“Your house is left unto you desolate” (Mt.23 :38). And Jesus accompanied by the twelve, left the temple. He had made his last appeal. He had spoken his last warning to the nation and its leaders.

As they were leaving, one of the apostles, Peter probably (see Notes), less oppressed by the solemnity of the occasion than he should have been, enthusiastically (or perhaps in an effort to persuade his Lord to go back on his sombre pronouncement) drew attention to some of the impressive features of that noble assembly of buildings: “Master, see what manner of stones, and what buildings!” Matthew’s text seems to carry the idea: ‘You ask me to look and admire. Instead I ask you to look and lament.’

The Wonder of the World

There was some excuse for pride. For nearly fifty years (Jn.2 :20) royal revenue and national effort had combined to make this temple the most majestic erection in the world. It had double cloisters, profuse ornamentation of red and white marble, great monolithic columns, and elegant decorations such as the great candelabrum and the golden vine, provided by Herod, which had bunches of grapes as tall as a man. Since the temple was still unfinished, it is not unlikely that there were some recent additions calling forth special admiration.

In his “Recovery of Jerusalem” Wilson, the nineteenth century archeologist, invites his readers to imagine “a building longer and higher than York Cathedral, standing on a solid mass of masonry almost equal in height to the tallest of our church spires.” In those foundations were blocks of limestone of fantastic size. Josephus (Ant. 15.11.2) gives the dimensions of some as 25 by 8 by 12 cubits (and the cubit was at least half a yard), all of them precision cut and bevelled; and some, he adds, were 45 cubits long. Even after making due allowance for Josephus’ undoubted weakness for exaggeration when dealing with numbers of any sort, it is evident that some astonishing engineering had gone into the erection of this sanctuary now deserted by the Glory of the Lord.

The phrase: “goodly stones and gifts” (Lk.), deliberately introduces a word marvellously like “anathema, curse,” This doom Jesus now went on to pronounce: “As for these things which ye behold, the days will come in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (the negatives here are very emphatic).

It was a terrifying imprecation, from which any Jew would shrink away incredulous. Yet it had been foretold long before by Micah the prophet: “Therefore Zion for your sake shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the House (i.e. the altar; Ez.43 :15 mg) as the (deserted) high places of the forest” (3 :12). The context of these words was wonderfully apt-a searing denunciation of the nation’s leaders comparable to that which Jesus himself had spoken that very day (Mt.23) to men whose philosophy was: “Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us.”

In the days of good king Hezekiah reformation had brought indefinite deferment of the fulfilment of these grim words (Jer.26:18,19) but now the one Man who could intercede on behalf of the unholy city was about to be done to death by it.

When these horrific events came to pass, the words seem to have been literally fulfilled. In the assault on Jerusalem Titus gave strict instructions that the temple was to be spared. Yet the entire complex of buildings has disappeared without trace. Today nothing is known about the lay-out of the temple area—only that the temple was there, somewhere. So far as is known, orify two of the temple stones have been identified -those which carry an inscription threatening death to any Gentile going beyond the Soreg, the “middle wall of partition.” The Law of Moses had pronounced that when it was indubitably established, that a house had “leprosy” (dry rot?) in its fabric, it was to be utterly demolished, and “they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place” (Lev.14 :41). Thus also the leprous house of God in Jerusalem. It meant an end to the Law of Moses, for sacrifices and atonement were at the very heart of that system, and without temple and altar none of the rest would be possible.

Were the twelve incredulous, or aghast, or too busy talking hard among themselves to take up the matter with Jesus immediately? It was not until they had descended the oblique path to the Kidron, and had breasted the mount of Olives directly opposite the temple, that they plied him with questions about it. And then it was only four of them, who asked him, apart from the rest, as he now sat looking sadly across to the temple area. Four out of twelve, and these four his first disciples (Jn.1 :40,41: Study 20) and closest to him! Not all the Lord’s servants have a burning zeal for greater knowledge about the prophecies of Holy Scripture. Now, as then, enlightenment in this field comes to those who are persistent in their enquiries.

Pressing Questions

They asked three questions: “Tell us (note here how insistent they were), when shall these things be (the destruction of the temple)? and what shall be the sign (one particular sign) of thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?” The grim character of the Lord’s prediction was accepted without demur or expostulation. But they assumed that the day which brought the temple to ruin must necessarily be the great climax bringing in Messiah’s regeneration of all things. On this confusion between distinct events Jesus did not disillusion them—possibly because he could not, for even the Son of man did not know the time of his return in glory (Mk.13 :32). They had heard him speak of his coming again: “Ye shall not see me until ye say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Mt.23 :39). And from his own instruction they knew that “the consummation of the age” meant the Day of Judgment (Mt.13 :39,40: so also Dan.l2:4,7LXX).

The immediate reply of Jesus was only a summary; it included a brief anticipation of the events heralding the Last Day (Lk.21 :10,11), but for a while he concentrated mostly on the crisis of the temple’s overthrow, and the chain of trials and catastrophes leading up to it. All students of the Olivet prophecy find themselves beset- with problems as to when the Lord intended reference to the fall of Jerusalem and when to the time of his coming. (For suggestions regarding these difficulties, see “The Time of the End,” ch. 14, by H.A.W.).

First, then, a solemn warning against being misled by false Messiahs claiming for themselves: “I AM hath sent me unto you” (Ex.3 :14), and: “The time is at hand.” Before he was through, Jesus was to recur to this warning as specially needful (Mt.24 ill,13-28). Those of his disciples who are most eager to see Messiah’s return in their own time are specially liable to be deceived by imposters. If not by false Christs, then by equally false religious interpreters claiming special prophetic power and authority. The repeated exhortations to caution are very urgent: “Take heed that ye be not deceived (Lk.) . . . Many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many … believe it not… go not forth .. . Behold, I have told you before (Mt.).”

The other technical term used here for the second coming—parousia—means, strictly, presence; and accordingly it has been much misinterpreted by “Jehovah’s Witnesses” as necessarily meaning an invisible presence of the Lord since 1914. It requires one minute with a good concordance to expose the utter falsity of such a notion. Such passages as 1 Cor. 16:17; 2 Cor. 7:6; 10:10; Phil. 1:26; 2:12 make nonsense of the idea of an Invisible presence. In fact, in the first century, parousia was normally used to describe the visit of Caesar to one of his provinces—definitely not an invisible coming.

Social collapse

Another test of a very different kind would prove to be the violent national disturbances which were imminent—”wars and commotions,” such as the occasion when twenty thousand Jews were slaughtered in Caesarea (Jos.B.J.2.18.1). Prophecies of this kind surely sounded strangely in the ears of disciples who lived under the settled pox Romana. A period of increasing chaos, such as Judaea experienced in the generation after Christ, would not only trouble the disciples then but make them increasingly confident that the End was near.

“Not so! “counselled Jesus, “wars and rumours of wars must not unsettle you. Neither the end of the temple, nor the end of the age, comes immediately.” At this point he broke into the main thread of his discourse to explain what The End would be like (Lk.21 :10,11). “Nation against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” was hardly possible, except on the smallest scale, in the first century, because of the iron domination of Rome everywhere. Here, surely, Jesus was foretelling a complete breakdown of law and order in the Last Days, these evils being accentuated by “famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places.” Yet even such an accumulation of horror would be only “the beginning of travail.”. It, .would mean the, traumatic new spiritual birth of Israel and thus of the Messianic Kingdom.

This phraseology—’nation against nation, and kingdom against kingdom’—is very reminiscent of Isaiah 19 :2, where the context seems to require reference to civil war. Is it remarkable that today most nations of the world have such problems of racial minorities and a marked trend towards terrorism that there is now fair prospect of a complete collapse of ordered society? It is the kind of development that could come with frightening suddenness, and especially in Israel.

Persecution

But more immediately there was to be a period of intense Jewish animosity and persecution of Christian believers: “They shall deliver you up to councils and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten” (Mk .). The story of the Book of Acts was to prove the truth of this prophecy. (Acts4:3;5:18;8:3; 12:4; 16:24; 22:4; 26:10). The Gentile authority of “kings and governors” would be organized against the new movement. Far from being demoralised by such hardships, the disciples must rejoice in this experience as a great opportunity for public witness: “It shall turn to you for a testimony,” the best of all possible advertisements. (Or could these words mean: “It will prove to you that all is going right, according to the will of God”?)

They could face these persecutions with confidence and complete freedom from worry. No need for anxiety beforehand about how best to testify. (Luke uses the technical term for preparing a speech). The Faith of Christ would not be brought to shame. More than adequate guidance would be afforded them through the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the early church. “I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay, nor resist” (Lk; c.p. Mt. 10:20).

The Lord made no promise of easy deliverance. Although Scripture provides repeated assurance of protection of the faithful remnant when divine judgment comes on an ungodly world, there is never any promise of immunity from persecution. “They will deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you (Mt.)… Brother will deliver up brother to death (Mk.).” Even parents, kinsmen and friends (Lk.) would readily join in the persecution.

What was the look on the faces of those four apostles as they heard these things? In one way or another they were all to suffer personally in the cause of their Lord. Nevertheless (Jesus promised) they would become men of power, like Moses and like Jeremiah: “I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say . . . Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth” (Ex.4 :12; Jer. l :9). And so it turned out: “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them (the chief priests)…” (Acts 4 :8); “and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spake the word of God with boldness” (4 :31). There would be hatred in full measure, not because of any qualities of their own, but because they stood up uncompromisingly for the truth of Christ: “Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word: Your brethren that dated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed” (ls.66 :5; the context is remarkable). In every way possible Jesus sought to assure his followers that persecution was not to be regarded as an evil: “There shall not an hair of your head perish” (Lk.21 :18; and this in spite of v.12,16).

This persecution passage, abundantly fulfilled in the first century, may well prove to have startling relevance in the Last Days also, when a remnant of Israelis believing in Jesus have to face the concentrated hatred of their bigoted fellows.

The disciple and his Lord

It is perhaps not inappropriate at this point to draw attention to a remarkable similarity which builds up in the Olivet prophecy between the trials and hardships foretold for the disciples and all that Jesus himself had to undergo in his last hours.

	Mark 13	Jesus
9.	Deliver you up to councils;	Before the Sanhedrin.
	Beaten in synagogues;	Buffetted by his adversaries.
	Before rulers and kings,	Chief priests and Herod and Pilate.
	for a testimony.	Confession before Pilate.
12.	Brother shall deliver up brother to death	Betrayed (s.w.) by his “own familiar friend”.
16.	Not turn back to take his garment	John Mark’s (?) linen garment.
17.	Woe to them with child, and them that give suck	On the road to Golgotha, the same lament (Lk.23:27,28).
20.	Days shortened.	The time in the tomb as short as possible, for “third day” to stand true.
22.	False Christs.	Barabbas.
	Deceive the very elect.	The repentant malefactor a former disciple (led astray by Barabbas; Study 230).
23.	I have foretold you all things.	Warning to the disciples of his sufferings.
24.	Sun darkened.	Darkness at crucifixion.
26.	Son of man coming in clouds.	This claim repeated at his trial (Mk.14 :62).
32.	Of that day and hour knoweth no man	The hour is come.
33.	Watch	Watch with me.
	and pray.	Prayer in Gethsemane.
35.	Ye know not when
	— at even	Last Supper
	— at midnight	Gethsemane
	— at cockcrow	Peter’s denials
	— in the morning.	Condemnation and crucifixion
36.	Find you sleeping	Disciples sleeping in Gethsemane.

These resemblances can hardly be accidental. They underline the important lesson (Jn.15 :20,21) that, in following Christ, the disciple will find in his own experience echoes of what his Lord had to undergo (see H.A.W: “Revelation”, ch.25; “Acts” ch.109).

Trials of yet another kind would assail the disciples: “And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of (the) many shall wax cold.” This was a blunt and shattering prophecy of failure. And so it came about. Many did renounce the Faith, many perverted it, the majority just drifted away.

Again, the student is bidden look for a further reference of these words to the last days, ‘for “iniquity shall abound” is the equivalent of “the wicked shall do wickedly” (Dan.12 :10), a passage which most certainly foretells the time of the end in Israel (see v. 11).

But, yet again, Jesus can be seen to be referring back to the last two verses of Daniel: “Blessed is he that waiteth (endureth)… at the end of the days” (12 :12,13). It is a further intimation of the repeat fulfilment of this part of the Olivet prophecy in modern times.

Early decay

It is usual, in commentaries and histories of the early church, to represent the progress of the Faith as steady and irresistible. But in fact such statements are true only of the apostasy which set in, and not of the true gospel of Christ. The primary cause of this decay was what might well be described as the Jewish counter-reformation. Throughout the New Testament there are indications enough that the hostile forces of Jewry, finding themselves unable to stifle the Faith by the power of Holy Scripture or by the evidence of indisputable facts, applied themselves to the classic technique of wrecking the new movement from within. (This is a large and complex subject, not to be developed here. Its staring point is Gal.2:4. See “Acts”, App. 3, HAW.

Thus, what Jesus was describing beforehand in this trenchant passage was the bitter discouragement of seeing his Truth being defeated by the powers of evil—members of the ecclesia of Christ betraying each other, false teachers working mischief amongst new converts (2 Pet.2 :1; 1 Jn.4 :1), and all kinds of wicked maneuvering by false brethren (2 Cor. 11 :26). All this happened on a big scale before ever Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom.

Jesus did not counsel denunciation or counter-violence, but simply the dogged holding on to truth which only faith can make possible: “He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved.” He did not mean the end of the Jewish dispensation. Holding on to the Faith until the signal judgments of A.D.70 arrived was not outstandingly meritorious in itself. “Be thou faithful unto death,” was the exhortation of Christ to his hard-pressed brethren (Rev.2 :10). “Ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise . . . We are not of them that draw bad unto perdition, but of them that believe unto the saving of the soul” (Heb.10:36,39).

The prospect was by no means entirely discouraging. In spite of the many hindrances foreseen, the gospel would rapidly spread far and wide: “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations” (Mt.). Strange paradox, that the message should make headway in spite of deceivers, Roman hostility, tribulation, treachery, hatred, dissension, love growing cold, and iniquity abounding. Yet, within thirty years, it was possible for Paul to quote, with reference to the preaching of the gospel: “Their sound went into all the earth, their words to the end of the world” (Ps.19:4; Rom.10:18). Andin all soberness he would write to the Colossians that “the gospel was preached to every creature which is under heaven … it is come unto you, as it is in all the world” (Col. l:23,6).

This work accomplished, the “end” that Jesus had first spoken of—the utter ruin of the temple and holy city—would be held back no longer: “Thus saith the Lord God unto the land of Israel: an end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land. Now the end is come upon thee, and I will send (unleash, hurry forth; Hebrew Piel) mine anger upon thee” (Ez.7 :2,3).

Notes: Mt. 24:1-14

1.	His disciples. Mk: one of his disciples. Since Mark is Peter’s gospel, and the phrase may be a Hebraism for ‘the leading apostle’, this was probably Peter.
2.	Thrown down. Evidently Stephen made use of this prophecy, for it was used against him at his trial; Acts 6:14.
3.	When Mt. compiled his gospel it was evidently still understood that all these three things would happen together. For much more on this, see “Revelation”, Appendix; H.A.W.
5.	Deceive Ominous repetition of an ominous word: v.4,11,24
6.	Hear…see…rumours (reports). Very apposite to the efficiency of modern news media.
	Must come to pass = Dan.2 :28LXX = also Rev. 1 :1.
	The end: Dan.9:26.
9.	Hated of all nations. Lk. adds: But there shall not a hair of your head perish. The Lord quotes 1 Sam. 14:45, and in turn in Acts 27:34 he quotes his own words. What a contrast in 2 Cor. 11:23ff.

This is perhaps a suitable place to pull together the frequent allusions, both open and symbolic, which show how, increasingly, the mind of Jesus dwelt on the impending change of gospel dispensation. Through himself a New Israel was to be called into being. The door of Faith was to be thrown open so that Gentiles and Jews might be accepted into the family of God on equal terms. But this would involve the abandonment of the old Mosaic order. More than this, Israel’s rejection of Christ would mean summary judgment of the nation’s wickedness. In a wide variety of ways these momentous developments were foreshadowed or openly prophesied by Jesus in parable, symbolic action, figure of speech, Old Testament allusion, or by the plainest of plain statements.

All the passages assembled here belong to the last few months of the ministry, many of them to the last week.

	1.	“Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd” (Jn. 10:16).
	2.	“The queen of the south … and the men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it” (Lk. 11:31,32).
	3.	“And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God … the last first, and the first last…yourselves thrust out” (Lk.13 :29-30).
	4.	The two sons in the parable. “I will not”, said one, but he repented and went. “I go, sir”, said the other, but he went not (Mt.21 :28-30).
	5.	The two sons in the parable of the Prodigal (Lk.l5:11-32).
	6.	“This sycamine (fig) tree … Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea” (Lk. 17:6).
	7.	“The Romans will come and destroy both our place (temple) and our nation” (Jn.11 :48)
	8.	Jesus preaching “near the wilderness . . . at a city called Ephraim, fruitful (Jn. 11:54)
	9.	Only the Samaritan leper thankful for Christ’s healing (Lk.l7:18).
	10.	Workers at the third, sixth, ninth, eleventh hours serve by faith. The others, serving by legalistic agreement, are dismissed (Mt.20:l-16).
	11.	The symbolism of the healing of the two blind men (see Study 153).
	12.	“We will not have this man to reign over us. . . Those mine enemies bring hither, and slay them before me”(Lk.l9:14,27).
	13.	The Triumphal Entry:
		a.	Bethphage (= unripe figs) and Bethany (= date palm); (Lk.l9:29). Plenty of symbolic passages associate these with Jews and Gentiles respectively,
		b.	Two disciples.
		c.	An ass and an unbroken colt (Mt.21 :2); Job 11 :12s.w.), facing the door (Mk. 11:4).
		d.	“What do ye, loosing the colt?”
		e.	“The Lord hath need of him” “% (Lk.l9:31).
		f.	Jesus rode the colt in preference to the ass (Mt. 21 :7;Lk. 19:35).
		g.	Branches of palm trees (Jn.12 :13). Cp. 1 Kgs. 6 :32; Rev.7 :9,11 where palms are closely associated with cherubim – Gentiles with Israel?
		h.	A crowd going before, and another crowd following (Mt.21 :9).
		i.	“The world is gone after him” (Jn.12 :19).
	14.	The cursing of the fig tree (Mt. 21:19; Mic. 7:l RV; Hos.9:16,17).
	15.	The court of the Gentiles declared holy (Mk. 11:16).
	16.	“A house of prayer for all nations” (Mk. 11:17).
	17.	The blind and the lame healed in the “k temple (Mt.21 :14), but the offering of I””, sacrifices interrupted (Mk. 11:15).
	18.	This mountain (Zion) to be cast into the sea (Mt.21 :21).
	19.	“The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof “(Mt.21 :43)
	20.	Guests for the marriage feast brought in from the highways (Mt.22 :8)—the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind” (Lk.l4:21).
	21.	The Greeks: “We would see Jesus… the Son of man glorified … I will draw all men unto me” (Jn.12 :20,21,23,32).
	22.	The Olivet prophecy: “Jerusalem trodden down . . . this gospel of the kingdom preached to all nations” (Lk.21 :24; Mk.l3:10).
	23.	“Father, forgive them (the Roman soldiers) . . . Truly, this was the Son of God” (Lk.23 :34; Mt.27 :54). “Pray not for this people” (Jer.7:11,12,16).
	24.	The Field of Blood bought by the death of Christ to provide strangers (Gentiles) witha place of burial (and resurrection) in the holy city (Mt.27:7).

The great throng was still round Jesus in the temple court. Now, however, in solemn warning, he addressed himself to his disciples. But the multitude listened and drank in every word.

Matthew’s record (the whole of ch.23) has all the appearance of being an assemblage of separate denunciations pronounced by Jesus against the Pharisees (cp. Lk. 11 :39-25 13:34,35; 14:11; 18:14), now brought together, as being all on the same theme, according to Matthew’s method. But even making allowances for this, most of these 39 verses are readily seen to belong to the present occasion. The chapter is in three parts:

1. v.2-12: spoken to disciples and the crowd.
2. v.13-33: seven woes against the Pharisees.
3. v.30-39: an apostrophe to the nation and Jerusalem.

Good Precept

The Lord’s ministry had now come to a crisis. The rulers were united in their hostility and their firm resolve to get rid of him. He on his part was resolved to expose and denounce them. He went for their pride, avarice, and hypocrisy, as being more readily observable by the people.

“The scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ seat” (that is, long ago they appropriated to themselves his authority and the administration of his Law). Perhaps also by that past tense Jesus implied that, whereas formerly they said and did, now they only said (Lk.14 :5 provides an example). “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.” Here the text is ambiguous. Instead of imperatives, it could read: “ye observe and do,”-their normal attitude of deference towards them. Those who find it impossible to believe that Jesus would encourage his disciples to follow Pharisaic precepts of the sort which are given such a merciless trouncing in the same chapter naturally prefer this reading.

But the imperative form of the verbs is not as outrageous as it may seem. For then Jesus can be seen to be re-affirming the precept of Deuteronomy: “And thou shalt observe to do according to all that they (the priests and Levites of the sanctuary) shall teach thee” (Dt.17 :11).

Thus Jesus laid it down specially for all Jewish believers that they were to continue to live according to the religious regimen prescribed by the leaders of the people, even though il might involve them in acceptance of formalities and ceremonies for which in Christ they had now lost enthusiasm.

Bad example

“But” Jesus added very weightily, “do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”

The authority of these men in the nation was almost unbelievable. Even the Sadducees, who held the reins of power, were constrained to follow Pharisee principles in administering the Law; otherwise, they knew right well, the people would not tolerate them. Josephus wrote about them: “Whatsoever they (the people) do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform according to their (the Pharisees’1 direction.” And, although himself a Pharisee, he did not hesitate to comment about them: “They valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favoured by God, by whom this set of women (influential women at Herod’s court) were inveigled” (Ant.18.1.3; 17.2.4). And the Mishnah actually has this: “It is more punishable to act against the words of the scribes than against those of Scripture”!

The Lord’s indictment was forthright and biting: “They bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” Mt.23:4 and 1111:46 together present a complete sequence; touch with a finger, move, lift, lay on the shoulder, carry. They constrained people to take on these burdens but themselves would not attempt even the first (contrast Mt.ll :28-30, ls.53 :6). It may be that Jesus meant “move them” in the sense of “remove them” (s.w. Rev.2:5; 6:14), by pointing a finger at the text of Moses’ law and its true meaning.

What a contrast with Moses whose seat they claimed to occupy; for he, seated upon a rock, held both hands unto heaven “until the going down of the sun,” that Israel might vanquish their enemies by the power of God (Ex.17:12).

The “burdens” Jesus referred to were doubtless the fantastic complex of absurd rules and ritual which Pharisee ingenuity and scrupulosity had added to Moses’ Law (Acts 15 :10,28). But the words also recall David’s lament: “Mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me” (Ps.38 :4). There was little hope or comfort in the Pharisaic system apart from the gratification of a spirit of self-righteousness. The Lord now cited six examples (v.5-7) of the W of behaviour, characteristic of the Pharisees, which must never be seen in his followers. The life of religious ostentation cloaking avarice and hypocrisy was exposed and forbidden.

Phylacteries, fringes

“They make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments.” These phylacteries—the word means a guard or protection—were a device for the literal fulfilment of a commandment which was clearly intended figuratively: “And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes” (Dt. 6:8). The four passages in the Law where these words come (Ex.13 :3-10, 11-16; Dt.6 :4-9; 11 :13-31) were written out on tiny pieces of parchment which were then rolled up tightly and enclosed in a small container. This, fastened to the forehead or the left arm by a leather strap, was worn (and still is) by religious Jews at the time of daily prayer. But Pharisees wore them continually as an open demonstration of their superior holiness. They even succeeded in “proving” by their own queer method of Bible interpretation that God Himself wears phylacteries! They even went so far as to describe God as a heavenly Rabbi not only wearing phylacteries, but also studying the Law for three hours a day, and keeping its rules.

And similarly with the fringes on the borders of their robes. The Law required that these should be of blue as an easy reminder to every Israelite that, wearing the livery of heaven, he was under obligation to keep the law, given him from heaven, with unflagging self-dedication (Num.15 :38). But the Pharisees turned dedication into ostentation. They made the fringes of their garments long, past all necessity or reason, so that the common people might take note and infer the surpassing holiness of the wearers. Always they were intent on being “seen of men” (cp. Mt.6:1,2,5,16).

More than this, they had succeeded in establishing a tradition that at any banquet (Lk.14 :7) or synagogue service the places of prominence and importance were theirs by right. It was all part of the spiritual stranglehold they had taken on the nation.

“Father, Master, Teacher”

From all the rest of the people they encouraged, nay, demanded deference and veneration. In street and market place they greeted each other with great ostentation, and were happy to be saluted by the common folk with a reverence suited to their dignity as the spiritual aristocracy of the nation. And to be hailed: “Rabbi, Rabbi” was music in their ears, and all the more so since—so far as can be ascertained—this was a title of honour fairly recently introduced.

“But”, warned Jesus in solemn tones, “be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ.”

In this fundamentally important triad it is possible that the short explanatory phrases: “which is in heaven”, and “even Christ” are Matthew’s parenthetical explanations. Certainly there is no other occasion in the gospels when Jesus openly proclaimed himself as “the Christ.”

Then why no similar explanation about the “Teacher”? Probably because, whilst the disciples already knew Jesus as Master (or Guide) and God in heaven as Father, they had not yet learned of the Holy Spirit as the appointed Teacher (Jn.14 :26) of the ecclesias of Christ. (The Father—Son—Holy Spirit triad, not a tri-unity in the ecclesiastical sense, is a common theme in the New Testament; e.q. Mt.28 :19; Ac. 2 :33; 5 :30-32; 15 :8-11; 1Cor. 6:11,14; 12:4-6; 2Cor.13 :14; 2Thess.2 :13,14; 1Pet.l :2; Jude 20,21; Rev. 1:4-5)

Remembering this warning, the early church discouraged adulation of its leaders. The title Rabbi means literally “my great one.” But, said Jesus: “He that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” The apostles remembered this. “Stand up; I myself also am a man,” said Peter to Cornelius. “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos?” asked Paul in self-depreciation (1 Cor.3 :5). But as apostasy set in, this wholesome principle was let go. At a very early epoch (see, for example, the Epistles of Ignatius) special reverence for bishops was expected and required of the faithful. Nor has the ecclesia of the last days altogether escaped this danger.

Praying and Preying

The Pharisee is also detectable in another respect: “For a pretence they make long prayers,” said Jesus in scorn. He might well be angry that these poseurs should make Almighty God serve the turn of their own vanity. They had, for example, no less that twenty-six forms of benediction to be said when washing. For such there will be, not merely condemnation but, greater condemnation. Jesus never used more censorious language. The lesson had better be learned by this generation, even though the need is not yet so urgent.

Yet another indictment was that these Pharisees “devoured widows’ houses” (cp. Ex. 20:22). Battening on the piety of wealthy women devotees has ever been one ot the most rewarding activities of professional religiosity. The sister-in-law of Herod the Great paid out immense sums to cover the fines of thousands of Pharisees who refused to take an oath of loyalty to Caesar. Far worse than this was the way in which these men wheedled gifts out of their followers and coaxed them into leaving them fat legacies for “holy” purposes, such as (see context) long pretentious prayers on behalf of those who subsidised them-like so many Catholics paying priests to say masses. Or, the words may mean that dying men were persuaded to leave their property to the Pharisees instead of for the subsistence of their widows.

Self-denying Poverty

Even as he spoke, there in the temple court Jesus was presented with an impressive illustration of the exact opposite to that grasping hypocrisy which he had just denounced. To receive the gifts of the pious the temple had thirteen large trumpet-shaped collection boxes each labelled for some holy purpose. Jesus was near enough to see a poor widow cast a mite, the smallest coin there was, into one of “trumpets”, and then another mite into one of the others. The rabbis had laid down that no donation must be less that two mites.

The warm praise of Jesus was not to be restrained. Others contributed much more than she, but they gave “out of their superfluity’-il was money they did not need; they could well spare it. But this wonderful woman gave her all! How easily she could have reasoned: “My two mites will add nothing to the greater glory of God. And since this is all I have, surely I am justified in not contributing at all.” Instead her gift was clearly given out of a most exceptional faith that though she thus left herself without means of subsistence God would not fail her. It may be taken as certain that this faith, in God’s eyes the most precious commodity in all the world, had its due reward—from His Providence. But, more than this, the phrase: “this poor widow”, indicated that she was still present, listening to the Lord’s discourse, and thus had the satisfaction of hearing his commendation of her. What a contrast, both in motive and outcome, with the self-centred ostentation of the Pharisees!

Note: Mt. 23:l-12

8.	And all ye are brethren. This phrase seems to be required also at the end of v.9: “One is your Father (and all ye are brethren).”
9.	Call no man your father. Saul of Tarsus was taught to be “zealous of the traditions of the fathers” (Gal.l :14) ; ‘•; Note that here, “Be not ye called” does not occur, because of the small danger of such a creeping abuse in the early church.
11.	The greatest. .. your servant. And nationally too: Ez. 21:26.

Amongst the worshippers who had come up to Jerusalem for the Passover were a number of Greeks who were (so the text implies) worshippers, “proselytes of the gate”.

They came, most probably, from the cities of the Decapolis on the eastern side of Galilee. Of course they had not been without opportunity to see Jesus in the course of his repeated visits to their part of the countryside. But now there was a special purpose behind this present approach to him.

Jesus was teaching in the inner court from which they were rigidly excluded. So they seized the opportunity to appeal to Philip, who was possibly known personally to some of them: Would he persuade his Master to come into the outer court, the Court of the Gentiles, for their benefit? What a difference between their wish to see Jesus and that of Herod (Lk.23 :8)! The strong assertion of Jesus had gone round that this temple was to be “the house of prayer for all nations” (Mk. 11:17).

It is a likely guess that they came with a definite proposition:

‘Jesus, by your triumphal entry into Jerusalem you have proclaimed yourself the Messiah. Yet you will never be accepted as Messiah by the chief priests and Sanhedrin. They are all bitterly hostile to you. Then why not begin your Messianic kingdom in our part of the country where there is much sympathy for your cause and none of this entrenched opposition? The Jews of Galilee are enthusiastic about you, and they will give all support to this scheme.’

Several details in the text harmonize well enough with this reading of the situation.

They came to Philip as intermediary, feeling sure that he would help, for his name implied Greek sympathy and perhaps even an admixture of Greek ancestry.

From the first (Jn.l :44,45) Philip had been eager to find disciples for his lord, so he was willing enough to help now, for he knew the value of seeing as a ground for faith (1 :46; 14:8). Nevertheless mindful of Christ’s repeated emphasis on a mission to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” he hesitated, even though they addressed him-a disciple-as “Lord.”

He was unsure how to respond to this request, for earlier had not their Master instructed them: “Go not in the way of the Gentiles” (Mt.10:5)? So he went off to consult Andrew about it. This first of all evangelists (Jn.l :41) naturally added his encouragement to the idea, perhaps all the more readily because he had been specially impressed with so much in his Lord’s recent words and actions which suggested a leaning towards the Gentiles. So together they approached Jesus. These two had shown a common concern about the needs of the multitude when Jesus fed the five thousand (Jn.6 :5-9). And had not Jesus himself said: “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven” (Mt.l8:19)? And also this: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn.6 :37). Doubtless John foreshadowed here that it would be through the work of the apostles, and not by the direct ministry of Jesus, that Gentiles would come to the Faith.

The Son of man glorified

The reaction of Jesus now was extraordinary: “The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified.” What, precisely, did he mean? The usage of the words “glory, glorify” in John’s gospel makes a study of considerable complexity. Here it must be sufficient to indicate the three powerful Messianic prophecies which lie behind the present allusion. (For details, see the end of Study 170).

There is Isaiah’s moving picture of a Messiah facing the discouragement of a people indifferent to his claims and his wonderful work: “I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain . . . Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified… Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord … I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth” (ls.49 :3-6). The appropriateness of these words to the context in John needs no explaining.

There is also the introduction to the outstanding prophecy of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53: “Behold, my servant shall cause to understand, and shall be lifted up, and shall be glorified exceedingly (LXX) … so shall he sprinkle (i.e. cleanse) many nations” (52:13,15). Copious reference is made to both of these Scriptures in John 12.

But perhaps even more striking is the allusion to the Son of man prophecy in Daniel 7 :13,14: “Behold, one like unto the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days . . . And they offer all glory in service unto him (LXX), that all people, nations and languages should serve him.” When Jesus cried out: “Now is the Son of man glorifed,” he doubtless saw in the eager service of these Gentiles the first token of fulfilment of Daniel’s impressive vision.

A corn of wheat

Nevertheless his response to the proposition of these Greek believers must be: ‘No, I am here to die, and thus to bring forth much fruit. Your proposal would mean no fruit. The thought of the Isaiah passages had brought poignantly home to him that the path of heavenly glory was also the path of suffering:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you (and he was speaking now to both Jews and Gentiles), Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” The principle of Life through death is basic to all God’s dealings with this race of mortal sinners: “that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death” (Heb.2 :14); “that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection . . . being made conformable unto his death” (Phil.3 :10); “always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh” (2 Cor.4 :11); it is only the slaying of the burnt offering and its complete consumption on the altar which makes it “a sweet savour unto the Lord.”

Paul learned from his Master this figure of the planted seed (1 Cor. 15 :36). It is a parable to be interpreted not of the process of resurrection, but of the results of it. Thus: the seed in the ground represents the old life in Adam, declared by burial to be fit only for death; this “natural man” does not die at once but gradually; as he dies, the New Man in Christ grows (this is the plant growing out of the dying seed); ultimately there is “the full corn in the ear”-this is the life to come, resurrection life, like that which was planted, only much more glorious and abundant.

Jesus proceeded to apply the principle of self-sacrifice involved in his parable, first to himself, and then to his disciples. “He that loveth his soul is destroying it; and he that hateth his soul in this world shall keep it unto life (zoe) eternal.” The words are almost meaningless until it is realised that here, as in so many places in the New Testament, “soul” stands for all that belongs to the natural man, the old Adam (Lk.12 :19-23; Heb.4 :12; 1 Pet.1 :22; Rev.18 :14; Study 129). The tension and conflict in Jesus are summed up in his words: “Now is my soul troubled.”

And the like experience must come to every disciple also: “If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.” This marked emphasis on first person pronouns would be insufferable egotism in any one else. Yet, such is the status and authority of Jesus, there is no hint of unseemliness in his words.

It may be that, as in a later section of this discourse (Study 171), there is here another of the many hidden “Moses” allusions which this gospel has. “Servant” is the word “minister”, one who serves in the presence of his Master, as Joshua did to Moses. The honour which came to Joshua is at least equalled by the honour God endows on the minister of His Son. But an important lesson Jesus impressed on these Greeks was: ‘You must come to me and my example, not I to you.’

The phrase: “where I am” is often read as referring prospectively to the future. But the context asks for a literal interpretation. Jesus was already in the throes of Gethsemane. The disciple must follow, and with many a lesser Gethsemane, must share his experience. In a similar, but not equal, sense he too must die in order to bring forth much fruit. So much written about Christ here must apply to the disciple also.

“Gethsemane”

John’s gospel supplies no detail of the Lord’s intense wrestling with self in Gethsemane, but his present discourse has all the marks of similar agonizing. It is John’s equivalent of what the Synoptists record (Mt.26:36-46; Mk.l4:32-42; Lk.22:30-46). Almost every phrase from v.24 to v.33 needs to be read carefully from this point of view. Jesus “oftimes resorted thither”-to Gethsemane (18 :2). This assuredly was one of those “Gethsemane” experiences.

“Now is my soul troubled;” he said, “and what shall I say? Shall I say, Father, save me from this hour?” (or, possibly: “Why should I say, Father save me from this hour?”). But for this cause came I unto this hour. No, I will rather say, Father, glorify thy name.”

How very close these words are to the prayer in Gethsemane! It was the soul of Jesus which turned away from the ordeal before him. But his spirit was willing. And now, as later, as always, that which was spiritual triumphed over that which was natural in him.

These anticipations of Gethsemane can be traced further:

v.26: “Where I am, there shall also my servant be.”

v.27: “This hour.”

v.29: “An angel spake to him.”

v.31: “The prince of this world.”

v.32: “Lifted up.”

v.33: “What death he should die.”

“Now is my soul troubled”(cp. 13:21; 11:33). Jesus was appropriating almost verbatim the words of Psalm 42 :6 LXX, a most intense psalm of David, written (very probably) at the time when he was hunted from his throne and from the holy city by Absalom and his rebels againstthe Lord’s anointed (see Study 214). In all kinds of ways the situation presented a God- contrived parallel to the rejection of Jesus by those who more than any should have acknowledged him. And as David found refuge beyond Jordan and support from his loyal guard of Gentile warriors (2 Sam.15 :18), so now Jesus gained new strength and encouragement from these Gentiles who honoured him with their reverence: “for this cause came I to this hour,” that, falling as a corn of wheat into the ground, he might bring forth much fruit; and it was also “for this cause (that he might be saved out of this hour; (Heb.5 :7RVm) that he was brought face to face with such dereliction.

A voice from heaven

The prayer of need Found immediate response from the Father in heaven: “There came therefore a voice from heaven (because such a prayer must be answered), I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” Even in the unsuccessful mission to Israel, God had been glorified in the words of grace spoken by His Son, and in the winsome acts of compassion and power which he had displayed. Soon a yet wider ministry to the glory of God would take the gospel to Gentiles thirsty for good news of truth and righteousness. Accordingly Christ’s last word to his preachers was: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Mt.28:19).

The voice from heaven brought reassurance to Jesus, as at his baptism (Lk.3 :21,22) and at his transfiguration (9 :35), but that was not its primary purpose: “This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes,” he explained to these eager Gentiles (Jn. 11:42). As Israel had heard the voice of God, a voice of thunder, when their covenant was inaugurated with sacrifice at Sinai, so now the Gentiles had a like experience when they were about to become sharers in the New Covenant. It may have been these Gentiles who were ready with their explanation of the impressive phenomenon. Although to them it was only a noise, they were immediately convinced that “an angel hath spoken (and is still speaking) to him.” But to the Jews in the throng it was nothing more than thunder. Thunder in spring-time! Yet even they would not have made so foolish a suggestion if there had not been heavy clouds in the sky over Jerusalem. The Daniel prophecy alluded to by Jesus tells of the “clouds” of heaven (the Shekinah Glory) round the glorified Son of man (Dan.7 :13)—from the mention of thunder some would infer clouds and lightning, not infrequent accompaniments of the Shekinah Glory. But these Jews, like the scientists of the twentieth century, would rather find “natural causes” as the explanation of this thunder than see and hear God at work in anything to do with Jesus of Nazareth. (For thunder as the Voice of God consider: Ex.19 :18,19; 20 :18; Ps.81 :7; 18:13; 29:3;ls.29:6).

The prince of this world

Nevertheless, whether they discerned it or not, this mighty Voice of God gave plain intimation that the Almighty had not abdicated, but was about to bring vast far-reaching changes in the Jewish kosmos: “Now is the judgment of this Mosaic order (see Notes): now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (contrast 6:37).

These are enigmatic expressions. Three times Jesus was to speak of “the prince of this world” (14 :30; 16 :11), yet in none of the three occasions is there a decisive context to settle the meaning of the words. Various suggestions are available:

1. The most familiar-that here the power of Sin is personified, as indeed it certainly is in other places. “God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom.8 :3). “Sin shall not have dominion over you . . . being made free from sin, ye became slaves of righteousness” (Rom.6 :14,18). But there are difficulties. “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me,” implies a human adversary. And so also: “the Comforter will rebuke the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment … of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.” How is the abstract principle of Sin to be rebuked? This again suggests a person or human system.
2. Was Jesus alluding to the destroying angel of the Passover (Ex.12 :23)? There can be little doubt that he made at least one other reference to the world powers described from Egypt (Mt.26 :53). If this is the case, he now spoke of a greater deliverance-from the power of death. Through his sacrifice of himself this Lamb of God would, so to speak, judge the angel of judgment.
3. Interpreting in harmony with the earlier allusion to Daniel 7, “the prince of this world” can be given a literal meaning with reference to the world powers described in Daniel’s vision: “four kings which shall arise out of the earth.” Without the power and authority of the fourth of these, no crucifixion could take place. Yet the death of Christ guaranteed the ultimate abolition of all human might and dominion.
4. In this context Jesus had much to say about the rejection of Israel and the end of the Mosaic order. “Now is the judgment of this world” was, in that sense, literally true. So by “the prince of this world” he may have meant the high priest and the entire system which he stood for. Within hours that man of holiness and evil would send his minions to arrest Jesus. Yet the entire transaction could lead only to the final end of that high priesthood in the sight of God. At the trial of Jesus, Caiaphas rent his garment-Qnd thereby signified more than he knew.
5. Clearly, with these Biblical alternatives, there is little room for the un-Biblical idea of a supernatural Devil, who never was and never will be “prince of this world.”

“Lifted up”

Though Jesus drew comfort and strength from contemplation of the great redeeming work appointed for him to do, just now his mind dwelt more on the ordeal before him. Only through suffering could the victory be won: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” There was designed double meaning in these words, (as also in Jn.2 :19; 3 :3; 4 :10; 11:50). The interpretative passages from Isaiah quoted in the ensuing verses speak of Christ’s glory. “I saw the Lord high and lifted up” (Is.6 :1). “Behold, my Servant shall cause to understand (Heb.), and shall be lifted up, and shall be glorified exceedingly” (52 :13 LXX). And similarly Daniel 7, very much in the mind of Jesus at this time, speaks of the exaltation of the Son of man in the presence of the Ancient of Days.

Even so, John’s own comment is: “This he said, signifying by what manner of death he should die.” And the words were evidently understood in this way by the multitude: “We have heard out of the Law that the Messiah abideth for ever (Ps.72 :17; 110 :4; ls.9 :7; Ez.37 :25; Dan.7 :14): and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?” Evidently, the expression “lifted up” was currently used colloquially for “crucified.” Similarly another word anaireo (literally: lift up, take up) is often used in the NT. to mean “kill, slay.” Early in his ministry Jesus had used the same idiom: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (Jn.3 :14; cp. 8 :28; Ezra 6 :11RV). To the minds of the people nothing could be more incongruous than the idea of a crucified Messiah. So this saying of Jesus would contribute to a further cooling of enthusiasm regarding his claims.

Any who leaned towards discipleship would also be greatly discouraged by Jesus’ expectation that he would “draw all men unto him.” Of course, he did not mean “all without exception,” but “all without distinction,” without any regard as to whether they were Pharisees or publicans, Jews or Gentiles, slaves or free, (as in Jn.5 :28; 3 :15,16; Acts 2 :21; 10:43; 1 Tim 2 :6; Rom.5 :18; Heb.2 :9). The exclusive national pride which possessed nearly all Jewry never took kindly to the idea of others being received by God on equal terms with themselves. Thus, with many, enthusiasm for the man of Galilee cooled to lukewarmness and even to indifference. There had been other recent discouragements: his failure to make use of a splendid opportunity at the Triumphal Entry, and his explicit sanction of payment of tribute to Caesar (Mk. 11 :11; 12:17).

Nevertheless Jesus spoke truth. His cross would, and did, draw all kinds of men unto him. The crucifixion itself was to illustrate this, for then not only disciples but also malefactors and women and Roman soldiers and honourable counsellors all paid their tribute to the One who was “lifted up.” “So shall he sprinkle (and purify) many nations”, wrote the prophet of the Lord (ls.52 :15). And, encouraging the Gentile enquirers, Jesus had pointedly said: “If any man serve me, let him follow me.”

Light, darkness

Sensing the Jewish reaction against his doctrine, Jesus exhorted them to use well their present opportunity: “Yet a little while is the light among you. Walk as ye have the light, lest darkness seize you.” It is possible that here he was comparing himself to the Shekinah Glory of God which guided and protected Israel in the wilderness. The pillar of fire and cloud had given light by night to Israel, but was darkness to the Egyptians who sought to seize them (Ex.14 :20). In the wilderness Israel’s unwillingness to be guided by the Glory of the Lord resulted in years of aimless wandering. They walked in darkness for thirty-eight years, of which there is no record. (Note the great gap in the history at Num.20:1; 33 :36).

With all the earnestness he could command Jesus urged his hearers not to fall after the same example of unbelief. “While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.”

And with that he put point to his appeal by acting the parable: “he departed, and did hide himself from them.” The “hiding of God’s face” from Israel is one of the most powerful figures of speech used by the Old Testament prophets (e.g. ls.8 :17). Almost every example of it goes back to the vision of the Cherubim of Glory covering their faces with their wings (Is.6 :2). Now, even more pointedly, Jesus tried to teach the people of their present danger because of indifference to himself and his message. But their minds were made up.

Notes: Jn.l 2:20-36

20.	The Gk. text indicates a definite link with the preceding passage: “The world is gone after him.” They had meant the Jewish world, but now the reader is encouraged to see a yet wider meaning in the phrase.
21.	See Jesus. It was Philip who said: “Come and see” (1 :46); but he meant, and this means, more than see him optically: 15:24; 14:7, 9; 9:37; 6:36.
22.	The Gk. text here shows distinct signs of compression. The usual Gk. particles are omitted; and “he saith to Andrew” and “they say to Jesus” both lack apodosis.
27.	Now is my soul troubled. The suggested historical setting is not certain, for it is the first of the “Korah” psalms, and all the rest of that set seem to belong definitely to the time of Hezekiah. Much in the psalm is appropriate to Hezekiah’s experience.
28.	Glorify. First occurrence in Ex.15 (5 times) and “glory” (twice).
30.	Spake to him. Gk. perfect tense seems to imply that the voice went on speaking, even as the people speculated.
31.	This world. In John’s gospel /cosmos not infrequently = the Jewish world: e.g. 7 :4,7; 12 :19; 18 :20.
32.	Draw all men; s.w. 21 :11. Is there a designed allusion here to the name of Moses?
33.	Signifying; i.e. expressing by sign or type; 3 :14.
34.	The Law; here put by metonymy for the entire O.T.
	Who is this Son of man? From these words it looks as though these Jews understood Jesus to be making outright claim to be the Messiah.
35.	Light. . . darkness. For this combination of light and the fruitfulness of a corn of wheat, compare Ps. 97:11; 67:1,2,6.
36.	Children of light; 1 Th.5 :5; Eph.5 :8; Lk. 16:8.

The apostle John rounds off his account of the public ministry of Jesus with a paragraph which is probably intended to summarise the appeal made to Israel throughout his ministry. In these seven verses there is hardly a phrase which cannot be matched several times over elsewhere in the Lord’s discourses.

The introduction: “Jesus cried and said …” certainly reads as though beginning a public discourse (7:28; 1 :15). But only a few verses earlier (v.36) “Jesus departed, and did hide himself from them.” However, this may have been his final declamation in the temple court, his very last public utterance-and this on the day before he was crucified!

Moses—Jesus

John had introduced the ministry of Jesus with an emphatic statement of the main theme of his gospel: “The law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (1 :17). With every fresh incident and discourse he was to re-emphasize this contrast. Always there is similarity—Jesus is the promised prophet like unto Moses—but it is a similarity which emphasizes superiority.

Appropriately, then, in this trenchant summary, phrase after phrase is chosen to floodlight this important truth yet again for the benefit of the Jewish readers of this gospel.

“He that believeth on me, believeth not on me (i.e. not only on me), but on him that sent me,” When being sent back to Egypt for the salvation of his people, Moses harped disconsolately on this word “believe”; “Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken to my voice” (Ex.4 :l-9). And in the section immediately before this, the key word is “send, sent” “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The God of your fathers . . . hath sent me unto you” (3:0-16).

“He that sent me”

It is worthwhile to pause here to note how utterly destructive of the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity—three Persons co-equal and co-eternal—is the incessant use of this word “send” in the writings of John. No less than 44 times in the gospel which is generally held to be the sheet-anchor of Trinitarian doctrine, he repeats his Lord’s words that “the Father sent me … I am not come of myself … he gave me a commandment …” This phraseology, and especially the word “sent”, vetoes completely the invention that Father and Son are “coequal”, for does not the one who sends have a higher status than the one who is sent? When Jesus sent his angel to testify the Apocalypse to John (Rev.22 :16), was he sending one equal to himself? And when he sent his apostles out with the gospel message (Jn.17:18), did any of them consider himself to be on the same level as his Lord, in any sense? “As my Father sent me, even so send I you” (20 :21). The Trinitarian is in real difficulty here. And so also regarding “the Comforter . . . whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth …” (15 :26). In the light of this is it possible to believe that the Holy Spirit is a person co-equal with the Father?

The Lord’s next saying, which might appear to some readers to be almost a pointless repetition of what he had just said, similarly links up in a marvellously explicit fashion with the experience of Moses—this time when he came down from the mount, his face radiant with divine glory (Ex.34 :30): “He that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” Here the comparison with Moses is made more pointed by the use of the Greek word meaning to gaze or stare at.

The radiance in the face of Moses was all one with the Shekinah Glory of God in the midst of Israel—the pillar of cloud and fire. So, appropriately, Jesus continued: “I am come a light into the world (again kosmos used with reference to the Jewish world), that whosoever believeth in me should not abide in the darkness (of Egypt)” (cp. Ex.14 :20).

Those Israelites who saw the evident tokens of God’s working through Moses, and still disputed his leadership, were answerable to God for their obstinacy: “Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me” (Ex.6:12). And so also regarding Jesus: “It shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he (the prophet like unto Moses) shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Dt.18 :19). Christ’s equivalent of this was: “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not (i.e. I do not judge him now): for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.”

Even so, there could be no gainsaying the authority of Christ’s message: “The Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” This surpassed even the inspiration of Moses. To him God said: “I will give thee tables of stone, and a law and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them . . . And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments” (tx.24 :12,3).

Reponsibility

In place of the summary judgment meted out in the wilderness to the stiff-necked and rebellious, there is a solemn warning that the one who wilfully rejects the word of Christ will assuredly answer for his sin in the last day when Christ is Judge of all: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge (i.e. condemn) him in the last day.”

Efforts to evade the plain meaning of these words have not been too successful. The suggestion, for example, that this is a warning of judgment against Jewry in A.D.70 is promptly vetoed by all the other occurrences in John’s gospel of “the last day” (6 :39,40,44,54; 7:37 (type); 11 :24). And there are far too many scriptures, with varying degrees of emphasis, which all carry this doctrine that the wilful rejector of Christ, who is sufficiently enlightened to know the seriousness of his evil choice, will be called to account in the day of resurrection because of his deliberate spurning of the call of the gospel. But it needs to be recognized that the word “rejecteth” used by Jesus here is a very strong one, as its occurrence elsewhere plainly shows: “He that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Lk.10:16; 7:30; and also 1 Th.4:8).

The seriousness of this rejection Jesus now underlined by declaring again his own undeniable authority: “I have not spoken of myself (i.e. of my own initiative), but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak.” It is not certain what distinction the Lord intended by these concluding phrases, but probably the first describes the imperative of Holy Scripture (in the O.T.), whereas the second refers to the Father’s personal communion with His Son in the course of his ministry: “Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said to me, so I speak … I speak that which I have seen with my Father … the truth which I have heard of God” (12:50; 8:38,40).

“Eternal Life”

With the nation now settled into an attitude of non-commitment or (by its leaders) of open rejection and hostility, it was needful that the seriousness of such rebellion be brought home to them. And, accordingly, many of the later parables of Jesus had this monitory theme. But he would fain draw the people to him with the graciousness of his message: “I know that his (the Father’s) commandment is life everlasting,” that is, the commission given to him by the Father is a message concerning eternal life.

This key phrase: “eternal life”, occurs here, and in a number of other places, without the definite article. The suggestion has been made that in this way John’s gospel (and his epistles) distinguishes between (a) the eternal life of the coming kingdom of God and (b) the germ of that regeneration which is implanted in the believer through receiving the word of Christ. In different senses both are “eternal life”. More probably, these two related meanings just mentioned are to be distinguished by the context, and not by presence or absence of the article. In the thinking of Jesus the connection between these two aspects of “eternal life” is so close that the one inevitably merges into the other. Recognition of this idiomatic usage could have saved much mystification and time-wasting contention.

In the beginning of his work, and throughout it, Jesus was The Word—the very embodiment of the Father’s message of redemption. Right to the end of the ministry the Lord continued this emphasis in his preaching: “whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” The close personal fellowship between Father and Son, such as no O.T. prophet ever knew, not even Moses, meant a spoken revelation of God to men far surpassing Law

Notes: Jn. 12:44-50

44.	Believeth not on me means, here, not only on me, as in Mk.9:37.
46.	Abide in darkness. This assumes that darkness is a man’s normal natural condition.
48.	The scriptures dealing with this theme are more copious than is often supposed. 1 Pet.4 :4,5 (see the modern versions); Dt.18 :19; 29 :20; Rom.2 :8,9; Acts 24 :25; 17 :30,32; Lk.13 :28; 19 :27; 14 :25,31-33; 12 :48; 10 :14; 2 Pet.2 :6-9; 1 Cor.7 :39; Jn.12 :48; 9 :31; 8 :21; 3 :18,19; 15 :22; Rev.21 :8; ls.66 :24; Jude 14,15; 2Thess. 1 :8,9;Mt.ll :20-24; Heb.2 :3; 10 :28,29. There is comment on Jn.12 :48 in Eureka 3.671.
50.	Examples of each aspect of “eternal life”:
	a. Jn. 6:53,54; 10:28; 5:24; 17:2,3; 1Jn.3:14, 15; 5:11-13.
	b. Jn. 6:27, 40, 51; 12:25; 4:14, 36; 5:26, 29; 11:25; 1 Jn.2:25; 5:16.
	c. Both ideas: Jn. 10:10.

The Pharisees and others had persisted in plying Jesus with hard questions, evidently because the method had been found to work so well as a means of exposing other self-accredited teachers. With Jesus they stopped (were muzzled; Mt.22 :34; Dt.25 :4) only when they found that they were giving him excellent opportunities for further victories.

So the great discussion in the temple court, for which the rulers were gathered together (Mt. quotes Ps. 2 :2 LXX), now took a new turn. Present amongst the Pharisees, but of a very different temper from most of them, was a doctor of the law whose memory has been perpetuated in the gospels as a scholar willing to humble himself to learn from Jesus of Nazareth. Here was no patronising spirit, no carping criticism or malevolent scheming, but a sincere desire to learn from one who was palpably qualified to teach. And apparently, (Lk.) he spoke as representative of a group of others.

The AV phrase: “tempting him,” presents a difficulty. The bad sense of the modern word must not be allowed to dominate this text. Here, along with enquiry, there was doubtless a curiosity whether Jesus could pronounce with such splendid convincing authority on questions of a very different character. It may even be that this genuine seeker after truth was being used as a stooge by his more wily colleagues. Such tactics are not unknown among unscrupulous men.

The First Commandment

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

More precisely, the questioner asked:, “What kind of commandment . . .?”-moral, ritual, sacrificial? which? On an earlier occasion (Mt.15 :1-20) Jesus had talked about getting one’s religious priorities right.

It is surely remarkable that Pharisees should be concerned about such a problem as this, for their mentality normally gave as much emphasis to “little” as to “great” commandments (e.g. Mt.23:5,23,24,25).

The same question had also been put to Jesus by another scribe (Lk.10 :25). But a careful comparison of the circumstances and details soon establishes that there is little possibility of equating the two.

As soon as the question was put Jesus knew that here was one with no disposition to quibble, so he gave a direct unequivocal answer, which struck right at the roots of Jewish obsession with food laws, outward forms, temple service and offerings:

“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy might. This is the first and great commandment” (Dt.6 :4,5).

As originally given, this commandment was associated with a promise of prosperity in the Land (6 :2,3). But now Jesus re-enunciated it as a commandment to be kept for its own sake. Only indirectly did he indicate a heavenly blessing to the man who dedicates himself to this ideal (Mk.12 :34).

No precept can be more fundamental or more searching. Let a man learn to live his life recognizing God his Maker as the source and spring of all its good and evil and as the One on whom all his thoughts and activities must gladly centre, and his whole life is transfigured, and life’s highest ideal is almost within his grasp.

The Second Commandment

“And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (cp. 1 Jn.4 :20,21). By “neighbour” did Jesus mean himself? It was the lesson he had once sought to illustrate and inculcate by his parable of the Good Samaritan (Study 121). James calls this Second Commandment “the Royal Law,” given by the King (2 :8). And L.G.S. has commented very wisely: “As only God can judge, the whole law rests on a foundation of faith in the invisible God”.

“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,” Jesus added very emphatically, almost as though he were challenging his hearers to find any others that could be set alongside these two (cp. Jn.14 :15). For many of those who heard this declaration it must have proved a most bewildering saying. Long chapters of laws and ordinances were here compressed into a few phrases. The variegated Old Testament story of Israel’s history through long centuries taught these two supreme lessons. The fulminations and inspired visions of the prophets were all shot through with these essential principles. And Psalms and Proverbs expressed them with all possible diversity of praise and precept.

“There is no commandment greater than these.” Let a man have the fulfilment of these as his will and satisfaction, and all other things will fall into place. The keeping of all other commandments will be, so to speak, a byproduct (cp. Mt.7:12;Gal.5 :14).

It is worth while to observe that, by implication, Jesus here declared the greater importance of some commandments compared with others. A truth of this nature is easily overlooked. There are not a few occasions in life when different requirements of the law of God are in conflict-as, for example, when the government of the country calls on a man to help fight its wars. At such a time: “Resist not evil. . . love your enemies” can hardly be fulfilled seriously if also there is obedience to: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.” In such circumstances the disciple of Christ has to decide to break one commandment in order to fulfil another which is certainly greater (Acts4 :19).

Good response

The scribe appreciated the spiritual insight of Jesus in the answer given. “Of a truth, Teacher, thou hast well said that he is one; and there is none other but he (this is Dt.6 :4 LXX): and to love him with all the heart, and with all the (spiritual) understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Was there a school of thought among the scribes that sacrifices were more important than these?

This man had his priorities right. How many Jews of that day would have come so readily to such a conclusion?

Jesus was much encouraged. “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God,” he said in tones of warm approval. (Is there here an implication also that those without this discernment are far from the kingdom?). Only the day before he had declared: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you (Jews), and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Mt.21 :43). As a nation Israel were put out of fellowship. Any who sought reinstatement must make individual application. Now here was one showing every sign of being a suitable applicant.

Yet what a shock these words of Jesus must have been to his scribe colleagues standing by. “Not far from the kingdom”! They thought they were guaranteed it by the way of life they had chosen. However, that “not far,” spoken to one of them, seemed to imply that most of them were far from the kingdom!

From this point on, no one was disposed to meet Jesus in discussion any further. His tone of authority, his masterly handling of Scripture, his incisive presentation of arguments-and without prior notice too-in all these respects he was more than a match for the concerted efforts of the ablest men in the nation.

David’s Son, David’s Lord

So, taking the initiative, he now invited their attention to a singular paradox concerning the Messiah. “In what line is the Christ to be born?” he asked them. To this there was only one possible answer: “In the family of David;” and they gave it reluctantly, for they all knew well enough that Jesus himself had the blood of David in his veins. The great cry at his Triumphal Entry still rang discordantly in their ears.

Earlier in the ministry some of them had been willing enough to sneer openly at what they chose to regard as the doubtful origins of Jesus. But even so it was not possible to doubt his Davidic descent. Jesus now set out not only to cope with this slander but also to show that the applauding crowd, far from exaggerating his status by hailing him “Son of David” had understated the honour due to him.

“In the book of Psalms David was inspired by the Holy Spirit (the Hebrew text of Ps.110 :1 implies this) to write about the Messiah in these words: ‘Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool’. Why should David refer to one of his descendants as “my Lord?”

The point was simple and effective. No man addresses his son or his grandson as “Sir”. Then why should David? What could possibly give a descendant of his a higher status than David himself?

The words of God Himself in the psalm: “Sit thou on my right hand,” supply a clear answer: Messiah, besides being Son of David, is also Son of God. The form of the question: “Whence is he then his son?” was intended to spotlight the correct answer, which had already been declared to David in the great promise of 2 Samuel 7: “I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels… I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (v.12,U). The factual truth and essential doctrine of the Virgin Birth was implicit in the argument he presented.

The Lord knew right well that nothing would bring these scribes to agree openly to this explanation to which he had steered them, for in almost all his discourses in Jerusalem had he not constantly insisted, but in vain, that he was the Son of God? “My Father’s House … I proceeded forth and came from God … Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am… This is the Heir, come, let us kill him …” Now in his last, as in his first temple discourse (Lk.2:49; Jn.2:16), he asserted that God was his Father.

These claims to be Son of God, familiar enough to them all, were thus entirely in accordance with Scripture. They harmonized also with the facts these men had learned about the origin of Jesus. He may have been known as the son of Joseph the carpenter, but their enquiries had led them to different information about his birth.

“Sit thou at my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet.” From this prophecy what a lot these scribes could learn about Jesus (and probably did, though they spoke no word of it). His human weakness is implied. But so also is his power to crush the head of the serpent under his heel-and themselves also if they persisted in their hostility towards him. His exaltation to the Glory of God is also foretold. And the rest of the psalm goes on to hint at resurrection and a new priesthood and authority in judgment. Could this preacher from Nazareth have such a mighty destiny awaiting him?

Foreshadowed in David’s time

A few weeks more, and the Holy Spirit, through Peter this time, was to expound and clarify the Messianic work of Jesus risen from the dead (Acts 2 :34-36), using the same text.

Today learned men are as reluctant as ever to concede the force of the Lord’s claim made through Psalm 110. That it is not a psalm of David is one of their most “assured conclusions.” Jesus declared that it was, and that it was written by the Holy Spirit. Then further confirmation of this conclusion is unnecessary. The sparrow does not teach the eagle how to fly.

Yet how the historical background to the psalm illuminates its language, once the Lord’s authority regarding this is accepted. When David brought the ark to Zion, his zeal for Jehovah expressed itself rather astonishingly in an unrebuked assumption of priesthood: “He sacrificed oxen and fatlings … he was girded with a linen ephod … As soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord. And he dealt (s.w. Lk.22 :17) among the people … to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine (as Melchizedek did with Abraham; Gen.14:18; see Notes).”

Here, very remarkably, in four respects. David the king became also David the priest, like Melchizedek who was also God’s king in Jerusalem. And evidently he recognized, as he certainly did at other crises in his experience, that he was enacting beforehand the work of a greater Melchizedek priest-king whom God would raise up. Hence Psalm 110, the details of which clearly have their roots in David’s own life but which are just as clearly a prophecy of Messiah, Son of David.

When Abraham comes again to Jerusalem (Mk.12 :26) he will again meet a Melchizedek King-Priest who will bring forth Bread and Wine and impart a matchless blessing.

Even the words: “Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool” are appropriate. “King David went in and sat before the Lord” (2 Sam.7 :18)-and the next chapter, like Psalm 110, catalogues the king’s astonishing victories in battle through the blessing of God.

Thus, in more ways than one, the Messiah is “the offspring of David.” But by his higher status as Son of God and by his great redeeming work, which blesses his illustrious forefather also, he is “the root of David” (Rev.22 :16).

How far towards these conclusions, one wonders, were the Pharisee critics of Jesus able to follow him?

Notes: Mk. 12:28-37

30.	Heart. In both O.T., N.T. ‘heart’ is not associated with emotions or inclinations to the extent that it is in modern usage. Rather, it means one’s thinking (seeStudy 121 Notes).
	With all thy heart. Gk: ek, from, out of. But in Mt: en, in or by means of. Which did Jesus use?
	Mind. InN.T. usually means spiritual insight rather than brain-power.
	Strength normally means physical strength. A man is not to be afraid to drive himself in the service of his Lord.
35.	Answered. Was the old slander about the Lord’s birth (Study 110) being revived?
36.	The translations of 2 Sam.6 :19 vary. Literally: “And a portion, and a pressing.” The last word might apply to figs, dates, raisins, or to wine pressed out.
	Sit thou at my right hand. The words also imply: ‘Even if your plot against me succeeds, I shall rise from the dead and ascend to heaven.’
	Until I make suggests the human weakness of Messiah.
	Thy enemies. Not a few of them then present with him in the temple court!
	Thy footstool implies a sharing of the glory of the Father; Ps.99 :5.

Wednesday had ended with the rulers being filled with frustration and hatred because of the open attacks made upon them by Jesus. “The same hour” (Lk.) that he spoke his very plain parable of the wicked husbandmen “they sought to lay hands on him” (Lk.)-would have arrested him there and then in the temple court—but “they feared the people”.

So overnight they planned different tactics. Earlier they had joined forces to make their challenge: “By what authority doest thou these things?” (Mk.ll :27). Now, next day, they came at Jesus separately with more problems. Somehow they must undermine his standing with the people and also find good ground for accusation against him.

There is no explicit statement by any of the synoptists that this renewed attack took place next day, Thursday, but Matthew (22 :15) seems to imply here an intermission in their evil activities. The chronology of the last week also seems to require it. And if there is no break, then the gospels represent the Lord Jesus as cramming an incredible amount of activity into one day.

It was on this day, or the preceding one, in passover week that the appointed Bible reading amongst the Jews was Psalm 94. There is much here that is appropriate to the encounters, which took place in the temple court, especially this section:

“Who will rise up for me against the evildoers ? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. When I said, My fool slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held me up. In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul. Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the Lord is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge, and he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off” (Ps.94 :16-23).

For the next trial of strength it suited the Pharisees to team up with the Herodians, as they had done on a former occasion (Mk.3 :6). They were also careful to send into action men whom Jesus had not personally encountered in controversy before, so that they could readily deceive him into thinking themselves genuine sympathizers. Thus he might well be inclined to express himself in a frank and open fashion, and so commit himself to opinions that they could make malicious use of. With evident disgust the gospel writers tell how these “spies” sought to “Take hold of his words” (Lk.), “to catch him in his words” (Mk.)-this latter expression describing the hunting or snaring of animals (cp. Pr.6 :25,26 LXX).

These adversaries would surely not have persisted in these dialectical methods if they had not found how well they worked with other self-accredited teachers. They stopped only when, as this day went on, they found that they were instead giving Jesus opportunities for further victories.

If Jesus said “Yes” to their question: “Shall we pay tribute to Caesar?”, this could be used against him to destroy his standing with the common people. If he said “No”, then who better than the Herodians to take up the case with the Roman governor, thus leaving the reputation of the Pharisees with the people unsoiled?

They evidently expected him to say “No”, for out of this they hoped to “deliver him to the power and authority of the governor” (Lk.)

Tribute or no tribute?

“Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man, for thou regardest not the person of men.” All this oily talk was designed to encourage Jesus into thinking that he was among friends and could therefore speak his mind openly. In actual fact the compliment was, as Jesus would readily perceive, an insult, for it implied that he was a simpleton to be readily taken in by their sycophancy.

“Tribute to Caesar—is it lawful or not? Yes or no? Shall we pay, or refuse to pay?” They were pressing for an unequivocal pronouncement.

The records in Mt. and Mk. use the word for a poll-tax which, every Jew would think, should be paid only to the sanctuary of the Lord (Ex.30 :12-16). Thus the enquiry was strongly loaded in favour of the answer: No. In A.D.6 Judas of Galilee (Acts 5 :37) had denounced tribute to Rome as both blasphemy and treason, and he died for it. Now it was hoped that Jesus would pay the same penalty.

They had begun by praising his discernment. Now he showed how he could use that faculty on them! “Why do you tempt (test) me in this way, you hypocrites?” At Massah-Meribah (Ex.17 :7) Israel had similarly tempted God, challenging Moses: “Is the Lord among us, or not?” Now the test had the same evil motive— and the same answer: water out of rock.

Jesus was not taken in by the smarmy talk of these men. He saw through their wickedness (Mt.), their craftiness (Lk.), their hypocrisy (Mk.).

A simple answer

“Bring me a denarius that I may see it,” he bade them. It has been suggested that there was some rule about not defiling the court of the temple with pagan money, but this will hardly do, for had there not been a fully-organized market and system of money-changing there? More likely, this carefulness to avoid taking pagan money into the holy courts was a special punctilio of Pharisee hypocrisy—a typical inconsistency, since they were willing enough to make use of the Gentile authority in order to get rid of the hatred Nazarene. So the denarius had to be fetched, possibly borrowed for the occasion from a Roman soldier in the near-by fortress of Antonia. Jesus scrutinized it carefully, to urge them to do likewise.

“Whose image and superscription?” The coin he focussed their attention on carried these inscriptions:

TI. CAESAR. DIVI. AUG. F. AUG and PONTIF. MAXIM, that is, Tiberius Caesar Divine Augustus son of Augustus—Pontifex Maximus.

Then Jesus gave his judgement: “Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s—and give back to God the things that are God’s.”

It was all so simple, when he put it this way. And, try as they would, there was nothing in it for them to criticize. These men were accustomed to spending long hours on casuistry, the resolving of special-case problems. They were more used to it than a Roman Catholic priest. So they, better than any, were able to appreciate the needle-sharp perspicacity behind the simplicity of the principle enunciated. How they would have liked to tear his dictum to pieces! But “they could not take hold of his words before the people’—literally, “they hadn’t the strength,” the mental capacity or power. So even though there was hatred there was also grudging admiration (Lk.20 :26; cp. Mt.22 :33,46).

Perhaps those evil men did not altogether lose in this encounter, for “Render tribute to Caesar” commanded the enthusiasm of hardly a single Jew. So probably as a result of this pronouncement Jesus lost a lot of popularity tha* day. This, and the damp squib of his triumphal entry, are probably sufficient to explain the failure of the Galileans to rally to his support in the day of his trial.

A deeper meaning

But did his adversaries give due weight to the other practical consequences of the lord’s answer? “Give back to God the things that are God’s”? Genesis (1:26) told how man had been made in the image of God. And redeemed saints in Christ are described as bearing God’s superscription (Rev.3 :12; 7:3; 14 :1). Then how much more important than tax-paying is the unqualified rendering to God of what is fully His by right?-a man’s own self!

In discussion of the same problem the apostles splendidly preserve the same balance. Peter: “Dearly beloved, as strangers (Gk: “those living in a foreign land”) and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul. . . glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors . . . Fear God, Honour the king” (1Pet.2:11-14,17).

Similarly Paul: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers . . . Render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom …” (Rom.13 :1,7). But also: “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (12 :1).

But the men to whom Jesus spoke his wisdom were not inclined to heed it. Instead, next day, they did not scruple to twist out of all recognition what he had said to them: “We found this fellow . . . forbidding to give tribute to Caesar” (Lk.23 :2).

Notes: Lk. 20:20-26

20.	Watched him; s.w. Ps.130 :3; 37 :12. Mt. says an alliance of Pharisees and Herodians were involved in this. Hatred of Jesus reconciled irreconcileables.
	Spies. Was one of these Saul of Tarsus? See Study 162, and note v.26. 2Cor.4 :2 has s.w. asv.22here.
22.	In Mt. the problem is introduced with: “What thinkest thou?”, the very phrase with which Jesus had challenged them to assess one of his parables; Mt.21 :28.
	He perceived (gave careful thought to) their craftiness. Yet there was a bland simplicity about the a-b-c quality of his reply: “Bring me a penny that I may see it… Whose is this image …?”
25.	Render means “give back to him.” The coin, was Caesar’s; then “return it to him if he demands it.” Since there was no point-blank question about it, Jesus made no comment on the issue raised by Dt. 17:5. If there had been, what would he have said?

Jesus turned from his castigation of the rulers to address another parable to the multitude. The chief priests and Pharisees, not missing a word of what he said, now had a clear answer to their question: “By what authority doest thou these things?” But the answer was couched in such a form that they could not use it against him. Once again the sheer intellectual brilliance of Jesus comes through in encounters such as these. Before the day was out, these men -the cleverest of their nation -were to have one demonstration after another of the superb quality of the man they were trying to entrap,

Isaiah’s parable

There is no parable of Jesus more obviously drawn from the Old Testament than this which he now added. Certain of the details in Isaiah’s vineyard parable (5:1-7) are precisely the same. There are also significant and highly interesting divergences. A few of the details are worthy of special comment:

1. The “song of my beloved” (v.1) becomes the tragedy of “my beloved son” (Lk.20 :13).
2. “Gathering out the stones” (v.2) may perhaps suggest the initial getting rid of Canaanite stocks and stones.
3. “And we looked that it should bring forth grapes” (v.2) is echoed by James: “The husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth” (5:7).
4. “It brought forth wild grapes” (v.2). The Hebrew word means literally: “stinkers.” In the Lord’s parable, the counterpart is the evil behaviour of the men.
5. The appeal: “O inhabitants of Jerusalem . . . judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard” (v.3) is matched by the rhetorical question: “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?” (Lk.20 :15). And its answer: “I will tell you what I will do…” (v.5) anticipates the blunt response which Jesus got from his fascinated hearers.
6. The wasting of the vineyard in judgment (v.i| has as its counterpart the punishment of the wicked husbandmen.
7. The detail about “briars and thorns” (v.6), fit only for burning, is given a solemn interpretation in Heb.6:8.
8. The parable ends with a vigorous play on words: “I looked for judgment (mishpat), but behold oppression (mishpach); for righteousness (tz’daqah), but behold a cry tz’aqahj” (v.7). So also the parable of Jesus: “He will miserably destroy those miserable men” (Mt.21 :41).

Nor is there any parable of Jesus more obviously designed to be interpreted detail by detail than this. The vineyard is the commonweal of Israel, with all its spiritual privileges, set apart by God for Himself. Winepress, hedge and tower correspond probably to the Temple, the Law and the order of Prophets (Eph.2 :14; Ez.33 :17; Hab.2 :1). The husbandmen are the Jewish people, and not just the leaders of the nation (Mt.21 :41).

This figure of the vineyard is common in the Old Testament and was familiar to every Jew But in Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard (5 :1-7) and other comparable passages (Ps.80 :8; Jer.2:2I; Ez.15 :l-6; 19 :10-14; Hos.10 :1; Dt. 32 :32,33l the vineyard represents the nation rather than its religious prerogatives, as here.

The description of the owner of the vineyard going away into a far country for a long time (Lk.) has invited some interpreters to see this os Christ’s ascension and long absence in heaven. But this makes complete confusion with later details in the story. At the institution of the covenant with Israel, “God came down on mount Sinai” (Ex.19 :20; and note 20 :19). When that theophany was concluded He “ascended up on high” (Ps.68:18). The householder’s going away represents this cessation of open divine manifestation.

Hostile tenants.

A vineyard was reckoned one of the most profitable forms of husbandry (S. of S.8 :11), yet to this owner it proved a dead loss.

The picture of servants being sent at the end of the season to collect tenancy dues is graphically described in all three gospels. Here is one place where the parable is true to life but is necessarily inadequate as part of the allegory—for God sought faithful service from Israel continuously, and not now and then (compare the same feature in Mt.20 :8). Luke, elegant writer of Greek that he is, has a grammatical solecism here, evidently for the sake of emphasis: “that they shall give him of the fruit of the vineyard” (20:10). There is also an unexpected Hebraism in v. 1.

The first servant is beaten and sent back empty-handed. Another is killed, and yet another stoned (Mt.). Other servants more (greater?) than the first (Mt.) receive similar treatment. One is wounded in the head (Mk.) and treated shamefully, another is wounded and cast out (Lk.). Here Luke’s word means “another of a different sort”, yet Mark’s means “another of the same sort”! The prophets all had essentially the same message, yet as individuals their characters and personalities varied remarkably. But which word did Jesus use? (heteros or allos?).

And so the story continues at one harvest after another-all who are sent receive brutal treatment, some are wounded and some are killed (consider Mt.23 :37; Neh.9:26; 2 Chr.24 :20,21; 36:15,16; Heb. 11:37,38; Dt. 13:1-10).

In these graphic details, the parable comes away from real life, for, in fact, with a new vineyard, in the first season or two the husbandmen would have no fruits of any value to hand over (Lev. 19 :23?), so resentment at the owner’s claims would not be without some justification. But this is essentially a picture of a spiritual world, not of horticultural Palestine.

In another even more striking respect also, the parable is utterly untrue to life. After the uncivilised reception accorded to the first emissary, would any real-life landlord have continued to risk servants in this persistent fashion? Resort to law or to force would have been the obvious course of action for any man of the world. But in the parable the owner represents a God whose longsuffering with sinful men should have all Bible readers marvelling ceaselessly.

The beloved Son

The next part of the story is even less true to life. “What shall I do?” says the Lord of the vineyard to himself (Lk.) “Last (for there is nothing I can do more than this; Heb. 1 :1,2) I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him” (Lk.). Here Luke’s “it maybe” translates a Greek word isos which also means “equally”, that is, in honour to the son as in despite and cruelty to the servants. Since the other gospels omit isos, this alternative reading seems the more likely. But this heavenly expectation of reverence for the Son by proving to be mistaken provides the biggest difficulty in the parable. Even if “it may be” is insisted on, the difficulty still exists. Didn’t God know? Had He not already said in a 700-year old prophecy: “When they shall see him, there is no beauty that they should desire him” (ls.53 :2)?

In Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard, “the song of the well-beloved,” development of the story seems to be drastically different: “And now go to; I will tell you what I will do (cp. Lk.)to my vineyard; I will take away the hedge thereof… and break down the wall thereof. . . and I will lay it waste” (5 :5,6). Yet ultimately, through the recalcitrance of the husbandmen, comparable stringent action is at last unavoidable in this parable also.

From the fact that they had been allowed to get away with such monstrous behaviour, the villainous tenants now reasoned together (s.w. Jn.11:50): “This is the heir: come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” They seem to have reasoned: ‘Our landlord must be dead, or surely he would have taken some action against us. So if we get rid of the heir, the vineyard is ours.’ So, callously, they carried out their plan. The beloved son was cast out of the vineyard (Heb.13 :12?) and violently put to death (Mt., Lk.). In Mark the order of these details is different. Then, presumably, they stabbed or clubbed him in the vineyard, and then dragged him out to die, so that the vineyard would not be defiled by a dead body, nor themselves held responsible. But they had forgotten Dt.21 :l-9! or just didn’t care about that; Acts 7:52; Mt.23 :32.

Retribution

What next? The answer to Christ’s rhetorical question came without hesitation from the crowd: “He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will hand over his vineyard to other husbandmen, which shall render him their fruits in their seasons” (Mt.). Was there an unconscious allusion here to Ps.1 :3 (LXX)?

Jesus, giving his enemies their last warning, confirmed this instinctive judgment: “He will come and destroy the husbandmen (cp. ls.5 :8-30), and will give the vineyard (and not “let it out”) to others.” It would seem to follow from thisthatthe A.D.70 destruction of Jerusalem is not to be regarded as a “coming” of Christ, but as a direct judgment from God (cp. Lk. 13 :9: “thou”, the owner; Mt.22 :7).

Immediately out of the crowd came an ejaculation of horror: “God forbid!” Every other occurrence of this cry from the heart comes in the epistles of Paul. The speculation that it was he who now recoiled from the logical conclusion of the parable is not so far-fetched as might be thought at first. (“Acts of the Apostles” H.A.W. ch.34). If this suggestion is correct, then Paul heard the ominous prophecy of Matthew 23:34, and still went ahead and helped to fulfil it because he saw clearly that the logic of the parable meant that Jesus really claimed to be God’s son.

The “Stone” prophecy

Jesus looked intently (Lk; cp. also Lk.22 :61; Mk.10:21,27; Jn.l :45; Mt.29:26) at the group of rulers and Pharisees standing there and said: “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” .< There is here a closer connection with the slaying of the beloved Son than is evident in the English version. Jewish hearers would readily pick up the (Biblically) familiar play on the Hebrew words for “Son” and “stone”. The Scripture quoted had already been an annoyance to these hostile men, for they had heard the same psalm (118 :25,26) applied to Jesus by the crowd acclaiming his triumphal entry into the city. Before the week was out it would be making a fresh mark on their consciences, for it was part of the Passover Hallel which they were about to repeat, or at least hear, during the feast. And later, in the apostolic preaching, Peter was to use the same Scripture accusingly against the same men (Acts 4:11).

It is possible to demonstrate (though the proof is too long for inclusion here) that the stone referred to is an altar stone, and not the top-stone of a building. Thus the words are o prophecy of a God-appointed means of redemption utterly rejected by the leaders of the nation and yet vindicated by God. It is the present parable over again, under a different figure, but brought to a successful conclusion!

Jesus added a noteworthy link with two other powerful Old Testament Scriptures.

“And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken.” This was in allusion to Isaiah’s prophecy of a rejected altar stone: “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence . . . to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble and fall, and be broken…” (8 :14,15). The words foretell the rejected Christ, and disaster for the rejectors.

“But”, went on Jesus, “on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder (or, perhaps, scatter him as dust).” The reference to the great vision of Daniel 2 is not to be missed-the stone cut out of the mountain of Deity without hands (that is, an altar stone; Ex.20:25), which destroys all human glory, and crushes it to powder so that the wind (spirit) of God sweeps it away for ever (Dan.2 :34,35,44,45).

Thus, in two brief Biblical allusions Jesus educated these learned men, if they were willing to be taught, concerning the two great aspects of his divine work-first, as sacrifice and altar; later as Messianic King.

But he added also a further corollary to his parable: “The kingdom of God shall be tab from you, and given to a nation bringing fortli the fruits thereof” (Mt.). Again his mind was ranging forward (for his own consolation as well as for their warning) to the call and response of the Gentiles.

Understood at last!

Early in his ministry he had deliberately adopted the policy of teaching in parables, “that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand” (Mk.4 :12). But now, almost the last parable of all was so framed that there was no missing its meaning. His adversaries “perceived that he had spoken this parable against them” (Lk.).

However, instead of taking warning from its ominous conclusion, their hatred set them attempting an immediate fulfilment of it: “The same hour they sought to lay hands on him” (Lk.). But divine providence used the presence of the multitude to save him from immediate arrest, for “they took him for a prophet” (Mt.); for a prophet, but after the anti-climax of the triumphal entry, how many of them took him for the Messiah?

Thwarted and vexed, his enemies planned worse mischief. However, before they left Jesus, he reinforced his warnings with yet another parable-about the Wedding Garment.

In all this day’s public witness the most important item was the central detail in the parable of the husbandmen: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him … which his enemies could themselves, was their own point-blank recognition that Jesus was the Son of God, and with it his point-blank recognition of their ruthless resolve to destroy him. “Come, let us kill him” is an exact quotation (Gen.37 :20 :XX) of the plot of Joseph’s brothers to get rid of him. In the next two days the parallel between Joseph and Jesus was to be worked out in great detail and with marvellous accuracy.

Notes: Mt.21:33-46

33.	Another parable. Mk. says ‘parables’, yet he records only th’is one where Mt. has three. Cp. Ps.78 :2, and cp. also the theme of that psalm.
34.	The time of fruit drew near. Why not “was come”? But this phrase is true to the meaning of the parable.
	Sent his servants. Mk. Lk.: a servant. But, of course, to bring away the owner’s share of fruit would need more than one man. So, one servant in charge of the operation, and the other servants to help transport the fruit.
36.	More than the first. Here this must surely mean “greater than;” cp. 12 :41,42.
37.	Sent his son. Consider David in a somewhat similar situation: 1 Sam.25 :21,22. In Mk. theGk. text could read as though this Son were also a Servant.
38.	When (they) saw the son. Just as this echoes ls.53 :2, so also in Mk. “shamefully handled” = 53 :3 LXX s.w. “despised”
41.	They say unto him. For similar spontaneously provoked commentary on other parables, see Lk. 19:25; 2 Sam.12:5,6. In Mk. this comment from the crowd is emphatically repeated by Jesus himself.
	Destroy those wicked men. Cp. the sequel in Is.5 :8ff-six woes against Israel. “The uniform hostility of kings, priests and people to the Prophets is one of the most remarkable features in the history of the Jews” (Plummer). True, but over-stated, for there were occasional honourable exceptions.
42.	The stone which the builders rejected is the same as the stone of stumbling (Is.8 :14) and the stone laid as a foundation (Is.28 :16) and the stone cut out of the mountain without hands (Dan.2. :34,44); v.44 here, 1Pet. l:6-8; see also “The Stone of Stumbling” (H.A.W.).
43.	The kingdom of Cod. This and v.31 are two of the five places where Mt. comes away from his usual phrase: kingdom of heaven.
44.	Whosoever shall fall on this stone. Is. 8 :15 has “many” — rabbim, rabbis!
	Grind him to powder; s.w. Jer.31 :10 LXX—Israel!

Next morning (Tuesday) Jesus and the twelve returned to Jerusalem from Bethany early. Presumably Jesus, still sickened by the bitter paradox of Monday’s experience and by the entrenched evils he had witnessed in the temple court, had gone to his bed fasting; and now, in the morning, prayer and Scriptures had been more important than food. It may well be that in any case he had had no opportunity to break his fast, for Matthew’s word “lodged” (21 :17) really means “bivouacked”. This would imply that the comfort and plenty of the home of Lazarus had not been available to him (because of the arrival of many other Passover pilgrims? or because his presence in the house might mean a threat of danger to the family he loved?). So now, as he approached Jerusalem, he was hungry.

No fruit!

There, by the wayside, at a distance in the Kidron valley, where there was shelter from the winter cold and no lack of underground water to nourish the roots, stood a fine-looking fig tree. So Jesus came to it, hoping to find fruit to appease his hunger.

The expectation was not unreasonable, even though it was springtime, and figs are not gathered till the end of the summer; for the small immature figs, according to Pliny reckoned a great delicacy, come early, even before the foliage.

Since Passover is March-April, the Bible text is adequate evidence here: “Lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; the flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land; the fig tree putteth forth her green figs; and the vines are in blossom” (S.of S. 2:11-13).

This raises a problem. Why then does Mark add: “for the time of figs was not yet,” as though in extenuation of the disappointment, for it was the time of green figs. There are two possible answers. Either the phrase is inserted in explanation of the words: “if haply he might find anything thereon” (a few old figs from the previous season?); or with an eye to the eloquent meaning of the acted parable, clearly discerned in later days, was Mark making a sad sardonic comment on the spiritual condition of his people?: “the time of bringing forth fruit to Christ was, alas, not yet.”

There is also the further problem or the Lord’s unawareness of the tree’s fruitlessness. It seems strange that he who so often was able to exercise such a marvellous superhuman knowledge was apparently so humanly limited in a simple thing like this. The alternative, also not without its difficulties, is that Jesus pretended hunger and pretended an expectation of fruit because from the first moment he saw the symbolic power of the entire episode. Or did this side of the experience dawn on him only as his eye searched the boughs in vain?

Certainly this depressing aspect of the fig-tree symbolism dominated the Lord’s mind as he went round the tree, hoping against hope that on some branch, near or remote, there might be a sign of fruit. But no! So Jesus “answered” it. Here is Mark’s plain intimation that the entire transaction is to be seen as an acted parable.

The fig-tree nation

He spoke a quiet prayer in solemn tones of reprobation—but it was about the fig-tree nation of Israel that he really spoke (see Notes): “May no man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.” Mark’s addition: “and his disciples heard,” suggests that the Lord’s commination was a quietly-spoken prayer. It probably implies also that they were horrified by what they heard. The words were an expression of his bitter disappointment at the nation’s deliberate refusal to yield him the loyalty it owed. Here, then, was the continuation in acted parable of the earlier parable of the fig tree: “Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it: and if it bear fruit, well; but if not, after that thou shalt cut it down” (see Study 131).

No fruit, “forever”! Some find difficulty in the dramatic finality of this phrase. How to reconcile with “the “receiving again” of Israel, foretold in so many Scriptures? Perhaps there was designed ambiguity in the words which are really: “for the age”-“until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” Much more likely, he was emphasizing that even when Israel is restored to favour it will be on the basis of individual repentance, not national privilege? The days of God’s rich blessing on Israel simply because it is a nation descended from Abraham are gone for ever.

Next day

Later that day as the party returned to Bethany there was no opportunity—because of darkness (Mk.11 :19) or a different route?—to observe the effects of this solemn curse. So it was next morning (Wednesday) when the disciples stared with amazement at the effect of what seemed to be their Master’s unexampled exercise of destructive power.

Matthew puts the two parts of the episode together, so that his record reads as though curse and commentary belong to the same day. This disregard of strict chronological sequence is characteristic of the gospels, especially o( Matthew and Luke, when a higher purpose is to be served by readjustment.

The sight of the tree impressed the disciples greatly. “Master,” cried Peter, “behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.” Other disciples heard the curse invoked, but only Peter was alert for its fulfilment. Today, with blessing pronounced and impending, there is a similar situation.

Some of the twelve, finding cause and effect hard to accept, asked: “How is it so speedily caused to wither?’—as who should say: ‘This cannot really be our Master’s work. He doesn’t do miracles of that sort.’ But they were wrong. Moses and Elijah both asserted the holiness of God at the cost of many lives; and disciples had been willing to do the same (Lk.9 :54). hot Jesus only by the death of swine, and now of a tree. Yet even in its death, comments Wordsworth, “this barren fig tree… bears fruit for ever in the garden of Holy Scripture by the warning it gives.”

It must have been an awe-inspiring sight-in the glory of Spring a tree rich in foliage now dried up from the roots . So it is to be pictured with only a few dried withered leaves, and they ready to fall, with every branch brittle with rottenness, and the bole itself dry and cracked, its bark flaking off. The symbolism here is not difficult. What had now happened foretold that very soon the root of Israel, the Law of Moses, would dry up, being made of no effect through the sacrifice of Christ and by the destruction of the temple in A.D.70. And of course the root dried up because the ground (the Land of Israel) in which it grew was now cursed (cp. Mal.4:1).

Old Testament anticipation

There are Old Testament prophecies of this solemn act of judgment expressing not only portentous reprobation but also a hope-inspiring alternative:

“Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits… there is no cluster to eat: my soul desireth the first-ripe fig” (Mic.7:l; the entire chapter makes probably the finest, most complete, Messianic prophecy in the Bible). Israel’s true fruit would have been to own that they had no fruit for God.

“Ephraim (=fruitful!) is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit… My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations”(Hos. 9:10,16,17).

“Their root shall be as 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” (ls.5:24).

“I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green tree in its native soil (RV). I passed by (RVm), and lo, he was not, yea, I sought him but he could not be found” (Ps.37:35,36).

“I the Lord . . . have dried up the green tree, and made the dry tree to flourish” (Ez. 17:24).

“He shall grow up before him as a root out of a dry ground “(ls.53:2).

“I am the root and the offspring of David” (Rev.22:16).

“If the root be holy, so also are the branches” (Rom. 11:16).

Jesus was not yet done with the figure of the fig tree. Next day on the near-by Mount of Olives after a prophecy loaded with tragedy he spoke briefly of the fig tree coming to life again and impressing witnesses with its abundant promise (Mt.24 :32); yet once again the emphasis is on leaves—no mention of fruit. And today, marvellously true to the type, Israel surpasses the world in self-reliant achievement but does not even know the meaning of faith toward God.

Faith to move a mountain

The Lord’s answer to the uninhibited astonishment of his disciples was not a little enigmatic. At first consideration his further comment seems to have had little to do with the matter in hand. “Have faith in God,” he said. “For (he went on) verily I say unto you, if ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say to this mountain, Be thou removed, and bethou cast into the sea, it shall be done.”

Taken literally the words are childish as well as completely inconsequential. Any explanation which does not link them directly with the cursing of the fig tree deserves suspicion. In truth, every word here and in the rest of this discourse has to be read with reference to the impending conflict between the gospel and Judaism.

Jesus assumed that his followers had by now seen the point of his cursing of the fig tree. Then, “Have faith in God” meant: “Do not let the Almighty’s inevitable reprobation of Israel unsettle your faith in His righteous purposes.” After all, these disciples were Jews, nationalistic Jews through and through, and the meaning of their Lord’s acted parable was about equivalent to a prophecy in London or Washington that the whole of western civilisation will be handed over to Black Power, or the domination of Islam.

“This mountain” was Zion, the mountain of the temple and the Law. At that time it seemed beyond the bounds of credibility that any follower of Christ might ever desire an end to Judaism. Yet within twenty years the massive counter-attack launched by Pharisaism and the bigots of the Mosaic Law who had wormed their way into the ecclesia (Gal.2 :4), made Judaism a far more dangerous enemy of the early church than Rome showed signs of being. So this would be the meaning with which Paul talked about having faith to remove mountains (1 Cor. 13 :2).

This elimination of the bitter hostility of Judaism from the path of the gospel duly came about, but only at last when the early church had the faith to believe that this was the will of God and that according to the prophecies of Christ and the Old Testament there was no doubt that it must and would come to pass. But only if there were someone to fulfil the role of this “whosoever.” (Mk. 11:23). Until Peter, urged on by heavenly vision, made his journey from Joppa to Caesarea (Acts 10), none of the apostles dared to attempt this venturesome operation. And in due time the Judaist mountain was cast into the Gentile sea, the temple on mount Zion crashed in apocalyptic ruin, thus strengthening Christian faith with its testimony to the truth of Christ (cp. Ps.46 :2; and contrast Mic.4:l).

The lesson of faith

The Lord continued to emphasize faith as the answer to all the needs of the early church: “Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire (specially, regarding the preaching of the gospel) when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” On the face of it this was an exhortation to self-hypnosis, a flying in the face of all common sense and experience; for if a man. really believes that his need is already answered (“receive” is actually past tense in the Greek), where is the point in praying for God’s help regarding it?

To make sense of these words, it is necessary to strip them of the pronouns, which the AV has in italics, and to restore that past tense: “Believe that ye did receive, and ye shall have.” Read thus this dictum becomes a strong recommendation to build on ones’ spiritual experience. Look back and see heaven’s waymarks in your path—those evident answers to prayer, those indisputable tokens of God’s providence—and on the solid foundation of these experiences build an unshakable faith that in present need your prayer will have its best possible answer.

Jesus meant this general principle to be the saving of the early church, especially in its struggle to evolve an effective Christ-like policy in combatting the pressures of Judaistic prejudice ceaselessly at work within the church as well as from without. Hence the massive emphasis on the prayer of faith in the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles of Paul.

But another needful qualification for the blessing of God’s Providence was, and is, a forgiving spirit: “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” In their primary reference these words were a reminder that nothing so effectively stops the ears of Almighty God as does bitterness against one’s fellows, even though they be implacable enemies. Constantly persecuted by hostile Jews and ceaselessly harried by all kinds of underhand scheming, the early brethren surely had grounds enough for detestation and even full-blooded hatred of their adversaries. Yet in the spirit of this commandment Stephen died praying: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.”

It is, of course, a principle of widest possible scope: “If ye have anything against any man, forgive . . .,” for “if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” No principle could be simpler, nor more palpably right, than this. Yet there are examples enough of those mature in Christ who nevertheless have been known to behave as though the words were never spoken.

It is also a paradox extraordinarily difficult of resolution how to hate with a perfect hatred those who are known to be hateful to God, whilst at the same time extending forgiveness with all the sincerity of one’s soul for despite personally and undeservedly endured.

Without a simple faith that God knows best and that He is fully in control of this world of His, a wholesome fulfilment of Christ’s law of forgiveness is hardly possible.

Notes: Mk. 11:12-14, 20-26

13.	Fig tree, a symbol of Israel: Consider: Jer.24 :l-8; Hos.9 :10,16; ls.28 :4 RV; 34 :2,4,8; Rev.6:13; Lk.13:6-9; 17:6;19 :6; Mic.7:1RV; Gen.3 :7,21; Jn.1 :48,50; Mt.24 :32(Study 140). In Mt. “one fig tree,” a Hebraism for an outstanding fig tree; it emphasizes Israel’s uniqueness.
	Nothing but leaves, which now, as in Eden, were an inadequate covering for sin. Here also is commentary on the real value of the plaudits of the Triumphal Entry. M.
14.	No man. In Gk. an emphatic double negative.
21.	The fig tree . . . withered away. Contrast Ps.l :3, and Ezekiel’s prophecy of the vine of Israel: 17:9,10,24. In Mt.: “How soon … !” might imply: “Lord, you didn’t give it much of a chance, did you?’
22.	Have faith in God The Gk. is unusual: Have faith of God-which could well be a familiar Hebraism for: Have great faith. Either way, it can also be read as implying: ‘even when Jewish opposition to the Faith becomes a serious problem.’
23.	This mountain… cast into the sea. Another meaning is suggested by Zech. 14.-4: Not judgement on Judaism, but the lord’s personal return as Messiah.
24.	What things soever ye desire, when ye pray . . . Fruit on the Jewish fig tree? An end to virulent persecution by ,. Jewry?
	Believe that ye did receive. How often Holy Scripture insists on this as an integral ingredient of elementary godliness! e.g. Dt.l :31; ch.2; 7:18; Ps.34 :l-7; 37 : 25; 22 :4; 106 :13; 2 Tim.3 :11; 2 Cor.1 :10; Gen.50:20; 2 Sam. 17:37; 2 Sam. 4:9; 2 Kgs. 1:13; Mt. 16:8,9; Mk. 8:16-21; Jn.2 :22; 12:16; 16:4.
25.	When ye stand praying. Jer. 18 :20 is specially relevant; but consider also 1 Kgs.8 :14,22 (the dedication of a new temple), and Neh.9 :4 (repentance of wayward Israel). Tertullian says that the early church stood for prayer on Sundays and during the forty days after Easter.
26.	The textual reasons for omitting this verse (as RV etc.) are quite inadequate.

“A certain king made a marriage for his son.” The opening words of this parable surely set a scene for joy and jollity. Yet, in truth, few of the lord’s parables are more sombre in tone, more grim in warning.

It appears to have been intended primarily as an answer to those who perceived that “he had spoken his (previous) parable-about the wicked husbandman-against them” (Lk.20 :19). Was the kingdom indeed to be “taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”?

Betrothal

This marriage of the king’s son is really a betrothal feast. To attempt to equate it with the “marriage supper of the Lamb” is to reduce this symbolism to an incoherent shambles. But let it be read as a representation of the preaching of the gospel, when the Son of God was gathering those who are one day to be his glorious Bride, and no inconsistency remains (cp. Lk.12 : 36; Jn.2:l).

It is to be noted, also, that the parable makes no mention of the Bride. Had there been such mention, a consistent interpretation of the allegory would have been difficult to the point of impossibility.

Those called to the feast are the people of Israel. The invitation, first issued through the prophets, was now renewed by other servants (cp. Esth.5 :8; 6 :14)—John the Baptist and the apostles working with Jesus during his ministry. But there was no willingness to attend. So the king, demeaning himself as no other king would do, sent other servants, more urgent than the first to add their exhortations: “The dinner is prepared; oxen and failings are killed; all is completely ready; lose no time in coming” (cp. Pr.9 :2ff). That phrase “oxen and fatlings” gives an indication of the immense scale of the preparations, and the word “killed” is, literally, “sacrificed.” Thus the parable includes a hint of the need for sacrifice before men can share the joy of God’s redemption.

Was refusal rebellion?

In Zephaniah 1:7,8 there is a remarkable anticipation of certain aspects of this parable: “The day of the Lord is at hand; for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests. And it shall come to pass… that I will punish the princes, and the king’s children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.” That Jesus was building on Zephaniah seemsalmost certain, but a close correlation between these Scriptures is by no means easy. In an attempt to resolve the problem that in so many respects the details of this parable come away from verisimilitude, the suggestion has been made that the betrothal of the king’s son was the occasion also of his being designated heir to the throne, thus making rejection of the invitations tantamount to a refusal of loyalty to the new king. This would explain the pressure brought to bear on those invited. It would also explain the ill-treatment of the servants and the drastic action taken against those scorners of the royal invitation. They were, in effect, rebels acting in concert against the authority of the king.

But it is rather remarkable that such an extension of the theme of the parable is not given specific mention. The only alternative is to see Jesus readily sacrificing the “true-to-life” element of his parable in order to make it true to the desperate spiritual situation which his manifestation in Jewry had created.

So, like its predecessor, this parable is also a prophecy. It foretells that the appeal of the apostles, after the sacrifice of their Lord, would be abortive. Is not a royal invitation a command? Nevertheless many of those receiving invitation “made light of it’—were quite unconcerned—and went about their own affairs. Banquets normally began in the last hour or two of daylight (v.9), and went on after dark (v.13). What good would a man accomplish going to his farm at such a time of day? (See Notes). Transparent excuses! Others invited even showed rancorous opposition and violent antipathy: “The rest took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them” (e.g. Acts 7:58).

Drastic retribution

This in turn would bring down condign punishment on their heads. The angry king “sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city” (cp. Dan.9:26). This is a clear anticipation of the fearful hardships and afflictions endured by the Jews during the Roman war of A.D.67-70.Those Roman armies were God’s armies, all unconsciously meeting out judgment to a people whose cup of iniquity was filled to the brim.

This is so plain and accurate a prophecy of what happened in A.D.70 that many modern commentators insist that this gospel must therefore have been written after the fall of Jerusalem—the implication being that Jesus was no prophet (in this sense) and that these words were never spoken by him!

The appeal made by Josephus to his own countrymen during the siege of Jerusalem has this remarkable commentary: “It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions” (B.J.6.2.I.). Earlier in his ministry Jesus had spoken a similar prophecy (Lk.14 :24), milder than this because spoken earlier, before he had been so emphatically rejected by the rulers.

The parable’s frightening prophecy of Jerusalem’s travail interrupts the normal sequence of the story. Of course, the equipping of the feast with quests did not wait until the wrath of the king had been poured out. Verse 7 b,c,d should be read as in parentheses.

A new policy

Those invited had proved themselves “not worthy’—a dramatic understatement! They were unworthy in the first instance, but now openly and shamelessly so (note the allusion in Acts 13:46). The servants were therefore bidden go out into places of concourse and gather together people of all kinds (Pr.9 :2-4), no matter what their quality, to occupy the empty places at the feast. This they promptly did, bringing in the morally good and bad alike This is worth noting. The only qualification was, and is, a willingness to come. Those who invited were given no mandate to vet the guests for suitability.

It is implicit in the story that at the feast all were suitably equipped by the king’s provision of robes appropriate to the occasion, Otherwise would there not be something morally questionable about denouncing a man who has been brought in from the highways for wearing raiment unsuited to an important royal ceremony?

These guests represent the Gentiles brought into the ecclesia of Christ through the zealous unremitting efforts of the apostles and especially of Paul. And still that work goes on, for not yet has the fulness of the Gentiles come in (Rom.11:25).

The second half of the parable begins with the king coming in to see the guests. This corresponds to the day of judgment as the sequel very clearly shows. It is easy to understand how such details as this led the early church to believe that in their lime the day of judgment was nigh at hand. What betrothal banquet could with any seemliness represent a period of two thousand years? Of course these inspired apostles, writing with such urgent expectations, were right. (For more on this, see “Revelation.” appendix H.A.W.).

No Wedding garment

There at the banquet the king picked out one, soiled and unkempt, an unpleasant contrast with the rest who had decked themeselves out in true wedding style with the fine garments provided (ls.61 :10) for their use. (Is there here a certain resemblance to Samson’s abortive betrothal feast? Jud.14 :13).

The king apostrophized the man before them all: “Comrade!”-a strange mode of address from a king to one of his least important subjects brought in from anywhere, yet LXX usage applies it to those honoured with royal friendship (Dan.5 :1,2; 1 Kgs.4 :5; 2 Sam.15 :37)- “Comrade, how earnest thou hither not having a wedding garment?” Art thou not a spot in my Love Feast? (Jude 12).

Interpretation of this detail is not easy. The man is a member of the ecclesia of Christ and therefore has made a confession of faith and been baptized. But he lacks the covering of God-provided righteousness which the wedding garment plainly symbolizes. This is only possible when a man seeks baptism for a wrong motive. The early church suffered seriously from the machinations of certain “false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal.2 :4; cp.Jn.10 :1). This is only one of a number of New Testament passages which point to a concerted evil attempt to destroy the new sect called Christians by the classic methods of infiltration and subversion from within (see “The Jewish Plot”, H.A.W.). Such men would certainly fill the role just indicated. But so also would others who, more innocuously, come to baptism for unworthy reasons such as family pressures, or seeking a wife (or husband) without having any real personal conviction, or for safety in wartime. Since justification is by faith in Christ and no other way, it is difficult to see how such are truly covered by Christ’s righteousness, even though there is respectable ecclesial membership.

Yet another possibility is that the man thought his own garment quite good enough, and despised the one provided. This is surely the individual who believes in salvation through one’s own goodness. But are such speechless in the Day of Judgment? (25:44; 7:22). The question to all such is itself an exposure: “How earnest thou in hither . . .?” The only possible honest answer is: “On false pretences” of one kind or another. So, in the parable, “he was speechless”, literally: “gagged”. The day of judgment will be the first occasion in the history of the race when human ingenuity finds itself unable to cook up a plausible excuse.

Royal indignation

Then there was curt instruction to ministers standing by: “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness.” The word here is not the same as for the “servants” of v.3-10. These “ministers” are angels. At the judgment there is to be a rejection in shame of those for whom God has no use. Very clear scriptures (e.g. Ps.37:38) assert that the final end of the rejected will be the oblivion of an eternal grave. But these words seem to imply an individual conscious experience of shame and deprivation. It is not unlikely that the real punishment of the wicked will involve living on for some time in the kingdom of God but in such a state of dereliction as to make every hour of it an experience of woe (ls.65 :20; Rev.22 :15).

This would appear to be the meaning of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The first of these is unquestionably an expression of sorrow, but the other signifies anger (Acts 7:54; Ps.112 :10)—in this instance anger with one’s self for having been such a fool as to treat lightly the gracious kindness of the king.

In the parable there is only one individual of this kind to come in for heaven’s reprobation. So, lest the false conclusion be drawn by his hearers that hardly any will fall into that evil category, Jesus added the caveat: “For many are called, (some respond), but few are chosen” (Jud.7:3,7; Rev.17:14). Those who are ultimately accepted constitute only a small proportion of those to whom the call of Christ comes.

Notes: Mt. 22:1-14

2.	The kingdom… like unto a certain king. A literal reading of this is untenable. The king is not the kingdom. Here ,{ is a standard introduction equivalent to: This is another parable about the kingdom; cp. 25 :1 (foolish virgins do not represent the kingdom); 13:24 (the man is not the kingdom); 13:47 (the net is not the kingdom); so also 13:31,33. Failure to note this usage has led to some crass errors in interpretation.
	A marriage. Bethrothal was regarded as a legally binding tie. Hence the apparent New Testament confusion between marriage and betrothal. Joseph and Mary were betrothed but, apparently, never formally married (Mt. 1 :20). She was already his wife. And so also the Bride is called “the Lamb’s wife” even when being brought to him(Rev. 19:7).
3.	Would not come. Literally: They did not want to come.
5.	His farm . . . his merchandise. A contemporary invitation illustrates the timing of the feast: “Chaeremon invites you to dine… tomorrow, the 15th, at 3 o’clock”
7.	His armies. The same idiom in ls.10:5-7; 29 :3; 8 :7; 13 :5; Ez. 16 :40,41; 29:18-20; Jer.22 :7; 25:9; Dt.22:19.
9.	The highways. In LXX this unusual word describes “the issues from death” (Ps.68 :20), the waters of death, healed (2 Kgs.2 :21), the tree “planted by the rivers of water” (Ps.l:3), the dry ground blessed with watersprings (107:35). These people, then, were brought from places where they went to draw water, that they might enjoy a much greater blessing. There is more symbolism here.