The way in which Jesus had spoken about his disciples in terms of the temple and its place amongst the people of Israel may have given rise to uneasy doubts in their minds that he was set on a revolutionary replacement of all the venerated Mosaic order. Certainly he had already had serious clashes with the scribes and Pharisees because of drastic differences of religious attitude. Were these to be regarded as omens of yet greater divergences later? So an early definition of attitude, for his own sake and for his disciples’, was imperative.

It was true, in a sense, that Jesus was set on sweeping religious changes, but it was important for all to realise that these would not be destructive. It was a spiritual up-grading which Jesus sought: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.” The word ‘or” is important here, for the Sadducees claimed to uphold the Law, but rated the prophets as having less authority. The Pharisees, by their casuistry and emphasis on the letter rather than the spirit, unloosed (Gk.) the real authority of both Law and Prophets.

It should have been already evident to disciples and critics alike that the Scriptures of the Old Covenant were the very bed-rock of the teaching of Jesus: “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” That Jesus sought to bring down much of the traditional interpretation of the Scriptures was to become increasingly obvious. Through a large section of his Sermon on the Mount the refrain was to be: “Ye have heard that it hath been said… but I say unto you…” (5:21 – 6:18). But the Word of God was in no danger from the Son of God. How could it be? “I come not to destroy, but to fulfil.”

Yet, oddly enough, the main criticism made against Jesus by the religious leaders-and made repeatedly-was that he ignored explicit commandments of the Torah. The reason they returned time and again to the charge about sabbath-breaking was because here, as they thought, was a clear-cut issue, with their case fully demonstrated: Jesus of Nazareth is playing ducks and drakes with the Law of Moses, and yet he says: “I am not come to destroy.” The man’s a hypocrite!

But of course what Jesus was set on destroying was the dogmatic unspiritual literality of their interpretations which efficiently evacuated the Law of almost all its spiritual value.

The Law’s true authority

Whilst it is true that prophecy and type were to find their true reference and ultimate meaning in all that Jesus was and did (Lk. 24:44), his ensuing teaching at this time showed clearly enough that it was the filling out of the moral teaching of Law and Prophets which he had specially in mind. Indeed, the exacting character of the Law of Moses, as Jesus upgraded its precepts into principles, became more and more evident as he proceeded.

It is noteworthy that on the other occasions when Jesus used this comprehensive phrase, it was the moral and essentially religious content of the Old Scriptures which he had in mind: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Mt. 7:12). “On these two commandments (love of God and love of neighbour) hang all the law and the prophets” (22:40).

The searching and wide-ranging nature of his practical applications of familiar teaching was to leave his contempories aghast at the sheer impracticability (as they thought) of the idealism he now injected into the well-known words. Yet all that he did was to show men the true scope of the precepts of the Law of Moses, a teaching which men had demeaned by the spiritual small-mindedness they had brought to it.

Heaven and earth

So in very emphatic fashion Jesus re-instated what the Jews had lost and did not know they had lost: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (5:18).

Once again it is needful to stress that fulfilment of type and prophecy is not what these words mean (though doubtless that is included). The last phase would be better rendered: “till all things (concerning me) come to pass”; that is, till all my work as teacher and redeeming sacrifice has been accomplished. There is a strikingly similar usage in the familiar words of the Olivet prophecy; “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled (RV: come to pass). Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (24:34, 35). By this echo of Matthew 5,

Jesus clearly put Law and Prophets in the same category as his own teaching. It is a superb witness to the divine authority of the ancient Scriptures. (Also, compare Jn. 18:19 with 19:24.)

The fact that here Jesus did envisage the passing of “heavens and earth” shows that he intended the expression figuratively. This was a usage inherited straight from the prophet Isaiah. The following group of passages is prophetic of the passing of the old order and the inauguration of the New Creation in Christ:

“Lift up your eyes to heaven and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.” (Is. 51:6; cp. also Ps. 102:25-27 as used in Heb. 1:10-12).

“… lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up. And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people” (ls.51:16; cp. Jer.31:35, 36). Hence also, the fine words of the apostle Peter:

“Nevertheless we, according ‘to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet.3:13).

It is a radical failure to appreciate this prophetic idiom which has led zealots like the Seventh Day Adventists into an insistence on a highly inconsistent observance of certain parts of the Law of Moses, whilst carefully excluding much else which it contains.

The primary meaning, then, of this forthright declaration of Jesus was that for the time being all that the Law laid upon men went untouched and unquestioned: “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law”. The emphatic negative used here underscored the fundamental importance of this declaration. Here was the charter for his Jewish disciples to continue their adherence to Mosaic observance “till heaven and earth pass”, that is, until the time came when such observance was no longer possible because the temple and all it stood for would be swept utterly away.

But the rest of Matthew 5, with its startling “Ye have heard that it hath been said…but I say unto you…“demanded that these disciples now bring a better insight into the spiritual qualities of the Mosaic precept than the purblind literality of the scribes had been able to achieve.

Jot and Tittle

There is here also a pointed reminder of the importance of Bible details. The “jot” is the tiniest letter in Old Testament Hebrew-so tiny that very easily it could be overlooked by a copyist. The scribes, in their bibliolatry, had counted every yod in the text- 66, 420 of them -but their zeal did not extend to a like concern for the lesser principles of Old Testament teaching, which is what Jesus was really getting at.

The “tittle” was the very tiny “horn” or projection which distinguishes in Hebrew between a D and an R, a K and a B, an H and a CH. (see Ps.119). Just how drastic a difference in meaning can be introduced through the omission or inclusion of one of these is illustrated by the following pairs of readings, where in each case the changed meaning is due to a “tittle”:

1. “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord (profane the Lord)” (Ps. 150:6).
2. “There is none holy as the Lord” (1 Sam. 2:2) – “there is no holiness in the Lord.”
3. “Thou shalt worship no other God” (Ex. 34:14) – “Thou shalt not worship the One God.”

Great and least

Jesus was careful to make clear that he was not so much concerned with textual divergences of this sort, important though they are, as with the serious effect on godliness and holy living which superficial interpretations might be responsible for. “Whosoever therefore shall unloose (not ‘break’, as AV) one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Except the righteousness you teach surpasses what scribes and Pharisees teach, there is no hope of the kingdom for you.

There is here an impressive combination of severity and graciousness. How greatly the special responsibility of the teacher is accentuated! “My brethren, be not many teachers, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment” (Jas. 3:l RV). Yet it is to be noted that although “least”, such an one may be “in the kingdom of heaven” (cp.1 Cor. 3:15) — a conclusion markedly at variance with the attitude so often and so dogmatically adopted by certain purists.

On the other hand, “ whosoever shall do and teach them (these least commandments), the same shall be called great (but not greatest) in the kingdom of heaven.” The one who fulfils either of these functions, but not the other has no title to be called “great”. Yet, strangely enough, the “little child” who is humble enough to be instructed is called “the greater” (Mt. 18:4 RVm).

It seems almost possible to construct the Lord’s scale of values thus:

The greatest in the kingdom is, of course, Jesus himself.

The greater is the one who, as a little child, humbly learns and obeys.

The great is he who both does and teaches true principles.

The least is he who unlooses the force of commandments, and teaches this.

And he is nothing who is a stark literalist missing the spirit of the commandment.

The Lord rounded off this segment of his teaching with an open repudiation of the strict Judaism of his day: “Except your righteousness (the righteousness you teach or the righteousness you practise?) shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Clearly he spoke here of a future kingdom. No other meaning makes sense.

And he declared this with a sublime assumption of authority which must have taken men’s breath away. The prophets said: “Thus saith the Lord”. The apostles: “as it is written”. The scribes: “Rabbi So-and-So saith.” But Jesus’ word was: “I say unto you.”

Notes: Mt. 5:17-20

Jesus now proceeded to give six examples of what “fulfilling the law and the prophets” was to mean for his disciples.

Each of them is introduced in the same formal style: “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time… but I say unto you… “ The translation here could read: “said to them of old time”. Which is correct? It seems possible that Jesus framed his words to suggest both. His first three re-enunciations of principle certainly start from the Ten Commandments (6, 10, 7). In that case, “said by” alludes to the way the Law was ministered through angels (the Greek word clearly implies a divine pronouncement; and the single word for “them of old time” echoes one of the New Testament words for angels).

On the other hand, “said to” seems right because of the Lord’s deliberate parallelism: “I say unto you”.

In each case which he cited Jesus made no change in the divine law, but the expanded scope of these precepts which he now laid on his disciples is positively frightening in its idealism.

The familiar and simple “Thou shalt not kill” had been traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of murder. Accordingly, the legal principle had been added that a murderer must be brought to trial: “Whosoever shall kill shall be liable to judgement” (Dt. 19:6).

Jesus insisted that this limitation of the commandment to literal killing was a purblind ignoring of a much wider field of human experience to which it was intended to apply: “I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.”

Is all anger wrong?

It has been much questioned whether the phrase: “without a cause” has a rightful place here. The weight of manuscript evidence is decidedly stronger in favour of its retention. But in any case this is plainly the Lord’s intention. It cannot be that he meant to censure all anger as damnable. Already in his own public work there had been open expressions of wrath in his cleansing of the temple (Jn. 2:13-17) and on the occasion of his healing of the man’s withered hand in the synagogue, “he looked round on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts” (Mk. 3:5). And at the end of his ministry there was to come that violent explosion of denunciation of Pharisaic hypocrisy which by no stretch of imagination can be read as a sorrowful head-shaking over the mistakes of misguided men.

So anger is not wrong in itself. Yet in all honesty the fact has to be faced that nearly all anger is evil. Jesus says it is so evil as deserving to be bracketed with murder. Many would agree readily enough that the intention, held back maybe only by fear of consequences, is like the act itself. But Jesus goes a good deal further that that. He declares the attitude of mind of the angry man to be one of murder. His word for “angry” (v. 22) implies personal involvement and a deliberate hostility, not a detached judicial anger (if there be such a thing). Men may choose to make a distinction between anger and murder, but he-Jesus-will have none ot this whittling down or limitation of the Sixth Commandment.

The apostle John got the message, and repeated it in plain style: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” (1 Jn. 3:15). But that withering apodosis is made easier to the soul by the context’s implication that the Love Feast John writes about changes a man’s status from “murderer” to forgiven sinner.

Deeper Principle

In the Beatitudes the way had already been prepared for a drastic switch of emphasis from concern with that which is outward and visible to that which has to do with disposition, attitude of mind, motive and intention. These, Jesus was to insist over and over again, are the realities of a man’s life, and it is these (and not the other) which God takes account of.

Essentially by his very attitude of mind the angry man is either displaying a serious lack of perspective as to what is and what is not important in life, or else he is choosing to anticipate the Day of Judgment, censuring the deeds and words of his fellows according to his own measure, as though-forsooth!-his assessment represents the ultimate moral standard.

The Law of Moses itself taught recognition that circumstances alter cases. A man may slay and yet be innocent: “If he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him anything without laying of wait, or with any stone wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the avenger of blood” (Num. 35:22-25). Here judges were bidden ascertain (as far as was humanly possible) a man’s motive and intention and to judge accordingly.

Suppose, then, that the intention is there in a man’s heart, but is not expressed in violent action. Jesus assesses such a man as guilty before God. A man’s violent expression of contempt, his bitter censure of the act or motive of his brother-these bring him under condemnation of an infallible heavenly tribunal. “He who searches the hearts” recognizes these symptoms of a nature which is still unregenerate, no matter what the formal protestations of godly zeal or single-mindedness.

The difficulty (v. 22) of progression in the threefold penalties-judgement, Sanhedrin, Gehenna fire-without any perceptible progression in the three charges: “anger…Raca…fool”, has long been recognized.

It seems possible that Matthew expected his readers to recognize an A-B-A-B structure of this passage, thus:

Whether or not this is the correct way of reading the words, there is no missing the intensely exacting standard of the Lord’s idealism here. Anger is not just a peccadillo; it is not a small, fairly respectable, fault; it is a serious evil.

In the example of opprobrium cited by Jesus, Raca means a bad character, recognized as such by all society. It means also a rebel against God (2 Chr. 13:7; Ps. 2:1). It was used by Michal, David’s wife, in biting sarcasm when she saw her husband wearing a priestly ephod and dancing blithely at the bringing of the ark to Zion (2 Sam. 6:20).

It is, of course, obvious that these are only examples of an attitude of mind which Jesus was holding up for reprobation. One is not at liberty to avoid these literal expressions, whilst at the same time indulging the same evil frame of mind by the choice of other epithets!

Anger against a Brother

It is to be observed, also, that what makes this censorious anger specially evil in the sight of God is that it should be expressed to a brother in Christ, one towards whom the bonds of the gospel should pre-dispose one’s sympathies and understanding, and not one’s animosity.

A simple logical consequence of this incisive and far-reaching dictum of Christ is this: the right and proper reaction to any manifestation of bad feeling from a brother in the Lord should not be an automatic response in kind such as is normal with human nature, but rather a sense of regret and pity that one knowing the mind and spirit of the Lord should choose to follow such unworthy standards and so store up judgment against himself in the Last Day.

Reconciliation

It follows therefore that when such an unhappy situation exists, in which one brother cherishes resentment or a grudge against another whether in any way justified or not, then he who is the object of this bad feeling should act with the utmost urgency and promptitude to restore harmony: “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (v. 23, 24; cp. Mk. 11:25; Ps. 26:6).

The vividness of this illustration of brotherly concern in action is very striking. The Israelite has brought his sacrificial animal, “without blemish and without spot”, to the sanctuary for sacrifice. At the altar, as the priest is about to slay it, there is recollection of a brother’s soreness of spirit because of some serious difference of opinion. “Stay your hand”, he cries, and forthwith rushes out of the temple court in search of his brother and reconciliation. The priest is left there, knife in hand, wondering what has come over the man. A while later the offerer returns with a relaxed satisfied look on his face. The ceremony of sacrifice can now proceed.

By a picture of this kind the Lord taught vividly that where there is no will to put away anger between brethren, reconciliation with God is impossible. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Ps. 66:18). But just as it takes two to make a quarrel, so also it takes two to mend one. Therefore if all attempts to come to agreement are frustrated by one of the parties involved, then he must bear the responsibility before God. In such a case he-and not the one whose attempts at reconciliation are frustrated -is the one to be pitied. His spiritual condition is serious indeed. A

Worldly Adversary

But suppose the adversary be not a brother but a selfish unprincipled worldling! The terse phrases of Jesus picture two men on the way to court. The issue between them is the recovery of a debt. You can expect no leniency from a court which follows a rigid legal principle, Jesus reminds his disciples. So whilst the opportunity is there, use every possible effort by private persuasion to get the best terms you can. Once the court decision is taken the full process of law must be insisted on-and once you are consigned to prison how are you ever to be rid of the debt? Its consequences will be with you forever.

There is a practical common sense about these words for any comparable situation in life. Yet it may be taken as certain that Jesus was not setting out to school his disciples in worldly wisdom. Here in the Sermon on the Mount he is concerned with fundamentals of the spirit, so there is need to look further into his meaning.

A Parable

The context of the parallel passage in Luke 12:58, 59 is enlightening. Multitudes followed Jesus with not too serious intent, hearing his teaching and seeing his miracles. The Lord warned-thgm that it was high time they looked to themselves and made a shrewd appraisal of their spiritual standing. If they could judge the sign* of the sky and know what weather was impending, why were they so inept in the much more important issues concerning their relationship with God? By their holding off from personal involvement in active discipleship they had turned God into an Adversary, and-if only they would realise it-were even now being taken to court for a final decision. An adverse verdict was inevitable. The judge-Jesus-would pronounce against them. The angels of his power would execute the sentence, and from the oblivion of the prison-house of death there could never be any release, because no man is ever in a position to pay off the sin debt which he owes to God.

Transferring this idea back to its context in Matthew 5, the parable is now seen as a similar solemn warning addressed to the one who refuses conciliation, rejecting all attempts to reach amicable agreement. By adopting such an unforgiving attitude he makes God into his Adversary and stores up judgment for himself.

Thus, in two mini-parables, Jesus teaches the top-priority urgency of good relations between brethren. Whatever the issue between them, no effort must be spared, no time lost in bringing about mutual understanding and reconcilia tion. The spirit of Christ’s teaching here in the Sermon on the Mount will have nothing less than this.

The sorry contrast among the Lord’s twentieth-century disciples cries to high heaven. How much have they learned of the spirit of their Lord when they are willing to tolerate estrangements on a massive scale and make only the feeblest of efforts towards correction of a bad situation?

Notes: Mt. 5:21-26

The Ten Commandments forbad adultery, and here again the rabbis were content to be strictly literal in their understanding and application of the precept. As one commentator has pithily expressed it: “Moses said it truly. The interpreters said it with altered meaning.” Yet it must have been evident to these acute minds that in this area of human sinfulness especially, the desire and intention are themselves guilt. But a court of law cannot sit in judgment on a man’s frame of mind, so they were quite content to stop at emphasis on the evil act itself. They could have gone further, and have bidden every man arraign himself before the bar of his own conscience, with his own God-given power of self-examination as chief prosecutor. But now in the time of Jesus these religious leaders were so many unjust stewards basely adulterating the principles of men’s obligation to God, all for the sake of their own standing before the people.

So Jesus bade his disciples cease concern with outward conformity to the law of God. Their target must be not a spiritual respectability in the sight of men but the peace of mind which only the satisfied scrutiny of an alert and educated conscience can impart.

The Modern Worship of Sex

“I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her (or, looketh on a man to provoke him!) hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” The words have wrung a cry of despair and almost of protest from the soul of many a sincere, well-intentioned disciple. Human nature being what it is-and with some more than others- how is guilt to be avoided? In a sex-ridden twentieth century there is a positive barrage of incitement (by book, newspaper, radio, television, advertisement, dress) to think in terms of sex almost every hour of the day and night. In such an environment what followers of the Lord with a normal equipment of human nature can feel anything but guilt and wretchedness? One would surely need to be literally without eyes and ears to avoid the bombardment of solicitation which today at every turn parades and screams the gospel of sensual self-indulgence. How the young people growing up in such an age are to be pitied’ But not the young people only. It is specially significant that the Lord used the word “adultery”, not “fornication”. So his warning was addressed to married people also, specially to them. The temptations of an earlier generation were bad enough, in all consicence. Then what is to be said about society not only permissive, but expressive, apparently set on making Sodom appear like kindergarten innocence?

Evil Thoughts made welcome

There is perhaps a crumb of comfort in the fact that the words of Jesus mean: “whosoever looks on a woman with intention to lust after her…” The alluring thought is not a sin in itself-else Jesus himself stands condemned for his state of temptation in the wilderness. It is the tempting thought given welcome and hospitality which is the fundamental sin, whether it matures into evil action or not. Paul infers the sinfulness of lustful thoughts from the Tenth Commandment: Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7)

But this is not to say that there is no essential distinction between the lustful desire, savoured illicitly in the imagination, and the active expression of such concupiscence. “Jesus is far too much of a realist not to know that there is a vital difference between the act contemplated and the act committed-just as there is a wide difference between hard words and murder. But that difference is in the injury suffered by the other person; and Jesus has in view the effect on the sinner rather than on the one sinned against. Not the man’s act but his state of mind erects a barrier between himself and God.”

The same writer (L.G. Sargent in “The Teaching of the Master”) very trenchantly adds: “This being so, what will the judgment of Christ be on a civilisation in which immense industries connected with publishing, the theatre and the screen, are so largely engaged in playing upon the weaknesses of human desire?” Those words, written in 1950, were a very restrained commentary on post-war society. Then with what shade of ink do they need to be re-written today?

Aids to Holiness

If ever there was a time in the history of God’s people when there was need for self-discipline in the use of the eyes and also of the imagination, the television screen of the mind, it is today. Yet in large degree this has been always true. Was there ever a time when men-and women-did not have “eyes full of adultery”? (cp. Job. 31:1).

Hence the wholesome wisdom of the Mosaic injunction that the people wear fringes or tassels of blue in the borders of their garments – “that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the lord, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring” (Num. 15:38, 39). This wearing of “the livery of heaven” was to be a constant reminder, to those who cared to be reminded, that they belonged to the Lord and must eschew all things incompatible with His holiness. The modern counterpart to this might be to inscribe on every Christadelphian television receiver: “Whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely…think on these things: (Phil. 4:8). Or, if this is too long, “Holy to the Lord”.

Drastic Self-Discipline

In all the Sermon on the Mount there is only a handful of negative precepts. So the Lord’s warning here is all the more emphatic: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” The figurative nature of this drastic precept is immediately obvious, for what a man can see with his two eyes he can see almost equally well with one. The evident meaning is that there must be no flinching from the severest se/r”-discipline, if such is needful, in order to avoid the overpowering temptation by which the fire of lust makes inevitable the fire of Gehenna.

There must be no half-measures about such self-discipline. To emphasize this the Lord’s instructions are dramatically pleonastic: “Pluck it out, and cost it from thee.” Once rooted out of its socket that eye is powerless for good or evil. So “cast it from thee” underlines the lesson-and how true it is!-that if a man would be rid of his lust he must want to be rid of it, nothing less.

Negative and Positive Action

The practical measures involved might mean a complete cessation of “looking” or “listening”, a clearing out of all books and journals which may be in a literary sense respectable, genius even, but which are spiritually unclean and defiling. The wisdom of Christ counsels a clean sweep. In issues of this kind it is certainly best to err on the side of severity. It was not for nothing that Paul counselled Timothy: “Flee also youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22). In another place he was even more explicit: “Mortify (put to death) therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence…” (Col. 3:5).

All will be unavailing, however, except there be positive action to fill up one’s time and thought with better things. It was when David was loafing in his palace in Jerusalem instead of leading his army in the Ammonite campaign that he suffered the greatest defeat of his life. Accordingly Paul’s counsel to Timothy continues: “but follow after (pursue) righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” Positive activities and wholesome association! And in Colossians: “Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.”

With all this good counsel it still remains true that the price of liberty from the thraldom of the flesh is eternal vigilance.

Notes: Matthew 5:27-30

The discussions between Pharisees and Herodians how best to be rid of Jesus, although secret, were known to him. Again there is no indication whether it was by intuitive insight that he was aware of this, or because some secret sympathizer was in the know and sent him a word of warning.

Whichever it was, Jesus promptly put into practice the principle which he was to lay upon his disciples in later days: “When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another” (Mt.10:23). When describing how Jesus “withdrew” from thence, both Matthew and Mark use a word which implies flight (cp. Mt. 2:12, 14, 22).

Yet the intention was not to go into hiding but simply to take the edge off the animosity of his adversaries by keeping well away from them. Indeed, no hiding was possible. Word concerning him–with more emphasis on his miracles than on his teaching-had spread like a prairie fire, so that crowds of curious and excited and hopeful people came from far and near.

“To thee and to thy Seed”

Mark throws together an immensely impressive list of localities which added their quota to the crowds eager to be with Jesus. Besides “a great multitude from Galilee” there was also “a great multitude” (note the repetition in the space of two verses) from Judaea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond Jordan, Tyre and Sidon. Matthew has a similar list, covered by the comprehensive phrase: “all Syria”. The entire greater Roman province was affected by the interest and excitement regarding Jesus of Nazareth. The catalogue of names is impressive for more reasons than mere geography. Between them they cover the Land of the Promises made to Abraham. Already, in delightfully indirect fashion, the Seed of Abraham was asserting his right to his inheritance!

Pity or Preaching?

The interest was primarily in the powers of Jesus to heal the sick and afflicted. It is all too easy for the modern mind, well-accustomed to the knowledge and skill behind scientific medicine and surgery, to overlook the vast amount of suffering which existed in that medically ignorant era. So they came in their scores, “all sick people, that were in the grip of divers diseases and torments-the mentally sick, epileptics, the paralysed-and he healed them”. The powerful compassion of Christ would not let him disappoint any of these pathetic wistful sufferers.

Nevertheless, with all this eagerness and all this desperate need crying out to be satisfied out of the beneficent resources of his divine power, there was serious danger of the ministry of Jesus getting off balance. What real good was done if he merely sent people back to their homes fit and well, whilst their more deep-seated disability and need went untouched?

Embarrassing Enthusiasm

So he arranged that one of the disciples should be on hand with a dinghy. This he used as a pulpit, thus making the needful separation of a few yards between teacher and taught. This simple device is to be thought of as a method frequently put into operation during the Lord’s ministry in Galilee. It enabled him to put the emphasis where it was most necessary-on the ministry of the Word. At the same time those who brought their physical woes to him knew that at the end of his discourse the Lord must come on shore again and that his tender loving-kindness and sheer pity would not allow him to go off heedless of their afflictions.

Mark has characteristically vivid expressions to describe the difficulties of the situation Jesus was often faced with. “A great multitude thronged him”-the words (repeated; v.7, 8) imply physical pressure and constraint. “They were continually pressing upon him to touch him.” Literally, “they fell on him”, like a human avalanche. Word had gone round that the mere touch of his healing hand meant instant restoration. Consequently so many were set on personal contact with him that time after time it meant serious physical discomfort for Jesus. Yet he could not say them nay. In four successive chapters (4:40; 5:15; 6:17; 7:21) Luke has a superb repetition in describing the Lord’s ministry of healing. In 6:19 especially the Greek verbs (all impf.) give a splendid picture of sustained activity.

Unclean Spirits

“And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known” (Mk). Here, once again, is the suggestion (supported by the Greek text) that Jesus saw God’s angels of evil (Study 30) as the ultimate cause of these sicknesses and mysterious acknowledgments of his power. But Matthew’s phrasing, equally appropriate, indicates repeated warnings to the people who found themselves completely healed, that they were not to make great public fuss, publishing the name of Jesus of Nazareth as their compassionate benefactor.

“Tell no man”

The urgent charge: “No publicity!” was a further expression of the Lord’s attempt at compromise between his strong compassionate urge to bring aid to those enduring pain and hardship and his yet higher responsibility to impart the healing of the gospel to their souls. As much as lay in him he would continue to restore those who brought their woes to him, but he nevertheless hoped that their co-operation by a quiet thankfulness would save him from being altogether swamped with multitudinous appeals for help and yet more help. The ministry of the Word was his greater work. A

Singular Prophecy

Matthew sums up the relation between these different sides of the Lord’s work in an impressive Messianic quotation from Isaiah 42. There are difficulties concerning several of the Old Testament Scriptures cited in this gospel, but none presents more problems than this: “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust” (Mt. 12:18-21).

The words are not quoted from the Septuagint version. Indeed there are marked divergences from it. And if regarded as a direct translation from the Hebrew text, then it is both free and interpretative in character. In this way, phrase after phrase is shown to be anticipatory of the work of Jesus in this phase of his ministry.

The word for “Servant” is more personal and intimate than the word usually employed, and “beloved, in whom I am well-pleased” echoes the encouragement of heaven expressed at the

Lord’s baptism (Mt. 3:17). More than this, the word “well-pleased” (Heb:rafzon) implies that his ministry was being received by God as an acceptable sacrifice. Christ’s dedicated offering of himself began long before Golgotha. His matchless miracles “showing judgment (that is, the principles of God’s dealing with men) to the Gentiles” were only possible because God had “put his Spirit upon him.”

Reticence

The constant emphasis on “see that no man know it” is summed up in the phrase: “He shall not strive, nor cry, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets.” Several incidents in John’s gospel illustrate this, even though that record nowhere specifically enunciates the principle involved, as Matthew does. The changing of water into wine and the healing of the man at Bethesda could have been big sensations. Instead they were done in secret (2:9; 5:13). When men would have taken him by force to make him king, he left them, and sought the presence of his Father in prayer (6:15). He travelled to the Feast of Tabernacles incognito (7:10, 11). And so unlike normal Messianic expectations was his way of life that only a few months before he died men could say to him: “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly” (10:24; cp. also Mk. 1:25, 34.43; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:30; 9:9, 25, 30).

There was nothing of the rabble-rouser about Jesus. Matthew evidently took the words literally: “neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.” People must go out to him by seashore or on mountain side where the peace of God’s unspoiled world could help them receive his message.

And the gospel he taught, the principles he sought to inculcate, were in harmony with the environment. The Sermon on the Mount, which was now to follow, had the same quiet undemonstrative character.

The Sanctuary Lampstand

The figures of speech about “bruised reed” and “smoking flax” are closely related-and they are Biblical, not domestic. The allusion is to a seven-branched candlestick in the sanctuary of the Lord with its tubes (which should feed the oil to the lamps) blocked or damaged. With wicks also in need of trimming, the flame is smoky and useless. Here is a figure of the low spiritual condition of Israel. The restoring power of Christ brought opportunity of better things. He would “bring forth judgment unto victory (Hebrew text: unto truth}. And in his name shall the Gentiles hope.” The word “truth” frequently denotes the covenanted Promises of God. “Victory” means the realisation of these Promises. And, in accordance with several Old Testament foreshadowings, the Gentiles also would come to be associated with this Hope of Israel. The massive crowds from all parts of the Land were seen as a token of the ultimate realisation of God’s Purpose with both Jew and Gentile. These multitudes were not Jews only, as both Matthew and Mark are careful to emphasize.

But the quotation from Isaiah has one singular omission: “he shall not fail nor be discouraged” (42:4a). This, applied to Christ, is either meaningless or decidedly difficult. But, since the verbs are the same as in the previous verse, it could read: “It (smoking flax) shall not be dimmed, nor shall it (the bruised reed) be crushed, until he have set judgment in the Land.” If the suggestion of the last paragraph is correct, this would appear to mean that Israel’s fading glory would not be snuffed out until the full proclamation of the principles of God’s judgment had been declared to the nation by Jesus.

So, whilst the gracious kindliness of Christ’s work is being displayed in the gospel, the record has grave overtones. The judgment of the Chosen people was not far off.

Notes: Matthew 12:15-21

Mark 3:7-12

Luke 6:17-19

The time was now ripe for the formal selection of a band of close disciples. So first Jesus went up into a mountain to pray about it. Luke’s text can be read as meaning ‘the mountain on which was the place of prayer’ which Jesus had been glad to use on former occasions (Acts 16:13; Mk. 1:35).

The whole night was spent in prayer about those who were to be his apostles. The decisions ‘ were momentous. Jesus knew that later during his ministry and also to a much greater extent in the years to follow these men would have to shoulder big responsibilities. The well-being of the elect of God would be in their care.

Chosen, Given

Next day he called his body of followers together, again on the mountain, and as they stood in a group before him he called first one and then another, separating them off to be members of his new band of apostles. “He called unto him whom he would” (Mk). The Greek text emphasizes that the choice was his. Yet, in later years, Peter was to recall how they were “chosen before of God” (Acts 10:41). Indeed this was a truth which Jesus himself acknowledged with thankfulness: “Thine they were, and thou gavest them me… I pray for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine” (Jn. 17:6, 9, 11, 12, 24). There is, of course, no contradiction. That night of prayer explains.

The first Jesus (Joshua) had taken twelve stones out of Jordan as a token that Israel were now dedicated to the task of turning the Land of Promise into a Kingdom of God. Now a greater Joshua had chosen his twelve, the first being Peter (a stone). These twelve, who also came new-born out of a Jordan baptism, were to become the foundation stones of a New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14).

Matthew lists the twelve in pairs because Jesus later sent them out “two and two” (Mk. 6:7). He deliberately and significantly puts the call of the twelve immediately after a very moving description of the needs of the people: “When he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then said he unto his disciples. The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest” (9:36-38).

Jesus himself had done precisely this — praying that God would provide helpers, the right kind of helpers, for the herculean task which lay before him. Just as Moses had found it necessary to delegate much of the work of administration to seventy elders whom God equipped with the wisdom of His Spirit (Num. 11:25), so now Jesus sought the help of his apostles. Nevertheless one cannot help but reflect somewhat ruefully that the twelve appear in the gospels as hindrances and liabilities to their Master as much as helpers.

Apostles

From this time on the twelve were known as Apostles. Yet, perhaps conscious of their inadequacies in the early days, Matthew and Mark (that is, Peter) use the term only once-both in connection with the preaching mission on which Jesus sent them-whilst John never uses the word at all (except in Rev.21:14). Luke, who was of course outside the number of the twelve, has it six times in his gospel, but in Acts he employs the title exclusively, for by that time their apprenticeship was over.

The word “apostle” does not mean “messenger”, but rather “ambassador” or representative (s.w. Is. 18:2 Sym. version). An ambassador has powers to act on behalf of the king who sends him. The apostles were like that. The word was also used of the envoys who maintained contact between the temple and the communities of the Jewish dispersion. Perhaps this is the main point.

Mark’s record lists three important aspects of the work they were to fulfil:

•         “that they might be with him”,
•         “that he might send them forth to preach”,
•         “to have power to heal sicknesses”.

The second and third of these functions were only to be taken up after a fairly lengthy training, for they were not sent out preaching until just before the beginning of the last year of the ministry (Mk. 6:7). The first was surely more important than it may seem at first. Jesus needed their fellowship. In spite of all their variegated failures, at the end of his ministry he could still say his heartfelt “Thank you” – “Ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations” (Lk. 22:28).

The necessary signs of an apostle, as insisted on in the early church, were these: He must have received his call to office from the Lord; he must have known Jesus both in the days of his flesh and after his resurrection (Acts 1:21, 22); and he must be endowed with the miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor. 9:2). And his triple function was to be an ambassador for Christ (1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:20; Eph. 6:20), to bear witness of the Lord’s resurrection (Lk. 24:48), and to exercise powers of guidance and direction without geographical limit in the ecclesias. But all this lay well ahead in the future.

Three Fours

There are four lists of the apostles — in Matthew 10, Mark 3, Luke 6 and Acts 1. The order of names is not the same, but each list is divisible into three quaternions. In each of these groups the order varies, but the names are the same. Thus, Peter and Andrew, James and John are always together. Next come Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, whilst the last group is James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas of James, alco called Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus, and, always last, Judas Iscariot, replaced in Acts.1 by Matthias.

The first four seem to have been specially close to Jesus. Where Peter and John are concerned this is very evident in the gospel story. These two with James were privileged to witness the raising of Jairus’ daughter. They were present at the Transfiguration, and were intended to be closer to Jesus during his agony in Gethsemane. Along with Andrew they received the Lord’s exposition of his Olivet prophecy. It is difficult to discern any common factor in these very diverse occasions. Probably they are to be taken as examples of a large number of occasions when these apostles were accorded special priorities.

With perhaps one or two exceptions they were a team of remarkably young men. Jesus had a strenuous programme for them to fulfil. And, looking to the future, he must have taken into account that the church which was to be founded would need the guidance and direction of his representatives for a good many years. Also there would be a decided psychological advantage in having around him men of his own age or younger. Older men would not take so readily to the new teaching and new life to which he called them.

Family Connections

Specially interesting features of these twelve are the close family relationships which existed among them. Peter and Andrew were brothers (Jn. 1:40, 41). And, of course, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were brothers. They were also the Lord’s cousins. This, and several other interesting facts, are established by a careful comparison of the details in Matthew, Mark and John, of the group of women close to the cross of Jesus:

This immediately establishes that the mother of the sons of Zebedee was the sister of Mary, the Lord’s mother, and that her name was Salome, which means Peace. Yet Jesus called her two boys the Sons of Thunder!

The comparison also demonstrates that Mary and Clopas were the parents of one of the apostles, James the less, so called because of his size-”wee Jamie!” His brother Joses — that is, Joseph-was also well-known in the early church, or there would be little point in mentioning him. So probably he is to be equated with the Joseph Barsabbas, called Justus, who was excluded from the apostleship when Matthias was appointed by the drawing of lots. His nicknames, “Son of the Sabbath” and “The Righteous”, are clear indications of a man who took his loyalties to the law of Moses with tremendous seriousness. In view of the Judaistic problems which beset the early church in later days his failure to be elected to apostleship can be seen as God-guided. Acts 1:23 mentions also Judas Bar-Sabbas, who was possibly a member of the same family.

More than this, if it is correct that Clopas and Alphaeus are two Graecised forms of the same Hebrew name Chalpai (=the Lord’s innovator or rebel), then since Matthew was son of Alphaeus, he too was a member of this remarkable family.

In three of the lists Matthew (Lev!) and Thomas Didymus are joined together. Didymus means Twin, and Lev! means Joined, so it is not improbable that they were twin brothers.

Nor is this all. In the AV, there is another Judas besides Iscariot: “Judas of James”. The word “brother” is not in the text. It is well-recognized that this is a normal way of saying “Judas the son of James” (cp. Jn.6:71; Acts. 1:13)-and since James the son of Zebedee is excluded, he was most probably the son of the James who was son of Alphaeus and Mary. If this conclusion is correct, the apostolic band included a father and son! And in that case Judas must have been in his late teens or early twenties, and even allowing for the early marriages normal in those days, Alphaeus and his wife Mary were middle-aged. Alphaeus himself must have been well-known in the early church, otherwise what reason for the mention of him at all?

A very early writer mentions that a certain Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the husband of Mary. This means that there were close family ties between Jesus and this truly remarkable family which supplied no less than four out of twelve of the apostles.

There is a possibility that the Cleopas who was one of the two with Jesus on the road to Emmaus is to be identified with Clopas-Alphaeus. If so, it is possible to infer that he was not accompanied by his wife (compare Lk. 24:22 with Mk. 16:1), nor by his son (Lk. 24:33). However, since the most likely assumption is that these two were man and wife, going to their own home in Emmaus, and all the apostles (except perhaps Judas) were Galileans, it seems probable that this Cleopas is not to be identified with the father of the apostolic family.

The First Group

Apart from the more familiar members of the-band of apostles, Peter, John, Judas Iscariot, remarkably little information is to be gleaned about the rest. But how eloquent is the fact that Peter is always set first, whilst Judas is always last. When it is considered that within an hour or two of each other Judas betrayed his_s Lord for money and Peter denied him over and, over again with oaths and curses, the mysteries., of the divine “election of grace” become more awe-inspiring than ever.

Peter’s being declared the first (Mt.10:2) is not, just a matter of enumeration, for he has already; been set at the head of the list. He was first in status and authority, but the first clear indication of this was when Jesus said to him: “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Lk. 22:32).

In the lists James the son of Zebedee is always given priority over his brother John–and even in martyrdom (Acts 12:2). These are indications of a more forceful character than “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

Although the idea is not popular in modern academic circles, a remarkably good case can be made out for this James being the author of the epistle which bears that name (“The Epistle of James”, H.A.W.). If this identification is accepted it needs only one reading of the epistle to recognize the author as a vigorous dynamic personality.

Several suggestions have been made regarding the name Boanerges, given by the Lord to James and John:

• “Sons of Shaking”, with allusion to a Hebrew word which in nearly every one . of its 46 occurences refers to some dramatic divine manifestation. The fact that the Greek word boe means a shout or loud cry may explain the interpetation: “sons of thunder”.
• A link with the word for “assembly” in the sense of “fellowship”-”We took sweet counsel together, and walked into the house of God in company” (Ps.55:14).
• A description of their naturally impetuous characters. But were they really like this? Are Mk.9:38; Lk.9:54 enough to go on? And it is noteworthy that in Scripture no new name perpetuates a fault of character.
• The name is said to have belonged to the high priest’s two Sanhedrin assistants, who counted votes for “Yea” and “Nay”. With this may be compared the request by James and John that they sit on the Lord’s right and left hand in his kingdom.
• The first mention of Messiah in the Old Testament is in the Song of Hannah: “Out of heaven he shall thunder upon them…he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed” (1 Sam. 2:10). Did Jesus use Boanerges with reference to this prophecy, the last two phrases describing the functions of James and John?
• There is some Talmud evidence that the RGS in Boanerges was understood to describe the Voice of God as heard at Sinai (Ex. 20:18; cp. Ps. 29) — and on the Day of Pentecost in the sound “as of a rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2).

With these diverse alternatives, it is hardly possible to be sure which is correct. Mk. 3:17 Gk. suggests that the names were given separately and not as a pair.

Andrew was not a married man like his brother, for he shared the same home in Capernaum (Mk. 1:29). All that is mentioned about him suggests a very practical individual. As soon as he was convinced about the divine authority of Jesus, he went off and brought his brother to the Lord. When Jesus was faced with the problem of feeding the great multitude in the wilderness, it was Andrew, anxious to be of service, who drew attention to the small boy with a few loaves and fishes-”but what are they among so many?” (Jn. 6:8, 9). And he was one of the small group who pressed for further explanation of the Lord’s portentous words about the destruction of the temple. That persistence evoked the invaluable Olivet prophecy (Mk. 13;3, 4).

The Second Group

Philip was another matter-of-fact, “down-to-earth” type. Does his Greek name hint at mixed parentage? It was to him that Greeks, showing by their attendance at the Passover their strong sympathy with the Jewish religion, applied for help in satisfying their desire to get to know Jesus. Was it coincidence that they should seek this help from the apostle who had said to Nathaniel in very practical fashion: “Come and see”, when seeking to persuade him about the Messiah? And again, was it coincidence that Philip should get the collaboration of Andrew who had converted his own brother by the very practical method of bringing him to Jesus (Jn. 12:20-22)?

It was Philip, also, who bluntly demanded of the Lord: “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us” (Jn.14:8). He wanted a theophany which he could see – something plain and unmistakable. According to Clement of Alexandria, Philip was the disciple who, when bidden follow Christ, replied: “Suffer me first to go and bury my father” (Mt.8;21). This may be guesswork, but it is in character.

Bartholomew is generally identified with Nathaniel (Jn.l:45). The conclusion is very likely correct (see Study 20). In that case, “an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile” is a wonderful encomium regarding his character, especially since it expresses the judgement of a Jesus who “knew what was in man”. Yet this wonderful disciple is henceforward a mere name in the gospel page. Could there be a better example to stress the brevity and selectivity of the gospel record?

Thomas, stolid, unimaginative, determined to follow only his own practical commonsense, had also a streak of pig-headedness in him. He should have been more ready than he was to give in before the sheer weight of testimony and to acknowledge belief in the resurrection of his Master. But he was a wonderfully loyal disciple. When Jesus was not to be discouraged from going to Bethany at the time of the death of Lazarus, Thomas gave the lead to the rest: “Let us also go that we may die with him” (Jn. 11:16). To his hard-headed pessimism the project was sheer suicide. Nevertheless if Jesus insisted, there was nothing for it but to accompany him. They must not let him down!

Precisely the same loyalty showed itself when Thomas stuck out stubbornly against the growing conviction of the rest that Jesus was risen. He disagreed with his brethren on the most fundamental of all principles of the Faith, yet on the following Sunday (Jn. 20:26) he was “at the meeting” with all the rest; and that tenacious loyalty, maintained against all: personal inclination, saved his life!

Matthew has already been considered at some length (Study 35). His humble spirit is to be seen in two features of these four apostolic lists. It is only in his own list that he is baldly labelled: “the publican”. In all four places he is linked with Bartholomew, b.ut his list is the only one of the four which puts Bartholomew first of the two. His new name in Christ is usually taken to mean: “Gift of God”; but it could just as easily mean: “Given to God”. Then was it he who set the example to Publican Zaccheus (Lk. 19:8a) of how to re-dedicate ill-gotten wealth?

The Third Group

Simon the Zealot was a very different type. Visionary, fanatical, sanguine, unpractical-it was men of this character who usually joined the movements for political and national freedom which constantly agitated Jewry. That Jesus could attract and hold a man of such bent was not the least of his miracles. His other cognomen-”Canaanite”-is not to betaken as indicating his origin among the remnants of the old non-Jewish people in the Land. The Greek form is not the same as that describing the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mt.15:22). It may possibly mean “man of Cana”, but it is usually interpreted by means of a Hebrew root meaning “jealous (for the honour of Israel), zealous”-an equivalent to Zealot. Thus Simon the tax-hater joined Matthew the tax-collector. And cautious Thomas joined the impetuous violent Peter.

James the son of Alphaeus-”little James”-was probably the oldest of the apostles. His presence would help to add stability to a group of widely differing personalities. His son Judas was almost certainly the youngest of the twelve. In the lists he is named also: “Lebbaeus and Thaddeus. The first of these comes from the Hebrew word for “heart” (modern equivalent: “mind”); and since “Thaddeus” probably connects with a word meaning “knowledge”, “Judas the judicious” is suggested, or maybe “brainy Judas”. He was possibly, but doubtfully, the writer of the Epistle of Jude.

Combining the probable conclusions reached here with others concerning Joseph and Mary it becomes possible to represent these remarkable family connections in a genealogical table:

Note here:

1. But for difficulties of arrangement, Mary would be shown as the older of the two sisters.
2. There is no room for the (at least) seven other children of Joseph and Mary (Mt. 13:55, 56)
3. Judas Barsabbas (Acts 15:22) should possibly be shown alongside Joseph Barsabbas.
4. Bartholomew (Nathaniel) should almost certainly be included here (See Study 21), but there is no hint to indicate where.

Judas Iscariot

It is understandable that Judas Iscariot is always set last. The refrain about betrayal comes in so often as to take on an even more sinister sound than “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin”. The words for the betrayal of Jesus come sixty times in the New Testament, and in about hair of these there is pointed association with Judas. But it was not always so. Mark 14:10 calls him “the one of the twelve”, possibly suggesting by this a prominence of a different kind before he turned traitor. Why did Jesus appoint him treasurer? Was it because of his outstanding administrative ability, or because the Lord saw the inherent weakness in the man and gave him opportunity for its correction by learning at first-hand a good stewardship of money? The suggestion that he belonged to the famous family at Bethany rests on rather slender evidence, but is not impossible.

His name Iscariot has been read in a variety of ways. If it means “man of Kerioth”, then from the very beginning Judas was odd man out, for this would make him originate in the southern part of Judaea (Josh. 15:25), whereas the rest were all Galileans (Acts 2:7). The mention of his father Simon Iscariot (Jn. 6:71) suggests a well-known family. Probably more than any of the others Judas considered that socially he had demeaned himself in becoming a disciple of the Nazarene. But how well his example shows that disastrous downfall is possible even for those nearest to Jesus.

Other possible meanings of Iscariot are: (a) a man of reward or bribe (Gen. 30:18); the same Hebrew root comes in the significant prophecy of the thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:13). (b) The name has been linked with a rare Hebrew word for “strangling”. If this is correct, it was a name given him by the early church in later days. John 6:71 RV is hard to reconcile with this, (c) “Man of great preaching”, the man who could have outdone Peter on the Day of Pentecost? (d) “Man of divorcement”. This, if valid, must be seen as a secondary meaning read into his name by the church in later days, (e) “Man with the apron (ie. the bag)” (Jn. 12:6).

They were truly a remarkable mixture, these apostles of Jesus. There can and should be no doubts as to the fitness of each one of them for the privilege and high duty laid upon him. They were given to Jesus by the Father (Jn. 17:6). They were chosen by their Leader only after a long night of prayer. Yet, as the gospels proceed to suggest, most of them came near to deserting their Master’s cause long before Judas did. However, again through the prayers of Jesus, they survived to become a team of preachers who set the world ablaze.

More time and energy than has been warranted have gone into the questions whether the Sermon was one complete continuous discourse or is to be regarded as an assemblage of separate pieces of the Lord’s teaching spoken at different times in his ministry: and whether the words were spoken in a mountain or on a plain (Lk. 6:17): and whether they were spoken in Greek or Aramaic.

Notwithstanding Matthew’s undeniable system of bringing together similar material without regard to chronological sequence, it is evident from the beginning and end of this section (ch.5-7) that here is a complete discourse: “When he was set … his disciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth, and taught them…” (Mt 5:1, 2) “And it came to pass, when Jesus ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine” (7:28).

Yet it is not inconceivable that there were in fact two separate discourses which Matthew, for convenience and in accordance with his customary practice just mentioned, has brought together in Matthew 5, 6, 7.

Since the challenge of the religious authorities was now building up strongly, it is tempting to see Mt. 5:17 – 6:18 as a complete and detached discourse spoken to the disciples in answer to that challenge: “Ye have heard that it hath been said… But I say unto you…” And, remarkably enough, most of the rest of the Sermon bears in one way or another on the disciples’ reaction to the temptations of materialism. So perhaps there was a Sermon on the Mount and also a Sermon on the Plain, which Matthew has put together without distinction because the distinction is not important.

The distribution of material in the two versions (Mt. Lk.) is widely different: 107 verses in Matthew, and only 29 in Luke; but there are also another 36 verses dotted about in different parts of Luke which show a fairly close correspondence with sections of Mt. 5, 6, 7. There is no difficulty about this, for there are plenty of signs that our Lord not infrequently found it desirable to repeat parts of his teaching, and not necessarily in exactly the same phrasing. All busy preachers of the gospel who are not tied to a manuscript will readily understand this.

There is clear indication that the teaching was addressed to his disciples, but in the hearing of a larger crowd, many of whom doubtless were made into disciples by the prospect of this idealistic new world which Jesus opened up to them.

The question of geographical location has been unnecessarily complicated by failure to let the gospel writers use words in their own way. In these records “the mountain” (5:1 RV) does not mean one specific point of elevation but was probably local idiom for “the hills”. The same phrase: “the mountain” is used of a very different locality (e.g.Mk. 6:46; Jn. 6:3, 15).

Matthew mentions that Jesus sat to teach his disciples. This was normal Jewish procedure. In the Talmud, to sit is-to teach. It was a method well designed to put the emphasis on the substance of what was taught, rather than on the mode of its delivery. The teacher who depends on histrionics to get his point over is cut down to size by this unspectacular mode of instruction.

Another important reason for mentioning this detail is to emphasize the contrast between Moses and Christ. Deuteronomy 5:31 tells of another Sermon in the Mount. On that occasion Moses stood as Israel’s representative, to receive instruction. Yet the ultimate aim and intention was the same: “Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (v. 32).

Although the teaching was intended primarily for his close disciples, it is evident that a considerable number of others were also present: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the multitudes were astonished at his doctrine” (7:28). Thus, Luke’s version of the Beatitudes is pointedly addressed to disciples: “Ye poor” etc., whereas in Matthew the more general: “Blessed are the poor in spirit” allows of a wider audience.

Over against this early discourse to the disciples in public there is the long private talk of Jesus with them at the end of his ministry-Jn.13-16. And the eight introductory Beatitudes, which set in so winsome a fashion the tone of all that is to follow, have also a very grim counterpart in the eight Woes which Jesus finally pronounced on “scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites” (Mt. 23:13-29). The opposition of these evil men was already evident, so that it became necessary for Jesus to include in his teaching explicit warnings against their philosophy and practices. So from the very commencement the matchless positive principles of Christ are shown to be unique. There is sustained contrast with the reprehensible practices so highly esteemed among his contemporaries.

It is perhaps not inappropriate to add here a few more general observations on the Beatitudes, now to be considered individually.

That they are eight, and not seven or nine, in number seems to be indicated by the inclusion of the eighth in Luke’s version, even though he has i four in his list, with four matching “woes”. ,

There seems to be no logical order, apart from the fact that the first and the eighth both insist on a present blessing. The eighth — persecution — comes more naturally at the end, for whereas the first seven describe “differing elements of excellence”, i.e. what the true disciple is, the last is about what men do to him.

There is no conscious blessedness in these various respects. A man may know himself to be merciful or a peacemaker without being aware of any special blessing resting on him because of that. The blessing lies essentially in God’s estimate of him because he is seen by Heaven to have these characteristics.

And of course there is, or should be, room in one personality for several or all of these spiritual traits.

There is no lack of other Beatitudes in the teaching of Jesus, so the list in Matthew 5, must be taken as a collection of examples.

“Blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear (13:16) “Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me” (11:6). “Blessed is that (faithful and wise) servant whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing (giving them food in due season)” (24:46). “Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Lk. 11:28). See also Jn. 20:29; Rev. 1:3; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14; 1 Pet. 3:14; 4:14; Jas. 1:12, 25; 2:5, 7 (which alludes to the Beatitudes in the gospels).

Since the word “blessed” means “happy”, this beatitude presents one of the most unlikely paradoxes in all the Bible. Yet Jesus did not say that they who mourn ore happy, for this would be worse than any modern example of crazy double-speak. His beatitude gives firm assurance of comfort to come. Yet at any given moment there are thousands in the world who are delivered over to grief and who are bereft of real solace of any kind. The cruel hand of death, sudden and violent, the loss of home or health, the savage “indiscriminate” heartlessness of war, famine, plague or cataclysm-such common experiences leave a long trail of misery and mourning across the world. What comfort for such?

The answer must be: none at all, except they mourn over other things even more fundamental.

A quick review of a wide field of Old Testament passages, which must be regarded as the background to this Beatitude of Christ, shows other mourning besides personal stroke or bereavement. Here are examples:

1. There is mourning for Zion, because the purpose of God with His ancient people seems as yet to have gone awry: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea we wept, when we remembered Zion” (Ps. 137:1).
2. Akin to this is the grief of mind which looks out on a weary sin-stricken world without God. There is the sickness of heart that the vindication of God is so long delayed: “the thing was true, but the time appointed was long… In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks” (Dan. 10:1, 2). There is a problem here. Should those in Christ afflict their souls with fasting because the Bridegroom is taken away from them (Mt. 9:15), and is long returning? Or is such grief out of place because he is with them now and to the end of the world?
3. There is the fret and heaviness which laments the indifference and sin of those who bear the name of the Lord unworthily: “Ezra did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he mourned because of the transgression of them of the captivity” (Ezra 10:6), just as — the commonest of all mourning — a man laments for the dead and the dying, those he holds in affection but seems helpless to help.
4. Most devastating of all is the utter loss of spirit in those who grieve over their own sins-the “broken spirit”, the “broken and contrite heart” grieving in wretchedness past describing over the collapse of personal self-dedication to God.

All of these have their counterpart in the experience of Jesus and his New Testament saints:

1. “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: but rejoice inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings, that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy” (1 Pet. 4:12, 13). Here is comfort of a very real kind. “We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel” (Lk. 24:21). Those who set out for Emmaus mourning returned in an ecstasy of joy.
2. Simeon, waiting for the consolation of Israel, was able to rejoice at the sight of a baby: “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation” (Lk. 2:25, 29, 30).
3. Jesus wept over Jerusalem: “If thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day the things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes” (Lk. 19:41, 42). And Paul lamented the lack of a contrite spirit in the ecclesia at Corinth: “Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned” — concerning the evil way of life present in their midst (1 Cor. 5:2).
4. James bade his readers: “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (4:9, 10). If a saint like Paul could so lament his own unworthiness by exclaiming: “O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24), can there be any question that all saints in Christ should similarly castigate themselves?

This last, most of all, must have been the chief reference of the Lord’s words. When a man is bowed down with dejection at his own spiritual condition, there is hope for him. When he goes with a heavy heart because of the meagre success attending his conscientious dedicated aspirations after godliness, then the happiness Jesus has promised is within his grasp. For what has proved to be futile and hopeless because of his own powers will be done for him through the grace of Christ.

Comforted

The reassurance is positive: “they shall be comforted”. The Lord’s own message in the synagogue at Nazareth was: “to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning.” There is a charming paronomasia in the Hebrew of that phrase: “Sashes for ashes”. It is an invitation to weddings instead of funerals. It happened this way when the disciples “mourned and wept” over the loss of their Lord, and Mary Magdalene came with incredible news (Mk. 16:10)

The version of this beatitude in Luke is most striking: “Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh”.

Jesus himself wept over the hardness of Jerusalem’s golden limestone (Lk. 19:41); he wept-a strange mystery this! — at the grave-side of a dear friend whom only a few minutes later he was to restore to his mourning family (Jn. 11:35). He wept-can anyone grasp it? -at the inclination born with him to set his own will before that of his heavenly Father (Heb. 5:7). And never, in all the four gospels, is there a hint that he smiled, much less that he-this man of sorrows–laughed out of inexpressible gladness. But in these respects it was surely a different Jesus who encountered disciples on the day of resurrection. Would he not then prove to them the truth of his own Beatitude? (Ps. 30:11).

This transformation should have been the experience of the disciples when Mary Magdalene burst in on them “as they mourned and wept”. But “they, when they heard… believed not” (Mk. 16:10, 11). A strange reluctance to rejoice in good news! But before that day was out, they were different. When — and no one knows how soon — even better news comes to those who now mourn in Zion, will the reaction be the same?

Woe! Mourn and Weep!

The converse of this beatitude is stated in Luke just as forthrightly: “Woe unto you that laugh nowl for ye shall mourn and weep” (Lk. 6:25). Whether this be the mocking of the scoffer deriding the simple faith and piety of the disciple, or the empty laughter of the fool which is “as the crackling of thorns under a pot” (Ecc. 7:6), the miserable end of that mirth is the same heaviness (Pr. 14:13). A man whose life is not conditioned by a frank recognition of his own true state before God (that is, who is not “poor in spirit”), and who is not led thence to a contrite mourning because his life and his world are as they are, has no prospects at all. He can never know the genuine comfort and solace of soul which the Truth of God imparts through Jesus Christ.

Notes: Matthew 5;4; Luke 6:21, 25

1. All the elements of this beatitude are included in Jas. 4:9 – another of the copious allusions in this epistle to the Sermon on the mount? Or, an allusion to the Day of Atonement?
2. Jesus promised a Comforter to his mourning disciples. The effect of it is readily traceable in Acts. 2:41, 46; 4:24, 31, 32; 5:41; 8:39 etc.
3. In A.D. 70 the devastation of Jerusalem by the Roman armies was celebrated by a special coin issue showing a woman, representing Jewry, mourning under a palm tree. The inscription is “Judaea capta”. For “laughter” – Jewry had to wait till 1948. There is yet to be a more intense mourning and a finer gladness for modern Israel.

It is only to the man of God that this beatitude makes sense. To the average worldling it is a paradox of foolishness. This is because he has no appreciation of the strength of character which true meekness expresses. The world esteems self-assurance and self-assertiveness. The Jews in Christ’s day honoured those who were ready to rebel and struggle and fight against the power of Rome. Today the psychologist bids a man resolve his inner conflicts by giving expression to his personality (the man of true meekness is too much ashamed of his to feel that he ought to do anything of the sort). Even the churches have a firm belief in the power of organization; regardless of principle, they seek to unite and stand shoulder to shoulder, presenting a strong front to the world. They forget Gideon and the whittling down of the mass of recruits he had at his back.

What, then, is this meekness which Jesus seeks in his followers – or rather, what is it not, for it has its counterfeits? One may rule out flabbiness of character and lack of personality such as endears itself to neither God nor man. Nor is it indolence. There is nothing spiritually admirable about laziness. Nor is it to be confused with gentleness, for this often-charming trait of character is usually inherited, not acquired; it springs from the genes of one’s parents, not from a new birth in Christ. And even when acquired, it is not infrequently assumed, for respectability’s sake.

Wherein does meekness differ from being “poor in spirit”, the first beatitude? The relationship between the two virtues is obviously close, but one is subjective and the other objective. To be poor in spirit is to know frankly and honestly one’s own natural worth — or, rather, lackof it-in the sight of God. Meekness is the practical expression of this attitude of mind in the situations of daily life. Many of the manuscripts put these two Beatitudes together (as verses 3, 4). This seems to be right, for in Hebrew “poor” (‘an!) and “meek” (‘onav) are almost the same. They often come together in the Old Testament and are not infrequently confused in the manuscripts.

The “meekness” of Moses

It is doubtful whether the familiar passage about the meekness of Moses should be read in that way- more likely: “suffered travail, was afflicted” (Num. 12:3). But the fact remains that meekness showed very wonderfully in him when, already galled and goaded to desperation by the repeated murmuring of the people, he had to endure the bitter criticism of his own brother and sister. The record suggests no hint of hot rejoinder from Moses. Instead, he pleaded for the restoration of his stricken sister.

The sorry antithesis to this is seen in the second smiting of the rock. Then, openly despising his brethren and at the same time exalting himself to a pseudo-equality with the Almighty, he cuttingly addressed them: “Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this rock?” Thus he stored up retribution for himself.

David, Paul

Or consider David at the time of Absalom’s rebellion. Fleeing from his splendid capital in helpless misery he was made to drink the dregs of wretchedness when Benjamite Shimei followed him with curses and reviling. Yet opportunity for retaliation was ready to hand. Hot-headed impulsive Abishai needed only a nod, and in two minutes he would have been across that wild ravine, and his hands choking the life out of Shimei. Instead: “Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord hath bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on mine affliction and that the Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day” (2 Sam. 16:11, 12). What a man!

There are things written by and about Paul which make the reader hesitate in assessing his character; for example, the rather high and mighty attitude he adopted when the magistrates of Philippi sent ordering his release (Acts 16:37) – there was, of course, a reason for this. And even though he softened his Corinthian self-vindication with “I speak as a fool”, would a man of true meekness have stretched out that long awe-inspiring catalogue of things done and endured for Christ’s sake (2 Cor. 11:21-30)? And was not his thorn in the flesh “lest he be exalted above measure” (12:7)?

The fact has to be faced-for the total accumulation of evidence is not to be said nay-that at one period of his apostleship Paul was near to undoing everything through a vainglorious satisfaction, however excusable, in all that he had endured and achieved in the gospel.

Nevertheless through this most trying ordeal of all this man of God came through unsoiled. Witness the following triad of passages:

“For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9).

A few years later he wrote: “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given” (Eph. 3:8).

And a few years later still: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1:15).

As he grew nearer to Christ, so his self-esteem declined. In this especially his exhortation may well be heeded: “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).

Jesus

And the imitation of Christ sets a standard from which many recoil in hopelessness: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being (as Adam was) in the form of God, thought equality with God (such as the serpent temptingly whispered) not* a thing to be grasped (by the seizing of the forbidden fruit), but he emptied himself (of self), taking the form of a servant, becoming obedient unto death (not disobedient unto death, as Adam) even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:5-8).

What this meant is made clear in greater detail by Peter: “When he was reviled, reviled not again: when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself (them?) to Him that judgeth righteously” (1 Pet. 2:23).

There is nothing in life harder to bear than being flagrantly misjudged or being made to endure ill treatment, which is altogether undeserved and grossly unfair. To put up with experiences of this sort without bitterness, self-pity or savage resentment is the very acme of the Christian spirit of meekness.

How is this to be reconciled with the appeal of Jesus? “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek, and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls” (Mt.l1:29). The fact is that when one has learned the meekness of Christ, there is a relaxed attitude towards these trials which is rest for the soul. The meek see all the experiences of life as overruled by God. They accept and rejoice in this divine Providence, and have nothing to fear or fret about. In their attitude to people, there is no need for suspicion or self-justification, no need to be prickly, constantly on the defensive. The headaches of life are endured without vexation or self-pity. And this because the “rights” of the individual have been renounced. The man of meekness has abdicated from his status as a human being. He is well content to be instead a son of God.

The most difficult trait of all to acquire is the meekness that “trembles at God’s word” — “receive with meekness the engrafted word” (Jas. 1:21). There is no student of the Bible who has not committed this sin of refusing to believe just what Scripture says, substituting instead the interpretation to which his own inclination leads him. This has doubtless happened already a number of times in the course of these studies. All readers of these words are guilty of it.

Abraham

Meekness is, here and now, its own reward. When there came that altercation between herdmen, Abraham, with all right on his side could have bluntly told Lot to clear off elsewhere. Instead, knowing himself to be one to whom much heavenly graciousness had been extended (recall that unsavoury transaction in Egypt!), he renounced all rights and calmly left Lot to sort things out. No sooner had his kinsman gone off in the direction of Sodom, than Abraham’s meekness inherited the earth: “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art…” Such meekness in the seed of Abraham inherits the same covenanted blessing.

“Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him – fret not thyself…Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.” (Ps. 37:7, 8). Such a placid unassertive attitude to life is possible only for the meek of the earth. They inherit this tranquil philosophy now, and they inherit the earth forever.

Notes: Mt. 5:5.

1. The following definitions of the meek may or may not be helpful: “Men who suffer wrong without bitterness or desire for revenge” (Expos. Gk. Test.) “The meek man is one who … bows at once to the will of God … Meekness commonly means a disposition towards men, but what is meant here and in Ps. 37:11 … is a disposition towards God” (Plummer). Is he right in this?
2. One commentator actually explains how the meek inherit the earth by citing the persecuted Puritans who emigrated and took to themselves the American continent (and in the process shot nearly all the Red Indians out of it!
3. It is past present understanding why Luke — Luke, of all people!- should not find room for this Beatitude in his chapter 6.

This is the only one of the Beatitudes to imply an aspiration after something not attained. All the others describe an existing spiritual condition – blessed are they who are poor in spirit, meek, mourners, merciful, peacemakers, persecuted. Here, too, there is a present continuing hunger and thirst, but it is an eagerness for change. No man can remain content with an abiding unsatisfied longing within himself. Hence the prayer: “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.”

Strangely enough, Jesus nevertheless pronounces the existence of this spiritual hunger and thirst a present happiness. The paradox only makes sense in the light of his added assurance, “they shall be filled”. The very knowledge, received on the highest possible authority, that these eager longings will one day be fully and altogether satisfied, makes bearable the present lack.

There is only one form of selfishness which is commended in Holy Scripture. A man has a right to care for his own physical needs: “The appetite of the labouring man laboureth for him; for his mouth urgeth him thereto” (Pr. 16:26). And his own spiritual needs: “Are there few that be saved?” Jesus answered with a point-blank imperative: “Strive to enter in…” (Lk. 13:23, 24).

Yet, strangely enough, there is precious little a man can do for himself in this direction. He can set the valve of his will the right way. But the rest has to be done for him by a higher Power.

Happiness a by-product

The world’s philosophers, including even that great fool George Bernard Shaw, have been shrewd enough to recognize that when a man makes happiness his target, he invariably misses his aim; for happiness is always a by-product. Set out to “have a good time”, and somehow it doesn’t turn out to be as good a time as hoped for or expected. But let a man seek to follow the path of duty, let him concern himself about the well-being or the happiness of others, and he will not lack satisfaction in life – if only to a limited extent. This is true, even in the lives of atheists.

It is vastly more true in the spiritual life. The disciples left Jesus hungry and tired by the well of Sychar. They returned to find him alert and no longer interested in food: ‘I have meat to eat that ye know not of”(Jn. 4:32, 14).

And he commends this to his disciples. When others (in the synagogue at Capernaum) challenged him with: ‘Our fathers did eat manna in the desert. Jesus, give us food every day as Moses did’, he dared to say to them: “It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven, but my Father (who gave that) is now giving you the true bread… I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth in me shall never thirst” (Jn. 6:31, 32, 35). Here is perennial Manna and ceaseless flow of purest water from a Smitten Rock.

Jesus showed also that the greater includes the less. When eager crowds of people endured physical hunger and thirst because of their spiritual hunger and thirst he forthwith satisfied those needs too (Mt. 14:15; 15:32). “Bread shall be given him, his waters shall be sure” (ls. 33:16).

Real hunger, real thirst

The highest aspirations ever put into words are these: “As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for the living God” (Ps. 42:1, 2). “My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God” (84:2). “My soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is” (63:1).

They say – and it is more than credible – that a starving man on a raff dreams of superb gargantuan meals, that a traveller with raging thirst in a desert cannot take his mind off the thought of bubbling springs of cool water. The present happiness of the saint in Christ is that he does not have to indulge in fantasies, he knows that his desperate need will be met. That need is met here and now to a great extent, in an assurance of the forgiveness of sins and a new righteousness which is more that a mere theological status.

The prodigal son, hungry, starving, is immediately at peace as soon as his resolve is taken to return to his Father. His welcome as he approaches home sets any last doubt at rest. And after that, not only is his immediate need more that met, he has also a lasting satisfying share in every good thing which his Father’s house can provide — each one of these transformed into a yet greater blessedness by the contrasting thought of swine and husks.

Mary, thinking little of “the food which perisheth”, even though it was for the Lord and his disciples, showed the craving that obsessed her, and was not thrust away. ‘Martha, your preparations are too elaborate. A one-course meal will do – and Mary is set on having hers now!’

Saul of Tarsus hungered and thirsted after righteousness and sought the wrong kind of satisfaction. But because he did seek, at last he found. Longings after self-made righteousness

Vanished when he recognized at last that God had provided a Lamb.

Zaccheus would have been well content with a quiet undisturbed sight of Jesus as he passed by. But he found himself personally addressed by the Teacher he revered from a distance. This Jesus chose to neglect the crowd in order that he – under-sized, outcast publican – might be the centre of attention: “Zaccheus, today I must abide at thy house.” Biggest marvel of all: “This day is salvation come to this house.”

So whilst there is no immediate release from the disappointments and discouragements of this imperfect life, present blessings in Christ can be marvellously satisfying, and to these is added the realism of the Lord’s future tense in this Beatitude: “he shall be filled”. There will be “new heavens and earth wherein dwell righteousness”, an incredible transformation from the sordid godlessness of this vice-doped twentieth-century Sodom.

Woe unto you

By contrast with the promised blessing there is the Lord’s lament over those unable to assess their own acute need: “Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger.” Jesus surely put that word “full” in quote-marks, to signify the man who persuades himself that he has what makes a good life. To him, sooner or later, the truth will come home with an aching pang which will be for ever past satisfying: “Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty” (ls. 65:13).

But this “Woe to you that are full” has also present force, for it is a fulness of material things now which makes a man say: “I’m all right, Jack.” A true perception of his own lack is blinded by satisfaction with what is temporary and worthless.

To Jesus himself nothing could be more satisfying than fulfilling the work of God: “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (Jn. 4:34). And he brings his disciple to the same unsurpassed self-fulfilment by becoming for him “The Lord our Righteousness.”

Notes

1. The Old Testament roots of this Beatitude are not to be neglected; eg. Ps. 107:2-6; Jer. 31:25, 26; Ex. 24:11; and contrast Am. 8:11.
2. The Greek text is literally: “hunger and thirst righteousness” (an accusative instead of the expected genitive) as though perhaps implying that the hunger and thirst of such people is itself deemed by the Lord to be a kind of righteousness without them appreciating that fact.

It is useful to sum up at this point the fundamental spiritual truths which the Beatitudes have outlined to the disciple of Christ.

The first necessary virtue is for him to recognize that he has no virtue–in this sense he is “poor in spirit”. This inner sense of worthlessness (held, be it emphasized, in sheer honesty before God, and not merely as a formal doctrine) expressed itself outwardly in a spirit of meekness towards others. Further, there is a dejection of spirit because neither in the world nor in one’s own inner life is God honoured as He should be. Especially regarding self is there a great hunger for heavenly qualities, a thirst insatiable in this life that the righteousness of Christ express itself more truly in changed character.

Two of the Beatitudes, concerning the merciful and the peacemakers, now illustrate essential aspects of this New Man of Christian Blessedness in his attitude towards others.

Definition

Concerning the former of these virtues, it is important to be clear in one’s mind as to just what this Christ “mercy” is not. If is not soft-heartedness. It is not forbearance or leniency. It is not even compassion. It is a forgiving spirit. This is the basic Old Testament idea behind the word “mercy”. Indeed all through the Bible this word is only rarely used to describe men. It is essentially a divine attribute, and the chief field of its expression is in the forgiveness of sins extended to men who have nothing to offer except their repentance.

Psalms and Prophets teem with expressions such as these:

“The Lord is slow to anger, and of great mercy” (Ps. 145:8).

“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness” (Ps. 51:1).

“In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting

kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer” (ls. 54:8).

The suggestion has been made of a distinction between mercy and grace-thatgrace expresses the divine attitude to men in their sin, and mercy His reaction to their misery. The distinction, if correct, is a fine one. Certainly the two run together inasmuch as men’s miseries stem from their sinfulness.

Mercy and Truth

It is specially to be noted that the familiar phrase “mercy and truth” is earmarked in the Old Testament to describe God’s Covenants of Promise: “Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers since the days of old” (Mic. 7:20). “Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and truth” (Gen. 24:27). “My mercy will I keep for him (the promised Son of David) for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him” (Ps. 89:28).

The reasons for the use of this expression are not difficult to sort out. The Promises are God’s “Truth” because of their certainty; they cannot fail. They are His “Mercy” because they are His unearned offer of heavenly forgiveness. This is how Peter and Paul expound the Blessing of Abraham in the greatest Promise of all (Gen. 22:18; Acts. 3;25; Gal. 3:8, 9).

Mercy in Action

The merciful man emulates this characteristic of his God. As he has experienced the forgiveness of sins so also he extends the like forgiveness to others. So necessary and vital is this that the Lord was at pains to emphasize it both positively and negatively in the only comment which he added to the pattern prayer he framed for his disciples: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Mt. 6:14, 15; 18:33 RV; Jas. 2:13; Ps. 18:25, 26).

It is a simple basic divine principle which, according to personal experience, has received nothing like the emphasis it deserves. People store up criticism and cherish resentment of others in flat denial of the Lord’s simple truth that it is the merciful, the forgiving, who are happy; it is they, and no others, who obtain mercy, enjoying the assurance of sins forgiven.

The Answer to a Difficult Problem

Yet, for many who grope after the ideals of Christian discipleship, this is one of the major problems of life – how to be understanding, tolerant, forgiving, merciful towards those who themselves are small-minded, spiteful, bitter, uncharitable. “An eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth”, in spirit if not literally, seems to be the inevitable and almost proper reaction of offended human nature. How can any different attitude be possible?

The simple solution is: instead of resentment, pity! Those who behave badly and cause grievous offence to others are not to be given hatred for hatred, nor even contempt or despising, but pity. For such show all too plainly that they have failed to learn even the most elementary lesson in the school of Christ. Their lack of spiritual progress is not to be denounced from the superiority of a higher spiritual plane, but is to be pitied – with the gentleness which comes only from the man who has miserably known himself in need of a right disposition.

And why pity? Because they not only store up much unhappiness for themselves here and now, there is also a Day of Reckoning.

So the man of mercy, who can extirpate hard feelings from his mind and in all his mental attitudes think sympathetically regarding the undeserving, ensures for himself now a peace of mind and a happiness unknown to the other, and in the Day to come he will himself find mercy.

Luke’s version of this Beatitude is a straight imperative: “Be ye therefore merciful (to your enemies; v.35), as your Father also is merciful” (6:36). But in Matthew these words (with “perfect” for “merciful”) come as the spiritual climax to a chapter of impossible idealism! Is this because the man who can come near to a true imitation of his Heavenly Father in this field of forgiveness is not far from the summit of spiritual achievement?

This truth is delightfully emphasized in the designed parallel between the gracious characteristics of the Lord God, catalogued in Psalm 111, and the imitation of God by “the man that feareth the Lord” (Psalm 112). Phrase for phrase, from beginning to end, the two psalms correspond. In particular, “the Lord is gracious and full of compassion” is matched by: “he (the imitator of God) is gracious and full of compassion (the pity for the unmerciful already commented on).” The psalm continues: “and (thus) he is righteous.” Indeed, he is!