When Jesus spoke of the difficulty for the rich to find a place in the kingdom of God, his disciples, utterly astonished, asked: “Who then can be saved?” As they saw it, if a man with all the advantages of ease and comfort could not prove himself worthy of everlasting life, what dope was there for those beset with all the cares of a life of toil and anxiety? And was not material prosperity the outward sign of God’s blessing? So surely the scales were loaded in favour of the rich.

Jesus answered: “With men it is impossible (that the rich should be saved), but not with God: for with God all things are possible”-which surely means that God has the power to save even the rich whose wealth is actually such a big spiritual handicap.

Honesty

But this rich man had chosen to go away from Jesus, and so this saying that God has the power to save even the rich was left hanging in mid-air, so to speak-unless He proceeded to do just that with this earnest young man who said: ‘No, you are asking too much, Jesus. I cannot do what you require of me.’ In this fact, then, there is surely good presumptive evidence that ultimately God did save this rich man, in vindication of Christ’s assertion that God can save even a rich man in love with his riches.

The ominous saying with which this incident concluded is also worth pondering here: “many that are first shall be last; and the last first.” The first phrase was a palpable warning to the privileged twelve, the one of whom (Mk.14 :10 RVm.) was to become last of all. But who was the last one who was to be given a place among the first?

It is to be noted that, whatever else, this would-be disciple did not lack honesty. Unlike so many of Christ’s more recent disciples, he did not somehow manage to persuade himself that “Sell all that thou hast and distribute to the poor” really meant something else less exacting and a great deal easier of achievement. When a man is frank and honest regarding the demands of Christ there is hope for him, even though his response be inadequate. But when he succeeds in throwing dust in his own eyes so as to persuade himself that he is fulfilling the Lord’s commands, when really he is doing nothing of the sort, he is in dire spiritual danger.

A Levite

It makes an intriguing study in circumstantial evidence to bring together the various lines of argument which support, without completely proving the conclusion that this young man was Barnabas, who later became Paul’s companion in travel.

First, it is possible to go a long way towards establishing that this rich ruler was a Levite (as, of course, Barnabas was; Acts 4 :36).

Many readers of the gospels have mused over the fact that Jesus quoted to his enquirer the second half of the Decalogue-those commandments which have to do with duty to one’s neighbour. Why did he not quote the others (more important, surely) which concern a man’s duty to God? But if indeed this enquirer were a Levite, then by virtue of his calling, the first half of the Decalogue would find fulfilment almost as a matter of course.

It is also worth noting perhaps —though not too much stress should be put on this-that apparently it was when Jesus was near to Jericho that the rich young ruler came to him; and at that time, as the parable of the Good Samaritan shows, Jericho was a Levitical city.

Much more emphatic is the fact that apparently Jesus did not require of other disciples that they “sell all, and give to the poor, and come and follow him.” Once again, if the man were a Levite, all is clear, for “Lev! hath no portion nor inheritance with his brethren; the Lord is his inheritance ” (Dt.10 :9). Thus a Levite with a large estate was a contradiction in terms, and when Jesus bade him be rid of this wealth, he was merely calling him back to loyalty to other precepts in the Law of Moses.

Barnabas, it is interesting to observe, was a Levite of Cyprus. So apparently the letter of the Law was observed by his owning no property in Israel. The “inheritance” Moses wrote about was, of course, in the land of Promise. So that estate in Cyprus was a neat circumvention of the spirit of the Mosaic covenant, and now Jesus bade him recognize it as such.

Jesus went on to quote also from Moses’ great prophecy concerning the tribe of Levi: “There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel’s, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time …” In spirit, and also in detail, this is very much like Deuteronomy 33 :8,9: “And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim (‘ If thou wouldst be perfect. . .’) and thy Urim be with thy holy one . . . who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children .. .”

Even more impressive is the Lord’s demand that this earnest seeker sell all and come and follow him, for this is exactly what the Law prescribed when a Levite wished to give himself to full-time service of the sanctuary (Dt. 18 :6-8). There must be first “the sale of his patrimony,” and the devotion of the proceeds to the sanctuary. Instead of the temple Jesus substituted his own poor disciples, the new temple of God. But this was to be done only if the Levite came “with all the desire of his mind.”

Perhaps also there is special significance in the fact that when Jesus quoted the Commandments he put one of them in the form: “Defraud not” (Mk.10 :19), as though with reference to the commandment forbidding the withholding of the wages due to a poor employee (Dt.24 :14,15). But it could refer to the dutiful devotion of one’s resources to the honour of God, a responsibility specially incumbent on a Levite who rejoiced in excessive wealth.

More specific identification?

It is now possible to explore further and find clues suggesting identification of this rich Levite with Barnabas, who when he came to prominence in the early church is mentioned as selling an estate and putting the proceeds into the common fund for the benefit of the poor brethren – which is precisely what Jesus had told the rich young man to do (Acts.4 :36). The Greek word used to describe the estate Barnabas disposed of is the same as was used by Jesus (Mk. 10:29).

And apparently it was then that Joseph was given his new name Barnabas, “the son of exhortation,” that is, the man who did what he was exhorted to do. The rich young man was also a “ruler,” that is, a member of the Sanhedrin. There is fair evidence that Saul of Tarsus also was a member of the Jewish Council Here, then, is a likely explanation of the singular fact in Acts 11 :25 that it was Barnabas who went off to Tarsus specially to find Saul at a time when Gentiles were being added to the church at Antioch. These two remarkable men had apparently been colleagues in the Sanhedrin (see “Acts”, by H.A.W., ch. 34).

The same passage describes Barnabas as “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” (11 :24). The linking of the last two phrases suggests a special gift of faith through the leading of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor.12 :9). Then was it through God’s power and guidance that Barnabas was brought to his great act of renunciation of considerable wealth? This link excellently with Christ’s comment on the rich young ruler: “With men this impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible” The extreme rarity of the same kind of decision in these days makes it more evident than ever that Barnabas’ act of faith was a gift from God.

A further detail about Barnabas now takes on clearer meaning. The first missionary journey began from the instruction: “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” (Acts 13 :2). That perfect tense prompts the enquiry: At what earlier time had these two been called by Christ? The call of Saul was, of course, on the road to Damascus (see Acts 9 :15). But when had Barnabas been called? The answer to this enquiry is either that the call of the rich young ruler is what is referred to, or else there has to be an assumption that there was some other direct call of Christ which neither Gospels nor Acts mention at all.

Is there also some special significance in the fact that it is only Mark’s record about the rich young ruler which tells that “Jesus, looking on him, loved him”? John Mark was “sister’s son to Barnabas” (Col.4:10).

O.T. anticipations?

Two unexpected hints from the Old Testament remain to be added to this accumulation of circumstantial evidence. Mark 10 :22 has this: “And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved.” The Septuagint Version of Isaiah 57 :17,18 is most remarkable: “On account of sin for a little while I grieved him, and smote him (with a hard demand); and he was grieved, and went on sorrowful in his ways. I have seen his ways, and healed him, and comforted him, and gave him true comfort (paraklesis: son of exhortation): peace upon peace to them that are far off and to them that are nigh (Barnabas’ preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles as well as to Jews).”

Again, the words: “With God all things are possible” (Mk.10 :27), are usually assumed to be an allusion to Genesis 18 :14; but more likely the reference seems to be to Psalm 62 :11: “Power belongeth unto God.” The context here is rather impressive: “Surely men of low degree (the apostles) are vanity, and men of high degree (this wealthy ruler) are a lie … if riches increase set not your heart upon them. God hath spoken once, twice have I heard this (the first and the second call of Barnabas).”

These Old Testament resemblances are certainly very remarkable. Are they to be written off as coincidences or interpreted as the fruits of inspiration? If the latter, they add evidence of an exceptional kind to the identification proposed here.

The conclusion drawn from a study of this kind varies with the individual. Points of evidence which are nearly decisive for one are of negligible value to another. But it is surely remarkable that in such very brief records concerning two men so many points of resemblance or connection can be traced.

When Jesus began to warn the twelve concerning the bitter experiences in store for him at Jerusalem he was not only preparing their faith for a stormy passage, but he was also doubtless seeking their understanding sympathy and moral support. What a help these men could be to him by their steadfast loyalty in face of faith-testing discouragement. Yet when he first essayed to school them regarding what lay ahead, Peter’s reaction was: “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee”(Mt.!6:22). With the best intentions in the world, Peter had become Satan (v.23).

The next phase of their instruction regarding the Suffering Servant of God evidently met with blank incomprehension, for there ensued an eager dispute among them about each man’s present and future status (Mk.9 :32-34). At a time when they could have helped Jesus greatly by their grasp of these redemption truths and by their sympathetic reinforcement of his self-dedication as a sacrifice, they brought him to despondency with their small-mindedness.

Seeking preferment

And now, after yet another warning of who! was to come, linked with an unspoken appeal for their faith and support, he found himself discouraged more than ever by the ambition of two of his closest disciples. James and John came asking for the highest honours in his kingdom.

That is the way in which the request put by James and John for the highest honours in his kingdom is usually interpreted. They had heard Jesus promise twelve thrones over the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt.19 :28). So they sought an early decision in their own favour, especially since there was now among the apostles a general expectation that “the kingdom should immediately appear” (Lk.19 :11). After all, had not their Master also 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.18 : 19)? And were they not true cousins to the King, his nearest relations among the twelve (but only just; see Study 42), so-by all normal human standards-did not this give them a special right to priority?

They put their self-centered request through their mother, Salome, who was the sister of the lord’s mother (cp. Jn.19 :25 with Mk.15 :40 and Mt.27 :56). It may be that she was an ambitious woman, seeking a big future for her sons; or perhaps James and John hoped for a more favourable reception of her intercession than of their own. Most earnestly she approached him, kneeling before him. Here, at least, was a humble acknowledgement that he, tor sister’s son, was deserving of all reverence.

“Master, we would that thou shouldst do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.” There is a clear implication here (in the Greek text) that they were asking for themselves rather than for their Lord’s benefit.

Ask a man to do as a favour something unnamed and he is more likely to accede, than he is if asked to give. But Jesus required that the request be made specific-not because he was unaware of their ambition, but because it was good for them that it be plainly spoken. Salome had now no option but to say precisely what she sought: “Command (literally: speak) that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand and the other on the left, in thy kingdom”. What o lot of uncertainty and trouble it would save if Jesus would assign now the various offices in his shadow cabinet. Did the irony of their petition come home to them later when they beheld their lord crucified, with a malefactor on his right hand and another on his left?

Discouraging reply

Jesus shook his head sadly. ‘Asking for yourselves, you just don’t know what it involves,’ he said. ‘First, I have a cup to drink (Mt.26 :39), and a baptism to face (Lk.12 :50). Can you share those also?’ They must have sensed something of the grim character of these words, even though not fully comprehending. Yet they answered firmly: “Yes, we can” (cp. Mt.8 :19). They knew not what they asked. They knew not what they answered.

‘Very well,’ Jesus replied, ‘the two special sacraments appointed for those most conformable to my death shall be yours indeed. The cup I drink (Lk.22 :42), you shall drink also. The baptism I go through (Lk.12 :50), you too shall share.’ Indeed, all disciples were called to this experience (Mk.8 :34).

Baptism is an instantaneous action, and is external in its experience. This came on James a few years later when he was slain by the nation which had slain his lord (Acts 12 :2). The drinking of a cup is repetitive, and is inward in its effects. John experienced suffering (Acts4 :3; 5:18,40; Rev. 1 :9) and he lived to see his teaching misunderstood and perverted, even as Jesus had suffered from the spiritual obtuseness of the twelve. Three hundred or more years later, the early church proceeded to invent a story about John being compelled by the emperor Domitian to drink poison —of course, without any ill effects! These sons of Zebedee found their main request turned down, however. “To sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not (now) mine to give: but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.” The present tense here is significant. At the time he spoke this authority did not lie with Jesus. Later, when the Revelation was given, it did. Great has been the speculation as to who among the great characters of both Old and New Testaments shall be selected for such high dignity in Christ’s kingdom. Abraham? Moses? David? Peter? Paul? The book of the Acts of the Apostles concentrates on Peter and Paul. And Paul was of Benjamin, “son of the right hand.” Also did not the Lord promise Paul “a crown of righteousness” (2 Tim 4 :8)?

Nevertheless, the Lord’s own explicit answer is different: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Rev.3 :21). The first phrase here takes in “a great multitude, which no man can number.” Thus it would seem likely that when Messiah’s kingdom is in being all who share that great redemption will also be honoured in turn with the opportunity to share its highest administration with the King of Kings. Those two places of special honour will not always be occupied by the same two persons.

The rest of the disciples had seen Salome and her sons approach Jesus, and had noted how she kneeled before him. Since they had similar ambitions, their curiosity and suspicions were aroused. So at the earliest opportunity, but not in Christ’s presence, they sought to know more. When the story came out, great was the explosion of their indignation. The Ten and the Two —just as in ancient Israel. And this time with Peter separated from the two. His gospel (Mark) is the one which twice mentions the brothers by name (v.35, 41).

All the old rivalry and squabbling boiled up once again. Jesus was aware of it, and called them to him (for they were all blameworthy) that he might reprove the pettiness of their attitudes and underscore afresh the lesson of humility he had so often tried to teach them.

True greatness

Among the Gentiles (he now reminded them) greatness consists of authority, dignity, power, pomp and circumstance. But that is because they are Gentiles, and know no better (Mt.6 :32). With you, my disciples, different principles are to operate. If you seek greatness, be a servant-that is greatness. Would you have the highest dignity there is? Then make yourself everybody’s slave. That is true honour, as my Father sees it. That is intrinsic worth. Set before yourself such an aspiration, and by and by you will cease to want to be first (cp. Mt.18 :4; 5 :19; Jn.13 .-4,14-15; and Mt.20 :16, immediately before this episode).

In all this, he went on, I have constantly set you an example, not demanding the service of any, but setting myself to be a help to all, regardless of quality or status. (What man except Jesus could speak about himself in such a way without very evidently giving the lie to every word?). Had he not healed hundreds and taught thousands? And by his sacrifice would he not bring blessing to millions?

He reminded the disciples of his very recent words of warning about suffering in Jerusalem: “The Son of man is come to give his life a ransom for many.” Their mounting obsession with the glories of a very mundane Messianic kingdom was blinding them to truth of a less attractive nature.

A servant, a slave, a ransom! It was a language they were loth to learn. The Son of God in their midst had constantly made himself of no reputation, he had taken on himself the form of a slave, and humbling himself yet further he was soon to show himself obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2 :7,8; Jn.10 :11|. The ransom which no man can pay for the life of his brother (Ps.49 :7,9), he-Jesus-would pay in full. “The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less” in this most fundamental transaction of all human existence (Ex.30 :15). For rich and poor alike, Jesus would pay the atonement money—”a ransom for many.”

Almost universally, this pregnant phrase has been taken to mean a sacrifice on behalf of a redeemed multitude, as in the familiar prophecy: “My righteous servant shall justify many … he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many…” (ls.53 :11,12). Yet it could mean: “One ransom sacrifice taking the place of the many sacrifices hitherto offered under the Law,” (and one serving priest instead of many; Num.8 :19 26), The preposition used might well support this view.

But indeed the two ideas are inseparable-a sacrifice making all other sacrifices nugatory; and “a ransom on behalf of all” (1 Tim.2 :6) which none could pay save Jesus.

To this supreme service to undeserving fellow-men Jesus was dedicated. In the men who followed him, and in those who would follow him now, he seeks a like dedication in which the highest honour is humility and the greatest glory is self-abasement.

The faces of those disciples were red with shame. And so they are today. That shame is the only saving grace.

Notes: Mk. 10:35-45

35.	Came. A word common enough in Ex. Num. (LXX) to describe drawing near to an altar or to God.
37.	It is obvious from this verse that no primacy of Peter was recognized at this time.
39.	We can. Is it possible that these two had grasped that there could be no exaltation without suffering, and that already they had braced themselves to face it with Christ?
	A baptism. Cp. the language of Ps.69 : 1,2; 42 :7; 124 :4. 40 Not mine to give. Cp. his limited powers in Mk. 13 :32; Acts 1:7. How does the doctrine of the Trinity harmonize with this?
	For whom it is prepared. This is predestination — a fact, whether understood or not. It also implies differences of status in the Messianic kingdom.
42.	Accounted (worthy] to rule, Cp. the use of the same word in Gal. 2 :2,6,9.
	Exercise lordship. 1 Pet.5 :3 s.w. refers back to this.
43, 44.	Shall be. Future indicative used as an imperative; cp. the Ten Commandments. .
45.	Not to be ministered unto. Contrast Mt.4 :11; 8 :15; 27 :55; Lk.8 :3. Yet these were negligible instances compared with what Christ did for all such?

The Pharisees, ever eager to use any and every opportunity to discredit Jesus, came at him with a question about the trickiest social problem in all human history. They themselves were divided sharply into two schools of thought. Hillel, putting emphasis on the lower status of women, gave license to Jews to divorce their wives for all kinds of trivial reasons—the wife’s failure as a cook, her annoying chatter, or the failing of her physical attractiveness. “Every kind of impropriety, such as going about with loose hair, spinning in the street, familiarly talking to men, ill-treating her husband’s parents in his presence, brawling, that is, speaking to her husband loudly so that the neighbours could hear her in the adjoining house” (Edersheim: Jewish Social Life; p.157). Shammai more strictly drew the line at marital unfaithfulness. So whatever pronouncement Jesus made regarding this problem, he was sure to lay himself open to disagreement and criticism.

Indeed, there was probably much more mischievous intent behind this question. John the Baptist’s open and courageous denunciation of Herod’s marital sins had cost him his life. These Pharisees doubtless hoped to get Jesus entangled in the same sticky situation. Let him commit himself publicly to some opinion unfavourable to the king, and within hours, whilst he was still in Herod’s territory (Mt.19 :1), his words would be maliciously repeated in the ear of Herodias.

These Pharisees did not ask, as might perhaps have been expected: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?” They knew from the Law of Moses that divorce was permissible in certain circumstances. So their question: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” must surely mean: “for every cause which is currently allowed.”

These men had reason to believe that they could use this issue at the very least to stir up prejudice against Jesus, for had he not already been known to teach a very austere doctrine regarding marriage? (Mt.5 :32; Lk.16 :18).

The answer Christ gave was not the brief enunciation of principle so often characteristic of his teaching. Instead, he spoke at length, reasoning carefully and with emphatic repetition.

Six Reasons

First, there was withering rebuke that the question should have been asked at all. “Go home and read your Bible,” he said. “Have ye not read,…?”(cp.Mt.l2:3,5; 21:16,42; 22:31; Lk.10 :26). “What did Moses command?” (Mk.10 :3) neatly anticipated their evasive appeal to Moses. Then he bluntly quoted the plain words of Genesis: “He which created them at the beginning (1 :1) made them male and lemale?” (1 :27). Thus at a stroke he vindicated the divine authority of Genesis and at the same time declared the basic principle of marriage to be settled from Creation.

The words: “male” and “female”, are singular. God made one man and one woman. Then was divorce in prospect in Eden? Was it at all part of the original divine intention? The point becomes all the stronger when it is observed that although the lower creatures were also made “male and female,” that fact is not mentioned in the Creation narrative. The Old Testament only uses “male and female” with reference to animals, when telling about Noah’s ark—”two and two” (Gen.7 :9). Most onimals are promiscuous. But in the ark it was one male and one female.

Jesus went on to quote Genesis again: “And He (God) said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain (LXX text) shall become one flesh”(2 :24). Again, the divine inspiration of Genesis and its authority on religious fundamentals was strongly underlined. But the Lord’s main purpose—to stress the permanence of human marriage—was emphasized even more. A man is to cleave to his wife (the Greek word means “glued”). The two, made from one flesh, are to become and to continue, one flesh A French commentator has put the pungent question: “For whose sake then may they part i^f not for father or mother?”

Even now Jesus was not content with such weighty declarations on the sanctity c’ marriage. He continued: “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.”

Could anything else Jesus might say on this difficult topic be more explicit? Indeed, yes! Hi; sixth asseveration on this question was spoker with all the authority he was capable of: “What therefore God hath joined together (Tindale: “cuppled”!), let not man put asunder.”

These accumulated statements on marriage and divorce were so downright that the Lord’s Pharisee enemies felt that they had him in an indefensible position, for was there not specific legislation in the Law of Moses regarding divorce? So they pressed their point.

The passage they built their opposition on (Dt.24 :l-4) sanctioned divorce when a man, newly married, found “some uncleanness” in his wife. Whatever the precise application of this law, the Hebrew idiom of Deuteronomy 24, correctly interpreted in all the modern versions, does not command that divorce shall follow, but allows that it may. In his reply Jesus pointed to this unusual feature: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” The permanent and true law of marriage was and is that which had been taught, explicitly and by implication, in Eden— no divorce!

Then why the concession under the Mosaic Covenant? Jesus made no bones about it: “faced with the problem of the hardness of your hearts”. It is an expression which always signifies lack of spiritual perception or unwillingness to do what is plainly seen to be the will of God (Mk.16 :14; 6 :52; 8 :17; 3 :5; Rom. 2:5; 11 :7,25; Heb.3:8, 13, 15). Here is an unpleasant conclusion which stands as true today as it was when spoken by Jesus: those who choose to solve their marriage problems by divorce and re-marriage (and in about 99 cases out of every 100 divorce is with a view to re-marriage) by that very fact proclaim themselves in this respect spiritually “hard of heart.” There are remarkably few divorces which do not spring from self-pity and an assumption that ‘life owes me a better deal.’

Jesus now pressed on to the stark unpalatable logical conclusion that “whosoever shall put away his wife . . . and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” This was said to his disciples “in the house” (Mk.10 :10). These words legislate for disciples. Jesus was not concerned here with the world’s, or even with Jewry’s, divorce problems. Thus, any second marriage, whilst the former partner is alive, is adultery in the sight of God. “The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as her husband liveth” (Rom.7:2).

The exceptive clause

To this simple rule the Lord allowed only one exception, mentioned only in Mt. 19 :9 out of the four places where his law of marriage is enunciated: “except it be for fornication.” This exceptive clause has often been equated, quite mistakenly, with adultery. In this way it has been made the sole ground for a commonly-held view that adultery breaks the marriage bond and justifies or even requires divorce.

The evidence for this interpretation is quite inadequate. In this passage Jesus used the words “fornication” and “adultery” side by side, thus plainly implying a distinction of meaning between them. The normal meaning of “fornication” is, of course, an illicit sexual union before marriage, whereas adultery is the corresponding sin of a married person. There is no lack of other New Testament passages where these two words are used side by side in a way which positively demands a distinction in meanings: Mt.15 :19 (= Mk.7 :21); Gal.5 :19; 1 Cor. 6:9.

It has been argued that in the LXX Version of the Old Testament this word “fornication” (porneia) is used also of adultery (e.g. Amos 7 :17). This is true. But there has been inadequate recognition that in all such cases, the word has been given a specialised meaning: the ritual fornication by or with a temple “virgin”, which was a normal feature of Gentile idolatry. This meaning has spilled over into the Book of Revelation (e.g. 2:14). Such instances are easily recognizable. In all other places, the word porneia carries its normal meaning.

The evidence, then, for the view that Jesus regarded adultery as justification for the severance of the marriage bond is altogether insufficient, Indeed, his word to the woman taken in adultery: “Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more,” seems to suggest that the one lapse into this sin should be forthwith forgiven.

It would appear that the exception for which Jesus now legislated is the case where a man learns that before marriage his wife has had illicit intercourse with another man. In harmony with the principle already propounded in Genesis, and by Jesus in this place (that marriage is when man and wife become “one flesh”), such a union has been (from God’s point of view) the permanent joining together of man and woman. Ideally neither is free to marry any other.

Even so, the example of Hosea marrying Gomer, “a wife of whoredoms” (Hos.l :2] shows that even in such a case God prefers to see a forgiving spirit rather than an insistence on the very letter of the Law—for the phrase means that Gomer was already promiscuous when Hosea married her. And since these two are declared to be an acted parable of the relations of God with promiscuous Israel, the ideal of a forgiving spirit is emphasized more strongly than ever.

The disciples were palpably shaken by the austerity of the “no divorce” principle insisted on by their Teacher, but out of a spirit of loyalty, rather than appearing to query his decisions in the presence of Pharisees, it was not until they were “in the house” (Mk.) that they voiced misgivings:

“If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” The strength of their objection shows that they had understood Jesus to forbid divorce altogether, for already they were well acquainted with Shammai’s doctrine that adultery is valid ground for divorce.

Permissive clauses

Jesus proceeded to explain that what he had said—and said repeatedly—so far, was an expression of the highest ideal of married life, an ideal so high that in many cases it cannot be insisted on: “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” Like the concession made by the Law of Moses, this was a realistic acknowledgement of the frailty of human nature and of the intensely powerful forces at work in this side of married life. The words plainly mean that where a man and woman achieve this idealistic standard in marriage, they do so only by the grace of God— because it is “given” to them.

Nor was Jesus content to make this point once only. He went on: “There are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb (that is, through disability of one sort or another offlicting a man from birth he never has prospect of a normal marriage); and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men.” In this category come not only those who have been physically changed in order to be singers or chamberlains, but also those who have life-long disfellowship held over them if they re-marry.

“And there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (these are they who, when their marriage goes to pieces, shoulder the sacrifice of thenceforward accepting a single life, out of loyalty to the law of Christ; and there are others also). Presumably the Lord mentioned this to imply that those suffering from a broken marriage ought not to pity themselves or to expect that life owes them some kind of redress. There are others worse off than themselves. But Jesus did not leave it at that. He added the understanding concession: “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” In this context this can only mean that with some people, in some circumstances, it would be cruelty to insist on the highest possible level of obedience to the ideal of marriage as Christ expounded it.

Two standards

Where else in the teaching of Jesus is there sign of a toleration of this kind of double moral standard? Where else does he say: “This is the ideal. Follow it if you can. But if you cannot, an understanding and compassionate Heavenly Father does not demand more than you are able for”?

After this, it is almost to be expected that the teaching of Paul on the problems of marriage will be found to include the same concessive element. “Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But even if thou marry thou hast not sinned” (1 Cor.7 :27,28).

The Bible has other examples of this kind of double-standard morality. Jesus gathered his doctrine of no-divorce from Moses’ first book; but Moses’ fifth book explicitly permitted divorce, and this without exclusion from the camp of Israel. The Lord’s argument from Genesis also established that from the first God intended that in marriage there shall be one man and only one woman. Yet Abraham, Jacob, David—God’s great men—were never rebuked for their plural marriages.

Thus there are available at least four clear-cut examples of two different levels of moral behaviour being tolerated by God. And, remarkably, these all belong to the same domain of human experience—marriage! This can hardly be accident. Is there not here a divine recognition of the fact that in human nature there are no impulses stronger than those associated with sex. Hence: This is the ideal; adhere to it if you can. But if you cannot, then here is the next best alternative.

Yet another example of this is Paul’s insistence that spiritually the single life presents higher possibilities than marriage (1 Cor.7:8, 9, 33). But “it is better to marry than to burn.” It follows, then, that those who choose marriage are deliberately opting for a lower ideal than the best. Yet, strangely enough, it is always the happily married who are loudest in their stricture against divorcees choosing something less than the highest ideal. Have those who have made no attempt to reach the highest level any right to censure or reject others on a lower level than themselves?

Thus, to sum up: Moses, Jesus and Paul combine to teach the highest ideals regarding married life; but they also recognize that it is not given to all in Christ to maintain such faultlessness.

Today there is often need for ecclesias of Christ to shew a deep sympathetic understanding towards those who, often through no fault of their own, are caught up in the tangles created by modern laxity. But it is equally important to face clearly and honestly the fact that all who seek divorce with a view to re-marriage proclaim their own “hardness of heart” and their own willingness to abandon the idealism of Christ for a more easy-going pattern of life. Such should not add to their offence, graciously tolerated by God, by “bending” the teaching of Christ in an attempt to justify their own course of action.

Notes: Mt. 19:1-12

1.	It is difficult to identify precisely what point in the Lord’s ministry this refers to. The details are not the same as in Lk. 17:11. The context bears some resemblance to Lk. 13 :31.
	Finished these sayings. This is Mt’s mark of the end of a section of his gospel: 7 :28; 11 :1; 13 :53; 26:1
	Judah beyond Jordan. Josh. 19:22, 1 Chr.9 :22 suggest that in ancient days there was a pocket of Judahites on the east of Jordan. Perhaps the name stuck. This was the Lord’s farewell to Galilee until after his resurrection.
2.	Great multitudes followed him. The Gk. text in Mk. might imply organized pilgrimages to come to Jesus for teaching and healing.
5.	Twain. Not in the Heb. text of Gen. but in LXX and Sam. versions, and also in the text followed by Paul1 1 Cor.6:16;Eph.5:31.
9.	Marrieth her which is put away. Mt. 5 :32 implies that whoever puts a woman into such a situation where she is vulnerable, wide open to temptation, carries grave responsibility if she falls into sin.
10.	Cp. the disciples’ surprise at their Lord’s extremism in Mt.19 :23-25.
11.	This saying cannot possibly mean the disciples’ word: “It is not good to marry.” It must refer to the Lord’s own teaching.
12.	Eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Included here there is also the not inconsiderable number of those who have no opportunity of marriage in the Faith and who staunchly refuse all other.
	He that is able to receive it In Gal. 5:19, Mt. 15:19. 1 Cor. 6:9-11 adultery is included in lists of sins which are forgivable. Yet not infrequently in modern times it is put in a category of its own, as an unforgivable sin (yet note Mt.12 : 31,3 2). In v. 12 “receive” indicates what is clearly an optional choice—being a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake. Then so also in v. 11.

The solemnity and emphasis with which Jesus spoke about the sanctity of marriage may not have meant much to his Pharisee adversaries, but it was noted by others. He who gave such an earnest blessing to a true God-centred marriage would surely add his blessing to the fruits of such a marriage. (Indeed, this sequel to the tricky discussion on divorce surely implies that an important consideration influencing attitudes to divorce must be the well-being of the children involved in such problem cases; Mal.2 :15).

So disciples— fathers as well as mothers (Mk. Lk.)-were immediately (Mt.) eager to bring their little children (toddlers and babes in arms) also, besides their sick folk (Lk.), to Jesus that they might receive his blessing. And they brought them (so Mark’s word implied) as an offering, a sacrifice (Gen. 22).

Apparently it was a custom followed by some to seek the blessing of a distinguished rabbi on little children at the time of their first birthday. Then, birthday or no birthday, who better than Rabbi Jesus? The idea caught on with quite a number of parents. They began to assemble, so that they might approach him together. To them it meant a great deal that their children should be touched by such a wonderful man and that he should lay his hands on their heads and pray for God’s providence and guidance over their lives.

The Power of Benediction

It may well be that some of these parents were led to seek this graciousness by the memory of how Joseph brought his sons to the aged Jacob for blessing (Gen.48 :14). Those benedictions in ancient days were not mere formalities but the inspired utterances of men of God, who were guided to impart knowledge of their sons’ destinies.

If the blessing of Jacob and Moses could be seen long years later in the inheritance and history of the children of Israel, what would not the blessing of Jesus mean in the lives of these children (and their families) when they grew up? But the blessing of Jacob, as of other patriarchs also, was a last will and testament. So this winsome occasion now had, for Jesus, its sombre overtones. Golgotha was not far away.

Rebuke and rebuke

His disciples thought nothing of this parental eagerness, and-with the best of intentions, doubtless —intercepted the attempt to appropriate for little children their Teacher’s time and attention. They deemed it an abuse of his kindness, a misappropriation of his time. These children were healthy enough. Wasn’t the laying on of their Lord’s hands for the sick and afflicted? The Greek text even suggests that the apostles, thinking themselves out of earshot (so Luke might imply), spoke sharply, not only to the parents but also to the toddlers some of whom were already making their way to Jesus. They actually held the children back.

But the Lord saw it (though he was probably not intended to), and it vexed him (Mk.). He called the little ones (Lk.), some scared, others in tears, and they come running to him. Here the Greek text beautifully puts the emphasis on his pleasure rather than their benefit! Then he spoke olmost severely to his disciples: “You must let tee little children come to me. Stop forbidding them. Stop holding them back; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Then why shouldn’t they be brought to the King?

He meant, of course, that it is the childlike spirit which qualifies for inheritance of the kingdom. Not that little children are all lovable attractiveness, for indeed there are times, when, in quarrelsomeness or temper, selfishness or sulks, they can be little devils. But in their ingenuousness and their uncritical unfeigned delight in receiving instruction, “as helpless ones receive an unearned gift” (L.G.S.), they exemplify the spirit in which the message of the kingdom should be welcomed. In this respect they are models to their cynical, suspicious, self-interested elders.

Children and the Kingdom

“Verily I say unto you,” Jesus went on, “whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.” Clearly, by this he did not mean the exclusion of those who hear and accept the word of the gospel in their maturity. It was yet another emphatic way of stressing the need of the teachable disposition of a child. “To this man will I look . . . even to him that trembles at my word” (ls.66 :2; cp. Ps.131 :2). Very soon after this he was saying to those grown disciples; “Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God” Mk. 10:24; cp. also Mt.18:3,4) Later, Paul was to give the same figure a slightly different slant: “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children” (1 Cor.14 :20). How marvellously within a minute does a little child dry his tears, and forgive and forget. This spirit also is a needful qualification for the kingdom of God.

Jesus spoke his blunt lesson to these grown men even whilst he had children close by him. Then he took the babies into his arms, first one and then another, giving them a good cuddle (Mk.), laying his hands on them, pronouncing words of benediction, and praying aloud to his Father in heaven for a blessing on them. If the words spoken by his preaching disciples, calling God’s peace on the homes offering them hospitality, were no mere empty form (Lk.10 :5,6), it may be taken as certain that the fervent benison (Mk.) of Jesus imparted real good to each child he blessed.

It is possible that in this era the Lord’s disciples have reacted over-emphatically from the sentimentalism and false theology of the churches so as to resemble the abrupt unkindness of the twelve more than the loving graciousness of their Master. It ought, for example, to be possible by a ten-minute addition to a Breaking of Bread service to invoke God’s blessing on a new baby, with a special prayer that its parents will be given wisdom to care for, train and direct their growing child in ways of truth and godliness. He who loved and blessed little children would surely give a warm smile of approval to any such santification of the family.

Notes: Mk.l 0:13-16

13.	Little children. Lk. says “babies also”.
	Touch. Classically this word also means “hold,” as in Jn. 20 :17.
14.	Suffer the little children … and forbid them not. And in the gospels two of the adults present tell the story against themselves.
	Forbid. For the precise meaning, see Job 12 :15; Ps.119 :101; ls.43 :6; Ez.31 :15 (LXX has s.w.).
	Of such. Not “of these.”

Passover, the last Passover, was now not far away. The long and much-interrupted progress up to Jerusalem had reached its last stage; and now, unique in the gospel record, Mark gives a brief but tremendously impressive picture of J,?sus going ahead of the twelve and the inescapable crowd. The Good Shepherd was going before his sheep (Jn.10 :4), even as the visible sign of the Glory of God had led Israel in the wilderness (Num.10 :33).

“And they (the twelve) were amazed, and those who followed were afraid.” The words grip the imagination, even though no explanation is given for this reaction in the disciples. Does the recent raising of Lazarus throw light on the situation? “Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee, and goest thou thither again?” And since then “the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him” (Jn.11 :8,57). So, almost certainly, those closely associated with Jesus were likewise marked men. Also, the recent fears of the chief priests were finding an echo in not a few minds: that any attempt to assert Messiahship in Jerusalem would inevitably mean “the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (Jn.11 :48).

Further Warning

At one point Jesus took the twelve aside from the accompanying crowd and “began to tell them what things should happen unto him” (Mk.). This was now the third time (according to Matthew and Mark), the fourth according to Luke (9 :22,44; 17 :25), that he had spoken explicitly about his rejection and suffering at Jerusalem, and he was still at the beginning of their education in these things, so little progress did they make in understanding.

Very probably this was because each of these warnings came after a strong Messianic emphasis in the ministry-Peter’s confession (Lk. 9 :20), the Transfiguration (9 .-28-35), the first detailed discourse about the Second Coming (17 :20-24), and the promise of everlasting life to the faithful follower (18:29,30).

“Behold,” Jesus now said to them, “we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished” (Lk.) Here is clear intimation of how the mind of Jesus was prepared for what lay ahead. The prophetic imperative lay upon him. As men of God were constrained to write the message of God’s purpose with His Messiah, so also he was constrained obediently to fulfil it. Yet here the common version hardly does justice to the dative case in the original. More accurately, it would signify: “all things written by the prophets for the Son of man.” Paul was doubtless right when he declared that all these things ”were written aforetime for our learning… ” (Rom.15 :4). But they were written also for the Christ-for his instruction, for the reinforcement of his faith, and for the routing or his discouragement.

What Jesus now told was more detailed than anything he had as yet attempted to unfold concerning the crisis looming ahead:

“The Son of man shall be delivered (betrayed) unto the chief priests and unto the scribes;

and they shall condemn him to death,

and they shall deliver him to the Gentiles,

and they shall mock him,

and they shall scourge him,

and they shall spit upon him,

and they shall kill him,

and the third day he shall rise again” (Mk.).

Several details here —as “mocking, scourging, spitting”-were now mentioned for the first time. “Handed over to the Gentiles” could mean only one thing —crucifixion by the Romans (as Matthew specifically mentions). A Jew delivered by Jews to their Roman overlords, for such an end! It was unthinkable. So perhaps the disciples took these warnings as indications of what the rulers would like to do. Or maybe they regarded their Lord’s solemn words as another of his parables—to be taken as meaning: ‘I have faced a long period of seeming failure, but it will be crowned with sudden success.’ In any case, the disciples’ lack of insight becomes a providential security for the truth of their later witness to the resurrection. But at present they showed little comprehension of these eight stages in the Saviour’s travail of the New Creation.

Thus, “they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken” (Lk.). The variation in Greek tenses here is fascinating. The significance probably is that at first what Jesus declared made no sense to them, and when he explained further it still remained obscure, nor did opportunity to think about it enable them to grasp it any better.

This pregnant passage in Luke about the disciples’ lack of appreciation of their Lord’s warning is repeated almost verbatim from an earlier occasion (9 :45). It is as though Luke is trying to apologize beforehand for the apostles’ spiritual immaturity and dullness, for immediately after these occasions the record adds: (a) “Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest” (9 :46); (b) “And James and John . . . came unto him, saying . . Grant unto us that we may sit one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory” (Mk.10 :35ff); (c) The later warning: “The Son of man goeth, as it was determined . . . betrayed . . . And there was also a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest” (Lk.22 :22-24),

To the modern reader of the gospels there is puzzlement of a different sort —why that which now seems simple and obvious should have remained so obscure to men who were so close to Jesus. If affords a lesson regarding the blinding power of preconceived ideas and prejudice. Very probably the meaning of many Bible prophecies of the last days, which today are wondrously mysterious, will before long become all at once crystal clear and easy enough for a child to understand. The present-day student of Holy Scripture is in no position to feel superior.

The Prophets and the Son of man

It makes a useful exercise in the study of Messianic prophecy to seek out the Old Testament anticipations _ of the sufferings of Christ which the apostles now heard alluded to.

His betrayal by Judas is readily traceable in the familiar words which Jesus himself was to quote at the last Supper: “Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me” (Ps.41:9; and by all means see the parallel passage in Ps. 55:12-24). The condemnation to death, in gross violation of all true justice, is easy to read in Isaiah 53:7,8,12: “as a lamb to the slaughter . . . taken from prison and from judgment. . . cut off out of the land of the living … he poured out his soul unto death.” Another Isaiah prophecy has equally clear and poignant details: “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (50:6). Psalm 22:16 fills out the picture: “For dogs (that is, Gentiles) have compassed me: the assembly (the Sanhedrin) of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet” (cp. Ps.69:12,19).

Messiah’s resurrection was plainly foretold in Psalm 16 :10 “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption.” It was also foreshadowed in the restoration of Isaac, the beloved only-begotten son, and in the divine boon of life to stricken Hezekiah. And that this should be on the third day was also anticipated in the experience of both Isaac and Hezekiah. Even more obviously, it was typified in the “resurrection” of Jonah, in the ark going a three-days journey before the people of the Lord to seek out a resting place for them (Num.10 :33), and in the offering of the wave-sheaf on the third day after the slaying of the Passover Lamb (Lev.23 :11).

It would be a grave error to assume that these are all the Old Testament testimonies regarding the sufferings of Christ. Of course there are others.

A further detail worthy of note at this point is that whereas Mark’s record says: “after three days,” Matthew and Luke have “on the third day.” Clearly these are equivalent expressions, unless one is to assume that the gospels contradict each other! Unhappily the tendency of two different groups of interpreters has been to emphasize whichever of these phrases suits best their own point of view. This is very unsatisfactory exegesis unless it be accompanied by an adequate explanation of all the evidence which appears to support the contrary opinion. This is important. Study 182 will explore this question further.

Notes: Lk.18:31-34

31.	Besides those earlier explicit anticipation of the Cross, there had been other foreshadowings: Jn. 2:19 (3:13-16?); 6 :47-50; Mt.9 :15.
	All things that are written. Mt. Mk, use the word mello, which means either what was about to happen, or what was destined to happen. Lk’s phrasing strongly suggests the second of these.
	Fulfilled-telesthai. Peter uses epitelesthai (additionally fulfilled; 1 Pet. 5:9) with reference to the sufferings of the disciple following his Master’s steps.
	The Son of man. Even against this backcloth of suffering Jesus proclaims himself the Messiah (Dan.7:13; 9:24,25).

Little children and their parents, alike eager to tome to Jesus, had been almost scared away by ie roughness of the disciples. Now came one whorn Jesus himself scared away by the austerity of his demands. The children, who could not be harmed by their exalted privilege, received matchless blessing. The high status of the ruler’s wealth and religious standing was brought low in order that the blessing might be his also.

“Behold!” Matthew begins, as who should say: “Here is a story worth telling!’

The newcomer was young (Mt.) and yet already a ruler (Lk.) that is (see Jn.3 :1), a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin—not merely a ruler of the synagogue or this would have been specified. This fact immediately speaks volumes concerning him. For a young man to be elected to such an assembly of well-qualified men, he must be of outstanding ability and exceptional character. And certainly his character was altogether exceptional, for he was prepared to demean himself to seek counsel and directive from Jesus of Nazareth, and to show his eagerness for the Teacher’s help by running to overtake him just as he was setting out on the next stage of his journey (Mk.).

When he reached Jesus, he knelt humbly before him (Mk.), and put his enquiry most earnestly: “Good Teacher (Mk. Lk.), what good thing (Mt.) shall I do to inherit (Mk. Lk.) eternal life?”(cp. Lk. l0:25).

Here was an example of the best type of Jew who thought to “attain to the law of righteousness by works of the law” (Rom.9:31,32). It is unlikely that he had heard Jesus say: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Mt. 5:5). And it is fairly certain that a week or two later he did not hear Jesus anticipate the Day of Judgment with the words: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Mt.25 :34). Neither saying included this rich ruler, for the first used the Old Testament word describing the uninfluential and under-privileged, but devout, section of the people, whilst the other pronounced blessing on those who were all unconscious of having done anything meritorious.

A mistaken approach

There was little of encouragement, then, for this fervent seeker after righteousness in the reply of Jesus:, “Why calledst thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.” The words would have been unkind if they had not been necessary. A man inherits what he has a right to, or in another sense—what comes to him from his father Adam. By this brief incisive comment on that word “good” Jesus put the whole question in proper perspective. True essential goodness is not possible in human nature. Only God is good (Ps.22 :3), and He only can bestow that gift. If any man sets out to earn eternal life for himself, he cries for the moon.

This reply of Jesus was also a staggering assertion concerning himself. He, who earlier had had the temerity to ask: “Which of you convicteth me of sin?”, now disclaimed the absolute goodness which belongs to God only. The enquiry assumed that by dedicated effort it is possible for human nature to achieve goodness. ‘Not so,’ Jesus insisted, ‘even I, fettered with the inheritance that comes to all men from Adam, would not lay claim to true goodness.’ It was a startling thing to say. No wonder the early church moving steadily towards Trinitarianism, was tempted to tinker with the manuscripts here.

But an alternative, and diametrically opposite, interpretation has been suggested: ‘Do you realise what you are saying? Only God is good. Yet you use that word about me! It is the context and purpose of the discussion which veto this idea. It has no relevance to the man’s problem nor to the way in which Jesus proceeded to answer it.

This response of Jesus is complicated by a different reading in Matthew: “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?” (RV). This variation must be rejected, if only because It sets the gospels contradicting each other. The textual evidence against this RV reading is massive. Not only do all the available texts of Mark and Luke ignore it, but also in Matthew twenty-one early Fathers and Versions (2nd-6th centuries) and all the manuscripts, except a handful, support the more familiar reading. Only obsession with a textual theory can explain this preference of the modern versions.

Christ’s first Answer

Jesus went on to answer the question more directly: “Thou knowest the commandments (Mk.Lk.) If thou wishest to enter into life, keep the commandments (Mt.)”

“What kind (Mt.) of commandments do you mean?” came the rejoinder.

To this the answer was a repetition of the last six commandments in the Decalogue, with the tenth taking the form: “Defraud not” (Mk.),that is, ‘Withhold not what is due to another.” This could be a tacit rebuke of riches acquired at the expense of poor tenants and employees, but (as will be seen in Study 148) this detail has special appropriateness in another respect.

It is not easy to explain why Luke’s record should reverse the order of Commandments 6 and 7, nor indeed why Jesus should now appear to fall in with the ruler’s pre-conception that sufficient devotion to the keeping of laws and ordinances would earn the prize he sought, However, any misconstruing of the Lord’s meaning was soon rectified by what followed.

It is possible that the immediate reaction was one of surprise, perhaps even a sigh of relief: Is that all? This has always been the basis of my religious life.’ So Jesus added yet another: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mt.)-“these things” (Lk.18 :22) seems to imply a two-part answer by Jesus.

Even now self-confidence was unshaken, as with the rabbi who on his death-bed said: “Go and fetch the Book of Law, and see whether there is anything in it which I have not kept!” Or did this young man vaguely realise that Jesus was holding something back?: “Master, all these have I been careful about from my youth” (cp. Lk.15 :29). Jesus had said: Keep the commandments.” His reply used a stronger word, and in a form which implies: “not so much for the honour of God as for my own sake.”

That phrase: “from my youth,” spoken by one still a young man, told of incessant devotion to the Law ever since the day of his Bar-Mitzvah, when he became a son of the Commandment. Perhaps also his words implied that so far the demands of Jesus were elementary. Clearly he hadn’t realised the wide scope of “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Was there not some other thing he must attempt?—something great and altogether exceptional in self — discipline, or religious devotion?

“What lack I yet?” he asked. (Mt.) Was it inadvertence or intention which led him to use the words of Psalm 39 :4 (LXX), which in the Hebrew text read: “Let me know how frail I am”? Probably it was by design, for there the immediate context is: “Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee’—hence his seeking for eternal life.

Had he known it, his encounter with Jesus was written in the same psalm: “When thou with rebukes dost instruct men concerning iniquity thou makest his beauty to consume away like a moth… for I am (called to be) a stranger with thee, a sojourner, as all my fathers were” (v.11,12).

What was it about this eager young seeker which set Jesus yearning to have him in his band of disciples? “Looking intently on him he loved him” (Mk.)—it is language used only about the lord’s special regard for his apostle John and for the beloved family at Bethany.

A Second answer

Then with what unwillingness did he now proceed to present his austere demands: “One thing thou lackest (Mk.). If thou wouldst be perfect, mature, really grown-up (Mt.), go, sell all that thou hast, and distribute it (Lk.) to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

Here was a challenge far surpassing the fulfilment of any “Thou shalt not.” The young man had asked: “What shall I do?” And now he had his answer, he must do it, or fail. It was a call to qualify for the place soon to be vacated by Judas who was already on his way out—a self-denying rich man to replace one obsessed with money.

This frightening demand, at least comparable with what had been required of the twelve (Mt.19 :27), and putting such strong emphasis on love of one’s neighbour, was a more peremptory repetition of one of Christ’s least read and most neglected precepts—the terribly idealistic: “Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heaven that faileth not” (Lk.l2:33).

There were rich disciples of the Lord on whom apparently he laid no such exacting demands. And Zacchaeus was evidently in a class to himself in his willingness to give a half of his goods to the poor (Lk.19 :8). Then why should Jesus require so much more of this eager servant of God than he had asked of other close followers? The usual answer that here was one who was too much in love with his wealth is no answer at all, for the same is true for practically everybody.

The better explanation of this matter must wait till Study 148. Here, it is important to observe that Jesus was not content to stress love of one’s neighbour; there must be love of God also: “Come, follow me.”

This was the kernel of his multiple demand. In saying: “One thing is lacking thee,” Jesus had quoted from the 23rd Psalm, but with a significant difference: “The Lord is my shepherd: one thing is not lacking to me” (LXX). The one thing lacking was: “The Lord is my shepherd’— “Come, follow me!”

The great refusal

The Lord’s ultimatum was too much for him. His face clouded (Mk; s.w. Mt.16 :3) as he swiftly pondered the impact this claim would make on his life (Mk.) ‘No, Jesus, no! you are asking too much.’ He turned away slowly, miserably. Wycliff “he was ful sorie’—and no wonder for he was not just well off, he was very wealthy.

Watt’s picture in the Tate Gallery hits this off perfectly. It portrays the man in his expensive clothes—the fine material perfectly tailored, the jewelled turban, the rings on his fingers. With a hand over his face he turns away—and now, before him, a blank wall!

If, instead, he had invited Jesus and the twelve to come and spend the sabbath at his house, how much easier full response to the Lord’s challenge would have been. But he didn’t, so Jesus went to the home of Zaccheus, and heard a superb renunciation from him instead (see Study 152).

The Lord was made very sad by this great refusal. For a while his eyes followed this fine idealist, shackled by worldly standards. Then deliberately his piercing look travelled round the group of disciples about him: “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God” (and Judas was among those who heard this!).

Jesus did not need to be rich himself in order to see “the deceitfulness of riches” doing its evil work in the lives of others (Mt.13 :22). And in later days, Paul, equally aware of the problem, bade Timothy “charge them that are rich in this world that they . . . trust not in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.” So he called instead to a life “rich in good works”, a life made gracious by sharing and fellowship with the less fortunate. Thus the rich can “lay up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come.” It is the faith that lets go its hold on riches which enables a man to “lay hold on eternal life” (1 Tim. 6:9, 10, 17-19).

Startled disciples

The disciples, accustomed though they were to the revolutionary character of their Lord’s teaching, were nevertheless staggered (Mk.) at this pronouncement. So, in case they thought this another of his parabolic sayings well flavoured with hyperbole, he said it again (Mk.) with marvellous plainness: “Children’—this apostrophe was not a rebuke, but an affectionate appreciation of the sacrifices they had made in following him—”Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!” (Mk.). It was a principle more sweeping than the followers of Jesus have ever been prepared to admit, if only because the number of those who trust in wealth is almost exactly the same as the number of those who have it. Centuries before, a man of God had seen this problem in perspective: “They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him and not see corruption, for the redemption of their life is costly, and must be let alone for this age (i.e. until the Redeemer comes)” (Ps.49:6-8).

Camel and needle’s eye

Jesus went on to illustrate: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.”

The attractive alternative of “rope”, for “camel”, must be firmly rejected as being entirely devoid of support in the manuscripts, even though it means only one letter difference in the Greek.

The current fashion of treating this saying as another of the Lord’s grotesque exaggerations for the sake of emphasis also comes up against a difficulty with the Greek verb used by Matthew and Luke. It means “enter”, and by itself strongly supports the old explanation that Jesus was alluding to the extreme difficulty of getting a loaded camel through the small side-gate in an eastern city wall—”the eye of a needle.” Certainly such a figure of speech is appropriate enough in all its details.

There is perhaps further support for this in Mark’s word for the eye of a needle. In LXX uniform usage applies it to “the holes of the rocks” (e.g. Jud.6 :2; 15 :8,11; Jer.13 :4; 16 :16), a meaning which has some resemblance to a gate as a hole in a massive city wall.

Also, the Greek word used by Jesus: “How hardly,” implies constipation, again appropriate enough to the figure of a camel going with difficulty through a small city gate.

And the Midrash on Song of Songs 5 :2 has this: “God spake to the Israelites, Open for me a gateway of repentance as big as a needle’s eye, and I will open for you gates wide enough for chariots and horses.”

More bewilderment

The obvious reference of this figure of speech to the present case only served to increase the bewilderment of the twelve. They were completely flummoxed. “Absolutely knocked out,” would be a fairly literal translation of Matthew’s phrase. And the Greek verb implies that they were a long time coming round!

“Who then can be saved?” they asked in their astonishment. Are not the rich rich because of God’s blessing on their righteousness? Was not this Deuteronomy’s much repeated encouragement to Israel? (e.g. 7:12,13; 11:13-15).Then if those whom God had prospered hardly find salvation, what hope for the poor?

As he replied, Jesus again gave them a specially penetrating look (Mk.). In this incident there is marked emphasis on the eyes of Jesus (Mark 10: 21,23-27; Lk. 18:24).

“With men it is impossible, but not with God (Mk.): for with God all things are possible.” God can save even this man, even though he turns away from me now. It was allusion to Ps.62 :11. “Power belongeth unto God,” the marvellous relevance of which is brought out in the next study. And yet there is also an echo of the heavenly message to Sarah about the birth of Isaac (Gen.18:14 LXX). Since Jesus went on immediately to talk about the New Birth (Mt.19 :28), was he not prophesying the new birth of this one whom he loved?

What about us?

Whilst his fellow-disciples were remonstrating regarding this idealistic unpractical doctrine, Peter’s mind was dwelling on the immediate relevance of this incident to his own case. Yet it is to his credit that although he used the pronoun ‘I’ when speaking of personal duty (Mt. 18:21), now-when the topic was reward for service—he said “we”: “Lo, we did leave all we had (Lk.), and we have followed and are following (Mk.) you.” True enough! At the second call from the Master, he and James and John had “left all and followed him” (Lk.5 :11). And so also the rest of the twelve in due time. Yet if there was emphasis here on personal merit, it was misplaced; for Jesus was to remind them: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” (Jn,15 :16). Assuredly they had had less to lose than this wealthy would-be disciple, but the plain and admirable fact was that they had done just what Jesus had required of this man. “What shall we have therefore?”

Future and Present Reward

The reply of Jesus was full and explicit, the pronc’ins indicating that Peter’s question was in the minds of all and on behalf of all: “Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt; cp. Lk.22 :30). That word “regeneration” is, quite simply, “new birth.” Its only other occurrence in the New Testament is with reference to baptism (Tit.3 :5). So possibly, though not certainly, the AV punctuation is in error: “Ye which have followed me in this new birth . . .”, which was, of course the very crux of the recent encounter.

In any case, there was plain and clear promise of thrones of glory at a time when Jesus himself is enthroned above the Cherubim (as in Ez.l :26-28). Even Judas was not excluded. Until the moment when he went out into the night (Jn.13 :30), this exalted future was still open even to him.

The careful reader of the Greek text of this passage notes with special interest that the form of the verb “followed” implies a discipleship untainted by any selfish motive. So by implication the man who follows because he has his eye on glory and power in the Kingdom instead of on Christ his Lord may be excluded. The Book of Revelation takes up the story with its vision of “thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment (i.e. authority) was given unto them . . them that were beheaded tor the witness of Jesus . . . and they lived, and reigned with Christ” (20 :4). Those called upon to contend against arrogant Roman claims will also note that in neither place is there a special throne for Peter, or for the Pope.

Jesus went on to promise a corresponding reward to all others who follow him loyally: “And every one who has left houses (or wife; Lk; cp. 1 Cor. 9 :5), or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake and the gospel’s (Mk.), shall receive back (Lk.) an hundredfold (now in this time: Mk).”

The Lord assumed that there will be a forsaking and self-denial, and this with every justification, for if men seeking reputation, advancement or power in this world are willing to make sacrifices of this nature, how much more ought the disciple of Jesus with such blessings held out to him! Indeed the division of families had already been foreseen: “three against two, and two against three; father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother in law against her daughter in law, and daughter in law against her mother in law” (Lk.12 :52,53).

The Lord’s new Levites

The Biblical allusion in the Lord’s words can easily be missed. There was a time when men of the tribe of Levi were called by Moses to disregard all personal reputation and pleasure, in order to be actively on the Lord’s side (Ex.32 :26-29). This self-consecration was commended in the Blessing of Moses: “Thy holy one (Levi) . . . who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children.. .they shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law . . .” (Dt.33 :8-10). Now the disciples, drawn from any tribe of Israel, or even from the Gentiles, were become Christ’s own tribe of Levi, joined and consecrated to the service of the new Sanctuary of God.

The emphasis on present reward—”now in this time’—points to the ecclesia as the means of heavenly recompense—hence the sequence of plurals in Mk. 10 :30. Did not Jesus himself find it needful to deny his own kin in order to draw round him a new and better family?: “Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Mk.3:35). Here, then, for the one who will set his priorities right, is the “hundredfold” by which severed human ties are made good. Many a disciple of the Lord has taken him at his word in this and has proved him abundantly true to it (cp.2Chr.25:9).

Specially noteworthy here is the Lord’s deliberate switch from “… or… or… or…” to “. . . and . . . and . . . and . . .” (see the text in Mark), thus implying that the forsaking of any of the treasured blessing in life will find recompense in God’s hundredfold gift of all that He has promised instead, albeit “with persecutions” (Mk.) Never at any time did Christ promise his followers freedom from hatred and active hostility. Indeed, in this place he almost seemed to list persecutions as one of the rewards for a faithful forsaking. There is a natural reluctance in this age of softness and ease to believe in the blessedness of persecution, yet always when the ecclesia of Christ has had to struggle against such adversity, the gain has far outweighed the loss. “The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.”

Even so, had Jesus stopped there, his promise would have been sadly incomplete. The superlative blessing is that “in the age to come he shall inherit eternal life.” Although the rich ruler had been reproved for his expectation of inheriting eternal life, as by right, the Lord now deliberately used the same word regarding the high destiny of his disciples. It is their relationship to him which makes all the difference.

Yet even they are warned against any spirit of cocksureness: “But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.” The first part of this antithesis was doubtless intended as o warning to James and John intent on the chief places in Christ’s kingdom, and to Peter, not immune from a spirit of self-righteousness (Mt.19 :27). In the spiritual life high privilege, brings high responsibility: “My brethren, benot many teachers, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment” (Jas.3 :1 RV).

But also, “many that are last shall be first,” Here is encouragement to any disciple who, despairing of his own powers of achievement in Christ, feels that he has nothing to lay before the Lord of Glory. Here also, if perchance he heard it, was a hint of hope for the young man who had just made his great refusal. He who, with his wealth and high religious standing, wos generally deemed to be one of the “first”, hod been set “last” by Jesus; but now, being “last” he might yet become “first” (Study 148).

But Jesus said “many” will be first in the world, yet last in the kingdom; first in time, and last in power and fame; first in privilege, and last in faith; first in zeal and self-sacrifice, but last in value of service given (through wrong motives). So A. B. Bruce.

Notes: Mk. 10:17-31

17.	Running. Thus, indirectly, Mk. confirms Mt’s detail that he was a young man.
18.	Why callest thou me good? Both Burgon and Plummer are very emphatic that the alternative reading in Ml, (RVm) completely ruins the sequence of thought in these verses.
19.	Thou knowest the commandments. ln Lk. the order is 7,6,8,9, and so also in Rom. 13:9 and Philo and Tertullian-in harmony with God. Alex. (LXX). There is good evidence that it was this recension of LXX which was used regularly by Paul. Here Mt. adds: “and thy neighbour as thyself” – like David and Jonathon 1Sam. 20:17?
20.	From my youth. Mt’s word neaniskos might describe a man in his thirties. Such could say “from my youth” without absurdity.
21.	Looking on him, loved him. The expression surely requires the reader to believe that Jesus made some gestured affection — putting his arm round his shoulders?
	Whatsoever thou hast. Mt’s text implies inherited wealth.
	Sell (aorist) . . . follow (cont.) One great act of renunciation to be followed by a life of ceaseless discipleship.
	Treasure in heaven. It is possible to demonstrate that Jas. l :12 is alluding to this.
22.	Here the Gosp. ace. to the Hebrews has: “But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not,”
24.	Children. It is children who find difficulty in the more profound principles of the gospel.
	Them that have riches. This Gk. perf. tense implies: They did trust in riches and still do (when they should have learned better).
	The kingdom of God. Mt. surprisingly has this phrase also (as in 12 :28;21 :31,43; 19 :24) in place of his usual “kingdom of heaven” (e.g. v.23). But why the change in these five places?
26.	Astonished out of measure This is a great chapter for studying the reactions of the Lord’s disciples: verses 10, 13, 24, 26, 32, 35, 41, 45, 52 . One wonders: Did the rich man hear any of this ensuing discussion? Note Lk. 18 :24,
28.	Peter began to say. What else was in his mind which never got said?
29.	House. Mt.: houses, with special reference to the rich young ruler. And so also lands.
30.	Cp. Rom. 16:13; 1 Cor. 4:14-17; Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 5:2; 2 Tim. l :2; Tit. l:2

So far Peter’s question: “What shall we have therefore?” was only part answered. Jesus now explained further, by the medium of a parable which was also well designed to warn Peter and the rest against asking such questions in the wrong frame of mind.

It is on occasions such as these that the sheer genius of Jesus (to put it at the very lowest level) comes out most clearly. Here, with only a second or two for “improvisation”, he coined a parable which is a masterpiece of psychological insight and crushing argument. At the same time it is the embodiment of detailed teaching concerning the Purpose of God—yet, withal, a story of simple power which a child can enjoy, albeit with some mystification. Here, in a parable designed specially for teachers and leaders in the ecclesia (1 Cor.3 :9), is inspiration, divine wisdom, which was to cover the smallest details.

Master and workers

A man with an extensive vineyard was up with the sun and out in the market place early to hire day workers. There was a speedy formal agreement on the rate for the job—a denarius, a penny, per day, as also in the story of Tobit (Tob.5 :14). Both parties satisfied, the day’s work began.

At the third hour (nine o’ clock), the employer went out to the market place once again, and found men standing around with nothing to do. ‘This is a ridiculous situation’ he commented; ‘I need workers, and you want employment. Then why are you here doing nothing? Away you go, and join the rest. There is plenty to do in my vineyard. And don’t worry about the rate of pay—I’ll see you are all right.’ Somewhat surprisingly, they took him at his word. Reading the man’s character, they trusted him. Also, they knew their own need. A few hours’ work on any sort of terms was almost an act of charity. So, without any more definite agreement than that, they started work.

At the sixth hour the same thing happened again, and at the ninth hour as well. There is no explanation as to where these men had been earlier in the day. Seeking work in another village?

Even in the last hour of the day he found others without employment. ‘Idle here all day long, and I needing all the help I can get! This is absurd,’ he said. ‘We tried to get work, and couldn’t,’ they explained. ‘Well,’ he replied, ‘lose no more time; get busy in my vineyard, and I’ll see that you have fair pay for what you do. It has been such a hot day, the others have made slow progress.’ So they joined the rest when the sun was nearly on the horizon.

Another reading of the situation—and perhaps more likely— is that it was not the urgency of the work so much as the uncaused and seemingly quixotic benevolence of the employer which dictated the development of the story.

Payment and Grumbling

The law of Moses laid down that “the wages of him that is hired shall not abide all night with thee until the morning” (Lev.19 :13). So the employer instructed his steward to pay the workers, being careful to begin with those who had been taken on last.

Here is another oddity—that the workers who on the face of things seem to be the most deserving were made to wait around the longest for their money.

To the astonishment of all those whose short stint had not even made them sweat, they found that they received pay for a full day’s work. And so too did those others who had worked for only three or six or nine hours.

The men who had put in a full day’s work, when they knew this, figured that their pay would therefore be appreciably more. ‘If yon fellow gets a penny for working only one hour, maybe we’ll have twelve pence for our twelve hours!’ But no! They received exactly the denarius that had been agreed on. This provoked no little indignation. Each one of them separately added his quota to the mounting discontent.

They went in a body to their employer and in vigorous language presented their complaint: ‘This isn’t fair. You’ve given those others a denarius for working only an hour, and in the cool of the evening too. Then we are worth a lot more. Look at all the work we’ve done—and we’ve had to put up with the blazing sun and hot wind all day long! Is this fair treatment? If they have a penny for an hour why don’t we have a good bit more?’

The man turned his back on them, and called their shop steward into his office, and with him a spokesman of the eleventh-hour group. ‘Now, comrade (how twentieth century all this was!), don’t you see that you have no case at all? The firm agreement between me and your lot was a denarius for a full day’s work—and that’s what I’ve paid you. So what are you complaining about? And if I choose to pay the others at a different rate, is that any concern of yours? It’s my vineyard, and my money, isn’t it? Now, take your pay, and go—and don’t come back! I don’t want grumblers working for me tomorrow. The others can finish the job. If I choose to do somebody a good turn, does that give you the right to accuse me of unfairness?’

So the men who were taken on last of all became permanent staff, and those who grumbled were fired. The expression: “Go thy way,” said to them, and not to the others, definitely implies this.

In these studies it has often been noted that although the parables of Jesus appear to be taken straight out of life, nearly every one of them has some feature which is not true to life. This parable of the penny is a noteworthy example. What employer of labour would dream of paying his staff on the principle which is at the very heart of this story? Not only would such a reckless precedent be ruinous to maintain, but also chaos would be created in the labour market. The man was surely storing up endless trouble for himself.

But this is not really a story of human dealings. It describes the grace of God. No better demonstration could be found of the serious mistake, so often made, of attempting to justify the ways of God to men. By human standards of judgement God is not just just, He isgracious to the point of paradox. This amazing grace of God does not chime in with human processes of reasoning (Rom.9 :21). The only thing to do is to accept it in all thankfulness. The man who cannot, or will not, had better “go his way’—he’s fired!

The Penny

When it comes to detailed interpretation t the parable, the penny presents the biggest problem. Here, disregard of the context has been a great hindrance to a tidy understanding of the parable. “The paying of the penny is a mere part of the drapery of the parable. But if a specific counterpart to it be insisted on … it is merely resurrection.” Are either of these solutions satisfactory?

After the rich ruler’s great refusal. Peter somewhat self-righteously asked: ‘And what reward do we get, Lord? We have done just what you wanted him to do!’ (Mt.19 :27). The reply of Jesus specified three kinds of reward:

1. Rulership in his Messianic kingdom. This was special for the twelve.
2. “An hundredfold” recompense for all that has been forsaken -this to be received “now in this time” (Mk. 10:30).
3. Everlasting life (Mt.19.-29).

Very evidently the penny cannot representthe first of these. The usual approach—the third-also runs into serious difficulty:

• Is it possible to imagine that any who are blessed with eternal life in Christ’s kingdom will grumble openly because others are similarly and, as they consider, undeservedly, blessed?
• Eternal life is not earned.
• The main point of the parable: “Few chosen” (v. 16). But if the penny is eternal life, they are all chosen.
• “The first last” plainly implies rejection; cp. Lk. 13:30.
• “Go thy way” is even more explicit. Sacked!

Thus, by process of elimination, one is shut up to consider the penny as representing the ssatisfaction which comes in this life from serving God. From this point of view the interpretation proceeds fairly smoothly.

It might be argued that this interpretation would call for a constant doling out of pay throughout the day. Two considerations answer this objection:

• The kind of story Jesus has chosen to tell would not allow of such a feature being included;
• It is only in the end of one’s days that the relative satisfaction springing from the service of God can be properly assessed.

Works and faith

The vineyard is the covenant God made with the people of Israel, (cp. Is.5 :l-7); the counterpart to work in it is the dutiful service which those in the covenant render to Him (Mt.21:28-31;Lk.20:9-16).

The first workers correspond to those dominated by the principle of justification by works. They serve by agreement: so much service, so much reward. (Ex. 19 :5,6). This had become the very essence of the Pharisaic attitude.

By contrast, the others made no firm agreement. They accepted the assurance: “Whatsoever is right I will give (not, pay) you.” Here is justification by faith, coupled with an honest appraisal of their own efforts as not worthy of the remuneration (unspecified) which they firmly believed would be theirs. It is not accident, surely, that the third, sixth and ninth hours are associated with the preaching of the gospel at Pentecost and to the Gentiles (Acts 2:15; 10 :3,9). This suggests that the eleventh hour workers may be intended to indicate those who come to the Truth in Christ, again by faith, in the end of these Gentile times.

The order of payment, with the last being paid first, is hardly to be given strict chronological significance, but rather is to be taken as an indication of divine preference. And it is surely significant that those who began work (by faith) during the middle of the day are not heard to grumble at the generous treatment meted out to their eleventh-hour colleagues.

The dissatisfaction of the first group of workers was designed to foreshadow Jewish reaction to the preaching of the gospel to publicans and sinners (Lk.5 :30) and to despised Gentiles, a gospel which accepted them into the ranks of God’s people on fantastically easy terms—or so it seemed to zealous Judaists, with their spiritual pride in a burden of laws and ordinances and rabbinic rules and regulations. How could people so different in spiritual discipline be reckoned as good as they?

This drastic error was due to a sublime confidence in their own worth and in their own standards of judgement. The householder, who represents God Himself, had his own ideas of true worth, and, whether the workers agreed or not, since the money paid was his, he had a right if he felt so inclined, to turn it from wages earned to a generous bonus.

Yet they all received a penny. In the service of God every man finds present satisfaction of some kind. “Godliness is profitable for this life as well as that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4 :8). Whatever a man’s motives or outlook, if he seeks to follow God’s law, there is inevitably a very real present recompense, no matter what the future may hold. Contentment of spirit, sense of achievement (for those who concentrate on justification by works), a wholesome way of life, a more balanced outlook, and even physical health and enjoyment—any or all of these may be, in greater or less degree, the fruits of a godly life, whether saving faith be much of an ingredient or not.

But when Jews, taking pride in the rigours of the Law (the burden and the heat), curtly rejected the gospel of Christ because it accepted outsiders without hard discipline and the self-dependence of Judaism, they were crudely preferring their own standards of judgment to those of the God who had revealed Himself to them. For them there was now only one final pronouncement: “Go thy way.” God has no further use for such. So once again Jesus was prophesying that Israel would become spiritually derelict.

But just as the parable implied that the others, trusting the goodness of their employer, would be kept on for further work in the days ahead, so also those who honour and please God .~>y their present faith in His grace and providence will find that, besides present satisfaction, there is much service and blessing still in store for them in the future.

Thus the last were to become the first; and the first—self-righteous Israel—were to be reckoned last. Many are called by God (as in the parable) but out of all these few only become His elect, enjoying His service for ever.

Notes: Mt. 20:1-16

6.	The eleventh hour. This is not to be interpreted with reference to those who deliberately choose to defer entering the service of Christ until near the end of their days. One suggestion is that the four groups can be equated with.
		a. Israel obsessed with justification by works, b. God-fearers in the early days of Acts, c. Gentile believers generally, d. Israel in the Last Days, at last turning to God in faith.
12.	Heat. This word describes the khamsin, the hot desert wind, so named because in some countries it blows for fifty days—March to May. This detail also vetoes the common idea that there was urgent need of workers to gel the crop in from the vineyard.
13.	Friend = comrade; s.w. 22 :12; 26:50.
14.	Take that is thine, and go thy way. The Gk. phrase is very curt and expressive. It might even imply that in a dramatic angry gesture the man had thrown his money down on the table.
15.	Is thine eye evil? appears to mean “ungenerous, niggardly” (Dt. 15 :9; Pr.23 :6).
16.	So means really “Thus, by such a development as this story describes.”
	Called The word means one who receives and accepts an invitation. Some modern versions quite unwarrantably omit verse 16b. Can the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts really be set against all the rest? – unicals, cursives, lectionaries, Fathers, early versions, all of these!

Among the closest friends of Jesus were Lazarus and his family in Bethany, just over the hill from Jerusalem. John refers to Martha and Mary as though already well-known to his readers. This is just another of the many times that he appears to assume his reader’s familiarity with the synoptic gospels (e.g. 3 :24; 6:53,70; 7:42; 20:2). Morethanthis, his mention of Mary’s anointing of Jesus rather awkwardly anticipates the narrative in the next chapter— unless, that is, he is steering his reader to the record of an earlier anointing (Lk.7 :37,38; see Study 73). The words: “wiped … feet … hair(v.2)… weeping (v.33)” all come together in that earlier narrative. Also, would John have distinguished Mary in this way, knowing that the same description belonged to another woman?

Lazarus, the brother of the two sisters, was desperately ill. The time of this sickness can be pin-pointed fairly accurately. “Master”, said the disciples, “the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?” (v.8). That expression: “of late” is really the Greek word “now” (i.e. just now, a short whileago;see21:10; cp. also 11:37), so the attempt at stoning was very recent. But that foul episode took place at the Feast of the Dedication, i.e. Christmas (10:31,22). So thedeath of Lazarus can be fairly safely placed at the beginning of January, about four months before the crucifixion.

“If only Jesus were here!” was the constant sigh of both Martha and Mary, as they saw their brother fighting his losing battle. Yet how could they send and ask Jesus to come, for they knew that he could only return to the vicinity of Jerusalem at the risk of his life.

Possible Timing

But at last they could hold back no longer. Their brother was dying. Now all help, save that of Jesus, was useless. So, very urgently, they sent a messenger to him in Peraea on the other side of Jordan. If it was a one day journey to reach Jesus, the chronology of that week goes roughly thus:

A. The messenger leaves Bethany,

B. He delivers his message.

C. He arrives back in Bethany.

D. Jesus begins the journey to Bethany.

E. He arrives, and raises Lazarus.

Then L, the time of the death of Lazarus, was very soon after the messenger left Bethany.

If Jesus was two days’ journey away, the time pattern is more probably this:

In this case Lazarus died soon after Jesus received the message.

“Lord, behold (here is urgency), he whom thou lovest is sick”. This was all that the sisters said in their message. Thus they taught all their brethren in many generations how to pray in time of dire need. It is not for the disciple to say what must be done. It is sufficient simply to tell the Lord how great the need is (cp. Jn.2 :3). The rest may be left to Him. And, as the sisters were soon to learn, the divine response is not always precisely what has been sought or expected.

Christ’s immediate rejoinder on receiving the message was: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God (ls.49 :2,5), that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.” The messenger heard these words and with great eagerness took them back to Bethany (v.40), only to find that Lazarus had already been laid to rest.

The mystification and pain of the two sisters may be well imagined. This sickness not unto death? But it was! Lazarus was dead already! The glory of God? Some would have lost faith in Jesus forthwith. But these were of finer spiritual quality. So it is not difficult to imagine them talking over every possible meaning of the Lord’s enigmatic words, as they tried to read his intention in them. Perhaps they grasped his meaning.

But time went by, and he did not appear. The fourth day I By this time corruption had surely set in. They must come to terms with their loss, and rest their hopes on the last day when, as the prophet Daniel had foretold (Dan.12 :2), the dead would be raised. What hope now that they would see their brother again before that great Day? Then, surely, and not before, the Son of God would be glorified, for had he not said: “The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live” (5 ;25)?

Yet Jesus had meant more than this. The glory of God was soon to be witnessed not only in the re-awakening of Lazarus from the sleep of death, but also in the tenacious faith of these bewildered sisters and in the unique witness which the raising of Lazarus was to make in the face of Jewish unbelief. One writer has very trenchantly said: “He will have his glory somehow in the death of every man!”

Delay

“When therefore Jesus heard that Lazarus was sick’—he set out immediately to succour him. No! “he abode two days in the same place where he was.” This is a dramatic unexpected consequence of that “therefore.” The love of Christ was testing the faith of Martha and Mary, but, as their words were to testify, he would not suffer them to be tempted above what they were able to bear (1 Cor.10 :13). Comparison may be made here with the way Jesus held lit nobleman at arm’s length when he pleaded for his sick son: “Except ye see signs and wonders,, ye will not believe . . . Lord, come down ere if child die” (Jn.4:48,49). Yet another comparison is with the tantalising, frustrating delay when Jesus was on his way to restore the daughter of Jairus—did he have to stop on the road to spend time talking to the woman who had touched hi garment to gain health and blessing (Mk.5 :22ff)?

Why did Jesus wait those two days? Knowing Martha and Mary to be on the rack, he too would feel wretched on their account, for, “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister and Lazarus” (v.5)—these words come in here to acquit him of indifference to their misery. Yet he held back-a delay that had its purpose. His prayer at the graveside: “Father, I thank thee that thou didst hear me” (v.41), implies that during that time he was praying on Lazarus’ behalf and for wisdom to do what was best in this trying situation. More than this, who knows what transcending blessings came into the lives of nameless men and women there in Peraea during those two extra days of bewildered uncertainty before Jesus set out for Bethany? In more ways than one this delayed answer to prayer was to the glory of God.

Discussion and Return

At length Jesus bade the apostles prepare for departure to Judaea. He met with immediate and sustained remonstration: “Master, of late the Jews sought to stone thee (10 :31), and goes! thou thither again?” By any standards of human judgement such a journey seemed the height of folly. So disciple might well expostulate with Teacher.

Jesus gave them one of his characteristic indirect answers: “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” It was a saying complementary to: “Mine hour is not yet come,” only with more point to it. The last Passover had marked the first mass rejection of Jesus by the people (6:60,61,66). From that time he knew for certain that only twelve months more remained to him in the days of his flesh. But until the “day” of twelve months had run its course he knew himself to be inviolate.

The disciples could hardly be expected to appreciate this, so Jesus generalised the lesson for their benefit: “If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because the light is not in him.” The disciple of Christ who lives his life in a conviction that all is under God’s control and his times in God’s hand finds that ” all things work together for good” (Rom.8 :28). But the one who does not have this “light” in himself is bound to flounder and stumble in the dark experiences of life. Before long both Judas and Peter were to prove the truth of this.

Jesus now told the twelve plainly, though not plainly enough, the purpose of the journey: “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep.” The disciples remembered the earlier dictum: “This sickness is not unto death,” and confidently assumed a completely literal meaning. Indeed, they may have concluded that, by the “remote control” that they had known Jesus to operate on other occasions, the sleep of Lazarus had been brought about by him, and that his “going” to awake him would be a similar exercise of power from a distance. So, greatly relieved that there was now no need to go to Bethany and danger, they blithely replied: “Lord, if he sleep he shall do well.” A sick man falling into a sound sleep! Isn’t it a sure sign that he is on the way to recovery? (cp. their misunderstanding in Lk.22 :36-38; Jn.4 :32-34; 14 :5,8,22; Mt. 15:15; 16:6-12)

So Jesus had to tell them bluntly: “Lazarus is dead. And (he added) I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe.” The Lord was glad because, had he got there in time, there would have been a less sensational, less convincing, restoration of the sick man. This miracle, then, was to be “for the glory of God”, not only by provoking the gratitude of Martha and Mary, not only in the higher life of Lazarus in ensuing years, not only by proving to disbelieving Jews that Jesus was the Son of God (v.45), but also in the strengthened faith of the disciples (v.15).

Coming after the earlier declarations of their faith(e.g.l:41,45;2:ll;6:69;Mt. 14:33; 16:16), these words read strangely. Yet they serve to indicate that there may be different degrees or qualities of faith. They are also a reminder of how in the finest of people faith may ebb and flow.

Loyal Thomas

“Let us go to him,” Jesus concluded, and must have been greatly heartened by the reaction of Thomas: “Let us also go that we may die with him.” Could anything be more hazardous than, a return to Jerusalem? But, argued Thomas,’ strong in loyalty, though not in faith (20 ;25,26), the least they could do was to stand by Jesus in this peril. After all, if he died, what did life hold for the rest of them? This grand affirmation of constancy and devotion might well have come from the lips of Peter. Why didn’t it? Was Peter not there at the time? The need for Thomas’s exhortation to the rest seems to imply that there was a marked reluctance among some of the twelve to face such a palpable risk. And for all his doubts, this pessimist was right, for it was the raising of Lazarus more than anything else which drove the rulers to an irrevocable decision (11 :47-53).

The names Thomas and Didymus are Hebrew and Greek for “twin” . It has been speculated that, since Lev! means “joined”, the other twin was Matthew the publican. But in this place the implication surely is that Thomas himself was twins, a kind of double personality— marvellously loyal to Jesus, yet terribly unsure.

Man’s mortal soul

It is worth while, at this point, to note the emphatic witness which this record of the death of Lazarus makes against the common assumption of the immortality of the human soul. “Let us go to him, ” Jesus said. The real Lazarus, all that there was, was in Bethany, not in heaven. Compare also “Where have ye laid him” (v.34). “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth” is a further reminder that Jesus and his apostles always speak of the death of the faithful as “sleep” (Mt. 9:24; 27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 15:6,18,20,51; 1 Th.4-.13-15). The word is meaningless if dead people are more alive than they are in this mortality. And so also is the assurance of “waking” Lazarus out of his “sleep.” The call: “Lazarus, come forth” (v.43) was addressed to the corrupting body in the tomb, not to a spirit in an unseen world. “And he that was dead came forth.” This chapter needs no reinforcement to establish the mortality of man.

Martha

As Jesus drew near to Bethany, he foresaw that the house would be crowded with mourners and sympathisers—important people (for, in this gospel, “the Jews” means the leaders of the nation). The Greek text also neatly implies that the Bethany family were regarded as important people. These mourners of consequence would be there the more readily because of an expectation that Jesus would be present.

The Lord therefore sent a messenger ahead to inform the sisters of his coming. (Or had a lookout been posted in expectation of his coming?). Apparently Martha did not pass on the news to Mary, but immediately went to meet Jesus outside the village (v.30). She greeted him with the words; “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” It was the nearest to a reproach that she could attempt. “But,” she added less directly, “I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.” The raising of Jairus’ daughter and of the widow’s son must have been known to Martha. But those had taken place within hours of death. Lazarus had been dead four days. However, such was the confidence of Martha in her Lord that even in these circumstances help might yet be possible.

The Lord’s reply of comfort was designedly ambiguous; “Thy brother shall rise again”. Was he directing her hope to the great resurrection at the end of the age, or was he preparing her mind for an immediate reward of faith?

Martha was not prepared to presume on the latter: “I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” There is evidence of much uncertainty and ambiguity in contemporary Jewish thought about life after death, so Martha’s emphatic declaration of faith had surely been learned from Jesus himself. Her confidence rested on what he himself had taught her.

Jesus now centred this re-assuring doctrine specifically on himself: “I am (i.e. now) the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” Martha’s hopes were not to be disappointed.

The balance of phrases in this saying is worth noting. For those who die before his coming in glory he is Resurrection. For those believers who live to witness his return (1 Th.4 :15,17) he is Life.

It was probably at this point that Jesus also encouraged Martha with the assurance: “If thou believest, thou shalt see the glory of God” (v.40). The first miracle Jesus wrought is called a “manifesting of his glory” (2 :11), so this was now an almost direct promise that the Power of the Father in him would succour the sisters in their distress.

In reply Martha, in a comprehensive confession of faith, declared her confidence: “Lord, I do believe. I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, the Coming One.” These familiar phrases point back to the great promise made to David (2 Sam.7), for “Christ” (Anointed) means “the promised King,” and it is in that foundation Scripture (and in Ps. 2, 89, as commentaries on it) that he is picked out as Son of God. In these prophecies also there was anticipation of the resurrection of the dead, for “when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers” is given its completion in “thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee” (7:12,16), thus plainly implying resurrection. And “his seed shall endure for ever” (89:36) has the same idea. Martha’s convictions were definite and clear.

Mary

Jesus added no more, save to bid her send Mary to him. This Martha did, taking care to communicate the message in a whisper, for among the many influential people joining in the formality of sharing their mourning were critics and enemies of Jesus.

Mary now lost no time in going out to meet Jesus, who had made no move to come to the house. Falling at his feet (see Study 74), she too confessed her grief, her need, her faith and hope: “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” How many times during the past few days had that sentiment been spoken with a sigh of sadness in that Bethany home! (but note here the force of Mt. 18:19).

There was opportunity to add little in reply, for the Jews who saw Mary leave the house had assumed that she was going to her brother’s grave and therefore followed her. Seeing Mary’s tears renewed, as a result of her meeting with Jesus, they too broke into loud conventional lamentation of an obviously artificial nature, The sharp contrast between the intense grief of his much-loved disciple and the crude insincerity of their clamour affected Jesus very strongly. A mighty surge of indignation at their hypocrisy almost mastered his deep sympathy for Mary in her bitter loss. The wave of emotion showed in his face (see the use of this word “troubled” in Jn.5 :4), and as he moved with Mary to the tomb tears came to his eyes, but whether in sorrow with the sisters, or in bitter disapproval of hypocritical mourners (cp. Lk.19 :4 1,42) it is difficult to say. The wretchedness and woe of the two sisters, the thought of his dear friend under the cold hand of death, and (very probably) the sickening plight of that nation that they should have as leaders and exemplars such false men as these who now added their caterwauling to the scene of sadness— all these things combined to produce in Jesus a tangle of emotions almost too much for his self-control. So even as he wept, he prayed (v.41,42).

Some of these Jews even broke off from their lamentations to comment repeatedly and in hostile cynical fashion: “Behold, how he loved hirn.” Even more caustic was the unbelieving mockery: “Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man (even one so sick) should not have died?”. The hostile intent of these words is surely established by Psalm 69 :10: “When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach” – with reference, naturally enough, to the miracle Jesus had recently wrought in Jerusalem (9 :6).

At the Tomb

So it was with mounting indignation that Jesus came to the sepulchre. Like the tomb in which he himself was to be laid, it was hewn out of the rock, and its entrance blocked by a mighty boulder; indeed, certain details in the Greek text might suggest that the entrance to the tomb was at the top, with a short flight of steps wining down into the interior (see Notes).

Peremptorily he called for the removal of the stone. Naturally enough, the practical-minded Martha protested; as nearest relation she had a right to protest. Lazarus was four days dead. By this time corruption could have set in (perhaps it is unwise to assume that it had).

But Jesus insisted. Had not the word brought by his messenger (v.4) bidden her: “Believe, and see the glory of God”? (cp.2:11). The Shekinah Glory of God, which had led forth captive Israelites to freedom from Egyptian bondage, now in the person of Jesus was to initiate a yet more splendid deliverance. There was no lack of willing hands to shift that ponderous boulder. Even if these influential Jewish mourners were loth to be implicated, Jesus had the twelve with him, and by this time, because the word had gone round that Jesus was come to Bethany, the entire village was gathered there (v.42).

Now, before the open tomb, Jesus stood and prayed, with eyes up-lifted to heaven. It was probably a quiet prayer, heard only by John and the few who stood close by. It was not a prayer for power. This gift had already been sought and received, probably when first the news about Lazarus had come to him: “I thank thee that thou didst hear me (in that prayer spoken earlier). I asked it then for the benefit of the multitude now standing here, that they may see and believe” (cp. Jn.12 :20). In this later prayer he now attributed the impending miracle to its Source.

Then, with a loud voice of authority (s.w. Mt.12 :19), he addressed himself to the corpse within the tomb: “Lazarus, come forth.” The tense silence and concentration of attention of all that crowd may be imagined. Then the suppressed gasp of astonishment as Lazarus himself came into view—the eerie spectacle of a living man completely enswathed in the white linen wrappings of the dead. He groped his way uncertainly into the light of day, for sight was obscured by the cloth over his face.

“Loose him, and let him go,” commanded Jesus. The reader is left wondering how many seconds elapsed before one or two bolder spirits conquered their sense of awe at the sight, and moved forward to help the risen man remove the napkin obscuring his face.

Detail upon detail combines to underline the matter-of-factness of the miracle. Wrought out of love for a lovely family, it was also for the benefit of “the multitude which standeth around.” Jesus did not know the place of interment (v.34), so there was no opportunity for any deceit. And Lazarus was four days dead (v.39), so no chance of burial mistake either. The great stone sealing the tomb’s entrance (v.38,41) was guarantee enough of an undisturbed body. Nor were the tears and prayer of Jesus the tokens of a charlatan (v.35,41,42). There was even something miraculous about Lazarus’s emergence from the cave “bound hand and foot with grave clothes” and sightless because of the covering secured over his face (v.44).

And it was of set purpose that Jesus commanded: “Loose him, and let him go”; i.e. “let him go away” (Gk.), to save him being pestered by the attentions of a curious crowd. To the end of their days those who first overcame their trepidation and set about releasing the risen Lazarus would testify emphatically that their hands handled a firm warm living body. There the whole multitude, friends and enemies alike, saw Lazarus united with his sisters, saw and heard him give praise and thanks to Almighty God and to His compassionate Son, saw him—still clad in linen wrappings—go through their midst to the familiar home whence he had been carried. Thus was the nation’s last tenuous excuse for doubt concerning Jesus finally shot to pieces.

But though doubt was gone, disbelief lived on. As always Jesus once again set the Jews into sharply defined groups. There were those, even among the nation’s leaders, who saw and believed. Others went off and vented their, antagonism in a virulent report to the Sanhedrin. “In truth (says one old commentator) death yields more readily to Christ’s power than unbelief does.”

The Seventh Sign

Why did they not believe? Jesus had given them evidence in plenty, and none more conclusive than this. It taught them not only the divine power and authority of this Man of Nazareth but also that there is hope of life after death only for those who are his friends. To these, who have believed him to be the Resurrection and the Life—to these, even though they have corrupted, he will come with the trumpet voice of authority (1 Th.4 :16): “Come forth.” And come forth they will, cumbered still with all the marks of mortality until, with o further word of power, Jesus pronounces them loosed from such disabilities.

Various other details may perhaps be fitted into this picture. For instance, as Lazarus prefigures the sleeping friends of Christ, so also Mary and Martha could represent those who are alive at his coming; and this suggests o gathering to meet the Lord not all at once but in two well-defined groups (cp. Mt.25 :1-13; Study 178). Lazarus four days dead might suggest the long 4000 years from Abraham (the first man in Scripture to be told of a glorious resurrection to the fulfilment of that promise. The raising of Lazarus caused many to believe; and—it may be safely surmised—so also will the resurrection of other friends of Jesus at the last day. But there was also a sharp reaction by others into conspiracy against Jesus. This, too, will have its counterpart (Ps.2 :1,2).

These are not the only features of the story worth examining from this angle. For this miracle was also a sign, the seventh in John’s gospel.

Notes: Jn. 11:l-44

1.	This account of the resurrection of Lazarus is designedly enclosed between two pointed allusions to the death (and resurrection) of Jesus: 10:17,18; 11 :50-52.
	Of Bethany, of the town of Mary. . . The variation in prepositions here (apo, ek) implies that Bethany was where Lazarus originated but that after his (and Jesus’) resurrection he had to cease living there (cp. 1 :45,46 Gk.)—his life being under threat?
	Mary and Martha. Everyone assumes that Mary was the younger. But it is easy to see why she is given priority here.
3.	Lovest and loved (v.5). These differing Gk. words preserve a nice decorum about Christ’s relations with this family. For the distinction see also: 15:17,19; 21 :15,16,17; Rev.3 :9,19; 1 Cor.l6:22,24.
4.	Glorified. It is difficult to find a comprehensive definition of what is meant in this gospel by the diverse uses of this word. Strong witness? With this passage cp. 9 :2,3.
9.	Other examples of the Lord’s indirect answers:2 :4,19;3 :5,10;4 :13,21; 6 :32,53; 8 :7,25,54; 10:25.
10.	Another possibility is that Jesus *vas still speaking with reference to himself and his present but not long-tasting uncertainty as to how best to cope with the problem created by the death of Lazarus.
11.	Our friend. Lazarus was evidently held in affection by all the apostles also.
12.	He shall do well. Gk: shall be saved. John with a keen eye to a double meaning sees this as signifying also; if he sleep, he shall be saved by resurrection (at the last day). Other examples: v.50; 7 :35.
13.	Spake. This word means a special divine utterance, the equivalent of “Thus saith the Lord,” in Old Testament.
16.	Fellow disciples. This one Gk. word, which comes nowhere else, is used concerning Thomas to prepare the way for his later loyalty in spite of disbelief; 20:26 (and see “Risen indeed”, ch. 17).
20.	Mary sat still in the house. The suggestion has been made that Mary was the one who had ministered to Lazarus at his end and that therefore she was now unclean through contact with the dead (Num.19 :11,12). In that case, in v.28 (and 44) the Lord was setting aside the uncleaness of death.
21.	Lord, if thou hadst been here. The presence of Jesus all-sufficient; cp.4 :49.
22.	Whatsoever thou wilt ask of Cod. Jesus had prayed openly at the healing of the blind man; 9:31.
26.	Shall never die. On this phrase see Study 112.
31.	She goeth to the grave. So the grave and Jesus were in the same direction, i.e. on the east side of the village.
33.	He groaned in the spirit. NT, LXX, Versions all use this word in the sense of indignation, anger, severity. There is no single example of it meaning lamentation.
34.	Where have ye laid him? Here and in v. 17 (“found”) are signs of limitations in the knowledge of Jesus.
39.	Take ye away the stone. The verb here and in v.41a is the same as v.41b: Jesus “lifted” up his eyes to heaven. Also, in v.38 “a stone lay upon it,” not “before it” (in 20 :2; Mt.28 :2 the details are different).
44.	He that was dead. This perfect participle might imply that it was as a corpse that Lazarus came out of tomb (cp. ls.26:19).
	Other details in the symbolism which attract attention are: the two days’ delay, the wailing of the Jews, the indignation of Jesus, and his prayer at the graveside.

Jesus had raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, and he had done it before a great crowd of witnesses, many of whom were influential Jews from Jerusalem. It was a deliberate challenge to the leaders of the nation to face the unshakeable truth that he was “the Messiah, the Son of God, the Coming One” (11 :27). It was on appeal to them to yield him the loyalty he had a right to command.

The immediate effect of the miracle was to intensify that division amongst the Pharisees which had been evident when the blind man was healed (9 :16). For some it meant conviction and a decision, taken with reluctance (12 :42), that the claims of Jesus were true. But the majority with growing hostility, were driven into alliance with their enemies the Sadducees.

Now, for the first time, the Sadducee chief priests were seriously concerned by the activities of this Nazarene—and for very good reason: the raising of Lazarus had shattered one of their chief dogmas, that there is no resurrection.

“What do we?” they kept on asking with a rather pathetic stubborn bewilderment, “for this man doeth many signs.” By calling the Lord’s miracles “signs” they admitted to one another what nothing would have constrained them to confess in public. The husbandmen were even now saying: “This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours” (Lk.20:14). Or were they falling back on the Scripture (Dt.13 :l-32) which bade Jewish rulers discard the man whose “signs” seemed indisputable but whose moral teaching was palpably wrong? As though that could give them any comfort regarding Jesus! Yet the command there (v.5) to put such a miracle-worker to death evidently became the springboard for their next decision about Jesus (v.53). The irony of it!—for if that Scripture had been properly applied, what would have happened to them? (cp. also Ps.28:4,5).

Amid their puzzlement one thing was clear: action of some kind must be taken against Jesus of Nazareth: “If we let him thus alone (contrast Acts 5 :38), all men will believe on him. And the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” The “place” they spoke of was the temple (see Notes). Both it and the people of Israel were theirs, forsooth, to minister to their self-importance and pride!

They feared that the rising fervour of the people regarding Jesus might lead to insurrection against the Romans. This in turn would bring repressive measures and the temple, the centre and focus of all their influence and power, would be destroyed.

All this was alarmist, for they knew right well that if violence did flair up it would be in spite of and not because of Jesus. And when, during the next three months the Barabbas insurrection took place (Lk. 23 :19), there was violence and bloodshed (Lk.13 :l-5?) but no holocaust.

Or these men may have contemplated the possibility of Herod and themselves being removed from power so that the Romans might use Jesus, the son of David, as a puppet king of the Jews. To give the people a king descended from David would be a very popular move. It is not unlikely that the Roman authorities, knowing the pacific character of Jesus, had considered using him in this way. But if the Jewish rulers had such fears, they were ill-founded. Is it possible to imagine Jesus co-operating in such a scheme?

The prophet Caiaphas

The Sadducee high priest, Caiaphas (Cephas), addressing himself to a Sanhedrin which was predominantly Pharisee, broke into the perplexed discussion with a rough hectoring speech: “Ye know nothing at all, nor consider (s.w. Is.53 :4) that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” (cp. Ps.140 :9; 57 :6). These words “people, nation” were specially appropriate. In LXX the former means “Israel, God’s own people”, and the latter means “Gentiles.” Thus the prophet Caiaphas unconsciously referred to those, for whom Christ was to die, as the elect, and the Jews as a cast-off Gentile race.

“It is expedient for us”— no charge against Jesus was possible, but only this expediency, the policy of the politician in every generation. Here was Caiaphas, a shrewd, far-sighted man (humanly speaking), putting the alternatives before them with stark realism: either this Jesus dies or he will bring the whole of Jewry crashing down in indescribable disaster.

This is what he meant, but John the apostle, whose spiritual insight into the meaning of events is for ever taxing the power of his purblind readers, saw it differently: “This spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.” On this Wordsworth comments: “Jewish prophecy expires with a prophecy of Jesus on its lips”.

Clearly, to John the death of Jesus “for that nation” meant something much more profound than it did to Caiaphas. John’s interpretation was right, for the crucifixion of Jesus meant assurance, security, life for any of that nation who had the faith to accept him as such. And Caiaphas was wrong. For Jesus died as Caiaphas planned that he should, and as a direct consequence of that the Romans did come and take away their “place” (the temple) and their nation.

Pilate’s policy of expediency worked out the same way. “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend.” So he did not let this Jesus go, and as a result today the Nazarene is heir to the throne of Caesar. And it made things no better for Pilate. His term of office ended in disgrace—he was not Caesar’s friend. Thus “He that sitteth in the heavens” handles human scheming, and unregenerate men never learn the lesson.

But John had learned, and—perhaps unconscious of the unerring guidance behind his pen—he wrote of the unerring guidance in the tongue of Caiaphas: “being high priest that year he prophesied!”.

As God used the wilful Balaam to speak forth words of truth and soberness, so He could equally well make Caiaphas ben Machiavelli the mouthpiece of an inspired oracle.

There need be no difficulty here, for not infrequently God has used men to speak His truth without their being aware of it. Caiaphas’s rending of his high-priestly robes; Pilate’s notice affixed to the cross of Jesus; the words of Darius to Daniel about to be thrown to the lions: “Thy God … He will deliver thee” (Dan. 6 :16); Rabshakeh’s warning against Jewish reliance on Egypt (2 Kgs. 18 :21)— true prophecies, all of them!

High Priest that year

The difficulty still remains as to what connection this might have with Caiaphas being high-priest that year! It cannot be for nothing that John writes the fact three times.

A prophet is one who communicates the will of God to the people. The only prophecy that Caiaphas could make as high priest was the duty which fell to him that year, as it did each year by virtue of his office—the decision on the Day of Atonement, by casting lots, which goat should be slain as the sin offering for the people (Lev,16:8).

Thus John bids his readers see Jesus identified by God’s high priest as the true sacrifice for the sins of the people, and through that sacrifice the end of the temple and also the end of Israel as a people of special privilege. But he is not content to stop there: “And not for that nation only but also that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.”

One scrutinises the words of Caiaphas in vain for some pronouncement capable of bearing this kind of meaning to the insight of the apostle, The high priest may have added in his speech something else to this effect: ‘The death of this Jesus is in the interests of both parties-Pharisees and Sadducees; and of course by it our brethren dispersed through the empire will be saved also (because it is the temple that holds them together); also there will be a smile of favour from the Romans because through our prompt action upheaval throughout the country has been avoided. In this way the whole nation will not perish (at the hands of the Romans, but instead through one man’s death Jews and Romans can be friends together).’ On reflection this seems to be a fairly obvious argument for Caiaphas to add in his attempt at persuading the Council to unite in decisive action against Jesus.

Such an argument would be immediately susceptible of the very different kind of interpretation which John implies in his comment: “gathering together in one both Jews and Gentiles.”

But how could this link up with Caiaphas’s work of prophecy as high priest that year? The answer appears to be supplied by an important detail in the Law of Moses: the Day of Atonement ritual, and in particular the fast which was its outstanding feature, was binding upon all, “whether it be one in your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you (Lev. 16:29).

Thus the Day of Atonement sacrifice “gathered together in one” both Jews and Gentiles, and the one sacrifice picked out by prophecy of the high-priest sufficed to cover (the sins of all.

Ephraim ministry

Very differently, evil men in Jerusalem who should have been humbling themselves before Jesus, coolly decided that to suit their self-interest he must die. It was a situation which had arisen directly from the raising of Lazarus. Thus, with beautiful symbolism, close connection is made between the death of Christ and the resurrection of his friends.

And Jesus knew of their scheming, either through the wisdom and insight that was in him, or because warning reached him from some secret sympathiser in the Sanhedrin. So he withdrew from Jerusalem to a remote place beyond the Jordan (or, as some think, 13 miles north of Jerusalem). And apparently he took Lazarus with him, for his life was now under threat also (12 :10,11—and note that v.9 implies his absence until Passover week).

In the way in which John reports this move to the country it is possible to see his symbolic mind still at work: “Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews (the withdrawing of Jewish opportunity to hear the gospel), but he went thence into the (Gentile) wilderness, into a city called Ephraim (“Fruitful”), and there he continued with his disciples.” The allusion to Ephraim is specially significant as recalling the prophecy which the patriarch Jacob made concerning Joseph’s younger son, foreshadowing the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s chosen people: “the younger brother shall be greater, and his seed shall become the fulness of Gentiles” (Gen.48 :19; Rom. 11 -.25). Ephraim was also the beginning of the end for those who rejected David’s right to be king in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 18 :6).

There is a gap of some two or three months between verses 54, 55, and then comes more of this symbolism. John paints a brief but vivid picture of the build-up of excitement in Jerusalem (11:55,56) when “the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand.” Moses had taught them to call it: “the Lord’s passover” (Lev. 23 :2,5), but the rejection of Jesus meant the rejection of their devotions (Is. l :24).

The Passover pilgrims who were early in the holy city to ensure their ceremonial cleansing before the feast talked eagerly in the crowd about Jesus. They were quite sure in themselves (Gk. ou me) that after what had happened he would not risk coming to Jerusalem, the more so since there had been public proclamation that any man knowing of his whereabouts must lay information with the rulers. This policy may have been the chief priests’ plan to scare Jesus away from the capital. On the other hand, one scholar has suggested that Jesus had been formally condemned to death in absentia and that by the time Passover came round the legal period of forty days (according to the Talmud) for making a rebuttal of the charge had expired. This interesting suggestion lacks full support, and is not easy to harmonize with the insistence on a full legal trial of Jesus when he was arrested.

The remarkable thing is that although there was now a price on the head of Jesus no one did betray him until at last his own familiar friend handed him over to his enemies.

Notes: Jn. 11:45-57

45.	The Jews which come to Mary. Why to Mary and not Martha?
47.	What do we? Not: What should we do? The implication is: See what amazing things he does; and we do nothing.
48.	Thus seems to allude back to 10 :39, when they had allowed (sic!) Jesus to escape them.
	All men will believe on Him. They speak as though this would be the crowning disaster.
	Place. Compare the common Old Testament usage of “place” (maqom) for “sanctuary” or “altar”; e.g. Gen.22 :3,4,9,14; 28 :11-19; Dt.12 :11-21; Ps.24 :3; 26 :8; 132 :5; ls.60 :13; 66 :1 etc. Also, Acts 6 :14; 7:33,49;21 :28.
49.	One of them. This unusual and emphatic Gk. phrase is really a Hebraism meaning: the outstanding man among them.
50.	One man should die. Gk: mello means either (a) ‘is about to’, or (b) ‘he is destined to’, i.e. this is the will of God— another detail in this unconscious prophecy.
51.	He prophesied. And so also did Isaiah, concerning this very situation: 28 :14-22 (some of the details are difficult).
52.	Gather together . . . scattered. Consider here the remarkable fitness of Hos.l :11: “gathered together . . . scattered;” Is.49 :5,6; “Israel not gathered . . . Gentiles;” cp. Rom.9 :26.
54.	Jesus therefore. This makes a definite link with v.53.

At this point in his narrative, and with no apparent connection with what had gone before, Luke brings together three self-contained sections about Christ’s coming again:

1. 17:20,21. The Pharisees’enquiry about the coming of the Kingdom,
2. 17 :22-37. Details, nearly all of them paralleled in the Olivet prophecy, given to the disciples about the second coming,
3. 18 :l-8. Prayer for the second coming.

Since by this time the claims of Jesus had split the Pharisees into two parties—those bitterly hostile, and those vaguely and tentatively sympathetic—the question: “When does the Kingdom of God appear?” can be taken in two quite different senses. The first group would certainly put their enquiry in a mocking cynical spirit. The others would be sincere enough, even though not altogether convinced.

Happily this ambiguity does not affect seriously the meaning of the Lord’s answer, which in its own right is problematical enough.

These Pharisees asked: “When is the kingdom coming?”, their present tense indicating a real excitement or feigned scepticism about the possibility that Jesus would at any time now proclaim himself king of the Jews.

“With observation”

The Lord’s immediate answer asserted baldly: ‘There is to be no kingdom of that sort now—”The Kingdom of God is not coming (i.e. just now) with observation.”

But what did Jesus mean by that expression “with observation”? There is more than one possibility here:

1. “As you look eagerly for it.”
2. “Accompanied by signs provoking eager observation.”
3. “As you look for it in critical and hostile spirit.”

The second of these gets some support from the Greek preposition meta. The third is suggested by the use of the verb pamtereo in a hostile sense (in five passages out of six; Lk.6 :7; 14 :1; 20 :20; Mk.3 :2; Acts 9 :24).

“The kingdom within you”

But then followed one of the Lord’s most mysterious sayings: “The kingdom of God is within you.” Modern interpreters nearly all take this to mean the rule of Christ in men’s hearts. But is it conceivable that Jesus would say this to Pharisees of any type?

An alternative, made to depend entirely on a phoney reading in the Emphatic Diaglott is; “God’s royal majesty (in the person of Jesus) is in the midst of you.” Here “in the midst of” is distinctly possible but not inevitable. But “royal majesty” (for “kingdom”) is quite without adequate support.

Then what was Jesus saying? Possibly this- that just as Israel at Sinai was called God’s kingdom (Ex. 19:5,6), so now the Lord’s disciples, the New Israel, were the kingdom of God in the midst of a Jewry which did not recognize them as such.

Alternatively, this saying can be read as a striking example of the dramatic present. This idiom (in such passages as Acts 10 :11; Jn.12:8; Mt. 10:20; 26:2; 24:20 Gk; Mk. 9:2) imparts a degree of urgency or sense of suddenness into a statement where normally a past or future tense would be used. In that case the idea is: ‘All at once, when you are not aware, the kingdom is here, it has come to the complete surprise of people like yourselves, but not catching my disciples unawares (v.22-37).’

“Pray and not faint”

A very impressive idea binds together the various parts of this 18th chapter of Luke: that it is not the self-righteous Pharisee (v. 11) whose plea is heard, but those who persist in prayer (v.1-8), and such as the humble publican (v.l3 and babies (v. 15) and the blind (v.35) and those who are ready to leave all (v.22)—these are the people who have God’s ear.

Only rarely do the gospels explain, either in the words of Jesus or by way of commentary the aim and purpose of the Lord’s parables. This parable about the widow is an outstanding exception. Jesus told it “to the end that that ought always to pray and not to faint.” But this is only half the explanation, for at its conclusion Jesus provided an even more pointer application.

This parable is also an exception in another respect. Jesus quarried many of his parables from the Book of Proverbs, but this one comes from the Apocrypha! —Ecclesiasticus 35 :17-19 Quite half a dozen of the Lord’s phrases are traceable there.

“Pray always,” he said. How often is that? Jesus defined this incessant prayer as “crying flight and day unto God.” The lesson of the Law of Moses regarding this is clear and plain. Incense was to be burned morning and evening in the Holy Place before the Lord (Ex.30 :7,8). Daniel and David prayed three times a day (Dan.6 :10; Ps.55 :17). But by “always” Jesus also meant never abandoning this pertinacious seeking of help from God. And since this parable is about the Second Coming (as will be seen by and by) there is surely an implication here that the Lord’s return could happen (could have happened) at any time (note Lk.21 :36; Mk.l3:33).

The parable also describes the quality of the prayer—not the flat uninspired repetition of routine phrases, but an earnest intense persistence like that of this poor woman who knew her own need and who was convinced that help could come from one person and from him only.

It is necessary (Gk: dei) that disciples of Jesus pray like this. And it is equally necessary that they never flag or become discouraged. The antithesis: “to pray and not to faint,”’ is a plain declaration that prayer is strength, (cp. v.39,42), and non-prayer is weakness, fainting. The examples provided by the Canaanitish woman and by blind Bartimaeus show that importunity is more than just psychological in its value and power.

Unjust Judge

How well the character of this hard unprincipled judge is sketched in a mere few words. The judges of Israel were bidden remember that “ye judge not for man, but for the Lord … Wherefore let the fear of the Lord be upon you.” There must therefore be “no respect of persons” (2 Chr. 19:6,7). But this unscrupulous fellow feared neither God nor man; and he took pride in the fact. In truth he could hardly have been less suitably qualified for his judicial office. This comes out even more dearly in his soliloquy. His reason for at last taking notice of the poor widow’s plea was neither compassion nor devotion to the principles of justice but sheer personal dislike of the ceaseless pestering he was subject to: “Because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me’—a strange form of ‘respect of persons’! The expression he used so very sardonically really means: “give me a black eye” (same word: 1 Cor. 9:27; and for idea, cp. Mt. 15:23), but was probably intended figuratively, rather like the more modern word “browbeat.”

But this wearing down of the judge’s indifference was not easily achieved. The Greek verbs imply that the widow kept on coming to him, and he kept on turning her away. None would be more surprised than the widow and her adversary at the judge’s sudden willingness to put the case through. It has been well observed that, by contrast, the Righteous Judge is “wearied only when we are silent.” (For other examples of importunity, see Lk. 18:39,42; Mt. 9:27-29; 15:22-28; Mk. 4:38, but also 2 Cor. 12:8).

Second Coming

The conclusion of the parable makes very plain that the Lord designed it not with general reference to any and every personal need presented before God with importunity, but with special application to certain special circumstances—the suffering and need of God’s people in the Last Days. The discourse leading up to this parable (17 :20-37) is all about the Lord’s second coming; the parable itself is introduced with the phrase: “And he went on to say . . .”; and fts conclusion is this: “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” So the primary reference of this vivid little parable must be to a situation at the end of this age. And since Jesus meant to teach that “men ought always to pray” for Messiah’s coming, he implies that the Lord’s return could have happened, and yet can happen, at any time, and not just at some predetermined calendar date (cp. “always” in 21:36).

It is usual to emphasize that in telling this story Jesus was using the argument a fortiori (as in Mt.7 :11). If ceaseless importunity can cause even a hard selfish unprincipled judge to take notice, how much more readily will the counsels of heaven be influenced in the last great hour of need by intense persistent pleading to ‘he gracious God of heaven!

Reference to Israel

This approach is hardly adequate. Certain Old Testament passages show that Jesus deliberately framed the details to provide a marvellously appropriate picture of God’s relations with the people of Israel. “A judge of the widows is God in his holy habitation” (Ps.68 :5). And Israel cast off is described by the prophets as a widow: “How is Jerusalem become as a widow, she that was great among the nations and princess among the provinces” (Lam.l :1). And in the time of her restoration she is comforted: “Thou shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more” (ls.54 :4).

More than this, throughout the long period of Israel’s casting off and scattering among the Gentiles, the God who made His rich promises to the fathers must have seemed to generations of persecuted Jews rather like a judge with the power to “avenge them of their adversaries” but who has nevertheless almost cynically held off from sending the help due to them. To them he has appeared not to follow His own declared principles of fair and kindly judgment; an unjust judge, in fact (cp. Mk.4 :38).

The language of the bewildered prophet Jeremiah as he appealed to God to fulfil the early assurances of immunity from disaster is almost an anticipation of the Lord’s parable and of Israel’s calamitous experiences among the nations: “O Lord . . . remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors; take me not away in thy longsuffering (that is, God’s toleration of the prophet’s wicked adversaries) … thou hast filled me with indignation. Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? Wilt thou be altogether unto me as a deceitful vision, and as waters that are not sure (a mirage in the desert)?” (15:15,18).

In the parable the widow’s plea: “Avenge me of mine adversary,” has baffled the commentators, so that in desperation they (and quite a few modern translators with them) have tried to make the word mean: “do me justice.” But in truth this Greek root means “avenge”, and nothing but that, in fifteen other New Testament passages.

It may be doubted, with some justification, whether the Jews have at any time in their tragic history bombarded heaven with importunate prayers for help, like the widow in the parable. That time is still to come, in the last days, when a stricken Israel, beaten to her knees by the terror and triumph of a host of enemies, will turn in desperation from an age-long self-reliance to a pitiful agonizing plea to the God of Abraham. Then, and not till then, will God really “avenge his elect, which cry day and night unto him (cp. Acts 26 :7), though he is longsuffering (with the God-less nations) regarding them” (cp. Is.40 :27; Ps.68 :5). And then, He will avenge them speedily (2 Pet.3:9). There is a seeming contradiction between this word “speedily” and the widow’s sustained importunity, for clearly she did not get a response at first asking. In the application of the parable to Jewry in the Last Days the difficulty evaporates. Through the centuries there has been long drawn-out Jewish need, apparently ignored, But when there is repentance in Israel, if only in a minority, then God will act speedily (Mt.24 :22; see “The Time of the End”, HAW, Ch.2).

Isaiah has two powerful passages which chime in perfectly with this interpretation: “Judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off … Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. . . therefore his arm brought salvation … he put on garments of vengeance for clothing . . . fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies…” (59 :14-18). “Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate. I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that are the Lord’s remembrancers, keep not silence, and give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth . . . say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh” (62:4,6,7,11).

Yet there is something very wistful about Christ’s last comment on his own parable: “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith in the Land?” —as who should say: “If there is a faithful remnant among the chosen people in that day, it will surely be onlya remnant!”

Notes: Lk. 18:1-8

3.	Avenge me. But judges do not dispense vengeance. Here is another instance of a parable not being true to life.
4.	For a while. Lit: upon a time. The same sort of “time” as in Dan. and Rev.? Note again the application of this parable to Jewry.
	Afterward. Lit: after these things. What things? The events of ch. 17?
5.	This widow troubleth me. Here prayer has effect because it is urgent; in the next parable (v.13), because it is humble.
	She weary me. The Just Judge is wearied only when His people are silent. Other examples of God’s desperate for help: 2 Pet.3 :9,15; Rev. 6 :10; Ps.74 :10; 94 :3; Jn.ll :4; Mt.14 -.24,25.
7.	Which cry unto him. A loud cry of need: Jas.5 :4;Gen.4 :10.
	Longsuffering. A word used always in a good sense; 2 Pet.3 :9; Ecclesiasticus 35 :22 (and context).