with the rest. A serious rift in fellowship between himself and the others was inevitable. Nevertheless-well done, Thomas! –he persisted in meeting with these his brethren who were his brethren no longer. And in their company he found again the faith he had lost: “My Lord and my God!”

Blessed indeed is the man whose perplexities and doubts do not prove such a stumbling block that he falls headlong into his own Aceldama.

What an amazing gospel is this when not taking offence is accounted a great blessing!

Funeral Oration

It is the way of men to praise an individual to his face and then be free with criticism behind his back. But with Jesus it was the opposite. Even whilst John’s messengers were going away Jesus addressed the multitude in a sustained encomium of the imprisoned prophet, lest they should assume any kind of rift between the two preachers or draw the mistaken conclusion that John was to be denigrated. It was, so it turned out, John’s funeral oration, for within a short while he was devilishily done to death.

First, Jesus reminded the crowd of how in earlier days they had flocked in their thousands to hear John’s preaching: “What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?” Would such multitudes follow a weakling? Was John no better than a bamboo growing by the waters of Jordan? — slender, insubstantial, blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine. They knew that was not John’s character, neither formerly nor now in prison.

“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that are gorgeously apparelled…are in kings’ courts”. The Lord’s irony intensified. All remembered the primitive simplicity of John’s way of life. They hardly needed the pointer given them by Jesus to make contrast with the Herodians. This party included in their ranks scribes who out of self-interest tried to reconcile in their own practice the study of the Scriptures with the sycophancy and self-indulgence of courtiers. Instead John had had the courage to rebuke openly the licentiousness of the king, and was now paying the price of his loyalty to the law of God.

“But what went ye out for to see?” Here the tone of Jesus changed dramatically. “A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet”. What did he mean? It was the prime function of the prophets of Israel to communicate the will of God to the people, and especially to teach concerning the promised Messiah-’the sufferings of the Christ and the glory that should follow.” In this John, the subject of prophecy as well as its vehicle, surpassed them all, for he was the personal forerunner of Christ, the one who prepared the way with an imperative message of repentance, the one who baptized him in Jordan, and who announced him to the nation. No other prophet could match John for importance. By his personal contact with Christ, John had rivalled even Moses’ outstanding role: “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee” (Mt. 3:1; cp. Ex. 23:20 LXX). There is a delightful pun here in the original: “Not malaka (soft raiment), but malaki (my messenger)”-and the Lord then quoted from Malachi.

Details to be noted in this Malachi quotation are: (1) its context: “the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple”- “Art thou he that should come?” John had asked; (2) the change of pronouns-words originally spoken with reference to “me”, Jehovah, are now applied to “thee”, His Messiah; thus indirectly Jesus reasserted what John had heard at Jordan: “This is my beloved Son”.

None Greater

The Lord’s eulogium came to its climax with the words: “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women (Job. 14:1; 15:14) there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist (cp. Lk. 1:15? Contrast Mt. 3:11): notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”.

What other servant of God has ever merited such high approval? John was no “minor character” of the Bible. The meagre appreciation accorded to his work and personality nowadays is a poor tribute to his worth compared with the warm and generous words spoken publicly by Jesus.

But who is the “lesser one in the kingdom of heaven” to whom Jesus gave even higher status? An explanation often canvassed is that here Jesus made indirect allusion to himself (the “greater” in the kingdom being the Father Himself). This interpretation is not impossible, though it has been much pooh-poohed by many commentators (because of their trinitarian prejudices?).

To say, alternatively, that any glorified disciple in the age to come will be greater than John preaching or John in prison is to turn the words of Jesus into an irrelevant platitude. Such a reading also ignores the present tense of the verb: “is greater”.

There is a better alternative. John was a forerunner. His personal contacts with Jesus were only occasional and brief. By contrast, the humble believer then in the crowd following Jesus was vastly better off-seeing his miracles, hearing his teaching, and even enjoying his companionship! It had been said concerning Moses: “With him will I speak mouth to mouth…and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold.” yet this highest experience of Moses hardly compared with the superlative privileges of a disciple in the company of the Son of God in Galilee.

“The kingdom suffereth violence”

The next saying of Jesus was, if anything, even more problematic: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” The most popular reading of these words is to take them as a picture of the unrestrained popular enthusiasm with which first John and then Jesus had been received by the multitudes.

This is hardly satisfactory. For, in the first place, as an interpretation it simply does not fit the facts. Every indication supplied by the gospels, ouside their earliest chapters, points to the conclusion that John’s mission was essentially a failure-as the ensuing words of Jesus at this time go to emphasize.

Also the Lord was to repeat the same saying (Lk. 16:16) at a time in his ministry when it was manifestly not true that the nation was demonstrating an overmastering eagerness to take hold of his teaching! In any case, to read the words in this way is to give them a highly unnatural flavour.

The key phrases imply a bad meaning. For example: At Sinai “let not the people break through to come up unto the Lord” (Ex. 19:24), forcing themselves unwarrantably into the divine presence. Peter has the same idea, but not the same word, when he warns that “they that are unlearned and unstable wrest” the epistles of Paul (2 Pet. 3:16).

Therefore, far more likely is the opposite view that Jesus was reminding his hearers of how after the early days of success the message proclaimed by both John and himself was steadily losing its power to command real loyalty. Popular enthusiasm was superficial. Repeated efforts (some of them successful) had been made by “the establishment” to erode the high idealism of their teaching. Herod and the Pharisees were now openly hostile. And the word “failure”, already appropriate to John’s mission, was soon to be equally applicable to the appeal of Jesus.

After the first flush of enthusiasm, and in a true fundamental sense, the nation had not been willing to receive the message of John. Otherwise, they would not have needed his witness to Jesus, and Herod would not have dared flout public opinion by throwing the prophet into prison. All of this the Lord now underlined with the ominous words: “If ye are willing to receive him, this is Elijah, the one who is to come”. The AV reading here: “if ye will receive it”, is clearly incorrect. It is not the people’s understanding of the Malachi prophecy which is in question at this point, but the vindication of John. Nor, in any case, was there any doubt about their willingness to believe this Scripture, as Mt. 17:10 makes very evident.

Reactions

At this point in Luke’s record there is a short section (v. 29, 30) which reads as though it is not a continuation of the words of Jesus but a parenthetic comment by Luke. Even though the words at the beginning of verse 31: “And the Lord said”, have no adequate support from the manuscripts, they evidently represent the understanding of the early church that the two preceding verses are not the words of Jesus. This seems to be right. The passage reads more naturally as part of Luke’s report than as a continuation of the Lord’s discourse.

Thus, “having heard, all the people and the publicans justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John”, corresponds to Christ’s reminder, just spoken, of their early enthusiasm: “What went ye out for to see?”. And the antithesis: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him”, has its counterpart in the words: “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence” (cp. Ps. 107:11).

The common people “justified God” in the sense that by receiving baptism they acknowledged themselves unrighteous and that God is the only righteous One, especially in His Condemnation of sin, which condemnation the rite of baptism openly declared. But more than this, that baptism also brought them a justification which was all of God’s providing.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, by their refusal of baptism as good as asserted that they had no need of it. Thus they set aside the counsel of God which came to them through their prophets and especially through John: “All flesh is grass”.

The same is true to this day. When a man thrusts aside or deviously evades the obedience of Christ in baptism he is rejecting the counsel of God – though, in that case, there will one day be another counsel of God against himself which he will in no wise be able to shrug off. Why are men such fools as to prefer the society of self-justifying Pharisees to that of obedient baptized believers?

Children in the Market Place

Jesus forthwith summed up this wilfulness in a parable straight out of life. There are some children who will not join in the fun of a good game, no matter what it is, simply because it is not their game. “We have piped unto you”, say the others, “and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not wept”. Be it weddings or funerals, these sulky ones hold aloof because instead of being assigned the leading role they are asked to follow the lead of someone else. No co-operation, no jollity, only petulant selfishness! Yet even here the mind of Jesus could not come away from the Old Testament. Michal despised the dancing of David (2 Sam. 6:16-23). And now the same attitudes regarding the Son of David. Yet weddings instead of funerals were a dominant theme of the Messianic prophecies Jesus had just alluded to (ls. 61:1, 3, 10; 62:4).

John had appeared, an unconventional but solemn figure with an austere unpalatable message, and these Pharisees, eyeing his camel-hair garment and scorning his diet of locusts and wild honey, gave the nation their opinion of him: “The man’s mad!”

Within a year there was another figure on the scene. Jesus of Nazareth was not ascetic. He mixed with every stratum of society. They saw him at weddings, in the impressive houses of despised publicans, in the humble cottages of the poor. To him it was all the same. Jesus would accept the hospitality of any man. So the Pharisees fastened on this and envenomed their criticism: “Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners” (cp. Lk. 5:30). And did not the Law of Mpses command that the rebellious son, a glutton and a drunkard, be stoned with stones, to put away such evil from Israel (Dt. 21:20, 21)? Half of this accusation was absolutely true, the rest a plausible slander cleverly evolved out of a deft perversion of the facts.

It was ever so. The finest and most innocent of men are not immune from the smear tactics of evil-minded critics set on character assassination. “And (thus)”, commented Jesus, not without a sharp-edged irony, “wisdom is justified of all her children”. Those who were true children of the wisdom of God showed it in their humble acceptance of baptism and their ready adherence to Christ. Those who preened themselves on their powers of judgement and turned away in scorn from the God-sent teachers among them, showed, for all to see, the quality of the “wisdom” that was in them. (The A B C C B A structure of Lk. 7:32-35 points to this kind of interpretation).

Notes: Mt.11:2-19

Lk. 7:34

“Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth.” The Lord’s teaching on how to live the New Life was bound to be seriously incomplete if it laid down no principles about a right attitude to money, for in the minds of millions money is the great reality in life.

Pharisee righteousness had been shown to be bogus. So also Pharisee wealth – that which they chose to esteem as a God-given reward for their righteousness.

Jesus was too practical in outlook to deny money a place in the lives of his disciples, but the smaller the part it can be made to play the better. For the pursuit of riches is worse than the pursuit of pleasure. Appetite for the latter becomes sated, and in any case palls with advancing years. But not so the lure of wealth. For, no matter how much money a man accumulates, he always has some satanic reason for wanting more, if only as an insurance policy against the loss of what he has already accumulated.

Again, motive!

The corrective Jesus applies is in the two words: “for yourselves”. In this field, as in so many other aspects of human activity, all depends on a man’s motive. It is when the owner of wealth regards the money as his that it becomes “a root of all kinds of evil”. But what a need there is for a scrupulously honest attitude of mind in this. The heart of man is self-deceiving. How it can delude its owner into a state of “let’s pretend”! So easily a man may persuade himself that his money-making motives and intentions are right, when in fact they hide from himself his own true ambitions and aspirations. He is a rare individual indeed who can live the simple life whilst accumulating wealth to be turned to good account in the service of God.

“Moth and rust corrupt”

Desire for money and for yet more money is all too often an expression of fear. Men and women seek security in life, and money is their way to achieve it-so they think! But Jesus says differently, for “moth and rust corrupt”. This is strange language to apply to gold and silver, which all the world knows to be marvellously durable. Yet here is Christ saying that gold is flimsy as the garment on your back, and that your silver is unsightly and corroded as if it were old iron. Peter picked up this perspective from his Lord, caustically reminding that a Christian’s redemption is “not with corruptible things, as silver and gold.” Instead, still quoting Jesus, there is “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pet. 1:18, 4).

James also: “Go to now, ye rich men … Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you” (5:1-3). But here James seems deliberately to switch to another word for “rust” in order to link up with Ezekiel’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (24:6 AV: scum).

In modern terms (the Lord’s warning implies) not only will your elegant clothes and curtains and carpets get the moth in them, and your fine cars rust away, but also your stock-market investments are subject to slump, your real estate may be taken over by the government, your accumulation of valuables is an incitement to burglary. Wealth, your main security, is itself not secure. So says the wisdom of the Book of Proverbs. “Do not slave to get wealth; be a sensible man, and give up. Before you can look round, it will be gone; it will surely grow wings like an eagle, like a bird in the sky” (23:4, 5 NEB).

In another place there is the warning: “One in a hurry to grow rich will not go unpunished” (28:20 NEB), the point here being that when money-making is a man’s target his moral principles become elastic and he is tempted to adopt shady methods in order to achieve his aim the more efficiently.

Paul’s commentary

Paul’s exhortation to the wealthy reads like a running commentary on the precepts of his Lord, without actual quotation of the words: “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded (the normal reaction of the well-to-do being precisely this, that they think themselves in the “upper class” in more ways than one), nor have their hope set on the uncertainly of riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute (out of their material prosperity), willing to communicate (that is, to share fellowship); laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come (here is the true “security”), that they may lay hold on that which really is life” (1 Tim. 6:17-19). Here, there is the build up of the same kind of antithesis as was made by Jesus: “But lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven … for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” It is an appeal to his disciples to see the worldly life and the life in Christ in their proper proportions. In the same way Paul, switching from literal riches to the figurative, proceeded to exhort Timothy to “guard the deposit” (6:20), as though he were a banker holding in trust valuable moneys on behalf of his clients, the ecclesia.

Rich and Poor alike

It is important to note that the Lord addressed his warning about the uncertain “security” of wealth to rich and poor alike. This is seen from the allusion to “treasure in heaven…where thieves do not dig through nor steal.” Palestine is a country of fine limestone where all save the poorest had solidly-built stone dwellings, whether big or small. But the verb “dig through” implies the poorest class of all, living in cottages of dried mud. Jesus was not taken in by appearances. He knew that, whether a man has five pounds in a Post Office savings account or whether he has a bulky portfolio of investments in government securities, he thinks more of his money than almost everything else. The exception to this rule is rare indeed.

The positive counsel: “Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven”, can only mean, in this context: “Let your use of money be directed by the highest, and not mere mundane, considerations.” There are, of course, in the lives of all, the normal day-to-day expenditures which are an integral part of one’s routine. Jesus spoke of one’s attitude to the overplus which the ordinary worldling would regard as “treasure” to be laid up either against the proverbial rainy day or with a view to a self-indulgent spending spree later on.

And the spirit of the Lord’s teaching carries also the unspoken precept: And let your personal self-discipline see to it that that overplus is as large as possible. His word to the rich young ruler was: “Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me” (Mt. 19:21). And after much hesitation and sorrow he did just that (see Study 148). By contrast with him the portrait of the Rich Fool in the parable (Lk. 12:16) was painted from the real-life experience of thousands.

In Luke the context of these words is somewhat different but the lesson is the same: “Sell that ye have and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens J that faileth not … For where your treasure isl there will your heart be also” (12:33, 34). Thus Jesus teaches one of the secrets of learning how to love other people: Practice generosity towards them; the effect will be greater on you than on them.

This counsel is all of it palpably good and right, and yet human nature will not have it. It goes too much against the grain. Jesus foresaw this also. He therefore proceeded immediately to a serious warning against dishonest thinking. There is a big temptation, when faced with the exacting idealism of Jesus, to react with: “Well, of course, the Lord does not really mean this” -and then to go on to interpret or “bend” his teaching so as to bring it down to a lower, more matter-of-fact, and therefore more palatable, level. “Take thy bill and write fifty.”

Self-examination

So Jesus bade his disciples look well to their motives: “The lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness.”

There is no man without a power of self-awareness, which enables him, with greater or less efficiency, to scrutinize his own mental processes, prejudices, and emotions. This is what is meant by the remarkable proverb: “The spirit (mind) of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly” (Pr. 20:27) – and here “belly” is a metonymy for a man’s natural appetites. In some this remarkable faculty can be so acutely developed as to come near to making life miserable. In others it may be so smothered and stultified over the years through dishonest thinking as almost to atrophy altogether- and then “how great is that darkness”!

The Lord’s warning against self-deception regarding the right use of money needs to be taken with the utmost seriousness. Incessantly a man should be scrutinizing his own motives and intentions with as scrupulous honesty as he can muster. Without this inner light flooding every corner of his soul, he will almost certainly continue, or end up, attempting that which Jesus declared impossible.

Attempting the impossible

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” There is no adequate ground for believing that there was a Syrian god called Mammon. The word was commonly used in a bad sense to describe riches. It is probably derived from a Hebrew or Aramaic root which means “causing to trust” -an apt summary of the confidence people repose in their wealth.

Jesus was quite unequivocal. The service of God is incompatible with the service of mammon. The two cannot be successfully undertaken together. It is to be noted, also, that Jesus did not envisage the possibility of mammon being a slave to its owner. Only the reverse relationship is possible, that is, unless God is the master. Yet in every generation there are plenty of those bearing the name of Christ who think they know better than their Lord. They can serve both God and mammon. At least they are not prepared to admit defeat until they have spent long dedicated years in the attempt.

It is possible to sort out with precision the application of this vivid vigorous picture of a slave frantic and disorganized in his attempts to carry out simultaneously the instructions of two radically different masters. Since no man would go so far as to hate God, it must be the other way round-either he will hate mammon, and love God; or else he will hold on to mammon, and despise God.

In experience this is how it works out. The disciple of Christ who really loves the service of God comes to positively hate mammon for the large part which, willy-nilly, it insists on playing in his life. On the other hand when a man holds on to mammon, it is because (as the Greek text implies) this is where his real confidence and dependence is. Thus he despises God, as one unable to provide the help and support which he thinks he can count on from his money.

As a community how do we stand when assessed on the basis of the rigorous principles enunciated here? What manner of persons are we, and what manner ought we to be? Is there much difference?

Notes: Mt. 5:19-24

Lk.12

In the parable of the Sower, “the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches” (Mt. 13:22) are identified by Jesus as the influences most powerful in men’s lives to choke the growth or the new spiritual life. So, appropriately, the Sermon on the mount deals with these side by side.

It is well-known that when the Lord said: “Take no thought for your life”, he meant: “Do not be anxious”, or-a trifle more accurately-”Stop worrying!

Luke has also another somewhat unexpected word (12:29) translated rather doubtfully: “neither be ye of doubtful mind”. This reading leaves most students in doubtful mind as to its correctness. Six times the LXX has it in the sense of “uplifted”- “though thou exalt thyself as the eagle”(Obad. 4). In that case the Lord may be saying: ‘ In this matter of food and clothes, don’t try to keep up with the Joneses’ -a not unnecessary admonition for the moderns who are fashion and affluence conscious.

LXX also (four times) uses a very similar word for ocean billows, thus suggesting the meaning; ‘Cease to agitate yourself over these things like a wild sea with uplifted waves.’ This meaning has in its favour an interesting passage in James which in its context seems to look back to the Sermon on the mount: “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed” (1:6).

In these days of the affluent society, the commandment: “Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or, “Wherewithal shall we be clothed?” seems to be completely irrelevant except in a very different sense! Yet even today many in the family of God find that the provision of the basic necessities of living means an unremitting struggle. In the Palestine of our Lord’s day, with all its acute social inequality, there was much hard grinding poverty, so that for many parents how to clothe the children and how to fill their bellies next day, must have been problems rarely out of mind.

It has been suggested that this year of the ministry was a sabbath year, bringing special worries regarding food supply, but also giving people leisure from work so that they could flock to Jesus in crowds. The following passages may have a bearing on this thesis: Mt. 6:11, 12, 26; 9:38; 12:8; Lk. 4:19; Jn. 6:11, 12.

The warnings of Jesus regarding worry are just as needful today as ever they were. Human nature is more than capable of making itself miserable over aspects of life.

Young people worry about passing examinations, about their careers, and especially about their boy-girl friendships. The aged get anxious regarding their personal needs in declining days and who will care for them in protracted illness. Parents never cease to worry about their children — about their health, their progress at school, their friendships and moral outlook. And the middle-aged, who should have learned some degree of poise and maturity from their experience of life, are perhaps worst of all, if only because of the evident and inevitable signs of declining physical powers. And the number of those, of all ages, who have made life a burden to themselves and to many others through inability to accept a situation which they cannot mend, is positively countless. For all such the message of Jesus, based on the primitive example of food and clothes, can be a wonderful help. More than this, it can be a cure.

But the problem is an enormous one. Jesus did not underestimate it or treat it lightly as a trivial neurosis which a man can shrug off for himself.

So, contrary to his usual authoritarian style, Jesus proceeded to reason long and logically about this ingrained weakness so common in his followers. He catalogued nine separate reasons for a new and better outlook regarding the problems in life which steal a man’s sleep and give him ulcers.

Notes: Mt. 6:25-34

Lk. 12:32

In sharp contrast with the patient sustained reasoning in his discourse about the sin of worry, Jesus became peremptory regarding the universal human foible of sitting in judgement (condemnation) on the actions and motives of others. This he curtly proscribed: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” The Greek imperative neatly implies: ‘You already have the bad habit (true of everybody!). You are to stop it!’

No word he spoke was more needed, or less heeded. To make censorious assessment of the character and behaviour and even the intentions of others is a human sin which is more often than not reckoned almost a virtue. Men-and, even more, women-pride themselves on being able to read character and discern motives. And always these demonic abilities contrive to minister to personal pride. For, behind every unspoken censure of one’s fellow is the tacit self-congratulation: “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not as he.” Yet at that very moment the Lord is probably grieving that the self-appointed judge is himself ripe for condemnation.

There is about this common critical spirit a rank unfairness which mostly goes unrecognized. Paul put it bluntly in his apostrophe to “whosoever thou are that judgest”: “Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things…And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God” (Rom. 2:1, 3). Often enough – such being the power of the human mind for self-deceit-this is what happens.’’ *

Then does this mean that no reprobation of the actions of another should ever be spoken, or even thought? Are there not precepts enough in the New Testament bidding the Lord’s people assess and reject false teaching and evil ways of life?

Very true! But there is also, alas, the unattractive habit of passing censure on how other people behave. The principles of Christian living can often be interpreted or applied with different degrees of austerity or idealism, and then there is a temptation to write off the discipleship of others as paltry or lukewarm.

However, Paul insists that how believers express in practice their understanding of the Lord’s precepts rests between them and their Master: “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ…Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way” Rom. 14:4, 10, 13).

And again: “I know nothing by (RV: against) myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come” (1 Cor. 4:4, 5).

Yet in the next chapter (5:3, 11-13) Paul requires the strongest repudiation of one whose way of life was not open to anything but an evil interpretation. It was as blatant a case as could be imagined.

There is a difference, then, which calls for careful discrimination. If a thing said or done is plainly condemned by Scripture, then for certain it is not the individual who passes judgement, but God in His inspired Word. And indeed in such instances there can be no better way of rebuking the manifest evil than by means of the specific Bible passage relevant to the situation.

It becomes evident, then, that the kind of judging Jesus specially warns against is the passing of judgement on other peoples’ motives. In such an activity even an inspired Bible ceases to be an infallible guide. The words of Jesus are a warning that, almost always, a man’s actions may be susceptible of more than one interpretation. And those who look for mercy for themselves in the Day of Account will surely wish to extend the same to their fellows. “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Just as forgiving others is required as the needful accompaniment of one’s own forgiveness by God, so also in this matter of assessing and condemning the motives of others: “With what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged.” Lex Talionis once again!

“With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” The two parts of the Lord’s pronouncement do not carry exactly the same meaning. The first refers to the formation of an adverse opinion, the second to the action taken on the basis of it.

The Apostle James’ caustic comment on these nefarious activities was doubtless written with his Lord’s words in mind: “He shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy” (Jas. 2:13). And, alas, these unspoken verdicts on others are mostly without mercy just because they are unspoken!

Another reason why human beings indulge in this illicit activity is because they are persuaded that it does their fellows no harm The judgement is not uttered, so what damage can it possibly do? This assumption is false. Fellowship is seriously impeded. It is impossible to harbour a critical attitude towards one’s brother in Christ and at the same time express a true warmth of fellowship towards him. Maintaining a facade of fellowship may even bring in yet more hypocrisy. Without doubt, those who practise this kind of thing are themselves soiled by it. The corrosive influence of such a habit may be disastrous.

So, from every point of view, the wisdom of Christ should prevail, sweeping away all indulgence in this poisonous human penchant for passing judgement on the motives of others.

The hyperbole in the illustration used by Jesus the carpenter’s son deserves to be made more clear in translation than it has been. The “mote” is a tiny twig or splinter. In the only other occurrence of this Greek word it is used concerning the olive leaf in the beak of Noah’s dove (Gen. 8:11 LXX). And the “beam” is precisely what it is in modern building-a plank or baulk of timber. This word was used, for example, of the massive cedar pillars or boards in Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs. 6:15, 16).

Thus the grotesque picture conjured up by the Lord’s words is of a man vexed and irritated by some tiny foreign body in his eye; he is offered solicitous help by another who himself has a great plank of timber ruining his own vision. How is such a would-be “helper” in any position even to ascertain whether there is a mote in his brother’s eye? Much less is he able effectively to remove it!

The careful manner of the Lord’s rebuke is to be observed here. As was usual with him, it is couched in the form of a question: “Why beholdest thou…?” And if any man will stop to ask himself this question and supply an honest answer, there will be more ready recognition of how honest judgement can be clouded by self-esteem. David the wife-stealer could explode with righteous indignation against ruthless expropriation of a lamb until Nathan brought conscience back to life with his “Thou art the man!”(2 Sam. 12:5-7).

One searching question is followed by another: “How wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye…?” Again, the honest answer to this question will expose the pretence of good will and helpfulness. Here, in fact, is superior self-satisfaction and the indulgence of a love of exercising authority. Pride! Luke’s version (6:42) is specially telling with its palpably insincere: “Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye…”

Appropriately Jesus continued his exposure with the stinging rebuke: “Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye” – and for this you will need your brother’s help! The incisive reproof is not to be gainsaid. Contemplation of this accurate diagnosis will make any honest disciple recoil from himself with shame.

And the obvious corollary is to leave all censure of others, which is not already pronounced by Holy Scripture, to the one who has neither beam nor mote in his own eye – Jesus, the one “without blemish and without spot”(cp. Jn. 8:7).

Rather unexpectedly, Luke introduces here the mini-parable about the blind leading the blind (6:39). This suggests the importance of self-criticism in one who is a leader in the ecclesia. If his own spiritual insight be impaired by a beam in the eye, or a mote, he will involve others in his own downfall. There have been sad examples of this.

This sustained and almost over-emphatic warning against judging others is followed immediately by a startling contrast — an instruction to be diligent in judging unworthy men, assessing their true character and dealing with them accordingly: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again, and rend you” (7:6).

This warning can be applied only when a dog shows himself to be a dog, or a hog a hog, and not until. A careful weighing of a man’s behaviour is clearly necessary. So some attempt at “judging” him is implied. But this commandment does not concern one who is a “brother” (v. 3-5). It is about the one to whom you have something holy to offer which he has not had hitherto. The distinction is important. “He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame…Reprove not a scorner lest he hate thee…” (Pr. 9:7, 8). “Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words” (23:9).

The dogs Jesus alluded to were not the faithful domesticated family pets known to the modern western world, but the wild and savage ownerless beasts which roamed the streets of all eastern cities. “Giving that which is holy to dogs” was probably intended to conjure up the mental picture of a man throwing to these fierce uncontrollable animals the sacrifice which should have been offered up to God or shared with one’s brethren in a meal of holy fellowship before the Lord.

And the parallelism suggests that the “pearls” which Jesus pictured being cast to swine were not the lustrous jewels which women prize but the small pearl-like grains of manna (see Num. 11:7) which God provided for Israel in their wilderness journey.

A proper appreciation of the true force of these figures of speech helps towards a right and proper application of the principle enunciated here. To write a man off at first superficial acquaintance as “dog” or “swine” unworthy to hear the message of salvation in Christ is clearly not a right use of these words, but is more likely to be the refuge of a man of idle or timid spirit dodging his duty as a witness for the Truth.

Peter was not deterred from preaching the gospel on the Day of Pentecost because some said: “These men are full of new wine” (Acts 2:13). And when Paul stood before worldlings like Felix, Festus, and Agrippa, he was more concerned to ensure that even such as they should hear the gospel than he was about his own freedom.

A more likely application of this teaching would be as a warning against opening up the inner riches of one’s faith to one who has already shown himself to be critical or hostile. Such an individual is not to be invited, for example, to the holiness of a Breaking of Bread service or a prayer meeting or a discussion on principles of fellowship. The tabernacle in the wilderness was shut off from the ordinary world by a wall of dazzling white linen to remind men of the holiness of the God they worshipped.

In another respect the Lord’s words have been misconstrued. The introversion in the structure of this precept is easily missed. “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs…lest they turn and rend you. Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.” Here is warning that evil men may not only do despite to the message of Christ but may also do incalculable harm to the believer himself. For example, a caustic critic of the Truth, set on doing damage, could sear for all time the memories of those who were exposed to his caricature of the sacrament he witnesses. There are times, though happily not often in these days, when a due caution is to be observed.

Luke’s version of this section of the Sermon on the Mount has some significant and valuable differences.

He links “And judge not…” (RV) with the preceding: “Be ye perfect, even as your Father…”, but here he substitutes “merciful” for “perfect” – a clear indication, surely, that Jesus taught on these lines more than once. The antithesis between

mercy and judging is very striking.

Then comes a warm assurance not found elsewhere:

“Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down,

shaken together, running over shall men give into your bosom.”

But this is palpably untrue. It is very much the exception rather than the rule that men reward generosity with a vastly greater generosity. The difficulty disappears when it is recognized that the word “men” is not in the original text (see RV). When the unspecified “they” is taken to mean the angels, no further explanation is needed. Here is an emphatic assurance that the selfless life of a true disciple does not go uncared for or unrewarded.

But via a mini-parable there is warning against being led away by teachers who should be shunned and not followed: “Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?” Imagination supplies all the commentary that is needed. Then if a man choose to follow some human leader, how careful he should be to satisfy himself first that the true qualities of leadership are there, for “the disciple is not above his teacher.” Over the past century neglect of this simple admonition has led to not a few spiritual disasters. And so it continues.

If he is worth following, the teacher himself, like all other human beings, grows to a fulness of powers, a greater grasp of principles, a more balanced judgement, a keener insight, a more intense spiritual maturity. In these respects he will beneficently influence his disciples, so that in time disciple and teacher grow together to be brethren. How specially true of Christian discipleship!

There are, then, times when there must be pause to assess the quality of human leaders, but not so as to find satisfaction in censure.

Notes: Mt. 7:l-6

Lk. 6:36-42

Jesus turned from instruction and reproof regarding one’s disposition towards others, now to encourage right attitudes towards God and one’s own personal needs and aspirations.

In a nutshell, what he taught here was: If it is a genuine need, and you want it hard enough, God will give it you. But there must be importunity and purposeful personal dedication to the goal in view. This is indicated by the form of the verbs which the Lord used: “Keep on asking…keep on seeking…keep on knocking.”

These precepts of persistence each find their illustration in one of the Lord’s later parables. There was the widow who knew her cause was right and who therefore would not desist from her pleading, even though the character of the judge who could help her was in itself a massive discouragement (Lk. 18:1-8). There was the merchant man “seeking goodly pearls” (Mt. 13:45, 46). Implicit in this short parable is a picture of journeys undertaken far from home, of patient enquiries and yet more patient bargaining, of disciplined sacrifice of pearls already treasured, but also of ultimate acquisition and deep satisfaction. And there is the story (Lk. 11:5-8) of the householder who, because faced with the obligations of hospitality, beat ceaselessly on his neighbour’s door in the night to plead for the help which he could get from nowhere else. Indeed, this parable has all three elements asking, seeking, knocking.

The spirit of precept and parable is the same. A man must know what he wants, and must want it so badly that all his desires and energies are focussed on this one thing until the end is achieved. Alas, the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. The purposeful spirit of men in eagerly seeking their aims or desires on a more mundane material level so rarely carries over into the field of spiritual aspiration. Yet, clearly, it is these that Jesus was talking about. Whether it be understanding concerning the fulfilment of God’s Purpose in the world (Mt. 24:3), or wisdom to direct one’s life aright, or that of the ecclesia (Jas. 1:5, 6), or aid in the exacting work of preaching the gospel (Jn. 15:7), or deeper understanding of the work of Christ (Jn. 16:23-30), or help for a brother in spiritual low water (1 Jn.5:16)-whatever the need, if it be not selfishly materialistic, the Father stands ready to give the desired aid. The Lord’s repetition, which might be judged unnecessary, emphasizes this truth: “For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

It is clear that Jesus expected unbelief of these assurances (and how justified he has been in this!). So he went on to reason his case with a devastating logic and insight into human nature which are not to be gainsaid. Would a man mock his hungry child by offering him a stone to chew? And instead of the customary dried fish as appetizer, would he hand him a serpent or scorpion to scare or sting him? Such things-the first a mockery, the second and third positively dangerous-are unthinkable. “If you, then, bad as you are (and Jesus was addressing his close disciples!) know how to give your children what is good for them, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him!” (NEB). Jesus himself exemplified this by giving his hungry disciples both bread and fish (Mt. 14:19; 15:36; Jn. 21:9)-and this without their asking. And for those who do ask for fish his response is even better (Lk. 5:6, 10).

The realism about these words shows Jesus to be no starry-eyed air-borne enthusiast. He knew from personal experience the tremendous power of the ties of family affection. But he was not blind to the innate evil of human nature (Mt. 15:19). “Bad as you are!” – the phrase stresses: ‘This is your very nature!’ If even this ingrained selfishness can be swamped by parental instinct, then with how much more confidence may not the children of a God who is all loving-kindness look to Him in every need! (Cp. the argument in Lk. 18:6, 7.)

This counsel, which God’s sons accept so readily in theory and are yet so loth to profit by in practice, is the positive counterpart to what the Lord had taught a little while earlier regarding the danger and sin of worry. Both there and here his illustrations from ordinary experience were designed to bring faith and dependence on God into everyday life as a normal reality.

Yet is it not true in practice that men do ask God to satisfy their needs, they do seek wisdom and guidance from Him, they do knock at doors which He can open? – and then they positively forget to scrutinize their experience, whether soon or late, for the divine response. The children of God are not comfortable breathing the rarified atmosphere of the life of faith, although this is their native air. So it was not for nothing that Jesus said: “Keep on asking, keep on seeking, keep on knocking.”

Indeed, it is almost as though Jesus were saying, in modern phrase: “You can’t lose!” The hungry child in God’s family, asking for something to eat (as healthy children always do) and already taught to ask when hungry (Lk. 11:3, 5), will not be fobbed off with the mockery of a piece of stone. The worst of human parents, “being evil”, would hardly indulge in such mockery. And isn’t your Father in heaven the best of all possible parents in this world? The child clamouring for a fish to add flavour to his barley bread-would you dream of offering him an unclean eel or a deadly serpent? Will a stinging scorpion show your love for your little one asking for an egg? Then with what confidence may not God’s children come to Him and experience His opening the windows of heaven to pour forth blessing-not necessarily the blessing that is asked for, but certainly the blessing that is needed.

In Luke, the promised gift is “Holy Spirit”. It is doubtful if the absence of a definite article makes any difference to the meaning here. It might mean “a holy mind or disposition”. It might mean “the powers of the Holy Spirit” to aid the work of preaching the gospel (see Study 128 on vv. 5-8). Yet apparently Jesus had already given Holy Spirit powers to the Twelve and the Seventy (Mt. 10:1; Lk. 10:1).

Next follows an altogether unexpected inference from the simple but difficult principle just taught: “Therefore (because your heavenly Father is ready to show such liberality towards you), whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

The words were not unfamiliar to the ears of his disciples, for something rather similar had been enunciated as a leading principle of one of the two main rabbinic schools. Hillel, father of the Gamaliel who trained Saul of Tarsus, a pleasant humble man, had taught his followers: “What is hateful to thyself do not to thy fellow-man; this is the whole Law, the rest is commentary.” Jesus said the same, but stated it positively, and thereby widened its scope enormously, charging it with an idealism which is positively frightening. And he introduced it with an important “Therefore”, as though implying from the context: ‘God does good to you because that is His nature. But men are naturally evil. Therefore, if you would receive good from them, should you not first show that kind of divine goodness to them?’ The Lord does not add that such an attitude will infallibly succeed. But neither does God’s lavish goodness to all His creatures evoke that response (indeed, hardly ever!), yet is He never dissuaded, never discouraged.

In this all-embracing principle-doing to others as one would be done by–there is turned to positive usefulness the ingrained selfishness which is a natural trait of every man alive. Would he know his bounden duty to his fellows in the world or in the ecclesia? Then let him mentally change places and ask himself what he would most appreciate in friendship, understanding, practical aid, sympathy, fellowship. Few things said by Jesus are more wide-ranging in the impact they can make on daily life. Perhaps it is for this reason that this principle appears to be so rarely invoked. It is just too uncomfortable.

Notes: Mt. 7:7-12