Although that sabbath had meant anything but rest, in the sense of relaxation, for Jesus, he was up next morning long before the others. Mark’s expressive phrase is: “in the morning much in the night he went out and went away.” Jesus needed solitude for thought and prayer. The previous day had presented him with a problem. His deep sympathy for sufferers almost drove him to the working of miracles. But the excitement created was proving a serious impediment to the yet more serious work of teaching which was to be the fundamental activity of his ministry. His works of healing were bringing vast multitudes of sensation-crazy people together. This was not the kind of audience he sought. Then, for the sake of ridding himself of the unspiritual crowd, must he desist from the works of grace which also could be such a powerful means of instruction to those who had eyes to see?

Prayer about a Problem

At the first glimmer of dawn Jesus was walking purposefully up into the hills that he might lay this dilemma before his Father and seek in prayer the wisest policy to follow. “Morning by morning he wakeneth (me), he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned (or, as my disciples). The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious” (ls. 50:4, 5). “I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word”. (Ps. 119:147, 148). And it was from God’s Word, if not from direct

revelation from the Father, that guidance came: “Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to (Galilee of) the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.” Nevertheless, “a bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench…” (ls. 42:1-3).

It was the second temptation once again. And again Jesus had to resolve to have no truck with sensationalism for its own sake. The message of God’s wondrous kingdom must not be cheapened by pandering to the crowd’s appetite for bread and circuses. At the same time God’s gracious gifts of healing must not be withheld from those who came to him making the piteous appeal of helpless faith.

Hunted down

The problem was barely resolved before the peace and solitude of this place of prayer was interrupted. As soon as people were astir they were clamouring for Jesus again. Not finding him in the house, they sought in every place they could think of, but without success. But Peter and the other disciples had a better idea where he might be found, and at last they “hunted him down” (Mark’s vigorous word) in his place of prayer.

When they came right up to him (Luke’s Greek perhaps implying that they picked him out first from some distance away), it was almost in tones of reproach that they said, rather obviously: “All men seek for thee” (Mk.) — as if to say: ‘You have a duty to your public, you can’t disappoint them.’ But in answer Jesus reminded them that he had a duty to others also: “Let us go elsewhere (somewhere different from this! anywhere away from Capernaum in its present mood!) into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.” The reference is not to his escape from the Capernaum multitude, but either to his mission from God, or — perhaps more probably — to his leaving Nazareth, for the parallel phrase in Luke is: “for therefore was I sent” (4:43). That “Let us go…” was significant, for it meant that Jesus was set on having these, his called disciples, with him all the time. The heavenly duty which lay on him lay on them also, if less obviously.

The People’s Eagerness

By this time the crowd also had arrived, and when they realised Jesus’ intention they showed signs of forcibly restraining him, “that he should not depart from them” (Lk). It is only when the repetitious emphasis of the gospels is given due consideration that it can be appreciated what a problem the eagerness of the multitudes constantly created for Jesus. These additional examples are all from Luke’s gospel:

“The people pressed upon him to hear the word of God” (5:1). “They could not find by what way they might bring him (the palsied man) in because of the multitude” (5:19). “The whole multitude sought to touch him” (6:19). “His mother and his brethren could not come at him for the press” (8:19). “The people gladly > received him: for they were all waiting for him”(8:40). “There were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trade one upon another” (12:1). “And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple for to hear him” (21:38).

“It is necessary”

From now on, his deprivation of peace and quiet was an incessant problem to Jesus. In this instance the motive of these sensation-hungry people was so palpably wrong that he was positively eager to be rid of them. And the call of duty required that he should. “I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also” (Lk. cp. Mt. 8:18). This “must” was a moral¹ obligation not to be evaded. It was also the imperative of Holy Scripture, the imperative of’ his Father’s will. The duty and work of the Messiah were already written in the Word of God. From the very first: “I must be about my Father’s business” (Lk. 2:49), to the last: “It. behoved the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the < dead the third day” (24:46), the life and* activity of the Suffering Servant of the Lord were I written beforehand. (See notes).

A very determined leper

The gospels proceed now to illustrate the new! policy of Jesus in the exercise of his powers of healing.

He had been busy preaching in some other; city, and was now indoors with the disciples (sot Mark’s record implies) when a man riddled with leprosy made his way in, determined to have; the help which he knew Jesus could give. Some have inferred from Luke’s graphic phrase: “full of leprosy”, that here was the very case’ described in Leviticus 13:12, 13 which the Law pronounced “clean”. This is a mistaken’ identification. The symptom when the skin is “allf turned white” indicates a relatively harmless’* skin disease which is not really leprosy at all.

This man was badly afflicted by the real thing.’ Officially he was banned not only from the house but from entering the city. It is a measure of his determination to be healed that he

penetrated to the presence of Jesus in this way. His achievement of this intention may readily be imagined. When Jesus was out of doors there would always be a crowd about him. Access was then impossible. So, always, from a distance, this poor outcast would be on the look out to learn where Jesus was going. The chance to get near him would not be easily come by. It is conceivable that hours and even days of vigilance and scheming were necessary before he was able to seize his opportunity. But now, at last, he was in the presence of the one he sought.

Health Restored

The unrestrained horror of the disciples (implied by Luke in one word) meant nothing to him. First, he stood before Jesus, displaying the hideousness of his plague. Then, still keeping his distance, he fell on his knees (Mk) and implored (Lk) Jesus to heal him. With face to the ground (Lk) he continued in an attitude of worship (Mt.), still begging Jesus to come to his aid: “Lord, if thou art willing, thou hast power to cleanse me in a moment.” Commenting on this “If thou wilt”, Plummer observes: “He has more trust in Christ’s power than in his goodness.”

Jesus paused, surveying with deep compassion the pitiful human wreck before him, and then — no doubt to the consternation of his disciples — he leaned forward and actually touched (or even grasped firmly) the importunate wretch still bowed before him: “I am willing. Be cleansed.” And in a moment the thing was done. A fit healthy man rose to his feet.

A Solemn Charge

His torrent of astonished and delighted thankfulness was cut short by Jesus whose mood seemed suddenly to have changed. With stern demeanour (Mk), and using a strong double negative (Mk), he gave him strict instructions not to talk about this wonderful recovery with which his faith had been answered. It was the first example of the new policy which Jesus sought to follow in the exercise of his miraculous powers. Heal he must. The profound human sympathy within him was not to be restrained, and indeed ought not. But as far as possible these cures must be done unsensationally. So let this leper show his gratitude by keeping quiet about it. And with that Jesus took him to the door and sent him urgently away (Mk). The mere fact of intimate contact with a leper, if it were known, could seriously impede the Lord’s public work, and could also damage the family who were then giving him hospitality. So the less said the better.

One other thing was impressed upon the man: “Go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them” (Mk). There was a double purpose here. Witness to the religious leaders concerning the powers of Jesus was important and a very different matter from open display before an excitement-loving crowd. They would now learn that here was one whose power to cope with leprosy surpassed that of Moses (Num. 12:13). Also, it was essential that the authorities should have unmistakable evidence of the fundamental soundness of the attitude of Jesus towards the Law and the Temple.

Instructions disregarded

But the healed leper was not to be restrained (Ps. 66:13-20). Whether it was out of irrepressible gratitude or because he enjoyed the limelight and excitement, he blatantly disregarded the Lord’s express instructions, and went everywhere telling and re-telling his marvellous story (Mk). It is just possible that this reading of the text (as A.V. and practically every other translation) does the man an injustice. Mark 1:45 could read: “And he (Jesus) going forth began to proclaim many things and to spread the word abroad, so that…” But apart from the appreciable problem of the man’s disobedience (on which, cp.Mk. 7:36; Mt. 9:30, 31), the received reading goes more easily. (But on this, cp. Lk. 5 :15).

If correct, it means that Jesus’ intention to continue with his miracles of healing in a quiet unobtrusive fashion was defeated.

For a long while after this he was unable to enter a town at all, perhaps because the people were horrified to learn that he had had personal contact with a leper, but more likely because crowds eager for excitement and the marvellous, made almost impossible the proclamation of the gospel.

Disappointed and despondent, Jesus withdrew to a lonely place, and gave himself to renewed prayer (Lk). What was the answer to this difficult situation? It was a problem only to be resolved ultimately by the later change from popularity to disillusionment or hostility.

Symbolism again

To what extent, one wonders, did the disciples ruminate on the inner meaning of this latest astonishing display of divine power by Jesus? There are plenty of indications that in later days they saw most if not all of these miracles of their Lord as acted parables. Here, truly, was one of special value, for it taught them that the Son of God shared the defilement which sin had brought on all human nature — shared this uncleanness and yet, marvel of marvels, remained undefiled, even though Mark’s phrase: “the leprosy departed from him” might mean that the uncleanness came from the man to Jesus. This notwithstanding, by his emphatic “Be thou clean” was not the Lord also asserting his office as a priest?

But the Law also declared that “whosoever shall touch the flesh of the Sin Offering (as this leper did when he touched Jesus) shall be holy” (Lev. 6:27). Thus the sinner cleansed of his sin through coming to Christ is under an obligation to permanent holiness! The only alternative for an “earthen vessel” is that it be smashed (v. 28).

Notes: Mark 1:35-45

35.	A solitary place. The list of passages where the Lord sought solitude is impressive: 1:35-37; 3:7, 9, 20, 21; 4:35-38; 6:31; 7:17, 18, 24; 8:10, 11, 27; 9:30; 10:32; 14:32.
	And there prayed. Other examples of prayer at night: Ps.119:62; Lam.2:19; Lk.11:5; Mt.26:39-46; Acts.16:25. Here praying doubtless about the tension already set up in his ministry between preaching and healing.
36.	Followed after him. The verb is singular, indicating that Peter was the moving spirit in this pursuit.
38.	The next towns. The word implies smaller places than Capernaum, which was a “city”.
39.	In their synagogues, not in the market-places — a strictly religious, and not political, campaign.
40.	Heal me. The Greek aorist implies: right away; hence v. 42: “immediately”.
41.	Touched him. Mt. 8:15 s.w. and its parallel in Mk. 1:31, krateo, might suggest a firm grip (as also in Jn. 20:17). Both Elijah and Elisha contracted technical defilement by contact with the dead; 1 Kgs 17:21; 2 Kgs 4:34.
43.	He straitly charged him. This very unusual Greek word describes the snort of a horse or the roar of a lion. It certainly seems to suggest indignation; 14:5; Mt. 9:30; Jn. 11:33, 38. In LXX Lam. 2:6; Dan. 11:30; and in some versions: Jer. l0:10; 15:17; Ps. 76:7.
44.	Say nothing to any man. This became the Lord’s settled policy for most of his ministry: 1:34; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26; Mt. 9:30; 17:9; 12:16 (one exception, and for good reason: Mk. 5:19). But in the last few months, a marked change: Jn. 9:3; 11:4; 7:37; Mt. 21:1-11.
	For a testimony unto them (the priests). There might be a hint of rebuke here: 6:11; 13:9. Was Jesus so urgent because he feared that the priests, hearing about the miracle before the man came might out of spite refuse to accredit it as a genuine healing?
45.	Blaze abroad the matter. Literally: spread the word. This might mean the word Jesus had spoken: “I will. Be thou clean.”
	They came to him. Greek: they kept on coming.

Luke 4:42-44

42.	When it was day. Literally: day coming on. Contrast Mk: deep in the night. Cp. the apparent contradiction in the resurrection narratives: Jn. 20:1; Mk. 16:2. No contradiction really. Lots of people set off for work in the dark and arrive there in daylight.
	Stayed him. The word implies persistent and strong attempts to keep him there.
43.	/ must. Other examples in Lk. 9:22; 17:25; 22:37; 24:7, 26, 44; Acts. 3:21; 17:3. This little Greek Word del (= it is necessary) merits attention. It is there also in ls. 50:4 LXX.
44.	He preached. The form of the word suggests a sustained campaign through the area. This verse covers a period of weeks at least.
	The synagogues of Galilee, some modern versions read “Judaea”. This is grossly misleading; even if textually correct (which is very doubtful), it must allude to the little Judah by Jordan (Josh. 19:34) which commemorated Judah’s special connection with Manasseh; 1 Chr. 2:21.

The synoptic gospels recount a considerable number of occasions when Jesus cast out demons or unclean spirits. In addition there are further references in John’s gospel, Acts and the Epistles. As a class these incidents constitute one of the biggest problems of interpretation in the New Testament. It can hardly be said that the answers usually supplied are completely satisfying.

The common evangelical approach claims to take the gospel records strictly at their face value. Demons, that is to say, wicked disembodied spirits do exist; they caused many of the ailments which people were stricken with; Jesus recognised this fact, and by his power as Son of God he drove them away and so restored health to the afflicted.

Personal Devils?

This would be fine if it did not involve recognition of a whole world of evil beings. Belief in a personal superhuman Devil is a necessary adjunct to this viewpoint. Apart from this, there is a considerable array of minor problems and difficulties left unsolved. These crop up as soon as one studies the various accounts afresh equipped with a question mark.

But the biggest difficulty of all is the non-appearance of demons in the vast volume of Old Testament history. Here, for once, the argument from omission is really telling. In a thousand pages of Old Testament there is no mention of demons. Then a turn of the page and they become a regular feature of the record. An explanation which does not account for this strange phenomenon is no explanation. Strange, truly, that these demons should have been so active and evident in the time of Jesus, and yet so much out of the picture for long long periods both before and after.

There is also the fact that the identical diseases spoken of in the gospels as due to demonic influence are today curable by medical experts hardly any of whom believe in the existence of evil spirits.

Modern Attitude

The modernist approach is either to say that the writers of the gospels shared the beliefs of their ignorant contemporaries and for this reason couldn’t help but cast their accounts of the Lord’s miracles in this particular form; or else it is asserted that in this field of knowledge Jesus was a child of his own generation, himself thoroughly believing in the existence of demons and in his own ability to exorcise them. On this all that needs to be said is that a theory which assigns to the modern student of the gospels a higher authority and a superior judgement to that of Jesus or even of those who wrote about him condemns itself. But it is characteristic of the age we live in.

The “Accommodation” Theory

The explanation which seems to have found most favour among the readers of these studies assumes that Jesus, whilst not at all believing in or teaching the existence of unclean spirits, nevertheless fell in with the thinking of his contemporaries, tacitly adopting demonic modes of speech but without supporting or encouraging such ways of thinking.

The sheet anchor of this interpretative approach is the Baalzebub controversy: “If I by Baalzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children (i.e. your disciples) cast them out?” (Mt. 12: 27).

Here, it is suggested, Jesus adopted the standpoint of his adversaries simply for the sake of argument, solely in order to expose the illogicality of their thinking. And if he did so in this instance, may it not be safely assumed that in all his other references to demons he was following precisely the same method?

The simple answer is: It may not be so assumed! For this tacit adoption, for the sake of argument, of an erroneous point of view only crops up in discussion when seeking to confute a seriously false assumption made by one’s adversary (as in Mt. 12: 27). But in no other mention of demons was Jesus attempting to say: “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.”

On the contrary, in a score of places and more, when the Lord found himself confronted with a demoniac, he seems almost gladly to have fallen in with the idea, positively encouraging those who heard him to believe in the existence of such beings. And, equally important, the inspired gospel writers have, time after time, adopted precisely the same approach in a way which almost demands of the reader that he believe in demons.

An emphatic but quite typical example is Mark’s account (ch. 5) of the Gadarene demoniac:

• “A man with an unclean spirit” (v. 2: Mark’s ‘narrative).
• “He (Jesus) said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit” (v. 8).
• “And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine” (v.         12: Mark’s narrative).
• “And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine” (v. 13: Mark’s narrative).
• “And they come and see him that was possessed with the devil…sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind” (v. 15: Mark’s narrative).
• “He that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him” (v. 18: Mark’s narrative).

Thus, five times in this God-guided account and once in the words of Jesus the reader is being steered to a belief in the reality of demons. In this fairly lengthy passage (20 verses) there is no hint that such a belief is an error of either major or minor importance.

It would be no difficult matter to assemble thirty or forty other verses from the gospels all of which similarly make tacit assumption that unclean spirits really exist — and all of them putting this idea in the very words of Jesus or of the men who were inspired to write about him.

This is the real problem. This is the big difficulty. And the “accommodation” theory is utterly unable to cope with it. Only by shutting one’s eyes to the frequency and plainness of such passages as those just cited is it possible to say that Jesus fell in with grossly mistaken ideas just for the sake of convenience.

Let the fact be faced that in any of these exorcism episodes the Lord could have set the whole matter straight in a couple of clear incisive sentences — yet he didn’t!

Accurate New Testament Diagnosis

Another much neglected fact of considerable importance is this: In a marked majority of instances, alongside the mention of demons, the gospels also provide a plain simple matter-of-fact diagnosis of the disabilities Jesus healed.

“A dumb man possessed with a devil, (Mt. 9: 32). “One possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him” (12: 22). “(His friends said) He is beside himself. And the scribes said, He hath Baalzebub … “ (Mk. 3: 21,22). The Gadarene demoniac was found “sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind” (Mk. 5: 15). “Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is epileptic… and Jesus rebuked the devil…” (Mt. 17: 15,18 RV). “And they that were vexed with unclean spirits were healed” (Lk. 6: 18). “A woman which had a spirit of infirmity… and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself” (Lk. 13: 11). “He hath a devil, and is mad” (Jn. 10: 20; the same idea is implied in 7: 20 and 8: 48).

Let it be clearly understood, then, that in most instances the maladies from which these unfortunates suffered were clearly recognised and described. Mention of demons could be omitted without any loss of intelligibility — indeed, there might well be a gain in lucidity.

Thus the problem of demon terminology becomes more acute than ever.

Familiar Terminology

It is not certain whence these ideas about demons came into Jewish thought. Probably from Persia or Greece (Hellenized Syria). Between the Testaments the Jews came under the domination of both, and during the four hundred years before Christ it would have been impossible to resist altogether the encroachments of the conquerors’ religious ideas.

But it is difficult to be sure to what extent demon language came to be used merely as a mode of speech rather than as an expression of firm conviction.

Today many a man says “Go to hell” who hasn’t a flicker of belief in the existence of such a place. Today, “You look as though you’ve seen a ghost” hardly ever implies a belief in spooks. Today it is merely a well-understood figure of speech to say: “That politician is in league with the devil.”

Gospel evidence suggests that a somewhat similar situation existed in our Lord’s time regarding demons.

Then, once again, the question demands an answer: Why did Jesus so often go out of his way to talk about (and to) demons as though he firmly believed in their existence, when there was no real need for him to take the problem seriously?

Solution via the Old Testament

To attempt an answer to this question it is necessary to go off at a tangent, apparently, to explore the Bible’s teaching about angels of evil.

The angels — all of them — are God’s ministers. They exist to do His will. And His will very often involves what men construe as evil, although when seen from God’s point of view it is precisely what He wants to happen. “I make peace, and I create evil: I, the Lord, do all these things” (Is 45: 7). “Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Am. 3: 6).

God is the controller of everything in this world. He originates all the “evil” circumstances in it, as well as the good.

It follows, then, that whatever evil He decrees is contrived by the angels to whom this work is committed. The Bible refers to these as “evil angels” or “angels of evil”. Let it be clearly understood, these are not wicked angels. There are no wicked angels. They are God’s ministers, fulfilling His will, being responsible for bringing what men interpret as “evil” into human experience. A long list of illustrative Bible passages is available.

Examples

Psalm 78: 42-49 recalls the plagues in Egypt: “He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.” But these plagues were God’s retribution on the Egyptians.

“An evil man seeketh only rebellion (against God): therefore a cruel messenger (LXX: an angel without mercy) shall be sent against him” (Prov. 17: 11).

Exodus 12: 23 has a protecting angel and a destroying angel in the same verse: “The Lord will pass over (i.e. hover over) the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”

“And David spake unto the Lord when he saw the angel that smote the people…” (2 Sam. 24: 17).

“And immediately the angel of the lord smote Herod, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost” (Acts. 12: 23).

Specially germane to this study is 1 Sam. 16: 14: “But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him”.

There are many more passages of this character.

In the light of this teaching it is evident that the various maladies which Jesus healed were there in the afflicted people by the will of God and under the contrivance and control of His angels j of evil.

Bible and Science

If it be objected that these sicknesses, many of them, at least, were the direct result of natural law, this must be agreed. Else, why should wise medicine so often work a cure?

Yet it has to be remembered that the Bible’s view of natural law is that all such are the direct handiwork of God, maintained in operation by His angels: “He saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth” (Job 37: 6; and many more in the same book). “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Mt. 5: 45).

When stilling the storm on Galilee, Jesus “rebuked the winds and the sea” (Mt. 8: 26). But how could these mindless elements of Nature suffer rebuke^ Is not the reader intended here to look behind the natural phenomena to the angel of the Lord by whose operation these things happened?

The Bible has no use for the brainwashing inflicted by scientists on their contemporaries. There is not a word in the Scriptures about “laws of Nature”, except to pillory the idea (Ecc. 1: 13b; 3: 10,11). “Natural Law” has become a smokescreen put out by the scientists to save people from wholesomely seeing God at work in the world of Nature.

A Fairly Accurate Concept

From all this it follows that when the people spoke of their various disabilities as “being possessed with an unclean spirit” they were marvellously near to the truth of the matter. Theologically speaking they were actually much nearer the truth than the modern pagan who attributes his attack of ‘flu to a germ. The only error was the possible concept of these demons as powers or wickedness. Yet this does not appear to have been dominant in the people’s thinking. These demons are mostly referred to as “unclean spirits”, that is, evil angels, as in Ps. 78: 49. Only twice are they called “evil spirits” (Mt. 12: 45 = Lk. 11: 26; Acts. 19: 16), in circumstances which make the term specially appropriate. (See Study 76 and also “Acts” by H.A.W. ch. 84).

Here, then, is adequate reason why Jesus would appear to accommodate himself to the idea of demon possession. Provided the notion of wicked spirits be kept out of the picture, the concept is near enough to literal truth to be tolerable.

Another Difficulty Explained

Here, also, is the explanation why the Lord addressed himself directly to the “unclean spirit”, as in Mark 1: 25: “Hold thy peace, end come out of him.” As Son of God he had authority over the angel of evil who was responsible (under God) for the distress and suffering of the afflicted creature before him. The command: “Come out of him”, was an instruction to this angel to let go the sufferer from the dominance and control which had been exercised over him hitherto.

The Lord’s acquiescence in the terminology and conventional ideas of the people regarding the problem of suffering now presents less difficulty. It is no longer a patronising take-over of crude mistaken ideas, comparable to the Catholic church’s cynical appropriation of many an ancient pagan myth or custom. It is rather, the re-statement of an old and true idea in a new and better light, for the nurturing of faith in those whom the Lord blessed with his healing power. Men were being taught to see in Jesus of Nazareth a divine authority greater than the angels, greater than any in the universe save the Almighty Himself.

Seen in this light, the sharp contrast between the profusion of demonic detail in the New Testament and their non-appearance in the Old Testament ceases to perplex. Angels of evil in the Old Testament and demons in the New Testament fulfil the same essential functions. They are two ways of saying the same thing.

With such a view of a difficult problem now available, the threadbare and quite inadequate “accommodation” theory may be safely let go.

Jesus now moved to Capernaum. It can hardly be described as his headquarters, because his ministry necessarily involved considerable movement about the country. But this was to be the main centre of his work throughout the ensuing year. There were several reasons for this.

Matthew links this move with John’s imprisonment, which must have taken place about the time Jesus came north (Jn.4: 1,3). The word used by Matthew and Mark here is the one normally used in the gospels for betrayal (43 times), and also with the somewhat milder meaning: delivered, handed over. The implication seems to be that John was paying the penalty for being so plain-spoken in his preaching. The Pharisees did not forgive sins of that sort. It was probably by their false accusation and contrivance in the first place that John now found himself a prisoner (Mt.17: 12).

Accordingly Matthew describes this transfer of activities to Capernaum by a word which carried a hint of flight (4: 12). Later on it is described as “his own city” (Mt.9:1); and the narrative of 17:24 tells of him paying temple tribute there, thus implying that by that time he had been recognized as a citizen of Capernaum for more than a year.

If, then, at this time there was danger to Jesus also, Capernaum lay on the very edge of Herod’s territory, and in emergency it would be possible to cross the lake or the Jordan into the tetrarchy of Philip who was one of the least vicious of the Herod family.

Also, for certain, a warm welcome awaited Jesus at the home of the nobleman whose son he had healed and who was now a fully-committed disciple.

Yet another reason of importance-James and John, Peter and his family, and Andrew with them, lived at Bethsaida, the fishing quarter of Capernaum, and Jesus had plans to call them to a much more thorough-going discipleship than they had yet contemplated.

Also, it is not to be overlooked that Jesus was under orders. To him the remarkable Isaiah passage cited in Matthew 4 was a directive. Yet, left to themselves, would today’s students of Isaiah find any Messianic content whatever in those words?

A Puzzling Prophecy in Isaiah

The description of Capernaum as “in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali” is rather odd. The town could only be said to lie in both of these tribes if it was on the boundary between them, a conclusion not easy to harmonize with the details of Joshua 19. Certainly Matthew is here preparing the way for his rather enigmatic quotation from Isaiah 9, but perhaps also there is intention to suggest in order the localities of Nazareth (Zebulun) and Cana (Naphtali); Capernaum, “the way of the sea”; whilst the phrases “beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles” imply an intention to extend activity to the more Gentile side of the lake, Decapolis and the region of the Gergesenes.

As in several earlier examples Matthew’s use of Isaiah 9: 1,2 does not at once commend itself as a clear and immediately convincing prophecy of the ministry of Jesus. Nevertheless it is wise to assume that Matthew knew what he was writing about, certainly more than his twentieth century critic does. If Matthew declares this passage to be a prophecy of Christ, then it is; and it forthwith becomes the duty of the present-day reader to bring a teachable mind to this fact. This is the first and necessary equipment for progress in understanding, and even then it may be necessary to admit to only a very limited insight into the deeper meaning of such Scriptures.

It may be taken as fairly certain that this prophecy about “the people that walked in darkness” had immediate reference in Isaiah’s own day to vivid events in Galilee which are not mentioned elsewhere in Bible history or prophecy. It has been suggested by Boutflower (“Isaiah”, ch.5, 6) that Isaiah, in disfavour at the court of Ahaz because of his strong opposition to fashionable idolatries (2 Kgs. 16: 11-17, ls. 8: 9) and wrong-headed political alliances (8: 12), was hunted out of Judah and took refuge in Galilee (8: 16,17). Thither he spread abroad his prophetic message of a new era of godliness and prosperity which the new king (Hezekiah) would bring in due time.

The appropriateness of such a pattern of events to the time of Jesus will now be evident. Given scant encouragement in Jerusalem, and warned by the imprisonment of John of yet greater hostility to come, Jesus abandoned Judaea (Jn. 4: 3), and betook himself to Galilee. The word for “borders of Zebulun and Naphtali” is used also in Isaiah 9: 7 LXX: “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end…”

The Glory of the Gospel

Thus this extension of the scope of Christ’s work at this time was seen as a token fulfilment of the greater evangelization which his kingdom will bring to people who “sit (i.e. dwell or abide) in darkness … and in the region and shadow of death.”

This description of the people of Galilee is usually taken as a picture of their spiritual dereliction when Jesus appeared among them. The context suggests another possibility-that the words have reference to the gloom and sadness which lay heavily upon them because John had been cast into prison. “Such as sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death” is the Psalmist’s description for the miseries of captivity and imprisonment in “gates of brass, and bars of iron” (107: 10,16).

Isaiah’s consolation is couched in language appropriate to the Shekinah Glory: “a great Light… is sprung up”. The Hebrew here uses a word which, with perhaps two exceptions, always describes the vivid brightness of the Glory of the Lord. This was now manifest in Galilee, not as a physical shining forth, but in the matchless teaching and awe-inspiring miracles of the Son of God. In his version of these words Matthew switches to a Greek word which suggests the Messianic prophecies about The Branch of the Lord (s.w. Zech 3: 8; 6: 12; ls. 60: 1; 61: 11 etc.)

Preaching Campaigns

Mark’s version of this first appeal to Galilee (1: 14) introduces a long series of similar expressions about the Lord’s preaching. These, dotted through the first half of his gospel, are clearly designed to convey the impression of a number of “campaigns” (at least five) held in this region (1: 21,39; 3: 7,8; 4: 1; 6: 1,6,56; 7: 31). “How beautiful upon the mountains were the feet of him that brought good tidings (the gospel)” (ls. 52: 7).

Key Phrases

The message Jesus proclaimed was: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1: 15). Here are three key phrases which dominate the early chapters of the synoptic gospels – but not John’s gospel. There the first of them comes twice only, in the discussion with Nicodemus; the others are not used at all. This might afford ground for uneasiness were it not for the fact that the fourth gospel makes copious use of equivalent phrases. Instead of Jesus being proclaimed the King of the Kingdom of God, he is the Light, the Life, showing and bestowing “eternal life”. Similarly, being “born from above” is John’s equivalent of “repentance”, and for “gospel” he has that tremendously significant word “witness”. Also, binding all four gospels together is the key word “faith”, with its verb “believe”, occurring as often in John as in all the synoptics put together.

Somewhat remarkably, in the passage just cited, Mark (in the Greek text) has “believe in the gospel”, using a form of the phrase which is almost unique. It is difficult to be sure of the precise inflexion of meaning here. A possible, or even probable, meaning is “believe by means of the gospel”, the implication being: ‘hear the good news, and through it be led to a faith-full committing of your life to Christ.’

“The Kingdom at hand”

There was an urgency about the message which today is both obvious and bewildering: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand”. The first of these phrases seems to point to a specific period of time, for which the only candidate is Daniel’s “seventy weeks” prophecy (9: 24-27) about “Messiah the Prince”; and it is usually held that the last of those seventy weeks brings one to the ministry of Jesus.

But what of the kingdom being “at hand”? A wide variety of interpretations has been proposed here. For example:

1. The King of that kingdom is here in your? midst – this is usually supported by a very dubious reading of Luke 17: 21: “The royal majesty of God is in the midst of you.”
2. God’s new order, the church, is now to be inaugurated. A number of parables might perhaps be cited in support of this.
3. Your opportunity to share in the kingdom is now being brought to you. This appears to be the meaning in Luke 10: 11.
4. The words meant literally and precisely what they say; but there has come a great divine deferment of fulfilment because the message was not received.

The pros and cons of these divergent points of view call for considerable discussion. A not uncommon attitude is to find what is considered a satisfactory item of supporting evidence for one of these interpretations, and then to judge the matter settled. That is not the best way to study the gospels. Certainly a careful study of all the occurrences of the words translated “at hand” should be undertaken first, and as honest an assessment as possible made in the light of that.

Apparently Dr. Thomas leaned towards the fourth of these interpretations: “Had the nation, continued to obey the Lord’s voice and to keep the covenant, and when Christ came received him as king on the proclamation of the gospel, they would doubtless have been in Canaan until now; and he might have come ere this, and be now reigning in Jerusalem as King of the Jews and Lord of the nations” (Elpis Israel, 1924 ed. page 301). See also the Appendix in “Revelation” (H.A.W.)

Why no definition of the Kingdom?

It is to be noted that neither here nor in any other place in the Lord’s teaching is there a systematic exposition of the nature of the kingdom which Jesus proclaimed. The explanation is simple. There was no Jew, learned or illiterate, who did not know as familiarly as an English schoolboy knows about Waterloo or an American about Gettysburg, that his own nation had been called by God to be “a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” All were well acquainted with the inspiring prophecies of the reign of a Jewish Messiah in Jerusalem. All knew about the Kingdom of God. What they needed to learn was the identity of its King and the spiritual qualifications for citizenship. Hence the emphasis of the miracles and the sermon on the mount.

Notes: Matthew 4: 13-17

15.	An alternative to (or, extention of) the idea suggested in the text not only sees the familiar Is. 9: 6,7 as a prophecy, in the first instance, of the birth of Hezekiah, but also interprets v. 1-5 as a series of pictures of the blessings of his reign:
	v. 1,2: The northern tribes, ravaged earlier (“at the first”) by Assyrian invaders, are later (“afterward”) to hear Hezekiah’s gospel call to share in the blessings of worship at Jerusalem.
	v. 3-5: The destruction of Sennacherib’s army, bringing inexpressible joy to the succoured nation and also the return of the multitude of captives carried away by the Assyrians (“thou hast multiplied the nation”). The more important parallel with the work of Jesus suggests itself readily enough. It is noteworthy that Matthew does not go on to quote v.6,7 which are so obviously Messianic. He takes the fact, and the familiarity of his readers with it, for granted.
17.	Then began Jesus to preach. Cp. Acts.10: 37: “beginning from Galilee”. The implication seems to be that this was the real start of his work. Or was there an earlier “beginning” (including Jn. 2: 1-11) before the first Passover in Jerusalem?

Mark 1: 14,15

15.	The time is fulfilled. Hence the urgent tone in this gospel? Mark repeatedly says: “straightway, immediately”.
	Believe (in) the gospel. The preposition en is very frequently used in NT with the sense: “by means of”.

In normal circumstances the “ruler” of a Jewish synagogue had a free hand to invite whom he chose to discourse to the people. The one exception was that he could take that duty himself only by special request of the congregation. It is easy to understand Jesus being invited, on his first sabbath (Mk), to act as teacher in the only synagogue in Capernaum (Mk. 1:21: the synagogue; cp. Lk. 7:5 RV). Both his open-air teaching and his miracles in recent days had made the people eager to hear more. So synagogue preaching throughout Galilee became the Lord’s settled policy for a while to come (Lk. 4:44 Gk.).

Authority

Now that they listened to him in the more formal style of the synagogue it was forced upon their minds how drastically different was his mode of teaching from that of the scribes. These teachers, like certain of their counterparts in the twentieth century, were tied in their interpretations to the opinions and pronouncements of celebrated teachers of former days: “Rabbi Simeon-ben-Judah saith… Rabbi Judah the Holy saith…” But this Jesus of Nazareth, who, being a mere carpenter, should have been showing more than normal deference to higher authority, spoke with a self-assurance which filled them with amazement. ‘He hasn’t quoted the rabbis once!’ Either this was cocksureness and bombast far beyond normal experience, or he was in truth speaking by divine right. Could it be that here was an inspiration surpassing that of the prophets? He proceeded to produce further credentials about which there could be no argument. Astonishment at his teaching gave way to astonishment at his miracles.

Service Interrupted

There in the assembly was a man who had been afflicted with recurrent mental sickness. As a man is “in Adam” or “in Christ”, so this poor fellow was “in an unclean spirit” (Gk.) — a remarkable contrast with the usual phrase: “in whom was an unclean spirit”. Just now he was normal enough. Otherwise, of course, care would have been taken to exclude him from the synagogue. As Jesus concluded his discourse, and people marvelled at what they heard and how it was said, the man’s lunacy suddenly asserted itself once again, and he shouted out loudly: “Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34).

These words, difficult enough, have been made more difficult by the inclination of many to read them as though spoken by some personal evil spirit(s) dwelling in the man. Nor is the modern fantasy very convincing which suggests that wild incoherent cries were interpreted by Jesus as having this meaning.

A Contradiction

There is no need for wild assumptions of this sort. On carefully re-reading the words, one notices the change of pronouns from plural to singular. And at the same point there is also a complete change of tone and meaning. “The Holy One of God” and “come to destroy us” are hopelessly contradictory ideas.

It would seem, then, that in his more sane moments this poor fellow had heard thrown backwards and forwards widely differing opinions about Jesus. It is easy to understand that some, remembering the evils brought on the nation by various false Messiahs, had already decided that Jesus of Nazareth was in the same category and that his movement was bound to end in the same kind of tragedy: ‘He will get us into trouble with the Romans! And we shall receive no help or support from Jerusalem because our leaders there have already; decided against him.’ But there was also the other opinion: ‘I tell you, he is the Messiah, the, Holy One of God.’

This demonic description of Jesus as the Holy One is very difficult to reconcile with the “ common understanding that here was a man, possessed by an evil spirit. Would not a wicked spirit seek to derogate the holiness of Christ?

On the other hand, with the explanation (already suggested in Study 30) of unclean spirits as being God’s angels of evil, an incident like this assumes considerable significance.

In the cure, and in the words used to describe the cure, Jesus was asserting his authority over such an angel. Contemporary pseudo-exorcists made a great show with the repetition of impressive religious names (eg. Acts. 19:13), and especially the (invented) names of angels (HDB 1:812), as though invoking their aid in the cure. But here was Jesus, exercising control over angels, and by his own right!

It may be taken as fairly certain that the man’s lunatic cries are carefully reported in the gospels because of the important double meaning behind them. It is one of the great works of Messiah to reconcile “things in heaven” as well as things in earth. The dire work of angels of evil is to be made unnecessary. All these ministering spirits of God are to be brought into harmony with the healing, cleansing, redeeming work of God’s Holy One.

The Cure

It could help the new campaign of Jesus little to have such wild contradictions shouted out before this large assembly, so he addressed himself to the man, or rather, to his disability, or to the angel of evil responsible for his calamitous condition: “Be muzzled (s.w. 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Pet. 2:15), and come out of him.” Jesus only sought to silence the man’s testimony because it would be no help to his cause to have such witness borne by such a person in such a condition.

The effect of the Lord’s command was immediate. There, in the open space before the rostrum (cp. Lk. 4:35), a sudden convulsion shook the man violently, so that, uttering a wild yell, he was thrown to the floor before the fascinated horrified gaze of everybody. But, then, within seconds, he was on his feet again looking and behaving perfectly normally, and (may it be guessed?) apologizing to those about him for any disturbance he had caused. Luke’s phrase: “Having done him no hurt”, corrects any false inference that the man’s loud shout was a cry of pain. Indeed, it seems likely that Luke wrote with his eye on the only other place in Scripture which uses this word ‘hurt’ — in an extra verse preserved in the LXX version at Proverbs 25:20: “As a moth in a garment, and as a worm in wood, so the distress of a man hurts his heart (his mind)”. Hardship leaves its mark in a man’s thinking. But not so with this man. Here now was complete normality, with neither physical nor mental weakness as reminder of his former condition.

Now, for certain, there was only one conviction in his healthy mind: “Jesus is the Holy One of God.” The title was no recent invention, but had its origin in Daniel’s great “Seventy Weeks” prophecy: “Seventy weeks… to anoint the Most Holy One… Messiah the Prince” (9:24, 25; and in its turn Dan. 9 looks back to Ps. 89:18-20). Had not Jesus come to their district declaring that “the time is fulfilled” (Mk. 1:15)? And did not the signs he wrought make the conclusion certain?

Effect on the Crowd

This first public miracle of healing was followed by an awed silence very different from the astonished reaction to what the Lord taught (Mk. 1:27, 21). Then the buzz of conversation rarely absent from a Jewish synagogue reasserted itself. “What a word is this! What new doctrine is this! For with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out” (Mk. 1:27; Lk. 4:36). These comments can hardly have reference to the discourse Jesus had been delivering. The immediate context makes this difficult. And, after all, the amazement of the crowd and the argument that now went on clearly centred round the miracle of healing much more than the preaching. So the “new doctrine” is probably the implicit claim by Jesus to personal authority over God’s angels of evil responsible for maladies such as that afflicting the man in the synagogue. This mastery of the unseen powers of evil (Phil. 2:10) was even more fundamental and far-reaching than the royal majesty they normally associated with the Messiah.

The chatter (Lk) and argument (Mk) that went on in the synagogue showed no sign of abating. It effectively put an end to any useful instruction of the people for that day. The compassion of Jesus had defeated his other purposes and was to do so many a time again. So he rose up from the seat which he had occupied as synagogue teacher (Lk. 4:38 RV), and withdrew to take refuge from public attention in the home of Simon Peter.

The service ended in disorder, and the sensational story of what had happened in the synagogue erupted through the town and into all the surrounding countryside. Now everybody was talking about Jesus of Nazareth. The “year of popularity” had begun.

Notes: Mark 1:21-28

21.	On the sabbath day. The Greek plural here has been persuasively explained as an idiom appropriate to a special sabbath; but “taught them” (Lk. 4:31 Gk.) is decisive that this phrase covers a number of sabbaths.
22.	This verse comes in Mt. 7:28 verbatim, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount-describing a fresh astonishment? or supporting the not very popular view that Peter abbreviated “Matthew” and then told the rest to Mark sometimes in his own words and sometimes in Matthew’s?
23.	In their synagogue. Does this personal pronoun hint at a contrast with their synagogue at Nazareth?
24.	Let us alone… No doubt the man’s words are given verbatim by both Mk. and Lk. because of their further reference (already mentioned) to God’s angels of evil. Similarly, “Jesus of Nazareth” was first used contemptuously (Jn. 1:45), but later seems to have a higher meaning concerning The Branch (netzer) filled with “the Spirit of counsel and might” who would “reprove with equity for the meek of the earth” (Is. 11:1-3). The Holy One. In the NT. consider Jn. 6:69, 70 RV; 1 Jn. 2:20; Rev. 3:7. One commentator adds: “And he who thus cries out today is reckoned lunatic.”
25.	Rebuked him. The Greek is ambiguous, and may refer to the man or the “spirit”.
	Hold thy peace. In the O.T. Dt.25:4 only. Here was an “ox” damaging the “corn”, and therefore to be muzzled.
26.	Torn him. Lk: thrown him. An epileptic fit has been suggested, but the man’s utterance seems to rule this out.
27.	Amazed; v.22: astonished. And so also in 5:20; 6:51; 7:37; 10:26; but most emphatic here.
	What thing is this? Contrast 4:41: “Who then is this?”
	With authority he commandeth. The noun for “command” seems always to describe a divine command.

Luke 4:31-37

31.	Come down to Capernaum. Written by one who knew the geography. Nazareth to Capernaum is a drop of nearly 2000 feet.
33.	A spirit of an unclean devil. Genitive of apposition: a spirit, that is, an unclean demon.
36.	What a word is this! It is noteworthy that apparently no objection was raised about healing on the sabbath. As a campaign against Jesus this criticism was cooked up later.
37.	Fame, a very strong word; Heb. 12:19. 1 Cor. 13:1 and Lk.21:25 have the corresponding verb.

Getting away from the excited crowd in the synagogue, Jesus walked, along with his four fisher disciples, to Peter’s home. Peter was a married man, with children probably (Mt. 17:24, 25); Judas also (Ps.109: 9, 12) and probably others among the apostles (1 Cor.9:5). But evidently Andrew was unmarried, for he lived with Peter (Mk. 1:29).

If Peter had a settled home at this time, how could it be said of him that he “forsook all”? How, near the end of the Lord’s ministry, could he say: “We have left all and followed thee” (Mt. 19:27)?

The explanation appears to be this: The first of these two references relates to Peter’s normal work as a fisherman; the other was true soon after this, and thenceforward, when Peter and the rest left their homes in order to be with Jesus constantly.

There is some uncertainty as to the location of Peter’s home at this time. When he first met Jesus, he was “of Bethsaida” (Jn. 1:44). Yet, on this sabbath, after preaching and healing in the synagogue at Capernaum (Tell Hum, by general agreement) Jesus went immediately to Peter’s house. Two possibilities present themselves. Either Peter and Andrew had lately moved to Capernaum, or the Bethsaida where they lived was within easy distance of Capernaum. It seems almost certain that there were two Bethsaidas (= Fisher-town; cp. Port Said). The sites suggested for these are about three miles from Capernaum, in opposite directions. But this distance is well over “a sabbath day’s journey” (= about 3/5 of a mile), unless there was a special dispensation to go further for the purpose of attending a synagogue. It seems much more likely that Peter’s Bethsaida was actually a suburb of Capernaum. The geographers do not seem to have considered this possibility.

“A great fever”

No sooner was Jesus in the house than he was urgently asked for help — Peter’s mother-in-law was prostrated with “a great fever”. According to one authority this expression was used by contemporaries to describe what was, judging from the symptoms, typhus. The fever was most acute, and (Luke’s Greek seems to imply) was continuing, without showing any sign of abating.

Apparently Jesus knew nothing of this domestic emergency until he got to the house, or he would surely have come to the sufferer’s aid before this. Now the fever had been running its distressing course for most of the day (at least). Yet when a high fever shows no sign of breaking there is real ground for alarm. Then with what impatience had Peter’s wife awaited the end of the synagogue service! She had every reason for anxiety.

Immediate recovery

The request was put to Jesus only once (Lk. 4:38 Gk). No more was needed. He went at once to her bed-side (Lk) and grasping her hand (Mk), sat her up in bed (Mk). Then, he rebuked the fever (Lk) — and it was gone! She was up from her bed immediately, and proceeded right away (Lk) to help with the sabbath evening meal and especially to look offer the needs of Jesus (Mt: Gk text) as he relaxed at table. There was no sign in her of the usual hang-over of debility and lassitude. The sufferer’s recovery was instantaneous and complete.

The ways of commentators are passing strange. “It was not a great miracle”, observes one learned man. He would surely have written differently if he had had that fever himself!

Luke’s description: “he rebuked the fever”, reads as though addressed to a demon. Here, again, so it would seem, the reader is intended to envisage the poor woman’s suffering as the work of one of God’s angels of evil.

There was of course, no arrière pensée about the working of this miracle. Yet how valuable it must have been to Jesus in later days. It is no light thing to take a man from his home and wife and family and livelihood to become a peripatetic preacher. Yet this is what Jesus had demanded of Peter that day. And for the rest of his life Peter followed. “Lord, we have left all, and followed thee.” Such response is hardly possible without the full assent and cooperation of wife and family. If such enthusiastic support was not already evident, this healing of Peter’s mother-in-law guaranteed it. From this day forward Peter need never be looking over his shoulder wondering how this wandering life as disciple of Jesus of Nazareth was regarded by the folks at home.

A Mass Appeal to Jesus

If it was the afternoon service at the synagogue (the time of the evening sacrifice) when Jesus healed the demoniac, there would be just time for him to enjoy a meal before the day’s end at sun-down. Just time also for every home in Capernaum where there was illness of any kind to make feverish preparations to bring their sick folk to Peter’s house for healing as soon as the sabbath was technically ended. According to Luke their eagerness stretched a point and set this operation in motion before the sabbath was quite ended.

It must have been an astonishing sight in that twilight — many small groups of people converging on the same spot, as sick folk were led (Lk) or carried thither (Mk) and set down there (Mt) in eager expectation of aid comparable to that exercise of power witnessed in the synagogue. “The entire city was now synagogued at the door.”

This appeal to the compassion of Jesus was not to be resisted. He went out to them and healed them all individually. He laid his hands in blessing on each sick or diseased person separately (Lk). There were further examples of the mentally unbalanced crying out (Lk), like the man in the synagogue, that this Jesus was the Messiah (a sentiment their bemused wits must have taken in from much of the excited talk which went on around them), only to be immediately silenced with a word of authority (Mt), for this was a form of advertisement or acclaim that Jesus could well do without (Mk).

The wonderful work continued (Lk) probably right through the twilight until darkness fell. Between them the synoptic writers exhaust the available vocabulary in attempts to picture the wide variety of ailments and disabilities brought to Jesus in that hour (cp. also Mt. 4:24). Luke’s phrase is specially emphatic. Yet all were sent away well and happy. That night the only sick persons in the town were those who said: ‘That Jesus of Nazareth is no good.’ Never was such a healthy place as Capernaum just then.

But alas, not so spiritually (Mt. 11:20, 23, 24).

In his gospel Matthew repeatedly drives home the point that there was no human need beyond the power of Christ to cope with (12:15; 14:35, 36; 4:24). It is a lesson the present age refuses to learn. And today, as then, it is to each individual separately according to his need that the Lord’s help comes.

According to the Scriptures

Matthew again, after his manner in the early part of his gospel, links this healing work of Jesus with Old Testament prophecy regarding him: “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses”. Here instead of the familiar Septuagint text there is a more strictly literal translation. In the original text (ls. 53:4) the first word means “sickness” and the second “pain”, either physical or psychological, i.e. “grief”. But the context there clearly has reference to sin-sickness. This is without doubt the fundamental meaning. It should not be assumed that Matthew is misapplying the passage or distorting its meaning. The gospel writers must always be given credit for knowing what they are about. Here then, rather, is Matthew’s way of enunciating a principle which will be found to run right through the gospel records: The greater includes the less; these miracles are not merely wonders, they are signs, acted parables, another form of teaching, and readers of the gospels are the losers if they let this pass them by. (For example, the word describing the fever of Peter’s mother-in-law comes in only one other place: Dt. 28:22!). This aspect of the Lord’s miracles is one which the student of the gospels is constantly encountering. It is important.

Notes: Matthew 8:14-17

These verses are chronologically out of place, due to the method by which Matthew assembles his material according to subject. Chapters 8, 9 concentrate on a catalogue of miracles, so it is not inappropriate for this miracle to be included here.

14.	Peter’s house. Even if the Lord’s own family had moved to Capernaum about this time, there are hints that Jesus used Peter’s home as his real headquarters, so far as he had any; 17:24, 25.
15.	Touched her hand. Mark’s equivalent is: “grasped her hand”. This helps to modify the meaning of Jn. 20:17, and to make it more intelligible.
16.	Brought. Very cleverly (if that word may be allowed without offence) Mt. employs here a word of double meaning; it also means
	“to bring as a sacrifice to the altar.” Thus there is not only the idea of our Lord’s divine status, but also that these sick folk besides being carried to him were also dedicated to his praise.
	Possessed with devils… cast out the spirits. Lk’s equivalent:
	Sick with divers diseases, and he healed them. Note also Mt’s own parallel in v. 1 7.
	Healed all. This “all” comes from ls. 53:6. Other mass healings: 4:24; 12:15; 14:35, 36.
17.	Bore our sicknesses. The double meaning mentioned in the text comes in markedly here — at personal cost, now in the tearing of compassionate soul, possibly in draining his energies, and certainly looking forward to his bearing of sin at Golgotha.

Notes: Mark 1:29-34

29.	When they were come. This word “come”, twice repeated (Gk) might possibly imply that Peter (the “author” of this gospel) had not been to the synagogue — kept at home by the emergency?
30.	Fever. The likely alternative to typhus is malaria.
31.	Took her by the hand. “The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord … He upholdeth him with his hand” (Ps. 37:23, 24). So also Mk. 5:41; 9:27. This double miracle — (a) fever gone; (b) no continuing weakness — is matched by Lk. 5:5, 6; Jn. 9:7, 9; Mt. 8:26; Acts 3:7, 8.
	She ministered unto them. So also others who know themselves healed by Christ will be glad to express their gratitude in service.
32.	Cp. Mark’s other early pictures of growing crowds: 1:37, 45; 2:2, 13, 15; 3:7-10, 20, 32.

Luke 4:38-41

38.	He arose. The implication is that Jesus had been seated, the usual posture of a synagogue teacher. Nor had he risen from his seat to heal the demoniac.
40.	He laid his hands on every one. Such examples as Gen. 48:14; Lev. 8:22, 23; Mt. 19:13 is the idea that of transfer of blessing or personal identification with those concerned? In Lev. 1:4; 3:2; 8:14; 16:21, certainly not blessing but the burden of sin.

The Lord’s Galilee ministry now got going. It is interesting to note the diversity of names by which the lake and its environs are referred to in the gospels.

Chinnereth, the Old Testament name, is usually taken to allude to the lake being shaped like a harp (chinnor). The name Sea of Tiberias derives from the city which Herod the Great named after Tiberius Caesar. Gennesaret may mean the Land, or Valley, of Nazareth, although that despised place was 15 miles from the lakeside. In earlier days that locality had been contemptuously named Cabul (muck!) by Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 9: 13). Perhaps Galilee (dung) became a substitute name when Gentiles settled there, Genneseret would thus be a more polite way of expressing scorn.

It was such an area on which Jesus decided to concentrate.

His first preaching in Capernaum was listened to by massive crowds (Lk.) The news of his doings in Jerusalem had been put round by those Galileans who had witnessed them at Passover (Jn. 4: 45). And the recent sensational instantaneous restoration to health of the nobleman’s son, and from more than twenty miles away, had either made a great impression or had stimulated a vast amount of curiosity. So as he preached there by the lakeside, expounding to them the Old Testament (Lk), Jesus found himself beset by crowds to the point of inconvenience. Lacking a suitable pulpit or rostrum, he appealed to Peter and Andrew to let him use their fishing boat (Lk. 5: 3; cp. also Mk.4: 1, a later occasion).

Poor Fishing

The two brothers and their colleagues, James and John, were just back from the most discouraging fishing expedition they had ever known. All through the previous night they had plied their nets using all their knowledge and experience of the lake and its fish, yet not a single fish rewarded their ability and diligence (5: 5). Helped to hindsight by the later miraculous haul of fishes, it is now possible to see in this complete failure yet another miracle, as necessary as the other to teach these new disciples the power and character of their new calling.

At the time when Jesus asked for this help from Peter (since he was the “skipper”) they had been despondently trying to make good their sustained failure by using the smaller cast-net in the shallows (Mk. 1: 16), and now still without success they were dismally washing their nets free from weed and slime before putting them out to dry.

It was the work of moments to run the boat up to the beach, and then, when Jesus had leapt agilely on board, to pull out a short distance so as to give him the advantage of a few yards’ separation from the eager crowd on the shore (5: 3).

Memorable Miracle

His discourse concluded, and whilst the crowd was still standing about in groups, Jesus bade Peter pull right away from the shore into deep water. There they were to lower their big dragnet, operating as they had done all night.

Peter, still miserable over the night’s frustrations, would surely have been justified in refusing. ‘You are only a carpenter. What can you tell me about my trade?’ In just this way the modern disciple often deems himself more competent than his Lord, to judge a situation. “Can he know my life or twentieth century conditions better than I?” However, Peter did as he was bidden, though not without a quiet reminder that he doubted whether it would be any use. How often a disciple is called upon to abandon his own judgement in order to obey the call of Christ: “At thy word (depending on thy word) I will let down the net.” (Later, Peter had to be told again: Jn. 21: 6; Acts. 10: 11-16.)

No sooner was the operation set going than it at once became obvious that in the net was a catch past believing. This was no ordinary shoal of fish, or Peter’s experienced eye would have earlier detected their presence.

There have, of course, been massive hauls of fish, comparable with this, before and since. But this happened just when and where Jesus willed it to happen. This is an important aspect of the miracle.

The ropes strained to a dangerous tension and the boat tilted crazily. At Peter’s curt imperative all was frantic action. These astonished eager fishermen bent and hauled and heaved as never before in their lives. They could tell that in places the net was parting under its prodigious load of fishes. With every hand at the net they still could not bring it on board. So, still grasping and heaving, with a jerk of the head they signalled to the “hired servants” (Mk. 1: 20) in the other boat to come quickly to their aid.

Soon the two boats were gunwale to gunwale. Now with more hands to the work, they were at length able to bring the net on board with its teeming multitude of fishes, sleek and wet.

Peter’s Reaction

Now there was another problem. The boats had taken on such an immense load of fish that they were both dangerously down by the stern and shipping water. Whilst the others were climbing frantically over the piles of slippery fish to get to work at the oars, Peter suddenly saw the entire amazing episode in perspective. Here he was, an avowed disciple of this astonishing prophet of Nazareth, yet when the power of God provided him with a haul of fish past his wildest dreams, all he could do was to scramble around desperately to ensure, with incurable fisherman’s instinct, that every single fish should be pulled in. So eager had he been, that he had even been prepared to risk the boat itself. Where was the sense in this greed? Was there not here a man who obviously had “dominion over the works of God’s hands”, even over “the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas” (Ps. 8: 6,8).

Thoroughly ashamed of himself, Peter fell down before Jesus as he sat there (not helping!) with the water swirling round his feet: “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Did the story of Israel’s greed in the wilderness (Num. 11: 32-34) come to his mind? Rather significantly, the Greek word for “sink” comes (by design?) in only one other place (1 Tim. 6: 9), which describes how materialism can “drown men in destruction”.

“Fear not!”

There came immediate repentance: ‘Fear not-no need to fear my displeasure-from henceforth thou shalt be a regular catcher of men’, taking them for life, not death. The words were heeded not only by Peter but also by the rest, for, like him, they were all over-awed and made fearful by the marvel they had just witnessed (5: 8-10).

The miracle had happened near enough to shore for the drama of it to be witnessed by the crowd which had listened to Jesus. So when at length the two boats were beached, the catch would be speedily disposed of; it is hard to believe that the great haul of fishes was sold. Peter had learned his lesson, and he doubtless insisted on every one of them being given away. Whilst the disciples were occupied with this activity and the bailing out of the boats, Jesus slipped away for a while until the excitement had died down.

The Decisive Call

Soon he was back again. The crowd was gone, and the fishermen were busy with their gear. Their craft must be shipshape for the next fishing. Jesus interrupted them with an authoritive imperative: “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Mt). He had given Peter this promise only a little while before (Lk.), but that disciple was surely astonished that the time for it had come so soon.

How well Crawshaw’s splendid couplet-describes Peter’s present experience: “When Christ calls, and thy nets would have thee stay, To cast them well’s to cast them quite away.”

God pulled David away from his sheep to shepherd His people (Ps. 78: 70-72). Wise men of the east, given to much study of the stars, were given a special star to guide them to the Star that was risen in Jacob. The crowd that followed Jesus for food were offered a higher spiritual food. The Samaritan woman, with an empty waterpot, drank water of life. At a wedding in Cana, the poorer wine finished, they were given some of the best that ever was. Paul the tent maker taught men to care nought for the tabernacle of this mortality (2 Cor.5:4), if only they might know the blessedness of a house from heaven.

And Peter the fisherman also.

James and John, who were already busy mending the damaged nets were also called, and they too responded with alacrity. Zebedee was in the ship with his sons, and evidently offer this day’s experience gave his sanction or even his encouragement to their abandoment of the family business. With the regular employees available (Mk.) it would be possible to keep things going.

If, as seems not unlikely, the fishing trade on Galilee was licensed by the authorities as an obvious form of taxation, this abandoning of their livelihood by Peter and Andrew was a serious matter; for there would be big doubts about their being able to take up the license again later on, should they wish to do so. “We have forsaken all, and followed thee” (Mt. 19: 27). Peter really meant what he said. And the eagerness to resume fishing after the resurrection of Jesus (Jn.21) is thus more readily accounted for.

An Acted Parable

The allegorical significance of this astonishing miracle needs little underlining (cp. Mt. 13: 47-50). But it is seen to have point of a very special kind if indeed Peter and Andrew and James and John were all in the same boat together during this incident. It is not usual to read the story in this way, but on careful perusal there is found to be nothing against it. Indeed it is most natural that whilst Jesus was talking to the crowd, these four, who had already professed discipleship, would join him in the boat. Then, too, James and John were busy afterwards mending the torn net, even though it was Peter’s boat, and not the other, which had shot the net for the catch. Luke says explicitly that “James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were partners with Simon”.

Read thus, the entire incident is seen to have special relevance to a terribly difficult situation which faced the apostles in the early church some years later. There was, initially, a marked reluctance on the part of the Twelve to “launch out into the deep” of the Gentile sea (Galilee of the Gentiles), but ultimately there came such a “haul” of converts that they were quite inadequate for the situation. So it became necessary to call others to their side that the harvest of this Gentile sea might be gathered in: “They gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (wrote Paul), that we should go unto the Gentiles” (Gal. 2: 9). The result of this mighty “catch” of men, Jesus apparently doing nothing to bring them in, was that nets were breaking and the ships in danger of sinking. The accession of the Gentiles became the most potent cause of schism in the first century, and the church came near to foundering.

Another Acted Parable

How different the symbolism of the second miraculous catch of fishes.

This time there was only one boat. It was at the dawn of a new day, and Jesus unrecognized. The fish – all of them great fishes, and a precise number-were caught “on the right side”. Amazingly, the net showed no sign of breaking. Equally amazing, Peter was able to drag them up the beach single-handed. Contrasting with his remorseful expression: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord”, Peter now showed an irrepressible eagerness to be with Jesus. The Lord also provided a meal which he had prepared. They came ashore to eat it. Their boat had been used for the last time. (See in Jn. 21).

These things are not without special significance. Nor is the fact that on signet ring or gravestone the fish became the widespread symbol of the early Christian. Thus he thankfully declared himself one of those whom the power of Christ had added to the apostles’ miraculous catch in their gospel net.

There are yet more lessons to be learned from this remarkable miracle and its associations.

Long centuries before, this acted parable was anticipated by Jacob, of all people. Blessing Joseph’s sons, he prayed that they might “grow into a multitude”-Hebrew: “swarm as fishes” (Gen. 48: 16; see AV mg). And he went on to prophesy that the younger, who should be the greater, should become “a fulness of Gentiles” (v. 19, quoted in Rom. 11: 25).

Fulfilment in Christ is foretold in Psalm 8: 6,8: “Thou modest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands”, including “whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.”

The washing of nets suggests the need to rid the gospel net from old useless accretions. There is implied also an undaunted spirit not only in the making of these preparations but also in an immediate willingness to try again.

Here also there is emphasis on the need for whole-hearted collaboration. There is no room for chauvinism or a parochial spirit in the preaching of the gospel. And to do the work really well may require that a man leave those who are his natural kith and kin and those who serve for hire.

Fishing by daylight is usually a mighty unrewarding business; yet there must be a willingness to try “in season, out of season” (2 Tim. 4: 2).

Did Paul learn the fishing parable from Luke’s gospel? When properly sorted out, 2 Tim. 2: 24-26 is a powerful passage:

“The servant of the Lord must not strive… in meekness instructing those (the Judaists) that oppose themselves… that they (these gainsayers) may return to a sober outlook (RVm) out of the snare of the devil (the organizer of Judaist hostility), who are caught alive as fish (s.w. Lk. 5: 10) by him (the servant of the Lord) unto his (the Lord’s) will”.

Notes: Luke 5: 1-11

1.	This paragraph, like several others in Luke, is clearly not in its proper place chronologically. Mt., Mk. parallels establish this. See any Harmony.
3.	The people. RV: the multitudes. The plural here probably emphasizes that there were several crowds, all different in character; e.g. Jews from Judaea as well as Galilee, Gentiles etc.
4.	Launch out. Jesus issued the instruction to Peter, as skipper, but the shooting of the net involved all on board. Accordingly, “launch out” is singular, but “let down” is plural.
5.	Peter’s respectful attitude implies an earlier close association with the power and authority of Jesus, in Jn. 2,4. Later he switches from “Master” (chief, boss) to “Kurios” (Lord).
6.	Their net was breaking (Gk.), ie. about to break. This explains Mk. 1: 19: “mending their nets”. So the net did break!
7.	Beckoned. The Gk. word signifies a jerk of the head.
8.	Simon Peter. The apostle’s old and new natures both evident in this episode.
	Depart from me, for I am a sinful man. Similar reactions when in the presence of divine glory and power: Ex. 4: 10-17; 20:18-20; ls. 6: 1-7; Jer. 1: 4-10; Ezek. 2,3; Jud. 6: 22,23; Acts 9: 3-9; Dan. 10: 7-12; Rev. 1: 13-20.
	Fear not. Cp. Jn. 6: 20; Mt. 28: 5; Lk. 24: 36.
10.	Catch. The derivation of this Gk. word suggests, as an alternative to “catch men for life”, “gather men together alive”(deriving possibly from ageiro). Contrast the context in Dt. 20: 16 s.w.

Mark 1: 16-20

19.	A little farther. This harmonizes very neatly with Lk. 5: 7. The boats were close together.
	James the son of Zebedee, and John. James appears to be the elder of the two brothers; and, judging from the epistles these two have left, was certainly the more dynamic character. John and Zebedee both mean “the gift of God”, expressed differently.

The baptism of Jesus was followed immediately by his temptation: “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil” (Mt. 4:11). Here was the immediate inevitable clash between the two natures in the Son of God. The phrases “led of the Spirit” and “tempted of the devil” use the same preposition, as though emphasizing these two natures in him.

Difficult as the idea may seem, this was the first conscious guidance the Holy Spirit provided. Mark’s word is very strong: “Immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.” It may perhaps imply some reluctance on the part of Jesus (as in Gethsemane), because he knew already how strenuous the test would prove to be.

Following baptism every other child of God faces a similar, though less exacting, challenge. There comes at such a time the need to take a long cool look at the future and decide attitudes to life, if there is to be a full and complete self-dedication to the service of the Lord. It is only from this point of view that the records of the temptation of Jesus make sense.

Not to be taken literally

Superficial reading of the gospels has led many to the conclusion that the Satan confronting Jesus was a personal superhuman Devil, the primeval rebel against the supremacy of God. A more careful examination of the details provides no less than eight reasons for rejecting a literal interpretation or the temptation records:

1. “The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them” (Mt. 4:8). Is there any mountain from which literally all the kingdoms of the world can be seen? The phrase “and the glory of them” intensifies the difficulty. The glory of no kingdom can be seen from the top of a mountain. And Luke’s additional expression: “in a moment of time” only adds to the problem of literal interpretation.
2. The devil challenged: “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” This is in flat contradiction with the Bible’s constant insistence that the entire world is under the unfailing control of the Almighty: “God rules in the kingdoms of men, and giveth them to whomsoever He will.”
3. A little reflection makes perfectly clear that if a superhuman Satan were to appear undisguised to Jesus, there would be no special potency about the temptation. In such a situation any reader of these words would find it comparatively easy to repel such a Tempter, because the temptation would be vitiated by its very obviousness. So for Jesus it would have been a test with little to it. The strength of temptation, as all must recognize, lies in its subtlety: “Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust (his desire to do that which is evil), and enticed” (Jas. 1:14). Even a Trinitarian has to argue for a non-literal Devil here: “The appearance of the Devil in person would have taken all force from the Temptation, for the Son of God would know him at once” (de Wette). Another Trinitarian (Olshausen) gets into this tangle: “To the Saviour we must ascribe the possibility of falling, as viewed from without. To God, made man, we must ascribe the impossibility of falling. The union of the two is a mystery”. (Indeed, yes!)
4. Hebrews 4:15 is explicit that “Jesus was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” This operates in reverse also. Since no one has experienced being tempted by the actual appearance of a personal superhuman Satan, clearly the same must be true regarding Jesus.
5. “When the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him for a season” (Lk. 4:13). The clear implication behind these words is that at some time (or times) later on, the devil returned to resume his evil attempts. Yet throughout the copious records of the four gospels no hint of this is given. On the other hand (as will be seen later) once the subjective character of these temptations is recognized, the renewal of them can be traced right through the gospels.
6. Mark 1:13 should be pondered carefully: “And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan.” But if the Matthew and Luke records are taken literally, only one out of the three temptations actually took place in the wilderness. The other two were located in Jerusalem and at the summit of a mountain.
7. Mark 1:13, taken literally, makes the temptation last for forty days. Yet the three temptations detailed by Matthew and Luke could have been over and done with in forty minutes. Indeed Matthew 4:2 is explicit that the first temptation took place at the end of the forty days’ fast. Thus the three records, read literally, are in contradiction.
8. A further example of contradiction is the difference in the order of the temptations. If Matthew’s order is a,b,c, then Luke’s is a,c,b. The literal interpretation can only stand at the expense of the accuracy and inspiration of the record.

Subjective Temptation – Problems disappear

These considerations lead to the conclusion that Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts describe in symbolic form a complex of temptations, which were essentially subjective. There was no need for Jesus to be literally on a pinnacle of the temple. He could transport himself there in imagination and mentally could envisage the whole problem whilst still in the wilderness. Similarly, in a moment of time it was easily possible for him to contemplate all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. In other words Mark is literally correct when he says that the temptations took place in the wilderness.

Also, from this point of view, the different orders given by Matthew and Luke are of no consequence since these major temptations of Christ would recur in his mind over and over again during and offer the forty days, not necessarily always in the same order. This is normal human experience, and Jesus was “in all points tempted as we are.”

No Human Adversary

The view, sometimes propounded, that the Satan tempter was some human adversary of the Lord is altogether inadequate and must be let go. Quite apart from the fact that such a suggestion is ineffective in dealing with several of the difficulties listed earlier, it is hardly possible to suggest any individual who could adequately fill the role of tempter. Even the high priest could not set Jesus on a pinnacle of the temple. Even the Roman emperor could not offer him all the kingdoms of the world. And why either of these gentlemen should think it worth their while to tempt an obscure peasant from Galilee and with these explicit seductions has never been explained. Those who advance ideas of this kind should be asked to carry their interpretation through to cover all the details of the narrative. The weaknesses would soon be apparent.

If an external tempter is to be insisted on, then the only possible solution is Dr. Thomas’s (Eur. 3.65): an angel from heaven. Certain details chime in well enough with this suggestion:

• “The tempter came to him.” The Greek word seems to require a personal approach.
• “The devil taketh him into the holy city.” Again the Greek expression describes one person accompanying another (so also in verse 8 and in many places in the gospels).
• “Fall down and worship me” How can words like these be given a purely subjective reference? How can they apply to “sin in the flesh”?
• ”The devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came…” If angels literally and manifestly came, should not the other phrase be given a similar, if opposite, sense?

Then how resolve the apparent contradiction between these opposing interpretations?

The fact has to be faced that whilst most temptations have an external provocative agent (e.g. an advertisement for whisky may be full of allurement to a man with a weakness for liquor), no temptation is of real force unless it makes real appeal to a man’s own personal inclinations: i.e. “when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed” (Jas. 1: 14). In other words, the external and the subjective element are usually both necessary before a temptation has power to bear down a man’s defences.

The problem of angelic temptation is not easy of solution, but the suggestions to be made in Study 30 about “angels of evil” may help.

Christ’s Human Nature

The interpretation suggested here requires acceptance also of the view that the temptations either originated or found an answering strain in the marred human nature which Jesus inherited. This apparently drastic conclusion is entirely in harmony with all that Scripture teaches regarding human nature and, more particularly, regarding the nature of Jesus. He shared fully the fallen human nature, which he came to redeem.

The best possible test of soundness of any teacher, says the apostle John, is whether he teaches truth concerning the nature of Christ: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (that is, truly sharing the stricken nature and propensities of the Adamic race), is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 Jn. 4: 2,3). There could be no better illustration of the truth of this doctrine about Jesus than the temptations in the wilderness and in Gethsemane.

Temptation is not Sin

It is important to distinguish clearly between the possibility that thoughts of evil may have arisen in the Lord’s mind (this did happen because of his human nature), and giving welcome and encouragement to such ideas (this never happened; every inclination to evil was strangled at its birth).

There are those who dislike or even resent this assessment of Christ. Such reaction is mostly through lack of careful thinking about the problem. Let the first temptation be considered as an illustration: “You are acutely hungry. Isn’t self-preservation one of the basic laws of human nature? Then turn these stones (Moses’ two tables of stone?) into bread, and satisfy your need. You have the power to do it. How are you to accomplish any good for men if you enfeeble yourself to this extent?” Even if it were some external tempter addressing this proposition to Jesus, it would be no temptation at all if the suggestion did not chime in with the inclination of his own nature. In other words, it became a temptation because he wanted to do this. At this point the temptation became subjective, as every temptation must, according to James 1: 14. But, much more strongly, Jesus wanted to honour the will of his heavenly Father.

This clash of inclinations was resolved by clear recognition of a moral principle expressed in Holy Scripture. If, instead, Jesus had feasted his imagination on the delights of satisfying his own appetite, then — on the principles of his own sermon on the mount (that hatred is murder, and lustful intention is adultery) — he would have been found a sinner before God.

Essentially, temptation is no temptation until it finds a responsive chord in the soul of the individual, and then there must be decision either to encourage and enjoy the idea (whether it issues in action or not), and this is sin; or to strangle it each time it comes into the mind, and this emphatically is not sin. The first of these was not true of Jesus. The second was.

And since “in all points he was tempted like as we are”, and normal human experience is far more often subjective than otherwise, it follows that many a time in his life, if not on these occasions in the wilderness, Jesus must have had to deal drastically with seductive thoughts of evil. So even if an external agent be insisted on for the wilderness temptations, the problem still exists much more considerably in the rest of the Lord’s human experience. Those who would go so far as to say that Jesus never had to cope with a subjective temptation deny not only the plain facts of the gospels but also the essential truth that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.”

The Meaning of the Temptations

From the point of view just argued for it is not difficult to see how the three temptations described by Matthew and Luke represent three major policy decisions, which Jesus would have to make governing the aims and methods of his ministry.

The first, in a nutshell, was the problem: You have this remarkable endowment of divine power; why not use it for your personal comfort and satisfaction?

It needs only a moment’s reflection to realise that any other human being with such endowments would be sorely tempted to use them selfishly. Jesus settled the issue once and for all. Throughout his ministry his miracles were never used for his own personal benefit. There is one partial exception to this rule, and once the meaning behind the coin in the fish’s mouth is understood, the propriety of that exception is seen immediately (Mt. 17: 24-27; Study 113).

The second problem was the temptation to make an irresistible impact on the Jewish nation by employing the powers of God’s Holy Spirit in the most sensational methods possible. Instead Jesus rejected the methods of modern advertising in favour of the directive of policy supplied by inspired prophecy about himself: “He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets” (Is. 42: 2; Mt.12: 16-21). In later days, there came circumstances, which called for what seemed to be a dramatic reversal of this role, but until the last few months this was the policy to which Jesus restricted himself. He said “No” to all forms of human vainglory.

The strongest pull of all would be towards establishing the heavenly kingdom immediately. Jesus knew full well from the Old Testament that the one born King of the Jews must also be the Suffering Servant of the Lord. The temptation must have been great indeed to leave the path which involved rejection and suffering, and instead take the short cut which would quickly give him the throne of the world. If such ignoble men as Tiberius could become emperor of Rome, then for certain within a few years Jesus-had he so chosen-could have brought himself to a position of absolute political authority over all the civilised world. The prospect of being able to “judge the poor of the people and save the children of the needy” by purely political methods must have been very alluring to Jesus because of his strong human sympathies and his deep compassion for those in trouble. This problem also he would encounter over and over again. His attitude towards it was settled, again once and for all, in the wilderness. In the earlier temptations he had decided against his ministry being selfish or spectacular. Now he also resolved that it should not be secular.

At mount Carmel Elijah had attempted a spectacular appeal to his wayward people, but after his forty days he was shown in the wilderness that greater good lay in a ministry of the “still small voice” amongst the seven thousand of the Lord’s faithful remnant (1 Kgs. 19: 8,11,12,18). Moses in his fortieth year in the wilderness came to a climax of failure by attempting a secular leadership over Israel: “Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this rock?” (Num. 20: 10). The Son of God was resolved to learn from their experience.

Three times this temptation record demonstrates the power of Holy Scripture; and in his last prayer for his disciples, the Lord Jesus three times asked that the same power might be recognized and relied upon by them also: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth” (Jn. 17: 17,8,14).

Most probably in the course of those forty days many other problems and temptations presented themselves to the mind of Jesus as he considered the years ahead. The familiar record is not to be regarded as full and complete. Luke intimates as much: “when the devil had completed every temptation…” (4: 13 RV). That word “every” surely implies more than three.

The Source of the Record

It is hardly a waste of time to enquire the source of the gospel writers’ information regarding this solitary temptation of Christ. How could Matthew and Luke have access to the facts they describe?

It cannot be ruled out that the gospel writers were the subjects of direct inspiration from heaven. However, all other considerations point to the probability that, as Luke himself asserts (Lk. 1: 2), this also was the fruit of assiduous compilation, under divine influence and direction.

In that case Jesus himself must have been the source of it, probably during those pregnant forty days after the resurrection, when he companied with his disciples and did so much to further their spiritual education. But how could he impart to them any adequate or worthwhile idea of the mental conflict he had faced at the beginning of his ministry, except by couching it in the parabolic form, which he had so often found marvellously useful? Such a conclusion can hardly be regarded as certain, but it has much to recommend it.

Biblical Background

The Biblical associations of this temptation experience of Christ are very copious, and all of them enlightening. The “forty” days recalls how Israel also faced the temptations of the wilderness for forty years after being baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. It was at the end of that forty years that Moses forfeited his own immediate inheritance of the Land through the implications of his rash speech at Meribah-Kadesh (Num. 20: 12). It was at the end of forty days that Elijah’s morale collapsed in the wilderness (1 Kgs. 19: 8). But it was also after the invincible Enemy had presented his challenge for forty days that he was slain by the valiant David using only one of the five smooth stones he had ready (1 Sam. 17: 40).

The detail, found only in Mark, that Jesus was “with the wild beasts” has symbolic force. Here was the second Adam fulfilling the divine commission to “have dominion over every living thing that moveth” (Gen. 1: 28), the lower creation which the descendants of the first Adam have so brutalized. Here was foreshadowed the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecy about the second Adam: “Thou modest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands … all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field” (Ps. 8: 6,7).

This experience in the wilderness was only a token fulfilment of these Scriptures and also of the Lord’s victory over the wild untamed thinking of ungenerate human nature. It was also the literal fulfilment of a prophecy with a profound symbolic significance behind it: “Thou shalt tread upon the lion and the adder: the young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet” (Ps. 91: 13). In the days of his royal majesty, and even now in the days of his flesh, Messiah is more than sufficient to cope with human pride, human cunning, human deceit. It was a contest, which never ceased during the strenuous years of his ministry.

There was no lack of subtlety in the insinuation of the devil’s opening gambit: “lf thou be the Son of God…” Jesus had come straight from Jordan. The heavenly voice was still ringing in his ears: “My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” In Eden the doubt had been: “Yea, hath God said…?” Here no doubt was possible. Instead, the implication was: “You are the Son of God, then why not…?” The subtle self-justification would be, of course: “The salvation of all depends on me, so surely I am justified in turning a stone into food to keep myself alive!”

The contrast with the first Adam is striking. He, son of God (Lk. 3: 38), living in a delightsome garden, with abundance of everything, took the one food that was forbidden. Jesus, Son of God (Mt. 3: 17), in the wilderness and desperately hungry, said “No” to what might well seem to be an altogether legitimate satisfying of personal need. “Christ’s fast cures Adam’s greed” was the quaint succinct comment of one eighteenth century expositor.

The First Temptation misread

The Lord’s rebuttal of the first temptation is very commonly misunderstood. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” is often taken to mean: “Not material food, but the spiritual nourishment of the Bible.” A careful look at the context of this quotation from Deuteronomy 8: 3 shows that there should be a different emphasis: “And the Lord thy God humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna (angel’s food: Ps. 78: 25), which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know, that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.”

Here to read the last expression as a reference to inspired Scripture is to provide a perfect non sequitur. The meaning required is: “God’s commands to His angels.” In the wilderness God said to these immortal ministers: “Feed my people”, and the angels proceeded to provide manna six days out of seven for forty years. Thus Israel learned to abandon self-sufficiency and to depend on every word of Divine command to the angels, trusting, that is, on God’s providence.

So by this quotation Jesus declared his firm intention to live by faith in God’s care and guidance, as in all ages other men of God have lived. (Cp. the spirit of Mt. 7: 9-11). In this concise Biblical way it became a settled principle of his public life that he would not rely on the superhuman powers of the Holy Spirit either to make the way easy or to resolve difficulties, which his followers would have to face without such help.

A Logical Sequence

Confirmation of the interpretation just suggested comes from the details of the next temptation: “Cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up…” Paraphrased this says, in effect: “You declare that you are determined to depend only on God’s commands to His angels to provide and care for you? Here in Psalm 91 is a Scripture, which gives the angels explicit instructions for your benefit. Then make use of it! You said you would!”

The subtlety and cleverness of this prompt continuation from the first temptation is almost incredible. Out of the entire Old Testament what other Scripture would have provided so telling a rejoinder? All this might be read as supplying an additional proof of the subjective character of the temptation. What other mind besides that of Jesus himself could have made the point so Biblically and so forcefully?

Why then did Jesus turn emphatically away from an act, which had apparently such clear sanction in the Word of God? The answer lies in one word-context. It requires only a cursory glance through Psalm 91 to recognize that the heavenly help promised there is for a servant of the Lord in time of need, not for aggressive self-advertisement. The “tempter” may be acquitted of the charge, often levelled, of misquoting Scripture. True, the phrase “in all thy ways” was omitted. But its inclusion would have strengthened, and not weakened, the tempter’s argument. The mishandling of this Scripture lay in the wrong spirit in which it was quoted and the motive behind its use.

The Temptation to misuse Scripture

In this example there is a warning of much solemnity against the misappropriation of Bible texts and against the danger of insistence on the letter of Scripture, whilst at the same time perverting the spirit of the passage. Hardly a month goes by but one encounters examples of this kind of thing in the speech and writings of those who profess better and should know better.

To one as intimate with Scripture as Jesus was, to one with a mind as alert and quick as his, the temptation to use the Bible in a slightly unscrupulous way, to satisfy or justify his own personal inclinations, must have been a constant danger, a harassing besetting test. But again he laid down the principle that was to be one of his major guide lines: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” In Egypt Israel had witnessed such a series of divine hammer-blows against the might and religion of that country as would last for a lifetime in the memory of any who saw them. Crossing the Red Sea, they had experienced the providence of heaven in protection and judgement which no one of them could ever nave anticipated. Yet within a few weeks these people were querulously complaining: “Is the Lord among us, or not?” That occasion lived in Moses’ memory. Forty years later he warned the sons of these sinners: “Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.” By quoting these words Jesus underlined his resolve not to put God’s goodness to the test. He already had ample evidence of it in his experience hitherto.

The Third Temptation

The third test was a temptation to respond to the tug of personal inclination, leaving aside the humble role of preacher of righteousness, evading the self-sacrifice of the cross, and (with a fine mixture of good and bad motives) seeking power over the nations. Such a policy, with its many allurements, could only be pursued by letting go the complete self-dedication to the will of God, which his recent baptism had proclaimed. Here, palpably, was the temptation of Eden over again-to cast off divine constraints and follow the inclination of self, with the desirable outcome dangled enticingly before the eyes: “Ye shall be as gods.”

To all this Jesus returned an almost violent negative: “Get thee hence, Satan.” Once again he saw a marked parallel between his own temptation and that of Israel in the wilderness. Exodus 23: 29-33 details one of the most blunt exhortations addressed to the people through Moses. They must resist all inclination to ensure, their inheritance of the Land of Promise through alliance with the debased nations already there: “Thou shalt not bow down to their gods… Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods…”

Instead, let them depend on every word of God to the angels of His power: “Mine angels shall go before thee, and bring thee in… and I will cut them off.” Forty years later, with allusion to this, the exhortation was renewed, this time a emphasising the danger of material progress and prosperity: “And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildest not, and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantest not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full; then beware lest thou forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him shalt thou serve and shalt swear by his name” (Dt. 6: 10-13). With these words from the Book of his strength, Jesus drove this temptation away.

The Temptations renewed

But in later days back it came again: “the devil departed from him for a season.” How many times Jesus was assailed with such allurements during his ministry, it is impossible to say, but a number of instances are clearly traceable in the gospel records.

John’s gospel gives no explicit record of the Lord’s temptations, yet all three are plainly traceable there.

He turned a few loaves and fishes into abundant food, but not for himself. At the word of his mother he turned water into wine, but in doing so, he manifested his glory only to the six disciples he had so far gathered round him (see Study 21)

At his last Feast of Tabernacles, his own brothers somewhat scornfully urged him to “manifest himself to the (Jewish) world” by doing wonderful works before the crowds in Jerusalem.

And after the feeding of the five thousand, the third temptation was pointedly renewed when “they sought to take him by force, and make him a king” (6: 15). For the sake of the people Jesus would dearly have liked to accept this greatness. But instead he went up into a mountain, not to contemplate the kingdom he might have, and its glory, but to seek in prayer strength to thrust the temptation away.

The second temptation assailed Jesus fiercely both at the beginning and the end of his ministry. When the men of Nazareth would have cast him headlong over a cliff, he could have let them do it and have alighted unharmed on the rocks below, thus turning their bitterness to awe. Instead he quietly evaded them and got away (Lk. 4: 29,30).

In Gethsemane (Mt. 26: 53,54) his word about twelve legions of angels, alert to save him from his enemies, was no rhetorical flourish, but literal truth. But this calling on the divine providence would have frustrated the divine purpose-strange paradox!-so he meekly suffered himself to be bound.

And on the cross he had to listen to the taunts and jeers of men not fit to live, as they mocked him with the challenge: “If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God” (Mt. 27: 42,43). Did it dawn on these evil men that Jesus could have done what they said? Yet had he come down from the cross he would have saved nobody, not even himself.

Matthew 16 is specially interesting because it appears to repeat all three temptations. The constant pressure from the Lord’s critics to “show a sign from heaven” (v. 1-4) was all the more insistent and repetitious because they were now apparently aware of his determination to avoid the sensationalism of the second temptation. So Jesus set his disciples an example by turning away from the challenge: “he left them, and departed.”

Then, in the boat, the twelve misunderstood his warning against “the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” “It is because we have taken no bread”, they said. Jesus could have produced bread there and then, thus reassuring them and at the same time vindicating himself against his adversaries. But this repeat of the first temptation was similarly put aside. Instead he fell back on unspectacular, simple, patient reasoning with them, as with children.

Next came Peter’s heart — warming confession of faith in him as the promised Messiah. But when this was coupled with that disciple’s persuasions to leave out all thought of rejection and suffering, and to ensure for himself the crown which was his by right, Jesus was quick to see the danger of this repeated third temptation, and he reacted in the same abrupt emphatic fashion: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” And he went on to say, very poignantly: “What is a man (himself!) profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

A chapter such as this emphasizes very much the loneliness of Jesus at times when temptation was strongest. His disciples appear to have been little or no help to him. Yet this cannot always have been the case, for in the end of his ministry he thanked them for their support: “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations” (Lk. 22: 28). By their tenacious, though often uncomprehending loyalty, when there seemed reasons enough for deserting him, they had been a greater help than they knew.

At this first crucial temptation in the wilderness” there was no moral support of even half-enlightened disciples. There was, if Jesus only knew it (and perhaps he did), the eager tense concern of unseen angels. What Paul wrote of himself and his fellow workers in the gospel must have been much more true regarding Jesus: “We are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels, and to men” (1 Cor. 4: 9). With what gladness did those angels come to minister to Jesus when the strife was o’er! (Lk. 22: 43).

How they ministered is a matter for conjecture. The Greek word is used mostly of serving food. If this is the meaning here, Jesus also was provided with manna in the wilderness. But doubtless the angels ministered to him in other ways also. Did they remind him of cherubim and the flashing fire of the Shekinah Glory by which the Almighty had kept open the way to the tree of life and its heavenly food?

A Summary of the Sequence in the Temptation of Jesus:

a.	Use the powers of the Holy Spirit to look after yourself,
b.	No. I will depend on God’s commands to His angels (Num. 8:3).
a.	You insist on that? Very well, here is one of God’s commands to his angels: Ps. 91:11. So throw yourself down.
b.	I must not put my God on trial, asking (as Israel did): “Is the Lord among us or not?” I know already that He is with me.
a.	Yes, but the Lord said He would be with Moses (Ex. 33:14), yet all He gave him was a sight of the kingdom-then death. Here is a sight of your Kingdom. Since you refuse to await the help of angels, take it for yourself now.
b.	No, I must not usurp God’s authority. Moses died for doing just that. Besides, the kingdoms of the world are the Lord’s (Ps. 95:3-5). I must worship Him (v.6), and not tempt Him in the wilderness (v. 8-11).

Notes: Matthew 4:1 -11

2.	Forty days. When Moses was first in the mount fasting forty days he learned how the new sanctuary of God was to be fashioned. And the second forty days he was pleading for the forgiveness of his people. Jesus? It has been suggested that forty is the number specially associated with some new development in the work of God: Gen. 7: 4; the three forties in the life of Moses; the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon; A.D. 30-70; Dt. 9: 9,18,25; Ex. 34: 28;Jon.3: 4;Acts 1: 3.
3.	If thou be the Son of God is neatly answered by: ‘This I am. But I am also man’— “Man shall not live by bread alone…”
4.	Not by bread alone. Cp. Jer. 15: 16; Job 23: 10-12; Jn. 4: 32-34.
5.	Then. This word, and “Get thee hence” (v. 10) together indicate that Matthew’s gospel gives the correct sequence. Note the argument developed at the end of the chapter.
	Pinnacle. Is there here the subtle overtone of allusion to Dan. 9:27 RVm? — as who should say: ‘Proclaim yourself the one who will make this temple desolate.’
	His angels. At work in Lk. 4: 29 (but how?).
8.	An exceeding high mountain. Rev. 21: 10, Ez. 40: 2 (and Dt. 34: 1-4) might suggest that Christ was shown a vision of the Messianic Kingdom.
9.	Will I give thee. But had not Jesus just been declared to be the Heir? 3: 17 (= Ps. 2: 7,8); Rev. 11: 15. His Scriptures taught him, however, that it is the meek, and not the self-assertive, who inherit the earth. Ps.22: 27; ls.53: 11.
10.	Him only. This is the reading in Dt. 6: 13 LXX. Here is a clear indication (a) that Jesus used the Gk. Bible; (b) that Mt. wrote in Gk. and not in Heb., as is often asserted.
11.	Behold, angels. Their presence, as in Lk. 22: 43, measures the severity of the stress on this occasion. This is the experience of those in Christ also (Heb. 1: 14).

Luke 4:1 -13

1.	Returned from Jordan, as though intending an immediate return to Nazareth, but the Spirit directed otherwise. “Returned” may mean that the Temptation took place in the hills near Nazareth; see Mk. 1: 9.
	Led of the Spirit. So the temptation was by divine intention; cp. Gen.22: 1. So also 1 Cor. 10: 13.
2.	He did eat nothing. Some would interpret this as meaning an absolute minimum; Mt. 11: 18.
5.	In a moment of time. Hinting at the transitory nature of human kingdoms? The same word comes only in Is. 29: 5 LXX.
7.	Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. This was an explicit commandment. Ps.91: 11 was not.
9.	Set him on the pinnacle of the temple. A repeat of Ezekiel’s experience? Ez. 8: 13. It was here (according to Hegesippus) that just before the Roman war, James, the Lord’s brother, addressed the crowd and then was thrown down and clubbed to death.
13.	Departed from him for a season. Paul’s three-fold effort to be quite rid of his adversary- angel came to naught (2 Cor. 12: 8 sw). Nor was Jesus successful in this.

All that is known about Jesus up to the age of twelve is covered by one verse: “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him” (Lk. 2:40). Each separate phrase here calls for careful evaluation.

All children grow as they get older. So if Luke is careful to mention this about Jesus it must be because in his early years he was above average height, a fact which the gospel writer underlines later on.

Some manuscripts omit the words “in spirit”, thus inviting the reader to take the words ‘he waxed strong” as having reference to physical development; in other words, that Jesus was not only tall for his age but muscular. The weight of evidence, however, would include the words. They are to be read along with the next phrase with reference to his mental development. He was an able boy mentally, “filling himself with wisdom” (Ps.22: 10). This is probably how the translation should go. It presents a picture of a boy with a lively mind, eager in the acquisition of knowledge. And since the word “wisdom” can have reference to nothing but the divine wisdom of the Scriptures (for there is no other wisdom), it means that as soon as he could read Jesus was avid for the Word of God.

It is no wild speculation to envisage that one of the uses to which Joseph and Mary put the gold brought by the wise men was to equip the boy Jesus with his own set of scrolls of Law and Prophets and “the Writings”. In later years, before his public ministry began, he would thoughtfully and carefully write his own copy of the Law, for had not Moses laid this duty on every king of the Jews (Dt. 17:18-20)?

The Special Blessing of Heaven

“And the grace of God was upon him.” In the New Testament this word carries a much more precise meaning than that which is generally associated with it in modern times. Mostly it means either the forgiveness of sins (a meaning not possible here), or the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This second idea also presents difficulties, for was not the Holy Spirit bestowed on Jesus at the time of his baptism years later? Here it is necessary to note the distinction between “the Holy spirit in him” and “upon him”. The former would imply possession of the heavenly gift, with control of the wondrous powers it could impart. The latter phrase, used here, probably indicated a divine guidance and control in the circumstances of life such as is possible in the life of any saint of God. The idea is well and aptly i covered by that splendid phrase: “the ways of.’ Providence”. Many who read these words have had personal experience of this grace of God. It would be strange indeed if the same divine direction, through apparently natural causes;’ and imperceptible to those unequipped with the spectacles of faith, was not constantly at work in the expanding life of this divine child. For example: “Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law” (Ps.119:18) is a Scripture which must have been exemplified a thousand times during these early’ years of the boy Jesus.

One Memory out of Many

From the intimately personal character of’ those first two chapters, it is evident that Luke’ knew Mary personally. How else could he learn 1 that “Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart”, that she was “troubled” at’^; Gabriel’s greeting and “cast in her mind” concerning this salutation, that the baby Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes, that as a boy and youth “he was subject unto them”? . Then it may be surmised with every confidence that Mary had many many wonderful memories to share concerning those early days. There are few mothers who cannot talk happily for hours about their firstborn. Yet inspiration guided; Luke to record just this one story as a sample of nearly thirty years’ growth and way of life.” From this, learn all!

A Son of the Law

There came the first Passover after Jesus’ bar-’ mitzvah (a son of the commandment), when he” accompanied his parents to Jerusalem for the feast.

“Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” (Ex.23: 17). It was not obligatory for women or children to attend the feasts. But Mary did so, with Joseph, “every year”. It is in itself an indication of the devout character of the family. No doubt Jesus also had regularly accompanied them. But now he was with them as a member of “the congregation of the Lord.”

Today, a Jewish boy’s bar-mitzvah comes at the age of fourteen; but from post-Captivity days (1 Esdras 5:41 with Ezra 2:64), and almost certainly in the time of Jesus, the proper age was twelve. It is possible that the change (whenever it happened) was dictated by a Jewish desire to label Jesus of Nazareth a bastard, since the age has also been kept at twelve for such; for, over the centuries, nothing has excited Jewish feeling against Jesus more than the claim that his origin was divine.

The Homeward Journey

Passover is followed by the seven days of unleavened bread, and since attendance at this was not obligatory, many returned home immediately after the Passover sabbath. But not so the family of Jesus. They “fulfilled the days”.

During this period it was apparently customary for leading rabbis to hold seminars in the temple court, that any who wished might take advantage of their instruction. Of course the boy Jesus was eager to make the most of such opportunities. So much so that when his parents joined the party travelling back to Galilee, Jesus hung on still in Jerusalem, so fascinated by this wonderful opportunity that he had no thought at all for his parents’ departure.

It was only at the end of the first day’s journey that he was missed. If the suggestion is true that the women and children travelled in separate parties from the men, then probably Mary assumed⁷ that Jesus was with Joseph, and Joseph similarly assumed the he was with Mary. In any case their lack of concern about him is a testimony to the degree of confidence that they had in him.

Found at Last!

It would mean a sleepless night for Mary when at the end of the day increasingly anxious search ended in failure. There was doubtless a hurried return to Jerusalem next morning, or even during the second half of the night, by the light of a half-moon. Then followed a frantic weary searching during which anxiety and reassurance that all would yet turn out well continually struggled for the mastery in their minds. The home of every relation and friend in the city was visited, but fruitlessly. Then-in the night, probably, in the midst of earnest importunity for guidance and for his safety-it dawned on Mary where was the obvious place to seek him. And, sure enough, there next morning he was found in the midst of the learned men, eager as ever in his attention and questioning.

Jerusalem Bible School

It is not an unworthy enquiry to speculate where Jesus ate and slept during those two days and nights. Had he gone to the home of some friend of the family, Joseph and Mary would have found him ere this. The most likely explanation is that some priest, fascinated and delighted by his thirst for knowledge of the Scriptures, took him to his own quarters; or one of those learned rabbis took him to his home in the city. It is interesting to consider that amongst those whom Jesus heard discourse during that week there may have been Simeon or Gamaliel or Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea – any of these!

Had those Passover instruction sessions continued past their normal duration, of the seven days because of the avid interest of this boy from Galilee? Or had Jesus found his way into a class attached to the rabbinic school in the_: temple? If the latter, then he was by far the youngest present, for the age-limit is known to have been fifteen. But that he sat “in the midst” of the teachers seems to suggest the former explanation—namely, that they found his insight and eagerness such a stimulus (for there is nothing a teacher likes better than a responsive pupil) that they were glad to re-convene informally for his sake.

It is a mistake to imagine, as some have, that Jesus was arguing on level terms with these men of the Law and confounding and confuting them by his superior knowledge. One of the late apocryphal gospels, the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, has him not only expounding deep matters out of Law and Prophets but also all kinds of msyteriea and difficulties of science and medicine! But Luke says he was “hearing them, and asking them questions” (2:46). What sort of questions?

Did he peradventure ask: “What think ye of the Christ? Whose son is he?” And, “If David call him Lord, how is he then his son?” (Ps. 110:1).

The Greek text seems to imply that not only did Jesus ask question after question but also that they were thrown back at him, for him to supply the answers.

“The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding . . . the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; and shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord” (Is. 11:2,3).

“What mean ye”?

One enquiry, for certain, must have been prominent in that discussion. It was Passover time, when, according to the commandment of Exodus 12:26 and according to universal Jewish custom through many centuries, the firstborn of each family put the question at the Passover meal: “What mean ye by this service?” Here, then, was God’s Firstborn in His House at Passover, asking the same question.

The answer which Scripture supplied was: “It is the sacrifice (of a specially selected Lamb) of the Lord’s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt.” This passing over was a protection, the Lord “not suffering the destroyer to come in unto the houses” of His people covered by the blood of the Lamb (Ex. 12:27,23). With what mixed feelings was this growing boy now learning the fuller meaning behind that divine deliverance! A poignant psalm of Messiah’s sufferings has these words: “I am afflicted and ready to die from a boy” (Ps. 88:15).

Now, if not earlier, the cross was already casting its shadow across his path. Some readers will recall the famous picture by Holman Hunt. Justin Martyr says that the Jews had a belief that the Messiah will not be aware of his Messiahship until he is anointed by Elijah. Holman Hunt was nearer the truth than the rabbis were.

Rebuke or Surprise?

It was with amazement that his parents came upon him there. Motherly anxiety and relief drove Mary, unabashed, to interrupt these learned men: “Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us?” There is reproach in the words, but also a pardonable pride: ‘This is my boy whom you elders find it worthwhile to discuss Scripture with!’

“Behold, thy father and I were seeking thee sorrowing”-(the same Greek word describes the rich man suffering “torments” in hell-Lk. 16:23,24). The reply of Jesus is to be taken as an expression of surprise rather than reproof: “How is it that ye had to keep on seeking me? Wist ye not that it is necessary for me to be among my Father’s men?”—as who should say: ‘My Father has not been seeking me. I’ve been with Him all the time. Isn’t this the obvious place to look for me?’

Members of Christ’s family still need to learn that lesson, that if they would find him they can hardly do better than look for him in the symbolism of Temple and Passover and in the wisdom of “his Father’s men”.

The rather vague Greek phrase has been variously translated, but “in my Father’s house” is the favourite rendering, following Irenaeus and one or two other “Fathers”. But the commentators seem to have overlooked that the alternative proposed here—”among my Father’s men”—is just as possible and is inherently much more probable.

“My Father”

The Greek expression is interesting in another way as being the first illustration of the Lord’s uniform practice later in life of using the definite article with “my Father”, whereas at the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer he taught his disciples to say “Our Father” without the use of the Greek definite article. This is to be expected, for there is a large difference between God’s Fatherhood of Jesus and His Fatherhood of the disciple. Hence the distinction in the words of the risen Lord: “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (Jn. 20:17). Here in the temple the allusion to “my Father” was a gentle correction of Mary’s words: “thy father and I”. From this day forward she must never forget her son’s higher loyalty.

These first recorded works of Jesus contain an implied rebuke couched in the form of a question. It was to be his standard method of administering correction. The gospels have many an example of this.

Every spoken word of Jesus on this and all occasions such as this Mary treasured up in a tenacious memory, often pondering the meaning of them and what they should portend. The words with which Luke describes her reverent eagerness are the very words used of Jacob’s serious concern for Joseph and his meaningful dreams (Gen.37:11).

Nevertheless, until the call came, there in Nazareth he was content to be “subject unto them”, even though now a “son of the commandment” with more understanding than his parents. And how right it was that he should be subject, for “every fatherhood in heaven and in earth” is named from the higher relationship of the Heavenly Father and His Son (Eph. 3:14,15). Furthermore, as a son of the Law the fifth commandment was as much an obligation as any other: “Honour thy father and thy mother. . .that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth (Eph.6: 2,3). Never, it may be assumed, was this commandment so fully observed (offer the first four) as during these early years of Jesus; and none deserves so much as he to “live long on the earth”.

The Hidden Years

The next eighteen years are covered by one short verse: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (2:52). It has been proposed to read “age” in place of stature, but this is palpably absurd, for of course Jesus increased in age. Luke did not need to record that fact. The word translated “increased” means “to forge ahead of the rest’. Jesus’ outstanding wisdom is to be expected, because of his parentage and because of his evident devotion to the Word of God. Physically, also, he was outstanding. Somehow, this too is to be expected-that the Son of God should be in all respects a fine and wholesome example of what the human race can achieve in its present weakness.

Attempts have been made to represent Jesus as physically puny and unattractive. The “evidence” is detailed here so that readers may estimate its quality.

1. Lk. 19:3 “Zacchaeus sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he (Jesus!) was little of stature.” The Greek will stand this reading, but it is not certain.
2. Mt. 21:5: Jesus rode the foal of an ass, so he must have been well below average weight.
3. Jn. 20:15: Mary’s willingness to carry away the body of Jesus argues the same conclusion.
4. Mk. 15:21: Jesus needed help with the carrying of the cross.
5. Is. 53:2: “There is no beauty that we should desire him.”

There is an indirectness (or an alternative interpretation) about all this evidence which must give way before the explicit words of Luke 2:52.

Growth, Progress

So Jesus grew, blessed by God and man alike, according to the peerless principle of the Book of Proverbs: “Let not mercy and truth (the promises of God) forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: so shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man” (3:3,4).

It is interesting to note the contrast with John the Baptist. He, too, grew and waxed strong in spirit” (Lk. 1:80), but there was no outstanding favour in the sight of men-because he was ‘in the deserts”, and in any case his austerity of life would hardly make a wide appeal. But Jesus lived as a carpenter in Nazareth (Mk. 6:3). This fact is the only other glimpse of his life until the time came for his public ministry to begin.

The Apocrypha (Ecclus. 38:25,27,33) speaks very bluntly about the inferior quality of carpenters and other craftsmen. Yet Jesus was content to continue in the workshop at Nazareth. For so highly intelligent a boy what a bore many of the routine jobs must have been. Yet he quietly put up with the drudgery. And through it all he was building up a tough physical constitution that was to stand him in good stead in days to come.

Self-Discipline

As the years went by and he passed the age of twenty, twenty-five, and was coming up to thirty, this would be a trying time indeed. His steadily growing understanding and the superb vigour of life which pulsed in his veins would make it difficult past description for him to continue in a life of quiet service and obscurity when he felt that there was so much of his Father’s work to be done. But instead he learned and practised his trade as an ordinary carpenter, whilst patiently, patiently, he awaited the sign of the appearance of his forerunner.

And away in the wilderness another young man was similarly straining at the leash, eager to be out and busy calling a wayward nation back to its God. Trying years, truly!

Notes: Luke 2:40-52

40.	The grace of God means: (a) the forgiveness of sins: Rom. 3:24; 5:17,20,21; 6:1; Eph. 1:6,7; 2:5,7,8; Tit. 2:11; Heb.2: 9; Jn. 1:14-17. (b) a Holy Spirit gift: Rom. 12:3,6; 1 Cor. 1:4,7; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 4:7; 1 Pet. 4:10; Lk. 4:22. Also, occasionally, grace = thanks for a gift; e.g. 1 Pet. 2:19,20.
41.	His parents. Naturally Jesus was commonly thought of and spoken of as the son of Joseph; 4: 22;Jn. 1:45; 6:42,
	Every year. A further indication of their intrinsic godliness—for there was a growing family of small children. Passover. Josephus, always given to wild exaggeration when dealing with numbers, says (B.J.6.9.3) that in one year 256,500 lambs were offered -which is absurd.
43.	Joseph and his mother. The texts are fairly evenly balanced between this reading and “his parents”.
46.	There is an impressive collection of continuous verbs here: sitting, hearing, asking, astonished.
47.	Bombastically Josephus relates that when he was fourteen the chief priests were glad to refer to him all kinds of tricky questions in the Law of Moses! How different with Jesus!
48.	Amazed. If it were not so utterly unsuitable, “struck daft” would not be too inaccurate a translation.
49.	My Father’s business. The next best alternative is to read: “the things of my Father”, with reference to Ps. 40:7,8. My Father. A quiet correction of “thy father and I”. And what a change from “Despot” (v.29) and “most High” (1:76).
51.	Went down. He attempted no insistence on staying longer in this absorbing ploy.
52.	Increased in wisdom. The Nicene fathers, in a fix with this phrase, make it mean ‘increased in manifestation of wisdom. . .’Grasp the truth about the nature of Christ, and there is no difficulty. He increased in wisdom by such means as Dt. 11:18,19.Cp. also 1 Sam. 2:26.

Luke introduces his account of the preaching of John (3:1-2) with a catalogue of the men who exercised power in God’s Land at that time. The list has been acclaimed as the hall-mark of a thorough historian, but such an interpretation misses the main point. It is true that the details Luke supplies make possible a chronology of the ministries of John and Jesus, but the real purpose was to represent the people of God as under the thrall of the powers of evil-Tiberius Caesar, Pilate and Lysanias, the Herods, Annas and Caiaphas. What a crew! A people governed, or, rather, misgoverned by such a bunch was surely ready for the gospel of the kingdom of God. Here was hard rapacity, cynical selfishness, vice unlimited, crafty wirepulling, the pride of power, and in every one of them an utter disregard for the well-being of the two or three millions of common people over whom they were set.

Those evil days

Matthew, beginning this section of his record, achieves the same effect by a different device: “And in those days came John the Baptist” (3:1). Precisely what days are not specified, but a devout Jew who knew his Scriptures would recognize the echo of Exodus 2:11,23, when Moses went out and looked on the burdens under which his brethren laboured, the children of Israel sighing by reason of the bondage. It was “in those days” that “the word of God came upon John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness” (Lk. 3:2; cp. Jer. 1:1 LXX); and it was to such a man, not to any of these eminent scoundrels, that the spirit of prophecy was imparted.

It was “the fifteenth year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar”. This infamous Tiberius reigned as emperor from A.D. 14, but he had been associated with Augustus Caesar from A.D. 11, and the word used by Luke suggests this. So the public work of John began either In A.D. 26 or 28/29, the baptism of Jesus following fairly soon after.

Messiah’s Herald

The proclamation began, not because John thought that he had a message and that the time was ripe for its proclamation, but because of a specific divine commission: “the (spoken) word of God came upon him.” At the same time he was given a sign: “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33). So from the earliest possible time John knew himself to be Messiah’s forerunner. It was his work and highest honour to announce him to the nation.

Yet he did not attempt any sensational demonstration in Jerusalem and the other big cities. Instead, as the news spread that after a lapse of centuries the Spirit of prophecy burned once again in Jewry, he remained in the wilderness, and the people came to him in evergrowing crowds. The bare facts are not without their symbolic value-John was preaching “in the wilderness of Judaea” and also in “the region about Jordan” that is, not far from ancient Sodom and Gomorrha. It was a people and an epoch desperately in need of his call to repentance.

An Elijah Prophet

All John’s way of life, and especially how he dressed was designed to emphasize his message. His rough camel’s hair coat and crude skin belt were a deliberate imitation of Elijah (2 Kgs. 1:8). This is more than hinted at in Luke’s phrase: “The same John”, or “John himself “-implying, like Elijah—was dressed in this way. Thus without verbal reiteration of the fact, the fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy (4:5) of an Elijah-like prophet was proclaimed to the nation.

The synoptists saw even more symbolic truth of this kind in the rough simple fare which he subsisted on. In the Bible, honey is symbolic of wisdom, human (Lev. 2:11; Pr. 25:16,27) or divine (Pr. 24:13; Ps. 19:10; 119:103; Rev. 10:9). John’s words were wisdom from God, free from any human modification or “refinement”. And was it not “wild honey” which enabled another John, the friend of David, to smite the Philistines? (1 Sam. 14:27-30).

John’s primitive diet quietly rebuked the obsession of the affluent, then and now, with food and drink. Perhaps the godly were reminded of the prophet Joel’s vivid use of a locust invasion (1:4; 2:1-11) to describe the inevitable divine judgment which must one day come on this people. And could they fail to be reminded also of Joel’s ringing call to repentance (2:12-17)?

A Message from the Old Testament

To all this symbolism was added the point-blank witness of Holy Scripture. John himself asserted unequivocally (Jn. 1:23) that he was the fulfilment of the majestic prophecy they were so familiar with in Isaiah 40. All four gospels make this their main point about John. There is no need to spend time arguing whether the words should read as in the A.V. or be re-punctuated to preserve the Hebrew parallelism: “In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord.” The Hebrew and Greek texts allow of either. On reflection the meaning is seen to be essentially the same both ways.

But what is the meaning? Is the picture that of a diligent preparing of roads suitable for the visit of a king? Or is the idea rather that of a people preparing to meet their God by a return to Him in contrite humility? One phrase in Isaiah 40 appears to be decisive: “Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand …” For this coming the people must make themselves ready. Here, then, was a re-statement of John’s function as a herald of the Messiah.

He insisted that Messiah’s kingdom was at hand: “The kingdom of God (of heaven) has drawn near.” Yet now, two thousand years later, that kingdom has not yet come-its coming is certain but is as yet without accomplishment. On this problem here are two worthwhile comments:

“Had the nation (of Israel) continued to obey the Lord’s voice and to keep the covenant, and when Christ came, received him as king on the proclamation of the gospel, they would doubtless have been in Canaan until now; and he might have come ere this, and be now reigning in Jerusalem, King of the Jews and Lord of the nations” (Elpis Israel, p.30], 11th ed.).

“He (God) makes the accomplishment of His declared purposes wait upon the prayers of His people” (R.R. in Nazareth Revis. p.16 )-and therefore upon their repentance.

But in this interpretation the way must be left open for the other idea, for in so many places in Isaiah the picture is that of a people returning from bondage, glad to seek again the fellowship of their God: “Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people” (57:14). “I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. . .They shall be turned back (i.e. repentant), they shall be greatly ashamed” (42:15-17).

Isaiah, always Isaiah

John called for a complete reversal of existing standards-valleys filled, mountains and hills to be made low, that is, an end to religious privilege, Jewry on the same level before God as all the rest of the world (cp. Is. 41:15-18; 2:12-15-the same symbolism). In the Hebrew text “the crooked shall be made straight” reads almost like: “Jacob shall be made Israel”, and it was precisely this which John sought to achieve.

Isaiah’s “Comfort ye!” also means “Repent ye!” Clearly, this is how John read his main proof-text (it is there in Mat. 3:7c also). And to this imperative he also added: “Believe” (Acts 19:4). Moreover, Isaiah (and John) foretold what a national repentance of Israel might accomplish: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh (the Gentiles included) shall see it together.” Here the LXX version reads: “shall see the salvation (the Jesus!) of God” (and in Is. 52:9,10), and this is adopted by Luke in his citation of the passage. The saving of those who are flesh, tne mere grass and flowers of the field, is the manifestation of the glory of the Lord—this is His Glory, His greatest work.

Isaiah continues, and no doubt John preached (because this Scripture specially was his text): “the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God (Jesus, the Word made flesh) shall rise, shall be raised, for ever” (the Hebrew text uses the word for resurrection). So John taught the people to be expectant. With Isaiah, he said to the cities of Judah: “Behold, your God”—and he pointed them to one who would “feed his flock like a shepherd, and gather the lambs with his arm.”

So completely did Isaiah anticipate John’s work as a herald that Mark introduces his account of the Baptist with a masterly “confusion” of his prophetic sources: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare the way before thee” (1:2). But this quotation is from Malachi 3:1. To be sure, it is followed immediately by the familar words of Isaiah 40. But why should Mark apparently attribute Malachi’s words to Isaiah, also? A simple answer is that this is Mark’s way of expressing his conviction that the Malachi prophecy was not independent but rather was a conscious comment on or expansion of the words of Isaiah. That Mark knew that he was putting together passages from two different prophets is clear from the fact that his Malachi quotation follows the Hebrew Masoretic text (with one small significant change) whilst the words of Isaiah are the LXX Greek text verbatim.

The Isaiah prophecy is referred to (Mt. Lk) as “spoken” by the prophet. This is with reference to “the voice in the wilderness”. In the primary meaning of the prophecy, that voice was Isaiah himself. And now the “spoken word” descends from God upon His messenger John (Lk).

When the apostle John includes the Isaiah quote (1:23), he seems deliberately to switch from the LXX to a different Greek verb, as though to make allusion to Joshua’s last appeal for repentance in Israel: “Put away the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel” (24:23).

Austere, but gracious

Though John may have been dour and exacting in his demands for a drastic change of heart in Jewry, there was yet something gracious and encouraging and understanding about him. “Prepare ye the way of the Lord”, was his imperative, the Greek form of the verb requiring immediate and decisive action. But there was nothing rigid about his teaching; no spiritual strait-jacket, this. “Make his paths straight”. So whilst there was only one way of the Lord, there were several paths by which a man might draw near. But the word for “paths” means “worn tracks”. In other words, the recognized well-established ways of religion in Israel were devious. They needed to be “made straight” (Pr. 4:26 RVm).

And whilst “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” carried a solemn implication of the coming of a Judge, there was also the gracious call to experience the remission of sins through the rite of baptism which he offered. Both Mark and Luke give prominence to this, but Matthew carefully leaves it out, presumably because it is his purpose to follow on immediately with a detailed account of the baptism of Jesus, and the juxtaposition of these ideas might convey wrong impressions that Jesus, like all the rest, needed remission of sins.

(It will be shown in the next study that in all essentials John’s baptism was an anticipation of Christian baptism. For the present, attention is directed to Lk. 1:77; Mt. 26:28; Acts 2:38.)

The great Isaiah 40 prophecy is, of course, a proper corrective of this misconception (that Jesus needed to have sins forgiven). It calls his work “the way of Jehovah”; it bids men prepare “a highway for our God”. And Mark’s use of Malachi is made with a significant change of pronoun. “Prepare the way before me, the Lord of hosts” becomes: “Prepare thy way before thee”. Those familiar with the doctrine of God-manifestation in Christ find no problem here. (See “He is risen indeed”, p. 73,74).

Disciples of all Kinds

The people turned out in crowds to hear the preaching of John. “Jerusalem and all Judaea”, writes Matthew, with evident allusion to John’s text in Isaiah (40:2,9). But much of this attention was fashionable curiosity regarding this man who was so different, so peremptory in his demands, and so sure of the divine authority of his message. To those who came in sincerity he taught a humble repudiation of any spirit of self-justification.

Concerning evil practices now to be put away he encouraged open confession (s.w. Acts 19:18)-to himself or before all the rest? He brought his disciples to the waters of baptism, there to reject their old way of life and to consecrate themselves to the service of the Messiah, now about to be manifested. Thus within a short time-probably a matter of months only—he built up a solid body of disciples who accepted his reforming spirit into their lives.

But there were others who came in a different frame of mind. These included Pharisees and Sadducees to whom any spirit of true self-abnegation was altogether foreign. Some of these, it is certain, were an official deputation from the religious authorities in Jerusalem, enquiring into the bona fides of this new prophet (Jn. 1:19). The findings of this commission were never published, for they could find nothing amiss with either the man or the message, and in later days Jesus reproached them openly for their lack of candour in their official attitude concerning John (Mk. 11:27-33).

Also it may be surmised that some of these religious leaders who came to John’s baptism were feigning discipleship. The real motive of these evil men was to join the new movement in pretence, with the deliberate intention of wrecking it later on from within. This was the policy they followed with the early church after the ascension of Jesus, and with no little success (e.g. Gal. 2:4). John saw through their pretensions at once, and roundly castigated them for it: “Generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (1 Th. 1:10; 2:16 Rom. 1:18). Perhaps his figure is that of snakes sliding rapidly through the undergrowth before the fierce heat of an advancing fire. But more likely John here labelled them as the seed of the serpent (Ps. 58:3-5), which in the guise of friendly adviser wrought such evil in Eden. The Messiah, the promised Seed of the woman, is soon to be manifested, John warned them, to crush in the head not only the serpent but all his evil brood (Gen. 3:15). This kind of application of the primeval prophecy is to be traced right through the New Testament-in John’s gospel and first epistle, in several of Paul’s letters, and on into Revelation.

To these men who came to him full of confidence in their own spiritual qualifications John put a peremptory demand for immediate repentance (the Greek has an aorist imperative here) and for a life of practical godliness which would make their change of heart evident not only to God but also to men.

All self-esteem must be let go. “Think not to say within yourselves (the Greek verb implies cock-sureness), we have Abraham to our father.” These men, the seed of Eden’s serpent, preened themselves on having the blood of Abraham in their veins, as though that fact could in itself make them spiritually acceptable to God. The Talmud has this: “A single Israelite is of more worth in God’s sight than all the nations of the world.” True, of course, regarding a true i Israelite but not true of these self-righteous _t charlatans.

A year or two later Christ’s counter to this ,attitude was: “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (Jn. 8:39,44). The Baptist’s more withering retort was: ‘I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” It has been suggested that as he spoke John pointed to the cairn of twelve great stones which had been lifted from the bed of the Jordan when Israel crossed into the Land of Promise (Mt. 3:9; Josh. 4:3).

There is a hint here that John spoke in Aramaic, or even in Hebrew, making a play on the words for “sons” and “stones”. But there was no light-hearted joke. John’s words carried a grim message to these who vaunted their national privilege. In effect, he declared all Jewry excommunicated. To be accepted by God, every man jack of them must start life afresh in His sight, rising as a new creature from the waters of baptism, and disowning by repentance the old way of life. It may be that John’s allusion was not to Joshua’s cairn, but to “these stones”-the slabs which sealed the tombs in that vicinity, pointing well the lesson that before a man can live unto God he must first die; and this John bade them do in the waters of baptism.

Again the message came from Isaiah: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord (note the irony here!): consider the rock whence ye are hewn, and the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Consider Abraham your father, and Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him” (51:1,2). The point here is easy to grasp. There must be no pride in descent from Abraham, for if God called this holy couple, aged, childless, sterile, and made them into a great nation, He could do the same again-and will! For the context in Isaiah goes on to foretell the passing of the Mosaic order and the acceptance of Gentiles as seed of Abraham (v.4-8).

Vivid Metaphors

John’s warnings of impending judgment were couched in terms of two figures of speech, both culled from his favourite Isaiah. There is the picture of the lumberman shaping up with his keenly-sharpened axe precisely where the first cut shall be made for the felling of a fruitless tree (Mt.7:19;Lk. 13:7-9; Jn. 15:6). Or possibly this figure had another slant. The temple was garnished with wonderful carved work-trees large as life (1 Kgs. 6:29). It is conceivable that these pseudo-religious Pharisees and Sadducees thought of themselves as “palm trees … planted in the house of the Lord” (Ps. 92:12,13). In that case, John’s warning is a reminder of a prophecy in the Psalms of a time when men would both literally and figuratively “break down the carved work thereof with axes and hammers” and “cast fire into the sanctuary” (74:6,7).

John talked also about the threshing and winnowing of the corn, followed by the fierce blaze of burning chaff. (The temple area was a threshing floor! 2 Sam. 24:18ff). It was customary to separate wheat and chaff with the use of a large shovel called a fan. By means of this the threshed wheat was cast up into the air against the wind. The light chaff was blown down-wind, whilst the heavier grain fell to the ground near at hand. Thus the wind (or, spirit) of the Lord separated the good from the worthless. Then the chaff was burned with a blaze which was inextinguishable until there was nothing left to burn (Jer. 23:28,29). In this sense, and not in any mediaeval hell-fire sense, the fire was unquenchable.

These two figures-of trees to be cut down (literally: cut out), and of chaff to be burned to ashes-are intermingled in the prophets, as they were also in John’s admonitory preaching:

“Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel” (Is. 5:24).

“Behold, I will make thee a sharp threshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them” (41:15,16).

“For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be as stubble. . .that it shall leave them neither root nor branch” (Mal. 4:1 and 3:2,3).

John may even have been implying that Messiah would deal with the unworthy as with the mighty oppressors of Israel-”like the chaff of the summer threshing floor, the wind (the Spirit) carrying them away that no place be found for them” (Dan. 2:35).

Fire or fire!

John’s preaching was not all minatory. There was also the winsome appeal of the blessings which Messiah would bring. It is remarkable that John chose to emphasize, not the alluring pictures painted by the Old Testament prophets of the Messianic Age, but another of Isaiah’s prophecies: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, (even) with fire” (Mt. 3:11). Thus John set alternatives before the people-either Messiah’s fire of regeneration, or Messiah’s unquenchable fire of destruction. It must be one or the other.

Isaiah and his contemporaries had the same choice set before them-either the purging of sin by a coal from the altar, brought by one of the Lord’s “fiery ones” (6:6,7) or the fire of judgment devouring the stubble (5:24). By and by Jesus himself was to bid men make their choice: “Every one shall be salted (as a sacrifice; Ley. 2:13) for the fire (of God’s altar);” the alternative-a Gehenna of fire “where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched” (Mk. 9:48,49).

To this day the issue is unchanged. Either the zeal of God’s house eats a man up, like the flame of the altar of consecration, or else the Lord is revealed to him in the Last Day in flaming fire, taking vengeance because he knows not God (2 Th. 1:8,9). Is there really any other alternative?

“Is he the Messiah?”

In everything John pointed men away from himself and towards the coming Messiah. “He is mightier than I … coming after me, he is preferred before me.” I am not worthy to baptize him. Even “his shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose (as he prepares for baptism), not worthy to bear them” (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:7;Jn. 1:15).

It is possible that by this figure of speech John was alluding to the Mosaic practice of loosing the sandal of one who refused his brother’s widow a (evirate marriage, thus proclaiming: ‘The Law is dead. The One who comes after me will raise up true seed to Israel. There will be no reproach possible against him.’ If this idea is correct, John was also implying that there was room for ample reproach of this kind against the priests and rabbis.

John’s campaign set the people in a state of high expectation. “All men (of every kind and character) mused in their hearts, whether he were the Christ or not.” This statement by Luke (3:15) is altogether mvstifying. Had not John explicitly disavowed all Messianic claims? Had he not plainly proclaimed himself a forerunner? And was he not a Levitical priest, with no descent from David? And since the Messiah was universally expected to be a mighty King of the Jews, how could they possibly assign such a role to John? Perhaps there was a school of thought which considered the possiblity of Messiah’s manifestation first of all in a much humbler role. The word “mused”—RV: reasoned-is almost always used in a bad sense, here perhaps hinting at Luke’s depreciation of the biblical ignorance behind these speculations. Soon John was driven to say explicitly: “I am not the Christ” (Jn. 1:20).

Counsel in Godliness

Some among the people received John’s exhortations with deep seriousness of purpose. “What then must we do?” they asked of him in response to his demand for repentance. Obsessed by the ideal of salvation by works, they pressed their enquiry: “What must we do?”

The replies which John gave to the various types of individual who recognized the need for reformation are not to be interpreted as being the gospel which he preached, but rather as examples of how the repentant spirit which he called for should express itself in what is nowadays called “practical Christianity”.

“He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none.” It was a doctrine which found little expression in Jewry, and almost none at all in the pagan world outside. Thus John stressed personal responsibility (in the spirit of the Good Samaritan) for social problems with which there is personal contact—a striking contrast with the formal institutionalised soul-less benevolence which the 20th century specialises in.

And here already, in anticipation of the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, was a big emphasis on faith as the virtue which specially commends a man to God. For in those days when insurance was unknown and national health or national security schemes not even thought of, it called for real faith to believe that God would not let a man down when he tried to live in such an altruistic spirit. God is never in debt to any man, but remarkably few have the faith to believe this.

Publicans were among those who took John’s message seriously. With lively and uneasy consciences they sought his guidance, hoping doubtless that he would view with tolerance their alliance for profit’s sake with the hated Roman master-race. There is nothing amiss in itself with tax-collecting, said John, anticipating the teaching of his Master (Mt. 22:21), but you shall be tax-gatherers of a kind the world has never seen as yet-fair and reasonable, free from all rapacity. John may even have meant: ‘Collect only the sums demanded by your Roman masters. Do not add any overheads or personal surcharge for your own pockets which are already well-lined. You have already plundered the people so much that you can easlily live for the rest of your days on what you have already amassed.’

Was Matthew one of these publicans, being made ready for the better life he was soon to lead? Zaccheus in Jericho almost certainly heard this call to sanctified government service, and doubtless had many a sleepless night because of it.

Soldiers also were constantly among those who were drawn by the magnetism of this rough single-minded preacher. These men were nationalist irregulars preparing to help Barabbas in his bid for power. With three concise commandments John shot their insurrection fervour to fragments:

“Do violence to no man” (he used a word which pointedly suggests political revolution). Abandon all idea of either guerilla fighting or open war against the Roman regime, no matter how much you hate it.

Nor must you turn against those who choose to co-operate with Rome. “Neither accuse any falsely.” Cease your campaign of lies and vilification against your rulers and against all who work with them.

“Be content with your wages.” Settle down to a quiet orderly life, and cease your struggle centred on materialism and politics.

Again, all this was a remarkable anticipation of the principles of the Sermon on the Mount.

Even harlots sensed that they could find on Jordan’s banks solace for their souls and wise guidance for a new and better life (Mt. 21:32), but what John said to them is not recorded. It may be readily surmised.

John’s stirring call was heard and its power felt throughout the nation, specially in Nazareth, and even much further afield than that, for evidently some of the Dispersion who came to Jerusalem for the Feasts were drawn by the news of this preacher, and then went home to pass his message on to others (Acts 13:24,25; 18:25; 19:1-7).

“And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people” (Lk). What other things? There was the open rebuke of the vicious life of Herod (3:19). There was encouragement of his close disciples in the art of prayer (11:1), and doubtless a good deal more instruction was educed from Isaiah 40 (and later chapters) and from Malachi 3,4—the prophecies which were so pointedly about himself.

By all these means the way was being prepared.

And the signal reached not only the people but also the King in his obscurity.

Failure

Yet the sorry fact has to be faced that John’s mission turned into failure.

“The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God, being not baptized of him” (Lk. 7:30). “Why did ye not then believe him?” (Mt. 21:25).

“He (John) was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing tor a season to rejoice in his light” (Jn. 5:35)

The parable of the unclean spirit cast out and later returning with seven more worse than himself (Mt. 12:43-45) is a picture of the evanescent repentance and renewed corruption of “this wicked generation”.

“Elias is come already, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise also shall the Son of man suffer of them” (Mt. 17:12).

‘If ye will receive him, this is Elias which was for to come … John came neither eating nor drinking,and they say, he hath a devil” (Mt. 11:14,18). Compare also: Ez. 33:31,32.

Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist

“Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when others came to crowd about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I mentioned, and was there put to death.” (Ant. 18.5.2). Here it is interesting to note:

1. how completely Josephus misunderstood the meaning of baptism;
2. that he believed the characteristic Greek body/soul dichotomy;
3. that he assigns a hopelessly wrong reason for the imprisonment of John.

Notes: Matthew 3:1-12.

1.	Preaching: “heralding”- “The voice of a crier begotten of a dumb father”.
2.	Kingdom of heaven. Matthew’s characteristically Jewish equivalent for the kingdom of God, as the following parables demonstrate:
		4:17 = Mk 1:15 11:11 = 7:28 19:14 = 10:14 13:11 = 8:10 5:3 = Lk. 6:20
6.	Confessing their sins. Literally: “confessing forth”; cp.Jas. 5:16; Acts 19:18. Is there any 20th century equivalent of this? Confession of personal sins was a completely new thing in Israel; and nationally, only on the Day of Atonement.
7.	He said; i.e.kept on saying.
	The wrath to come. This phrase curtly refuted the Sadducees’ doctrine of the hereafter.
8.	Fruits meet for repentance, thus emphasizing that repentance is more than confession of faith and baptism.
9.	Stones. The play on “sons”, in Aramaic or Hebrew, shows the language of John’s preaching. The same argument, only more copious, proves that Jesus habitually used Greek.
	Children of Abraham. The same mentality in Rom. 2:17-29; Is. 48:1,2; Mic. 3:11; Jer. 7:3,4.
10.	The root of the tree … fire. Consider Ps. 80:16,17; Is. 10:33,34. Fire is the doom of every fruitless fruit tree:
	Mt. 7:19; Ik. 13:7,9; Jn. 15:6. 12. Note: His wheat… the chaff.

Mark 1:2-8

1.	The Gospel, used for (a) the good news of the kingdom; (b) the sum of saving knowledge (traditionally); (c) narrative about the Lord, as in 1 Cor. 15:l;2Tim.2:8.
4.	Remission. In O.T. comes only in context of Year of Jubilee or Day of Atonement. Here, neither.
5.	The river of Jordan. Specified here (and only here) as a river because Mark’s readers were Romans, who knew nothing of the Jordan?
6.	Camel’shair, worn by a priest, in spite of Lev. 11:4. Hinting at the end of the Mosaic order?
7.	Stoop. In LXX the normal meaning is “worship”.
8.	/ baptized. The past tense suggests that these words were addressed to John’s own converts.

Luke 3:1-18

1.	Iturea. 1 Chr. 1:31 suggests the Edomite origin of the name. Lysanias… Abilene. Why mentioned at ail?
2.	Annas and Caiaphas. The former was high priest from A.D. 7 to 14, and the latter from 17 to 35, with three other high priests in between. But through all this period Annas was the only one who really held authority. Hence Jn. 18:13,24.
4.	The way of the Lord. This recurs, in the same context, in Acts 18:25.
5.	Every valley. . . filled, every mountain … brought low. The rabbis coined and transmitted the fantasy that the Shekinah Glory did precisely this for Israel in the wilderness.
	The extra quotation here in v. 5,6 sums up figuratively the ideas of repentance and remission of sins. It also indicates that N.T quotes from O.T. do not necessarily cite all that is relevant for the purpose in mind.
6.	Salvation of God. Another Isaiah phrase equivalent to “righteousness”; 52:10; 56:1; 46:13; 51:5.
8.	Begin not. This seems to suggest that John feared that the crowds listening to him might be influenced by Pharisee-Sadducee criticism.
15.	Whether he be; more literally: lest he be, as though implying alarm: “and we unprepared for his coming.”
16.	Worth. Gr: sufficient. But Acts 13:25 has a word which means “worthy”.
	Fire. For the double idea mentioned in the text, see also: Is 4:4,5; Lev. 10:2; Mic. 5:7,8; Mt. 13:42,43; Acts 2:3,18,19. Compare also Peter’s double use of the symbol of water-either saved or destroyed by it (1 Pet. 3:20). Similarly baptism saves or condemns.

John the Baptist and Isaiah

40:1; 46:8 LXX:	Repent.
40:4; 59:8:	Crooked made straight.
40:7	Spirit, wind.
40:9;	Jerusalem, Judaea.
40:24,30 LXX:	Axe
41:14,16:	Chaff, fan, wind (spirit)
43:16,17:	Stronger than I.
51:2,1:	Abraham our father… these stones.
52:10; 56:1,2 etc:	Salvation of God.
58:7:	Food to the poor, two coats.
59:5:	Generation of vipers.

The prologue to John’s gospel has a strange mystifying feature quite without parallel anywhere else. It is broken up into three separate pieces which alternate with three short sections about the work and character of John the Baptist:

Either set of three sections reads consecutively with a smoothness which is immediately apparent.

Why John should give the introduction to his gospel this shape is not easy to fathom, but the fact of it is almost self-evident.

The Lamp and the Light

John was not the Light, not the effulgent Glory of the Living God. He was only a lamp, burning and shining (5:35). There is a strange paradox here, for men use a lamp to illuminate what is in the dark; yet John the lamp was God’s way of lighting the path to the Light of the World. And Israel needed it, because they were a people sitting in darkness. But do men need anyone to bear witness to them concerning Him who is the Light of the World? ‘Surely’, says A. T. Robertson, “men can tell light from darkness!” But he adds the immediate comment: “No, that is precisely what men cannot do.”

So John’s assignment from God was to teach men to believe in Jesus as the true Light, the Shekinah Glory of God, who was to be revealed. He came “that all men through him might believe.” But first they needed to learn not to believe in themselves. Accordingly, an essential part of John’s message was: “All flesh .is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field” (Is. 40:6). This truth they were wondrous slow to learn. Consequently, even though a man of John’s character must inevitably make a tremendous impression on the people, so that they flocked in their thousands to hear him, his message was either not received at all (by the rulers), or was taken up (by the people) only to be let go again.

Even so, there was a lasting impact on some, for, years later in far-off Ephesus, Paul found a handful of believers who held tenaciously (although in some respects imperfectly) to the teaching of John as it had somehow reached them there (Acts 19:1-7).

For such a reason, doubtless, it was necessary for the writer of the gospel to emphasize: “He was not that Light. . .The true Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world.” This RVm reading of John 1:9 is equally possible with the more familiar reading. It is only a matter of re-punctuating the Greek text.

The Type and the True

This reference to Jesus as “the true Light” uses a word which implies, not the true in contrast to the false, but that which is the reality in contrast to type or shadow. Thus the phrase implies that Jesus was the more profound fulfilment of all that was signified by the appearances of the Shekinah Glory to God’s people in the wilderness.

This entire passage (v.6-18) is so shot through with typical allusions to Moses and Israel and the angel of the covenant in the wilderness that it taxes the powers of the expositor to set out the sequence of ideas in a coherent intelligible fashion. The device of parallel columns might help the reader to trace the allusiveness of John’s writing:

	John 1	Exodus
6.	A man sent from God whose name was John.	Moses sent to Israel in bondage to declare God’s impending deliverance (3:10).
7.	To bear witness of the Light.	Moses’ testimony to his encounter with the Angel of the Lord and the Shekinah Glory (3:16).
9.	He was true Light (alethinos, not the typical light)…	The Angel of the Covenant with the Glory of the Lord foreshadowed a greater deliverance (14:19,20).
	…which lighteth every (kind of) man that cometh into the world (the New Israel).	A mixed multitude joined Israel in their deliverance (12:38).
10.	He was in the world (of Israel), and that world came into being through him. . .and the world knew him not.	The Angel of the Lord present in the camp of Israel and the means of their deliverance (23:20).
11.	His own received him not.	The murmuring of Israel
12.	As many as received him. . .	The loyalty of the tribe of Lev! (32:26).
	…to them gave he power to become the sons of God. . .	The adoption of Lev! as the priestly tribe (32:29)
	…even to them that believe	The people believed that God had visited his people (4:31).
	…on his name	“My Name is in him” (23:21).
13.	Born, not of blood etc., but of God.	Levi selected, not (then) because of birth qualification but for godliness’ sake (Dt. 33:9,10).
14.	And the Word became (was born) flesh?…	(Here a contrast with the divine nature of the delivering Angel)
	… and tabernacled among us…	The Angel and the Shekinah Glory in the Tabernacle (33:9; 40:35).
	…full of grace and truth. . .	“He will not pardon your transgressions” (23:21). “Now if thou wilt forgive their sin-” (32:32).
	. . .and we beheld his glory. . .	The pillar of cloud and fire over the Tabernacle in the camp (Num. 10:34) (and see also Lev. 9:22,23).
	…as of the only begotten of the Father	(Here again a contrast-the Angel a “son of God”).
16.	And of his fulness have all we received. . .and grace (true forgiveness) instead of grace (the typical forgiveness under the Law)	“The Tabernacle was f?//ed with the Glory of the Lord” (40:36).
17.	Grace and truth (true forgiveness) come by Jesus Christ.	The Law was given (idiom: appointed) through Moses.
18.	No man (not even Moses) hath seen God at any time…	“Show me thy Glory …Thou canst not see my face … no man shall see me, and live” (33:18,20).
	…the only begotten, which is in the bosom of the Father … he hath declared him.	Contrast Moses hidden in a cleft of the rock (33:22). God made known through Moses in type and shadow.

The mission of John the Baptist is introduced with emphasis and exactness: “a man sent from God.” The Greek phrase implies: “from beside God”. Yet no one, except Mormons with their peculiar “personal-pre-existence” doctrine, believes that John came down from heaven. This is a particularly clear and useful instance of the characteristic Johannine idiom which, through being so often disregarded, has led to the Athanasian doctrine of Christ’s personal pre-existence in heaven.

Other examples, which no more prove the pre-existence of Christ than this passage (1:6) proves a pre-existence of John, are these:

1. “I came out from God . . . from the Father” (16:27,28).
2. “I am from him” (7:29).
3. “The only begotten of (from) the Father” (1:14)
4. “Whatsoever things thou hast given me are of thee” (17:7-same construction).
5. “I came out from thee” (17:8-the same again).

All of these, and more, use the same form of words, but orthodox theologians disregard the true meaning of the idiom because they want to.

The writer is nevertheless careful to omit the definite article, as at the end of verse 1 — not para tou theou, but para theou. Thus, in yet another way, he warns his reader away from assuming that the Baptist or his Lord made a personal descent from heaven. Compare Peter’s phrase: “holy men of God (para theou)” (2 Pet. 1:21), an exact parallel to the examples already cited.

John’s function, as repeated again and again in this first chapter, was that of witness to Christ.

His message concerning repentance and baptism has relatively meagre mention. John himself was “not that Light”. Always, in all four gospels, this contrast between John and Jesus is insisted on. The Baptist’s preaching was “in order that all men through him might believe.”

This admirably chosen preposition is given excellent force in the rest of this chapter. Priests and Levites from Jerusalem are bidden look away to one greater than John. And his imperative: “Behold the Lamb of God”, spoken to his own disciples, lost him their loyalty (v.36, 37), as he intended it should (cp. also 1 Cor. 3:5).

But “all men” did not and do not believe. It is simply not true that “he (the true Light) lighteth every man.” There are but few who want or can appreciate the illumination Christ brings. Again there is need to appreciate the force of John’s idiom (and it is not only his), that instead of “all” carrying the usual sense of “all without any exception”, it is not infrequently used to mean “all without distinction, all kinds of men”.

For instance:

1. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples” (13:35).
2. “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me” (12:32).
3. “All the people came unto him (in the temple)” (8:2).

So the meaning here (in 1:7,9) is that the gospel is not for Pharisees and scribes only, but for publicans and harlots also; not confined to Israel, but for all manner of Gentiles—barbarian, Scythian, bond and free: “that whosoever believeth in me should not abide in darkness” (12:46) The Light of God’s Shekinah was not meant for Israel only (Is. 49:6).

Yet another problem phrase underlines this basic truth. “He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” It is fashionable nowadays to insist on the RVm reading: “The true Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world.” But for three reasons this may safely be treated as inferior:

1. The order of the words in the Greek text.
2. John Lighfoot’s demonstration that “every man coming into the world” was a much used rabbinic expression for “every kind of person”.
3. The very emphatic past continuous verb is utterly inappropriate with reference to Jesus (and the next three verses require reference to Jesus).

A triple mention of “the world” (kosmos) now introduces another Johannine idiom. Here, as with “all”, there is no universalism, but instead a very limited meaning: the Jewish world. This can bequickly demonstrated by examples:

1. “Behold, the world is gone out after him”, wailed certain Pharisees after the Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:19). At that time the wide world did not even know that Jesus existed,
2. “Show thyself to the world” (7:4), jeered his brothers as they urged him to get busy with a big appeal at the Feast of Tabernacles.
3. “This is the condemnation (of Jewry), that light is come into the world, and men (Jews) loved darkness rather than light” (3:19).
4. Other examples: Jn. 1:29; 8:26; 15:19; 17:14.

And now yet another idiom: “The world was made by him”-literally: “The kosmos became through him.” In what sense was the Jewish world made through Christ?

There is special need here to appreciate the full efficacy of the redeeming work of Christ—that the forgiveness of sins, even for those who lived and died B.C., is through Christ, and only through him. His sacrifice is as efficacious to cover the sin of Noah, Daniel and Job-yes, and of Adam and Eve-as it is today to wash away the sins of one about to be baptized into his Name.

Consider four very significant passages:

1. ‘Jesus Christ, whom God set forth (RVm: purposed) to be a propitiatory sacrifice through faith in his blood, to declare his (God’s) righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God” (Rom. 3: 25).
2. “And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15).
3. “And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection…” (Mt. 27:52,53). The evident intention here is to stress that the death and resurrection of Jesus were efficacious to raise from the dead even those who died before he did.
4. Genesis 3:15 is careful to emphasize that the Seed of the woman crushes not just the seed of the serpent but the head of the serpent itself. Right back to its fountain-head sin is overcome through Christ. Even Adam and Eve have their sin forgiven because of their declared faith in him, the promised Seed (3:20,21; 4:1).

It is in this vitally important sense that the world of Israel was made (came into being) through Christ. Apart from him that crucial covenant sacrifice offered at Sinai, when the people were consecrated to their God, had no meaning. The sequence there, in Exodus 24, needs to be considered. Israel was shut out from the presence of God. Bounds were set around the mount where He manifested Himself. Then came the building of an altar and the offering of the covenant-sacrifice. The blood was sprinkled on both altar and people. At the same time all gave their assent to the book of the Covenant. And then, only then, could the representatives of the nation ascend into the mount and eat a meal of fellowship in the very presence of the Glory of God (Ex. 24:4-11). But except there had been some rudimentary understanding of what lay behind the covenant-sacrifice, that shedding of blood would have been of no real value whatever.

Rejected

All this and all similar significant transactions in later days lie behind John’s trenchant phrase: “the world was made by him”. Yet with what mordant sadness does he go on to record: “and the world knew him not.” This is repeated: “He came unto his own—his own Land and Holy City, his own Temple, his own inheritance as Son of Abraham, Son of David, Son of God—and his own people received him not.” How this is underlined by John’s dramatic use of the same word “received”. “And they took Jesus/and led him away” (19:16, cp. also Lk. 20:14,15). They received him, but only to crucify him!

But whilst the nation as a whole turned its back on the Son of God, there were those, a faithful remnant, who did receive him.

Sons of God – New Born

“And whosoever received him (even them that believe and go on believing in his name), to them gave he authority, warrant, sanction to become sons of God” (v.12)

Gentiles, called by the gospel, especially needed this authentication of their new status as sons of God. Jews were confident that they already had this status, yet in truth they needed the same authorization.

The ‘Name” to be believed in makes a profitable investigation, worthy of the attention of any Bible student. Is it the Divine Name declared at Sinai (Ex. 34:6), the fulness of which is expressed in the Son of God? Or is it his name Jesus Christ, the Saviour from sin, and the promised King? Or is it his name Son of God which calls men to become sons of God? (cp. Is. 56:5). Whichever it is, the ideas inevitably overlap.

These who are sons of God through believing necessarily experience a New Birth. No man born and living in a completely natural way can be a son of God. He must be born “not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (v.13). The first and third expressions in this triad allude to the mother and father in a normal begettal, and they are united by “the will of the flesh”, which applies to both.

Attempts have been made to use these words as a proof-text of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, which is not otherwise taught explicitly in John’s gospel. It is true that a very few manuscripts and some of the earliest of the Fathers read: “which was born”, with reference to Jesus. But the mass of evidence the other way is not to be set aside. Yet is is easy to see how this changed reading came about. The early church had the wit to see that what is true of the redeemed must also be true of the Redeemer. Almost certainly John had this in mind when he wrote the words. So, less directly, it is valid to see an implication of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in these words. Later (3:3,4) the apostle was to record, with evident satisfaction, the Lord’s personal teaching how a man is to be born again—from above, and not by the will of the flesh (cp. also 1 Pet. 1:23).

The Word born “flesh”

The hint which John has just given concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus is accompanied by a needful corrective of extreme or mistaken views concerning his nature. His was “the glory from the only begotten of the Father”, truly; nevertheless the Word was born “flesh”, that is (according to the very common usage of the New Testament) with ordinary human nature, sharing the fallen nature of Adam with all its propensities to evil, yet-the marvel of it!-always living a God-ward life: “the Word was with God”! Here was God manifest in flesh (and not stone; Ex. 34:4), so that the prophet seeing this before, and marvelling at it, could exclaim: “Behold, your God!” (Is. 40:5-9).

This Word of God “tabernacled” among us. Once again, like the True Light, the figure is that of Israel in the wilderness: “we beheld his Glory. . .full of grace and truth”. Here John’s hendiadys is equivalent to “true grace”; and since in so many places “grace” is the inspired Scripture’s way of alluding to undeserved forgiveness from God (Study 12) the allusion may be traced with confidence to the Shekinah Glory of God shining forth from above the Mercy Seat in the Tabernacle and thus signifying the forgiveness which God extended to His people on their Day of Atonement. Typically this was enacted in a Tabernacle which shared the punishment of God’s people in the wilderness. Its outward appearance was goat’s hair, a fitting symbol of the unattractive character of human nature. In the spiritual reality the heavenly Glory found expression in one who was born flesh. There was no beauty that they should desire him. Yet in him, and only in him, was the true forgiveness possible. He was “full of grace and truth”.

The Glory of the Lord

The apostle’s commentary on this message of John uses language appropriate to the same idea. Indeed apart from allusion to the Shekinah Glory it is difficult to interpret without falling into unhelpful vagueness: “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace” (v.16). When, almost a year after the crossing of the Red Sea, the Tabernacle was completed and consecrated, “the glory of the Lord fil/edthe tabernacle” (Ex. 40:34,36,38). It is this word “filled” which the apostle picked up in order to expound it out of his own personal experience. Jesus had shown himself to be the Sanctuary of God filled with the Holy Spirit; and just as the priests were unable to enter the Tabernacle until the glory lifted from within to above it, so also the ensuing ministry of the apostles (note that plural pronoun “we”) could not take up where Jesus left off until the ascension of the Lord and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

“Grace for Grace”

Similarly, the vague mysterious expression “grace for (that is, instead of) grace” now falls into place, the two main ideas associated with “grace” in the NT. are the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Study 12). Both of these meanings make very good sense in this place. In Christ there is true forgiveness of sins, as against that which is typically foreshadowed through the sacrifices of the Tabernacle. Also, over against the Glory of God in the Tabernacle and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on Moses’ seventy helpers (Num 11:24ff), there is the glorifying or Jesus offer his resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Moses and Christ

The emphasis on Christ as the fulfilment of all that the Mosiac system was intended to teach is now stated more explicitly: “The law was given (a Hebraism for “appointed”) through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Here, as already suggested, “grace and truth” may be a hendiadys for “true grace”, that is “true forgiveness of sins”, in contrast to the typical teaching about this through the sacrifices under the Law (cp. “in spirit and in truth”; 4:23).

Alternatively, “grace and truth” may be the New Testament equivalent of the familiar Old Testament phrase “mercy and truth” which in every one of its occurrences refers to the covenants made by God with Abraham and with David. In that case the meaning is: “The law was revealed to Moses, but-greater than-that-Jesus Christ has brought the fulfilment of the Promises.”

This contrast is now summed up in a powerful allusion to Moses’ experience of seeing a veiled manifestation of the Glory of God whilst he was hidden in a cleft of the rock (Ex. 33:22). “No man hath seen (and goes on seeing) God at any time”, not even Moses/ for the theophany he beheld was specifically limited (v.22, 23). When the covenant was made at Sinai a theophany was not only heard but also seen (Ex. 24:10,11); but that was only transitory. But Jesus, the only begotten Son (contrast v.12), at the time of John’s writing had ascended into “the bosom of the Father.” John, the beloved disciple, had himself lain in Jesus’ bosom! (Jn. 13:23). Therefore who better qualified than he to “declare” Jesus? And Jesus being permanently so much more intimate with the Father than Moses ever was, what was the magnitude of the revelation of God which he could “declare”? (Mt. 11:27). The idea makes a wonderful climax to the build-up of allusions in this prologue.

Men used to talk (and still do) about the subtle philosophical ideas woven into this opening section of John’s gospel. All that is so much unmitigated rubbish. The first qualification for a proper understanding of this preliminary enunciation of the theme of the fourth gospel is an intimate knowledge of the Old Testament. It cannot be too strongly stressed that a sound appreciation of John’s gospel depends, most of all, on a clear recognition of the way in which, from start to finish, it sets Moses and Christ side by side, both for the sake of contrast and also to put beyond all argument that Jesus is greater than Moses; he is the fulfilment of all that Moses stood for.

In the last few years before the apostles passed off the scene one of the most serious problems they had to cope with was created by the intensive “counter-reformation” mounted by Judaism against Christianity (see: “The Jewish Plot”, by H.A.W.) It lured (or browbeat) many Jewish believers back to Moses and the synagogue. John’s gospel and epistles such as Colossians and Hebrews were written with the express purpose of stemming that drift. Hence John’s enunciation of the main theme of his gospel.

Notes: John 1:6-18

11.	His own. In John, only here and 10:12; 19:27.
	Received is explained in v. 12 as meaning “believed on his name”. For a vivid picture of this rejection, see Lk. 20:15.
13.	Blood. This word is plural, appropriate with reference to a human mother. If singular, ‘not of blood” would be an untrue statement, for all true believers are new-born out of the blood of Christ. Man. The common NT. word for “husband”.
14.	Among us … we behold. The pronouns seem to indicate other apostles reinforcing the testimony of John; cp. 21:24; 1 Jn. 1:1,2; contrast 20:29.
	We beheld. In the wilderness, the Glory was seen specially in the time of sacrifice; Lev. 9:22,23.
	His glory, in (a) his miracles; 2:11; 11:4,23,40; 12:37-43; (b) in Transfiguration; Lk. 9:32-35.
	The rabbis commonly said that the Second Temple lacked five things: 1. Ark (the mercy seat was known as the D’varah, the place of the Word). 2. The Glory (Shekinah has a close link with the word ’tabernacled’ here). 3. The spirit of prophecy; v.17 v 17 4. Urim and Thummim; v.18. 5. The divine fire.
	As of the only begotten. Cp. the parental joy and great feast at the weaning of Isaac; Gen. 21:8. Equivalent to this detail in John is the mention in Mt, Mk, Lk. that at the Lord’s baptism the heavens opened.
15.	Bare witness. Gk. present tense. Long after his death John’s witness still continued.
	And cried. A technical term for the work of a prophet; 7:13; Rom. 9:27; and rabbinic usage.
	He was before me. Why not ‘is’?
16	These are, of course, the comments of the apostle, not the words of the Baptist.
18	Which. Gk: ho On. Thus, very subtly, John intimates that the Divine Name (Ex. 3:14 LXX) now belongs to Jesus also (Ph. 2:9 RV; Rom. 9:5 Gk.); cp. also Jn. 3:13,31 Gk.