It would appear that during most of the last year in the Lord’s ministry there was a concerted move to deny Jesus any opportunity of preaching in the synagogues. In the gospel record of this period the Lord’s synagogue preaching is mentioned only this once. And in this instance the ruler of the synagogue and a number of the congregation were hostile. So perhaps this occasion was deliberately laid on so that they might have occasion against him (cp. 14:1 ff). And so it transpired.

A fine character

There was present an afflicted woman who for eighteen long years had suffered from serious curvature of the spine, brought on probably by collapse of several vertebrae. For all this time the poor woman was scarcely mobile. Bent nearly double, she could look straight forward only with extreme difficulty. To lift her gaze to heaven was a stark impossibility. “She was completely bent—to the limit—and could not lift herself up.”

Yet she was present in the synagogue. It was a mark of her unflagging piety that she should attend for worship and instruction in spite of all’ the discouragement and difficulty of her disability. Yet, since she must have heard of the marvels wrought by Jesus, it is impossible that she was present without some hope that his compassion and power might be exercised on her behalf.

This hope was speedily realised. Although in her bent posture she was less than ordinarily conspicuous in the crowded synagogue, Jesus caught sight of her and, interrupting his discourse, he called out to her to come to him. It was not easy for her to do this, and she doubtless felt very self-conscious, but Jesus waited patiently, whilst in complete silence all the multitude fastened eyes on the two of them.

Healing

“Woman,” he said in that tone of compassion the twelve had heard so often, “thou hast been loosed from thine infirmity.” But she remained there in a compulsory posture of obeisance before him. Why should Jesus speak thus in the past tense when it was evident for all to see that she was still in the grip of her terrible affliction? Was it because he had in mind certain prophetic Scriptures which had told beforehand that he would do such a wondrous thing?: “I will make the crooked straight.” So from the Lord’s viewpoint the miracle was as good as accomplished.

Then he laid his hands on her, and forthwith the wonder happened, in the sight of them all. Slowly but certainly the bent frame came erect. A pair of excited eyes now looked for the first time into the eyes of Jesus and spoke her thanks. Then, with head uplifted as not before for many a year, she uttered her spontaneous prayer of praise and gratitude to heaven. And kept on, so the Greek implies. Rather remarkably, the Hebrew word for “crooked” (ls.45 :2) also means “glorify” (v.13). “The Lord raiseth them that are bowed down.” She openly acknowledged that it was through Jesus that God had worked in her.

Contention

Then came sharp anticlimax. The ruler of the synagogue, too much in awe of Jesus to reprove him directly, administered his snub through the multitude. Addressing them, he said roughly: ‘There are six days in the week suitable for this kind of thing. If you want to be healed, leave it for one of those days, instead of desecrating the sabbath.’ This was not only blatant insincerity, but also rank insolence, directed very obviously at Jesus.

The Lord promptly exposed the falsity of the criticism. Even their extreme Sabbatarianism allowed them to unloose an animal and lead it to watering On the holy day, when it had been tethered for only a few hours. Here was no animal but a daughter of Abraham, with the faith of Abraham; and she suffering grievously, not just for a few hours but for eighteen long years. Then how wrong if the sabbath could help the beast but not such as herself! The Lord’s “ought not-?” is really “is it not necessary that—?”. He was arguing that this healing was not just normally permissible but a more imperative.

In advancing this counter argument, Jesus-according to some manuscripts—used the plural: “Hypocrites!” And this seems to be supported by the added comment: “All his adversaries were put to shame.” This suggests that Jesus had been given use of the synagogue in the expectation that in his discourse his critics would soon be given more than enough grounds for sweeping censure of him. In other words, the ruler of the synagogue had been party to an arrangement which, it was hoped, would end in the Lord’s undoing. Instead, the official and those of his kidney were discomfited (according to the prophecy of Messiah in Isaiah 41 :11), but “all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things (more healings) that wen done by him.”

How “bound by Satan?”

To some readers of this incident there is difficulty in the description of this woman’s disability as “having a spirit of infirmity” and as being “bound by Satan”. The explanation advanced earlier (in Studies 30 and 84) regarding the casting out of unclean spirit seems to be adequate in this case also. The suggestion was that Jesus acquiesced in the use of demoniac phraseology because it came fairly near to the real truth. Not only the good that men experience but also that which they readily describe as “evil” is under the control of the angels of God; hence the Psalmist’s phrase: “angels of evil” (78:49).

Thus this woman’s affliction had been brought about by such an angel, called by Jesus: “Satan”, because—like Job’s angel Satan – he was apparently her adversary. And the phrase “spirit of infirmity” signified “the angel who had caused her infirmity”. From this point of view, this and similar miracles become tremendously significant, for they are now seen as open demonstrations of the ultimate authority of Jesus over the angels and also as tokens of his ultimate removal of all need for the kind of activity which these “angels of evil” have been occupied with through human history.

An acted parable

There may be yet further symbolism behind this power, wonder and sign wrought in the synagogue. The poor woman, bowed down under her affliction, is readily seen as a picture of the people of Israel suffering under the burden and bondage of the Law. As she could in no wise lift up herself, so also Israel found salvation by their own efforts to be an impossibility. And this continued all through the long period Messiah was coming to open manifestation (the hidden years, 12-30). Yet those in Israel who were called to Jesus and responded were made free from the Law and glorified God for the blessing they now experienced. Corresponding to the laying on of hands by Jesus is the direction of the Holy Spirit in the early church. The woman was called by Jesus “a daughter of Abraham.” How well this phrase fills out her character! (cp. 19 :9; and contrast 13: 25d, 28). She was in the synagogue to be instructed by Jesus; called by him, she came at once, in spite of difficulty; healed, she immediately gave God thanks. Hers was a justification by Abrahamic faith such as all Jewry needed to learn. The criticism by the ruler of the synagogue has its counterpart in the bitter opposition of the Jewish leaders to the early church. And the miracle happened on the sabbath day because “he that is entered into God’s rest hath ceased from his own works” (Heb. 4 :10), that is, from all attempts to work out his own justification. Other details, such as the fact that the woman did not, could not, see Jesus in person until after being healed, and the glorifying of God by the multitude, are also worth considering.

As a parable it is complete in most essentials.

In harmony with this, there seem to be remarkable similarities of idea and phrasing between this episode and Isaiah 45, as though bidding the reader of that prophecy see it as an anticipation of the gospel.

	Isaiah 45		Luke 13
2. 23.	The crooked straight. Every knee shall bow (and 46:2).	11.	Bowed together.
17.	World without end.	11.	To the uttermost.
46:1.	LXX: ekluo (perf).	12. 13.	apoluo (perf.). Glorified God.
25.	LXX: Shall glorify.	17.	Glorious things.
13.	My captives (Heb: my bound ones).	16.	Whom Satan hath bound.
16,24	Put to shame.	17.	Put to shame.
11.	The work of my hands.	13.	Laid hands on her.
11.	My sons.	16.	Daughter of Abraham
22.	Look unto me, and be ye saved	13.	Made straight.
24.	To him shall they come	24.	Come and be healed.
20.	Assemble yourselves (LXX: sunago).	14.	The synagogue.

Notes: Lk.l 3:1 0-1 7

10.	On the sabbath. Verse 10 could mean “for several sabbaths”. The word is plural in v.10, but singular in v. 14, 15, 16.
11.	Bowed together. This Gk. word conies in only one place in LXX: “Being bowed down in the face, I groan” (Job 9: 27 LXX). It was a Satan-angel who brought this on Job.
15.	His ox or his ass. The rabbis said that on the sabbath a man might draw water but not carry it to the beast.
16.	A daughter of Abraham. Cp. v. 25, 28; 19:9; Jn. 8:33,39.
	Lo. The force of this is: “for 18 years, don’t forget!”
17.	Glorious things Cp. Jn.2:11; 11:40; Mk 2:12; s.w. Ex.15:l.

There is no indication in the gospels as to how long the preaching mission of the Seventy lasted. It must have continued for several weeks at least, possibly for two or three months, yet Luke’s record gives no hint of such a gap.

When they did return, it was in a state of great exhilaration. Success beyond anything they had anticipated had attended their efforts. “Lord, the demons also are subject unto us through thy name.” But Jesus had bidden them “heal the sick” (Lk.10 :9). So, apparently, “demon”= “sickness” (see Study 30). Their “also” probably implies: “Besides the message making its impact.” What a contrast here with the sorry occasion when crestfallen apostles were driven to ask: “Why could not we cast out the demon?” (Mt. 17:19).

The Lord of lightning

The comment made by Jesus was one of his most enigmatic: “I was beholding Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.” What did he mean? The enthusiasm of “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and such like for reading this as an allusion to a superhuman Devil being cast out of heaven may safely be ignored. The context has nothing to do with such an event (which never happened, anyway). And the tenses would require that this “Satan” was already fallen even before Christ’s work was fully accomplished.

That word “lightning” provides a clue to an unexpected Old Testament allusion. Judges 1:3-7 describes the first onslaught by individual tribes of Israel in their efforts to secure their inheritances in the Land. Judah and Simeon combined in a campaign against Adoni-bezek, “the lord of lightning.” This tyrant ruled with rigour over the sheiks of no less than seventy towns and villages in that area. The men of the two tribes now joined forces to chase him out of his stronghold, capture him, and mete out to him the identical treatment he had proudly decreed for others.

This “Lord of lightning,” with seventy princes in thrall is an apt figure of human sin and ignorance holding dominion over all the nations of the world (seventy of them in Genesis 10; twelve wells and seventy palm trees at Rephidim; seventy bullocks offered in sacrifice at the Feast of Tabernacles). As Jesus sent out his seventy in twos, so also a typical two, Judah and Simeon, laboured together to break the power of the tyrant. They routed him in the place of his strength, hunted him down, and he came to his end at Jerusalem! In his mind’s eye Jesus saw all this happening even whilst the seventy were busy at work.

A difficult allusion

Besides this vigorous type of redemption there are also other possibilities. Since the Lord’s ‘Satan’ reference came immediately after the mention of demons, it may be that, on the lines of the interpretation in Study 30, Jesus intended an allusion to God’s Angel of Evil (as in Ps.78 :49). Note:

• Satan in Job 2 is an angel.
• The phrase “from heaven” can now be taken almost literally.
• “Lightning” is mentioned in Mt. 28:3; Lk. 24:4; Rev. 4:5.
• The “power” of the enemy. This very common Greek word nearly always describes divine power, the Holy Spirit.
• “Spirits subject unto you” (v.20). This approach to a by no means easy problem has at least the recommendation of keeping close to a literal interpretation.
• Psalm 8 :5: “a litle lower than the angels” (see below).

Interwoven with these unusual ideas are others, equally unexpected, in a series of allusions to one of Isaiah’s prophecies.

	Isaiah 14		Luke 10
13.	I will ascend unto heaven.	15.	Capernaum… exalted to heaven.
15.	Thou shalt be brought down to hell.	15.	Shall be thrust down to hell.
12.	Lucifer (shining).	18.	Satan as lightning.
29.	Out of the serpent’s root a cockatrice.	19.	Tread on serpents and scorpions.
32.	The messengers of the nation … the poor of his people.	17.	The seventy returned with joy … ye that labour and are heavy laden (Mt. 11 :28).
3.	The Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow.		I will give you rest.
25.	Then shall his yoke . . . and his burden depart from off their shoulders.		My yoke is easy and my burden is light.

These points of contact between two very dissimilar Scriptures can hardly be written off as accidental. In Isaiah Lucifer is the king of Babylon-Assyria. In the Lord’s discourse Satan is heedless Capernaum or God’s angel of evil hardening the hearts of the wise and prudent (there might be room for both ideas). But why should Jesus choose to allude at all to this Isaiah prophecy?

Was he saying, in effect: See how overweening pride brought that heathen king low when he set himself against the Truth of God; and now complacent Capernaum goes fast to the same fate. Then let the disciples take warning from these examples. Is high success in their preaching to turn zeal into pride, and so bring a like fate?

As counterpoise to this warning Jesus gave also a promise of yet further success: “Behold, I have given you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Both the tenses here imply continuing achievement in the work. Indeed the figure of speech-“serpents and scorpions”-suggests a conquest of evil like their Master’s for was it not written concerning him: “Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder; the young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet” (Ps.91 :13)? Possibly, also, a reminder of Moses’ exhortation: “The Lord thy God led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought . . .” (Dt.8 :15). In that case the context provides a pointed warning against personal pride in God-given powers.

It may be, however, that with the allusion to “babes” which came in the lord’s prayer of thanksgiving there is here also deliberate reference to Isaiah’s gracious symbolic picture of Messiah’s kingdom: “The sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den” (Is.ll :8). If this is correct, Jesus was intimating a wonderful experience in conquering the power of sin with the message of the gospel before ever that conquest is completed in the full glory of the kingdom.

Certainly the Lord was implying that, in a lesser sense, his preachers were to share in the crushing of the head of the serpent with a heel which would not go unscathed. “All the power of the enemy” suggests the “enmity” of the serpent against the sin-conquering Seed of the woman (Gen. 3 :15).

Nevertheless, “nothing shall by any means hurt you,” Jesus added, using the most emphatic negative available to him. His words implied opposition and persecution. Yet in all essentials the Lord’s witness could go to his task assured of spiritual invulnerability. Persecution hardly ever breaks a man’s spiritual morale. Rather, its astringency braces him to yet greater acts of courage, it teaches him the matchless value of a gospel he might otherwise be inclined to take for granted.

A sense of proportion.

Jesus bade his preachers keep their priorities right. There was even more solid ground for satisfaction than the sensational impact of their recent mission: “Rejoice rather that your names are written in heaven.” The heavenly Book of Life is a lovely figure of speech which runs right through Scripture. It well repays time spent on it in the study.

Here, how appropriately Jesus reminded the seventy that excitement over present success was of little consequence compared with their own personal assurance of eternal inheritance! Was it his way of reminding them that nothing makes the message of the kingdom so real and vital as a personal involvement in the work of proclaiming it? Perhaps also there was implicit warning that the disciple cannot write his own name in the Book of Life, but he can blot it out (Rev.3:5).

Jesus had his own priorities right: “In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” The words probably mean that he rejoiced in this outcome of such a manifestation of Holy Spirit power in the activities of his evangelists.

The joy of Jesus

This rejoicing was no quiet sober satisfaction but an open exultation (the Greek verb is a strong one and may also carry the secondary meaning of “glorifying God”). Here, for once, the Man of Sorrows was brought to a degree of open delight such as can have been but a rare experience for him. Although he did not quote directly the fine words of Psalm 8: “0 Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy Name in all the earth,” Jesus without doubt had them in mind. The connections with that psalm, both in phrase and idea, are copious:

	Lk. 10.		Ps.8.
17.	Through thy name.	1.	How excellent is thy name…
17.	Subject unto us.	6.	In subjection (Heb.2 :8).
18.	I beheld…	3.	When I behold thy heavens (Heb).
19.	Tread on serpents and scorpions (the one kind of creature not mentioned in Ps.8).	6.	All things under his feet.
19.	All the power of the enemy.	2.	The enemy and the avenger.
20.	Your names in heaven.	1.	The Lord’s name in all the earth.
21.	Lord of heaven and earth.	1.	In all the earth … above the heavens.
22.	All things are delivered unto me of my Father.	6.	Thou hast put all things under his feet.
21.	Revealed to babes.	2.	Babes and sucklings.
17.	Demons subject unto us!	5.	A little lower than the angels.

Is it possible to believe that Jesus actually thanked God for hiding the truth of salvation from such men as the scribes and Pharisees? The word he used rather expresses an acknowledgement that this is God’s method, bewildering to men, but spiritually inevitable-the message is more readily received by the lowly and uneducated than by the privileged and the learned.

Appeal to the new disciples.

The Lord’s ensuing words were now addressed to the new disciples whom the Lord’s preachers had brought with them that they might get to know Jesus personally: “All things have been delivered unto me by my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” This saying, found in Matthew and Luke is marvellously like John’s gospel, both in theme and phrasing. So marked is this similarity that some writers have even cited them as evidence of the authenticity of John’s gospel.

It is to be noted that Jesus did not seek to focus the reverence of these new disciples on himself. He ascribed all his personal authority to the Father, and then- rather staggeringly-went on to speak about Father and Son getting to know each other. It is a saying which Trinitarians and others who believe in the personal pre-existence of Christ are hard put to explain (cp. also Jn.10:15s.w.). Yet when the truth aboutthe nature of Christ is properly appreciated, what an insight these words afford into the growing personal intimacy between a Son who never ceased to learn and to fulfil the will of his heavenly Father, and a Father who day by day rejoiced with more than human gladness over His Son’s faithful dependence upon Him.

These recent converts, just taught about Christ and brought to him, were now exhorted to seal their new loyalty by coming forward for baptism. These winsome words are unmatched anywhere: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden (Ps.38 :4), and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

The contrast between: “to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him (the Father)” and “Come unto me,” is the contrast between Election and Free Will, which time and again in the New Testament are put side by side without any attempt anywhere at reconciling seeming inconsistency. Jesus had better things to do with his time.

The Yoke of Christ

The figure of speech in this appeal is not that of an over-burdened animal finding an easier life through change to a more kindly owner. It is, rather, the idea of a distresssed over-driven beast no longer yoked to one which has done little to share an excessive burden, but instead now works alongside another which not only has a much lighter task but also takes most of the load on itself. The words: “I am meek and lowly in heart,” require such an interpretation. The Law forbad the unequal yoking of animals (Dt.22 :10), but it was right to plough with two which were alike, even though one might be markedly stronger than the other.

The attractive suggestion that there is here allusion to the priests bearing the ark of the covenant in the wilderness (Num.10 :33) fails to find room for “I am meek and lowly in heart.” Even such a lovely passage as Hos.11 :4 does not quite equal these words of Christ. The legalists of Israel “bound on the people heavy burdens and grievous to be borne . . . but they themselves would not move them with one of their fingers” (Mt.23 :4; cp. also Acts 15 :10; cp. Gal.5 :1). Jesus now appealed to men to forsake this futile system of self-righteousness and let him take over the task of working out their redemption.

That he was now seeking an outright decison to give him full loyalty is suggested by the aorist tenses: “Take my yoke … learn of me (i.e. from me).. .fine/rest”—the words imply not so much a way of life as a decision. This idea is also required by the moving passage in Jeremiah which Jesus clearly had in mind: “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the way, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest (LXX: purification) for your souls” (6 :16).

To be thus unequally but happily yoked together with such a Saviour assuredly means rest to the soul, for his yoke is easy and his burden light. Indeed, if any disciple of Christ complains of being heavy laden, does he not by that very assertion declare that he is not bearing the yoke of his Lord?-for it is light. And “they that wait upon the Lord renew their strength” (ls.40 :28-31). So those who draw back from such a service or who moan in self-pity at the exacting rigour of their life in Christ have got no further than the servant in the parable who had the effrontery to justify himself at the expense of his Master’s character, saying to his face: “I knew thee that thou art an hard men, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou has not strawed: and I was afraid . . .” , (Mt. 25:24; cf. Lev. 25:43). Such slanders deserve – the arraignment this complainer received from One who is in truth meek and lowly in heart.

Christ’s word to describe his “easy” yoke is chrestos, so markedly like christos as to encourage Paul especially to enjoy the paronomasia. Here are a few examples:

• “Charity suffereth long, and is kind (chrestomai, suggesting Christ-like)” (1 Cor. 13:4).
• “Evil communications corrupt good (Christ) manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).
• “By good (Christ) words and fair speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom.l6:18).
• “The exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness (Christ-ness) toward us through Christ Jesus” (Eph.2:7).
• “Be ye kind (chrestos) one to another… even as God for Christos sake hath forgiven you”(Eph.4:32).
• Other instances: Rom. 11 :22; Tit.3 :4; l Pet.2 :3.

Joy in the Lord

For the twelve, who might perhaps have felt a trifle sore at the resounding success achieved by those who were their juniors in discipleship, Jesus now had a special word of encouragement. Far from feeling a sense of pique over this, they should recognize here one of their highest privileges to see Messiah’s work going forward and the message about him being sympathetically received by, at any rate, a segment of the nation: “I tell you that many prophets (such as Isaiah, Daniel, and Malachi) and kings (like David and Hezekiah) desired to see those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” Abraham had been happy enough to rejoice in his distant vision of the day of Christ (Jn.8 :56). He and other patriarchs saw these things afar off, and were persuaded of them and embraced them (Heb.11 :13), Prophets, inspired to foretell “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that is to follow, enquired and searched diligently . . . searching who or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify” (1 Pet.l : 10,11).

Today, as with the apostles, restiveness of spirit is out of place. Instead, let there be self-congratulation over the inestimable privilege of seeing the ripening of the Purpose of God. “Wilt thou at this time restore again tb kingdom to Israel?” the twelve asked, oil eagerness and confidence. But it was not for them to know the times or seasons. Today the Lord’s answer to the same clamant expectancy is: “Yes!”

Three or four generations ago fervent desire for the Day of the Lord inflated the smallest vestige of a stir in Middle Eastern politics into a mighty assurance of imminent theophany. Today, titanic events and lurid signs of the Son of man in heaven are taken in their stride by nonchalant children of the promise, who seem to have been rendered deaf by the heavy artillery of God. It is a strange phenomenon.

Notes: Lk. 10:17-24

17.	The seventy. Here some MSS read: “seventy two,” in an effort to make a parallel with the 72 who, accordingto legend, did the LXX. But the Biblical instances in the text settle the reading. Cp. also Ex.24 :1; Num.11 :16.
18.	He said unto them. The context here explains why in Mt. the text reads: “he answered and said.”
19.	Serpents and scorpions. Cp. Ps.91 :13; Ez.2 :6; Dt. 8:15,17,18 (another warning against pride in the midst of success).
20.	Written in heaven. Ex. 32:32; Ps. 69:28; Is. 4:3; Dan. 12:1; Phil. 4:3; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 5:1-9; 13-8; 20:12; 21:27; but also: Rev. 3:5; Jer. 17:13.
21.	Rejoiced. A vigorous word apparently found only in NT and LXX. This is the nearest approach to any word describing a laugh or a smile on the face of Jesus.
	I thank thee Strictly, not thanks but open confession.
	The wise and prudent, ls.5 :21; 28 :9-14; 29 :14-17; Pr.3 :34; Rom. 12 :16; 1 Cor.l :19-27; 3:1.
	Babes. The Lord said “babes” (Is. 28:9) not “fools.” Their ignorance was their salvation — and so also with how many in this sophisticated age?
22.	Here the best MSS include: And turning to his disciples; cp. v.23. These disciples were the new converts. Mt. 11:27-30 proves this. Then, in v.23, he turns to the twelve, “his own disciples.”
	All things. Although neuter in form, this word commonly refers to believers, all things in Christ (see concordance)

Mt.11 :28-30

28.	Come unto me. for other contrasts between Election and Freewill, see Phil. 2 :12,13; Heb.13 :21,22; Col 1-29; Eph. 3:20; 4:1; Jude 24,21; Gal.2 :20; 2 Cor. 13 :4,5; Jn.6 :37-40.
29.	Rest. In Jer.6:16theHeb. noun clearly Implies an instantaneous change.
30.	Light. This word is used in Ez. 1:7 LXX to describe the lightness of the wings of the cherubims; for idea, cp. Is. 40:31

Even though the nation seemed to be having second thoughts about Jesus, there was still no lack of crowds eager to hear his words and witness the wonders he did. Yet Jesus could hardly be other than distressed about the indifferent attitudes with which they heard his teaching. More than anything he sought in them a whole-hearted unqualified acceptance of himself as Lord and Christ: “Except a man take up his cross, and follow me, he cannot be my disciple.”

Those who saw and heard, and yet held back, were not playing for safety but for danger. They needed to be warned that in such circumstances he that is not for Christ is against him. There can be a dire storing-up of judgment by those who are merely interested in the Son of God.

Weather-wise

So he appealed to them to use their commonsense on the situation. Clouds blowing in from the Mediterranean Sea certainly betokened rain before long (1 Kgs. 18:44). But if the wind should swing round to the south-east, then soon it would become the dreaded khamsin from the desert, oppressing everyone with its furnace heat and making life inescapably miserable.

To all who lived in that land this was mere ABC. ‘Ye can assess the face of the sky and earth,’ Jesus said, ‘then how is it that ye cannot similarly interpret what is impending for you in more important issues than the weather?’ Were they to enjoy the fertilizing blessing of his gospel or the hot blast of the wrath of heaven? In making this remonstration he called them hypocrites-and since a hypocrite is one who chooses a course of action out of harmony with his convictions, this savage word was surely justified.

Recognizing that it was over-much respect for the priests and Pharisees, as much as anything else, which discouraged their allegiance to him, he appealed to them not to be led by the nose any longer. Instead, let there be an independent commonsense decision regarding his claims: “Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”

Mini-parable

This was reinforced by what is unmistakably a parable and not just a piece of advice about how to make the best of a law-suit: “When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him.” The change here to singular pronouns indicates clearly that Jesus was making his appeal for individual decision to become a disciple. He had no use for mass enthusiasm or for sheep which follow sheep.

The point of his illustration is not difficult to discern. By their interested but uncommitted attitude many in the nation were turning Christ’s gospel from good news into bad news—an adversary. Except they change, this would ultimately arraign them before the court of God’s justice, so that in the ultimate day of reckoning Christ would be a judge, and not a friend. Then the outcome must be that “the judge deliver thee to the officer—the angel of death?—and thou be cast into prison … till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing, the very last! mite,” that is, the oblivion of the tomb, to last for ever, for no man in prison has the wherewithal to pay his debts.

But what way is there for paying off a debt when a man is being dragged before the court and he has no resources to save him from this predicament? The version of these words in Matthew 5:25 has this: “Agree with thine adversary quickly.” Once again, as in so many other instances, because of the necessity to teach fundamental spiritual realities, the Lord’s parable comes right away from the matter-of- fact truth of daily life. All that is necessary- indeed, all that is possible—for the sinner to do when he knows himself to be face to face with (the righteous law of God is precisely what this parable specifies: “Agree with thine adversary.” That is, let a man agree that he is a sinner and that he has no means within his own power of ever discharging the debt of sin, and forthwith the adversary becomes a Friend, and the debt vanishes into thin air. “When I kept silence (concerning my sin), my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me… I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (Ps. 32:3-5)

Thus a man makes his choice between the shower and the hot wind.

Grim events in Jerusalem

It would seem that even whilst Jesus was driving this lesson home, he was provided with yet another opportunity to underline its supreme importance. There arrived (so the Greek text implies) some who had just come from Jerusalem with the news of a terrible affray in the temple court, in the course of which some Galileans had been slain at the very altar of burnt offering, so that where normally the blood of the sacrifices was poured out at the base of the altar, Jewish blood had flowed freely. This had been done by Pilate’s soldiers.

During his short term of office the Roman governor had had a number of Jewish riots on his hands in Jerusalem, and especially in the temple area. On one occasion, a Passover celebration, about three thousand had been slain in the temple court. Very probably the present disturbance was part of the insurrection led by Barabbas (Lk.23 :18,19). The narrative seems to imply that some Galilean participants in the rebellion had tried to masquerade as genuine worshippers offering sacrifices when really they were bent on seizing the temple as a stronghold. Pilate’s vigorous action forestalled it. Of course, Jewish indignation made the most of this.

It is fairly certain that such extreme action was only taken by the Roman rulers when Jewish intransigence had goaded them beyond the limit of their patience. It is not unlikely that in this incident Roman soldiers showed their contempt for the Jewish rebels by dragging them to the altar and slaughtering them there in mockery of their sacrifices.

Why? Why? Why?

Like the disciples in their theorising about the man born blind, these, who now brought this gruesome news to Jesus, evidently implied their own conviction that such a catastrophe must be God’s punishment of personal wickedness. This was the philosophy of Job’s friends: “Remember, I pray thee, whoever perished, being innocent? or when were the righteous cut off?” (Job 4:7; cp. also Acts 28:4; Gen. 42:21). It is an interpretation of the problems of life which sees only the facts it wants to see.

Jesus had a different reading of this latest chapter in the long sorry tale of Jewish suffering: “I tell you, Nay (it is not to be read as a direct punishment for sin): but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” In other words, he offered no direct explanation of the fate of these Galileans (a fact worth noting by those obsessed with the problem of suffering!).

Instead, he bade his disciples read it as a parable designed by Almighty God for their spiritual education. See what comes to men who fling themselves in rebellion against the might of Rome! Yet what is Rome compared with the majesty of God? Then what, think you, will be your fate if you flout God’s authority, and think to live your life without due acknowledgement of His supremacy?

The absurdity of rebellion

Jesus was not content to leave the lesson there. He went on to force it home with yet another example: “Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?” The shape of the argument used by the Lord suggests that here also was the fate of rebels. Presumably these men, citizens of Jerusalem, joining in the rebellion, had turned the tower of Siloam into a fortress. For what other reason should it have been full of people? So, as another example of how Rome deals with rebels, the building was undermined, and its collapse buried eighteen in its ruins. Then what hope for the man who blithely thinks that he can wall himself off from the wrath of Almighty God? It is the name of the Lord that is a strong tower. The righteous runneth into it, and is safe (Pr. 18:10).

Here was another development in the current insurrection which the Lord’s informants knew nothing about. He told them of it as an example also of his supernatural knowledge, thus emphasizing that a man’s attitude is always fully known to God. Even when his rejection of the authority of God is not openly avowed but kept secret in his own bosom, this is still rebellion, just as fully known, and just as certainly punished.

The commentators refer the “likewise perish” to the horrors of A.D.70 when there was great carnage in the temple and not a few crushed to death in its ruins. But most of the generation to whom Jesus spoke these words were dead and buried by that time. His “likewise” pointed to God’s judgment being inescapable rather than to the mode of its execution.

Yet how slow men were, and still are, to learn the lesson. Even those who would reckon themselves dedicated disciples of the Lord often know little of the meaning of true repentance. For three years Peter had been a leader among the chosen twelve when Jesus said to him: “When thou art converted…”! (Lk. 22:32),

The heavy responsibility to” judgment which steadily accumulated on the shoulders of the Lord’s own people lay also like a dead weight on the soul of Jesus. The truth of this is evident from the fact that even the series of warnings he had already spoken was not deemed to be emphatic enough. So he said it yet again, in a parable of entirely different form.

The fig tree & its lesson

The owner of a vineyard had there a fig tree which neither bore fruit nor showed signs of bearing. From the obvious meaning of the parable it may be readily assumed that this was not a young fig tree which should have been just coming to maturity. But now for three years in succession no fruit at all (does Peter allude to this? 2 Pet. 1:8). Exasperated, the owner issued instructions for it to be cut down, for not only was it useless in itself but it also “cumbered” the ground — the Greek word means “made it useless, spoiled it” (cp. Mt. 23 : 1 3); and so it did, for with its spreading branches and roots it would effectively reduce the productiveness of a fairly wide area. In its place a True Vine would be much more worthwhile. Even a wild olive would be more use.

This fig tree is, of course, a figure of the nation of Israel. Plenty of Bible passages encourage this interpretation of the symbolism. The three years of fruitlessness correspond fairly obviously to the three years of the ministry of Jesus which had already elapsed. There was now only six months or less to his final Passover. The curt instruction: “Cut it down!” may be seen as a measure of the indignation of heaven because the Lord’s appeal to the nation had fallen on deaf ears. The cup of their iniquity was almost full, not so much full of downright wickedness as with indifference to the Son of God in their midst. John the Baptist had warned: “Even now the axe is laid unto the root of the trees.” His ministry, much shorter than that of Jesus, had crystallized out very firmly his impressions of Israel’s unresponsiveness.

Instead of immediately carrying out the owner’s instructions, the husbandman pleaded for time: “Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it.” Here is an intimation of the all-out effort and special appeal made by Jesus during the last few months of his ministry. It was a special effort continued by the Holy Spirit into the early days of the ministry of the apostles.

“If it bear fruit — (the unfinished sentence indicates that no further comment or action would then be necessary): and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.” It is surely a fair inference that just as the prayer of Moses saved Israel from extinction in the wilderness (Ex.32:9ff), so also but for the personal intercession of Jesus at this time the wrath of God against a callous nation would have begun already.

True to life?

Once again, in this parable as in so others, there is traceable at least one detail of the story which is not true to life: “And if not, then after that thou (the owner of the vineyard!) shalt cut it down.” This is strange talk from an employee to his master. Nor may it be argued that this is just a mode of speech, for Jesus could as easily have phrased it: “I will cut it down, as you instructed.” Had he done so, the parable would have been true to life, but not true to history — for it was not Jesus but his Almighty Father who eventually brought national ruin on Israel (see Notes). It is to be observed however, that this destruction came forty years later, and not immediately after the fourth year of opportunity. Then was it Pentecost and the ensuing events which gave the nation further respite?

In this period the teaching of Jesus had taken on a very sombre cast. The encouragement which the success of the mission of the seventy had imparted had been only temporary. Now, almost continuously up to his arrest and suffering, the spirit of Jesus was oppressed by the way in which the nation had apparently decided against him. Warning after warning came from his lips, but apart from his faithful loyal remnant few took him really seriously. However, with but little encouragement to spur him on, he persevered. These were hard cheerless days for the Son of God.

Notes: Lk.1 2:54-13:9

54.	A shower; s.w. in Dt. 32:2 LXX only; and “heavens and earth” (v.56) comes in v.1. Note that this Dt. 32 is one of the most complete “Israel” prophecies in the O.T.
55.	Heal. Gk: /rooson. Note the parable in its only other occurrence: Jas.1:11
1.	In Ant. 18.3.2. Josephus describes a very similar incident. The same?
2.	Suppose ye? This rather implies: “You are sure, are you?’
	Galileans. Verse 5: Jerusalem. The entire nation in a spirit of rebellion and under judgment.
3.	Repent. The verb is continuous; i.e. maintain your repentance.
	Likewise perish. Context (at end of Lk. 12) strongly supports the reading of this incident given here.
4.	The tower in Siloam. The Lord seems to imply that these two grim incidents are really examples of God’s graciousness in giving strong warning of worse judgment to come; cp. Gen. 6:7,8; 18:24; Jon. 3:4; 2 Pet. 3:9. Was he also hinting at a lesson to be learned from Jud. 8:8,9? Note also in Jud. 9:51 a tower being used as a centre of rebellion.
6.	Fig tree: a frequent symbol of national Israel & its law; Matthew 21:19; 24:32; Micah 7:1; Hosea 9:10; Joel 1:7; Jeremiah 24; Ps.80:8-17. Note also Rev. 6:13; Is. 34:4 (8); Hab. 3:17; Nah. 3:12; Lk. 17:6; 19:4.
8.	This year also. Is there allusion here to Lev. 19:23,24?
9.	And if not. Gk: mege here is very sardonic. It expresses Christ’s own pessimism.
	Thou shalt cut it down. It is not uncommon to hear A.D.70 spoken of as a “coming” of Christ; yet so far as one can discover this conclusion is invariably the result of very indirect inference from shady premises. Is there one explicit statement to this effect?

The Feast of Chanukah (mid-December) celebrated the re-dedication of the temple in the time of the Maccabees after its defilement by Antiochus Epiphanes. It was a quite unnecessary feast, for there was no new feast inaugurated to celebrate the cleansing of the temple after its defilement during the reign of Ahaz (2 Kgs.16 :12-15; 2 Chr.29 :15-18), and again in the time of Manasseh (2 Chr.33 :3-5). Attendance at this celebration was not obligatory, but Jesus was there for a more important purpose—to save a “lost sheep,” the once-blind man who had been cast out by the men of the temple (see Study 123), and also to use the opportunity to drive home an appeal in the minds of some of the rulers who were in a state of indecision regarding himself (v.24). Mention of Jerusalem (v.22) might be a hint of the Lord’s return there after spending two months with his team of preachers (Lk.10 :1) who were busy covering the country.

“It was winter; and Jesus walked in Solomon’s Porch.” Josephus says it was the only part of Solomon’s temple which had survived. (Ant. 20.9.7). The facts are interesting in themselves, but they are of even greater value when seen through the symbolic spectacles which John expects his readers to wear. Here not only is there indication that because of cold weather Jesus continued his teaching in a sheltered part of the temple, but also an important hint of the frosty reception his word received. And the Hebrew word for “winter” also means “blasphemy”-a significant fact John must have been aware of. Similarly, Jesus in Solomon’s porch immediately conjures up a picture of one able to discourse with all the wisdom of Solomon (2 Chr. 1:9,10).

Collision

There a number of the rulers came round him in a group, eager and aggressive. John’s word: “encircled him” echoes Psalm 118 with its powerful Messianic message. “They compassed me about like bees; yea, they compassed me about: in the name of the Lord (seeJn. 10:24) I will destroy them” (v.10-12). The superb relevance of this psalm to the experiences of Christ cannot be followed in detail here, but these are some of its outstanding prognostications:

“Bind the sacrifice with cords, even to the horns of the altar (cp. 116 :3RV) … The Lord hath chastened me sore, but he hath not given me over to death . . . The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner” (v.27,18,22; see also 88 :17; 22 :16).

The group of hostile rulers gathered round him demanded: “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.” Here the Greek can be read in more than one way. This AV reading is a paraphrase of one of them. Literally, it is: “Until when art thou taking away our life (or, soul)?” This is read by some as meaning: “keeping us in a state of agitation (or uncertainty)”; by others, “how long dost thou crucify us?” (s.w. 12 :32-34); but Hoskyns insists that the reference is to the Law of Moses. He sums up thus: “To the Evangelist (John) Judaism is fulfilled and superseded, to the Jewish opponents of Jesus it is destroyed, its life taken away-unless indeed Jesus be veritably the Christ of God.” This view has the merit of being thoroughly in line with the theme of the rest of the gospel, as it comes out in every chapter.

“Tell us plainly” implies a recognition that Jesus had irritated them with his parable (v.6). And, like their similar demand at his trial (Lk.22 :67), it was hopelessly inconsistent with their earlier criticism: “Thou bearest witness of thyself; thy witness is not true” (8 :13). Any method, if only they might have a stick to beat him with.

Although they persisted (Gk.impf.tense), in reply Jesus was not disposed to be helpful. To such men why should he be? So he bluntly answered:

“I told you, and ye do not believe: the works that I do in my Father’s name they bear witness of me.”

In his earlier appeals in the temple court he had made it clear enough that he was the promised Prophet like unto Moses, he was the embodiment of the Shekinah Glory of God, he was the Messianic Shepherd who would save the neglected flock from their evil leaders (Jn. 5:46; 8:12; 10:11). He had told them even more plainly in a profusion of amazing signs miraculously done in Jerusalem and Galilee. How was it possible for anyone to miss the meaning of them?

What a contrast in the readiness with which the apostles (1:41,45) and the people of Samaria (4:26-29,39) and the blind man (9:35-37) acknowledged the Lord’s divine character.

Nevertheless there was failure to grasp this truth: “Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.”

One would have expected the argument to be presented conversely from this: “Ye are not of my sheep, because ye believe not.” But in nearly all the discourses in Jerusalem (e.g. 8:47) the predestinarian emphasis is well to the fore, for the Purpose and Action of God through His Son is, of course, the main theme of this Gospel.

The structure of v.27,28 is worth noting – Sheep and Shepherd:

	A. My sheep hear my voice;
		B. and I know them,
	A. And they follow me; ‘
		B. and I am giving unto them eternal life;
	A. And they shall never perish,
		B. neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

The echoes here of the Good Shepherd discourse, and also the use of the word “snatch” (v.28,29,12), make it clear that this encounter followed on without any lapse of time.

“Ye are not of my sheep.” Indeed, they were not. Instead, Holy Scripture described them as “dogs” (Ps. 22:16) which “compassed him about” (v.24 s.w.).

The true sheep “in no wise perish.” Attempts have been made to dilute the force of this remarkable language by reading it: “shall not perish for ever.” But this will not do, for “perish” means “for ever.” In any case attempts to handle the same idiom in the same way produce a ludicrous result: “shall not thirst for ever” (4:14); “thou shalt not wash my feet for ever” (13:8).

Instead, a correct understanding will take proper account of the characteristic phraseology of this gospel (e.g. past tense in 17:12RV; Study 206).

“Eternal Life!”

Here once again is the Lord’s concept of eternal life as something different from immortality in a future age. There is an undeniably close link between the two, or it would be impossible to make sense of the terminology. This is “eternal life” when “my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (v.27). The figure of speech is different, but the idiom is the same in the familiar words: “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (6 :54). The strong declarations that “no one shall snatch them out of my hand … no one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (cp. ls.43 :13) are not to be read as meaning that immortality is inevitable for those who are in the Lord’s flock. This word “snatch” makes an undeniable link with the Shepherd parable: “the wolf snatcheth them, and scattereth the sheep” (v.12; the Gk. word is the same). This wolf represents the false teacher, capable of doing untold damage. But in other respects a man can remove himself, through an act of personal decision, from the orbit of the grace of God which is the eternal life Jesus was talking about.

On this vital theme consideration should be given to such explicit passages as these:

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom.8 :35-39; the entire passage should be pondered). “If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him” (Heb.10:38). “He is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart.. .”(Ps.95:7,).”… holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight if ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Col. 1 :22,23).

In this sublime work—Operation Redemption-Father and Son have different roles but their aim, purpose, spirit, action is one: “I and my Father are one.” The context of the words should have told the critics who heard them that this was their scope. So also should the Lord’s use of a neuter for “one” (Jn. 17:11,21; cp. 1 Cor. 6:17). At the smiting of the rock (Num.20 :10) Moses made the same claim, though in what a different spirit! Failing to recognize (or lacking the will to recognize) that Jesus spoke of the relationship between monarch and ambassador, but instead eager to find fault and with no will to understand, these men reacted strongly: “They took up stones again (Jn.8 :59; Ex.17 :4), to stone him.”

Jesus faced them with a fearless irony: “Many good works have I shewed you from my Father (he used the word characteristic of Genesis 2; “and God saw that it was good”); for which of those works do ye stone me?” They answered with a rough accusation of blasphemy (Lev. 24:14); “because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” God’s true charge against Moses (Num. 20:10; Dt. 4:21,22) they now falsely brought against the Son of God. There was no blasphemy here. Did not Scripture foretell this very situation: “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered” (Zech. 13:7).

A Psalm of Messiah

For answer Jesus used an unexpected Biblical argument from Psalm 82. He called it “your law” (using “law” as a synecdoche for “Bible”, i.e. Law, Psalms, Prophets; cp. Jn. 15 :25:12:34; 1 Cor. 14 :21) so as to emphasize that there was a moral obligation to do what this scripture said, “And the scripture cannot be unloosed”—it is binding.

The historical setting of this psalm is probably the expostulation of God’s righteous king or prophet in the days of Hezekiah, as he arraigned the princes of Israel for a selfish unprincipled abuse of their responsibilities as the nation’s guides and judges. But the higher reference of the psalm is to the Lord’s exposure of iniquity in the priests and Pharisees of his day. Here was no slick juggling with words, but a cogent argument based on a prophecy which, besides its earlier reference, was divinely intended to bear on this very situation-the contention between Jesus and his adversaries.

Psalm 82 presents a picture of one who stands to reproach and censure the elohim who rule God’s people. This use of elohim with a reference to angels or men or the Messiah, in their capacity as agents of Almighty God, is by no means uncommon in the Old Testament. In at least eight places besides the one under examination, the rulers of Israel are referred to in this way (see Notes).

In the psalm the one who acts in God’s stead lo reprove these men in authority declares: “Ye welohim, and all of you sons of the Most High; but ye shall die like men”-or, perhaps, “like Adam.”

The citing of these words became for Jesus an argument of multiple force. In the first place, it exemplified how the name of God could rightly be used of those who were God’s representatives in the administration of His Law. Then how much more fitting was it that Jesus, with all the marks of divinity about his works and teaching, should claim to be a Son of God.

More than this, the opening words of the psalm declared his right to a divine title: “Elohim standeth in the congregation of God (El); he judgeth among the elohim.” Accordingly he was there to judge them, not to be judged by them. “Ye shall die like Adam” foretold the rejection of Israel and the outpouring of wrath upon them. “Arise, O God (the LXX here has the usual word for resurrection!), judge thou the Land; but thou shall inherit all the Gentiles” (this is v.16). These other elohim have no right to such inheritance, but here is one to whom it is said: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the Gentiles for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession” (Ps.2:8).

Against such a background how trenchant was the Lord’s vindiction of his own claims to a divine mission: “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came . . . say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified (to fulfil Psalm 82), and sent into the (Jewish) world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am Son of God?”

That phrase: “sent into the world” was surely used deliberately by Jesus, with reference to Zechariah 6 :15, which came in the Haftarah for the Feast of the Dedication: “And ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you.” The entire passage is for and about Messiah. “Take silver and gold, and make crowns (i.e. a crown of splendour), and set it upon the head of Jesus the high-priest (the Son, the Lord of righteousness) . . . Behold the man whose name is The Branch … he shall build the temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the Glory . . . and the counsel of peace shall be between them both (the Father and the Son) . . . and they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the Lord . . . And this shall come to pass if hearing ye shall hear the voice of the Lord your God” (v. 11-15).

With yet another allusion to Psalm 82 Jesus reinforced his claims: “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.” The ground of the denunciation in the psalm was that the works of God-doing justice to the afflicted and destitute rescuing the poor and needy (v.3,4)—were not being done by these unworthy elohim. “But” (Jesus went on) / do them, (therefore) though ye believe not me, believe the works.”

How was it that they, unworthy “sons of the Most High” (Ps. 82:6), were unable to recognize the worthy Son of the Most High in their midst? The blind man, with the simple logic of unprejudice, had said to them: “Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not whence he is, and he opened my eyes!” The stubborn refusal to face unbudgeable facts within their own experience merited that blind beggar’s withering censure and the Lord’s infallible condemnation.

“Believe the works” said Jesus, “so that ye may recognize and go on learning that trie Father is in me, and I in him.” But they were prepared neither to recognize nor to learn any such thing. Instead, once again (v.38,39), they tried to lay hands on him, in order to drag him “outside the camp” and stone him to death there (note the details of Lev. 24:14).; but they failed —as they were bound to do until his hour was come. “No man taketh my life from me … no man is able to pluck out of the Father’s hand.” Once again, as on earlier occasions, there is no kind of hint as to how Jesus escaped, but assuredly the angel of the Lord was acting invisibly lest the Son of God dash his foot against a stone (Ps. 91:12; 34:7). Possibly the protection of the more sympathetic Pharisees was the human means by which the animosity of the Lord’s most rancorous enemies was thwarted. Psalm 82 suggests yet another possiblity—that there was an earthquake shock which scared these hostile men from their evil intention: “All the foundations of earth are out of course” (the Hebrew word for earthquake, an expression of the wrath of God; Ps.18 :7).

Across Jordan

So again Jesus forsook the holy city. He got away from the plotting of the Jewish leaders to the place across Jordan where the Baptist had borne witness to him and where he himself now had a fruitful ministry, gathering in many who had formerly been John’s disciples. The early witness of John to his greater kinsman was at last doing its work: “After me cometh a man which is become before me … this is the Son of God … Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1 :30,34,29). The remembered witness of John combined with the general knowledge of bitter hostility in Jerusalem to prepare men’s minds for what lay ahead. At least, that is what the writer of this gospel would fain do for his readers.

“John did no miracle! (people said), but all things that John spake of this man were true.” These words carry several important implications.

The lack of tendency to glorify John by attributing miracles to him shows the truth of the gospels. Thus they become a marvellously powerful witness to the fact that Jesus did work miracles. Another conclusion is that John must have said much more concerning Jesus than the gospels record. Also, in his preaching John had made great play with Isaiah 40 as a prophecy of his own work and Messiah’s. Now the people could themselves match the Lord’s discourse on the Good Shepherd with the lovely words: “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young” (ls.40 :11). And now it was easier to equate the prophecy of Isaiah 53 with the Baptist’s witness to “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world”-“as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (53:7).

It must have been very evident now to all who made sober assessment of the trend of affairs in Judaea that the rulers were determined to be rid of Jesus of Nazareth, and would stick at nothing to accomplish their purpose.

Notes: Jn. l0:22-42

22.	Jerusalem. Mention of the city here might be a hint of Jesus’ return after two months’absence.
28, 29	The care of the Good Shepherd and of the Father who “is greater than all” are beautifully brought together in Isaiah 40 :11,26. Note how v.28b, 29b prepare the way for v.30.
34.	Ye are gods Ex. 21:6; 22:8,28; ISam. 2:25; Ps. 97:7; 38:1. And note 2 Chr. 19:6. But the argument is not only from the use of elohim with reference to men; it builds also on the fact that theoi (LXX) does not have the definite article, thus diluting the force of the word (as in Rom. 13 :1).
35.	Unto whom. Here in the sense of “against”, as in Mk. 12 :12.
36.	Sanctified and sent. A reference surely to the sanctifying of Jesus the high priest, in Zech. 6:15.
37.	If I do not the works of my Father. The Gk. neatly implies: ‘and you know that I do.’
40.	Where John at first baptized; i.e. 1:28, ,not 3:23.
41.	John did no miracle. This must have been an abiding difficulty in the way of belief in Jesus. For Elijah’s ministry had been studded with marvels, but not so John’s. And Elijah had ascended to heaven, but John didn’t. Then was he the expected Elijah prophet announcing the Messiah? Then, was Jesus the Messiah?

There are certain fairly definite links between the mission of the Lord’s seventy preachers and this next section of Luke’s gospel. It was customary for the rabbis of that age to send out certain of their disciples on preaching tours. In such a busy life these workers were given exemption from the normal time-consuming devotions in which the Pharisees gloried. Instead they were taught mini-prayers to be used in lieu of the more elaborate religious exercises usually prescribed. Evidently John the Baptist had adopted this pattern also, for on a certain occasion when Jesus was praying in some holy place one of his disciples asked that they might be taught pattern prayers of the kind John had bequeathed to his disciples.

Jesus promptly responded with the prayer which all the world now knows as the Lord’s Prayer (Study 61). There are a number of variations from that prayer which he had already taught to earlier disciples. The verb forms are different from the version in Matthew 6, and the doxology is omitted. It is not easy to be sure just why these changes were made.

Importunity

The Lord went on to teach an important lesson about the spirit in which his disciples were to pray. He told the story of a poor man faced with the problem of providing hospitality for a friend who had arrived in the middle of the night. Travel by moonlight, to avoid the fatigue and discomfort of the day’s heat, was by no means uncommon. Having nothing to set before this unexpected arrival, the man pounded on the door of a friendly neighbour, imploring the loan of food. Normally this neighbour could be counted on to be fairly helpful, but now time and circumstances were all against a comforting response. “The door is shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot rise and give thee.” It is a picture of a small humble home, and all the floor space taken up by a sleeping family. In the morning, yes! But how unreasonable to expect a domestic upheaval in the middle of the night. Why can’t this clamorous fellow go somewhere else?

But the knocking at the door continues, interspersed with a ceaseless succession of pleadings and cajolings. There is no sign of any remission. So at last the sleepy householder bestirs himself to rise and clamber over sleeping forms to go first to the cupboard and then to the window to hand out the food. There is no lack of goodwill in him, and once the provoking disturbance in the home has been endured, he is willing enough to supply not just the three cakes originally asked for, but whatever the man might feel in need of to meet the wants of his unexpected guest.

There is an easy obvious lesson about this story. If the man had allowed himself to be put off by the initial reluctance of his neighbour friend, there would have been no remedy for the situation. As it turned out, nothing but good resulted from his importunity. The hunger of the traveller was abundantly satisfied, and the friendship of the two neighbours intensified through help given and help received.

Is it possible that, with the mission of the seventy a very recent experience, Jesus was looking ahead to the problems which would beset his disciples when they had the much greater responsibility of taking the gospel to the Gentiles?

Interpretation

The one who has come in his journey (the Greek phrase means literally: “out of the way”) in the darkness of night is a fitting enough symbol of God-seeking Gentiles who, if they would learn God’s Truth, must come to Christ’s preachers for help. These in turn would need greater resources than they normally had at their command. Therefore in his parable Jesus bade them be urgent in beseeching God, their best (only?) neighbour friend, for an adequate supply of heavenly food for these needy ones.

But if this is the meaning, in the parable God is represented as shut up in His own home, concerned only with His own family, Israel, and unwilling to help! This pictures the situation as born Jews would most naturally see it. Was not Israel the chosen race? Why then should He or they concern themselves about spiritually aimless helpless Gentiles?

The answer Jesus supplied in the parable is: “God is your friend; whatever you may be inclined to assume regarding Him, He is both able and willing to succour these benighted Gentiles through you, my ministers; He will supply you not only with adequate food in Law, Psalms, and Prophets, but He will also give you freely whatever additional help you may feel in need of in this worthy task. “How much more shall your Father (who never sleeps) give from heaven the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?” It was precisely this aid and wisdom which God did supply to His evangelists in the great work of taking the gospel to the Gentiles.

A lesson for today

The lesson stills holds for those who witness for Christ in the twentieth century. Today there is no clamant need, to cope with which the humble disciple feels only a desperate inadequacy. These circumstances have been replaced by a numbing sense of disappointment and depression because the message, bravely propounded, makes so little impact. Yet in some sense the Lord’s assurance still stands true: “How much more shall your heavenly Father give a Holy Spirit to them that keep on asking Him.” Not that the inexperienced preacher of today may expect to stand up with all the courage and power and persuasion of Peter at Pentecost, nor that he may take off as a missionary overseas, preaching eloquently in a language he has never learned. But even so his faith and unflagging importunity for God’s help may yet become the key to unlock the shut mind of some who apparently have no inclination at all to heed the message.

In all kinds of seemingly ordinary ways-which a man may later be more inclined to call divine guidance or the ways of Providence-opportunities may be given for personal testimony to faith concerning the kingdom of God. Yet how difficult it is to believe the lord’s promise: “Every one that keeps on asking keeps receiving.” (But contrast Lk. 13:25; Mt. 25:10). And he spoke these words, which are well illustrated in the parable, primarily to encourage importunity concerning our personal inability to help those who are “out of the way.” “If we do not want what we are asking for enough to be persistent, we do not want it ^ery much” (Leon Morris). It is important also to learn that the answer is not necessarily the thing that has been sought.

Notes: Lk. 11:1-13.

1.	Place In the OT the Hebrew word nearly always means an altar or holy place. In quite a few passages the idea carries over into the NT: Mt. 27:33; 28:6; Jn. 4:20; 11:48; 14:2,3; 18:2; Acts 6:14; 7:33, 49; 21:28.
8.	Importunity. The Greek word means, literally, “without shame.” There are other fine Biblical examples: Lk. 18:lff (Study 143); Mt.9:27-29; ;20:30-34; 15:22,28; Gen. 13:4; 18:23-33; 32:24-29; Ps. 55:17; Is. 62:6,7.
9.	The “lend” of v. 5 is replaced by “give.”
13.	Your heavenly Father. In the Lord’s Prayer: “your Father which ism heaven.” Here, “your Father which is from heaven.” And now by all means consider Mal. 3:10.

It was a common enough human situation which goaded Jesus into telling his parable about a rich fool. Here was one, a poor fool, who showed by his first word that he was prepared to respect the authority of Jesus but not to be his disciple-he addressed him, not as “Lord” but as “Teacher”.

Not even by ordinary worldly standards was the man’s request reasonable: “Bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.” He was not asking Jesus to investigate and then pronounce judgment. He was wanting the Lord to interfere unilaterally, as the politicians say, on his side.

Even if the said brother had appropriated all the inheritance to himself, having robbed the complainer of his rightful share, the request could have been better put.

But such a circumstance is hardly likely, for “Speak to my brother . . .” implies that the brother was a disciple of Jesus and could be decisively influenced by what his Master said regarding the dispute. It is highly unlikely that one of the Lord’s close followers had been so unscrupulous as to defraud a brother of the inheritance.

A much more likely and very different situation is that the elder brother had, according to the Law of Moses (Dt.21 :17), inherited the double portion of the firstborn, and the younger resented this and demanded equal shares with his brother.

Jesus and materialism

But Jesus would have none of it. In one of the most curt rejoinders he made to anyone he liked: “Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?” The words were a deliberately close imitation of the jibe with which the Messianic authority of Moses had been crudely rebuffed by a fellow-Israelite (see the original in Ex.2 :14). The use of this Biblical allusion only makes sense on the assumption that the man now appealing to Jesus for intervention had himself similarly decided against being a disciple of Jesus and was known to have declared his independent attitude. Yet, when money was involved, he was willing enough to make use of the authority of Jesus for his own ends, whilst still in his heart despising the validity of that authority. In the circumstances, he deserved an even stronger rebuff than he got.

Jesus turned away. He had no more use for the man, except as providing a lesson of warning to his followers. Turning to them, he spoke very solemnly: “Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness (be on guard, as against an enemy): for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of those things which he possesseth.” This reading of a decidedly difficult Greek sentence carries the meaning: “There are more important things in life than money.” But the NEB suggests, very differently: “for even when a man has more than enough, his wealth does not give him life.” This is an interpretative translation, but its general correctness is vouched for by the parable which Jesus now spoke in order to drive his point home.

And indeed he might well dwell on this question, for Scripture is dotted with warning examples-Balaam, Achan, Gehazi, Judas, Simon, men of God who were made blind to their true loyalty by the allurements of Mammon; and how many explicit warnings has divine Wisdom left on record against temptations of this sort? The Tenth Commandment had long forbidden Israel to covet “anything that is thy neighbour’s;” but now Jesus added to this:” any thing that is thine own.”

“I am come that they may have Life, and may have abundance”, Jesus had declared very emphatically (John. 10:10); but what a different kind of wealth from “the abundance of things which a man possesseth” and against which the Lord now issued such stringent warning. If this plaintiff got the whole of the inheritance, and not just the “fair share” that he sought, he would have had less of the Life that Jesus spoke about.

Today the Lord’s disciples believe all this, in theory; but in practice they need their Lord’s parable of the rich fool as much as anybody.

Prosperous and Egotistic

“The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully.” He was already rich, and now a super-abundance is poured on him as a test of his character. “If riches increase, set not your heart upon them,” counsels the Psalmist (62:10).

But this man was unable to resist the lure of his prosperity. Thus his wealth became his greatest worry: “He kept on arguing it out within himself: What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.” This nine-fold repetition of the personal pronouns declares the man’s supreme egotism.

David ascribed his own unparalleled prosperity to God, and thankfully he gave it back to God: “All that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine … Both riches and honour come of thee … All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee” (1 Chron. 29:11, 12, 14).

Ignoring such a fine example, this silly man chose Nabal as his working model: “Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men whom I know not whence they be?” (Cp. also Sennacherib: ls.37 :24-26a).

God’s needful warning had been given long ago against such self-sufficiency. In a long eloquent admonition concerning the perils of prosperity, Moses had said: “Beware lest thou forget the Lord thy God . . . when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the Lord thy God, and thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth … And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the Lord thy God… I testify against you, this day, that ye shall surely perish” (Dt. 8:11-19).

For this rich fool in the parable such a Scripture might never have been penned. What merit was there in him, that he should preen himself so? Could he give no thought to the qualities of soil and seed and God’s sun and rain? But alas, “the prosperity of fools shall …. destroy them” (Pr. 1:32). How well does a Laodicean- harvest flourish on their farms (Rev. 3:17). This fool was rich and increased in goods and had need of nothing, not even of God. “This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater. . .”

What a contrast with the ravens which “neither sow nor reap, which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them” (v.24).

An ancient writer expostulates: “Thou hast barns—the houses of the widows, the bosoms of the needy, the mouths of infants and of orphans.”

Yet what cared this man for these? “There will I bestow all my fruits and my goods”—not even a little for distribution to the poor; not even the tithe that God commanded to be given to His sanctuary, not even a basket of firstfruits (Dt. 26:1,2).

“And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years.” How caustic this repetition of the word which so often emphasizes the unspiritual outlook of unregenerate man! (see Notes). And what dramatic irony there is about that phrase: “for many years”! “Boast not thyself of tomorrow: for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.”

Yet, as the world sees it, this man’s scheme was normal decent provision for old age, a sensible planned retirement in security and comfort. The Bible, however, says nothing about turning old age into a long holiday: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground.” Change of occupation from one form of usefulness to another is right. But cessation of useful activity is damned by its approximation to the dedicated selfishness of this prosperous fool.

However, he went further: “Take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” This was the attitude of Isaiah’s God-less contemporaries in Jerusalem when they thought the threat of destruction by Sennacherib’s army had been bought off by the payment of massive tribute: “Behold, joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine, (and saying) Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow (and not today, as we feared) we shall die” (22:13). With what sardonic reprobation, shown by his complete change of emphasis, did Paul quote the same words against those who were losing faith in resurrection: “If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor. 15:32).

God in control

If only this tycoon in the parable had give attention to the context of his own sentiment in Ecclesiastes: “Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment” (11:9).

And God did. He said to him: “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee.” The man deemed himself wondrous prudent, making the most of his bonanza. And the world envied his good fortune and applauded his self-interest until the stroke of God smote him: “Though while he lived he blessed his soul (and men will praise thee, when thou doest well to thyself); they shall go to the generation of his fathers which never see light” (Ps. 49:18,19).

The prophet of the Lord made a contemptuous assessment of this commonplace stupidity: “As the partridge sitteth on eggs which she hath not laid, so is he that getteth riches, and not by right; in the midst of his days he shall leave them, and at his end he shall be a fool” (Jer.17:11).

Account rendered

How did God communicate the frightening message? The designed close parallel will Nabal saves the reader of the gospel from guesswork: “As his name is, so is he. Nabal is his name, and folly (n’balah) is with him… And it came to pass about ten days after, that the Lord smote Nabal, that he died” (1 Sam. 25:25,37,38). A stroke, followed-as not infrequently happens-by another, removed that crude ungodly egotist. And so also in the parable, except that here the first seizure gave less than twenty-four hours notice, during which brief time the conscious but helpless man had time to realise that his end was near; had time but not the faculties to arrange for the disposal of “all his fruits and his goods;” had time, as he lay there, helpless and little pitied, to contemplate the glorious squabble soon to take place over his “much goods laid up for many years;” had time to recognize sadly and bitterly the truth of his Maker’s assessment-“thou fool;” had time to recall and ruefully ponder Job’s true prophecy: “What is the hope of the godless (though he get him gain), when God taketh away his soul?” (27:8).

Though he had chosen to assume personal right and ownership over all that his ground had brought forth so plentifully, it really belonged (as David had been happy to confess) to God, And his soul-his life-as well. All these God gave, and God took away. “This night they require thy soul of thee” is the literal reading the text. The reference is surely to the angels. “Yea, his soul draweth nigh unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers” (Job.33:22; 27 :8; Mt.13:48,49; Jn.l5:6 Gk. text; Lk.l6:22).

The Law of Moses forbad the exacting of debts in the year of release, but “of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again” (Dt.15 :2,3). Here, in LXX, is the same word as in the parable: “they require thy soul of thee.” This man of wealth owed a debt he had never taken account of, but now God called that debt in, treating him as a foreigner and not as one of His own, to be forgiven.

“Then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?” The Psalmist had already given the same reminder: “He heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them;” but his good counsel had gone unheeded: “And now, Lord, what wait I for? my hope is in thee” (39:6,7).

The entire story has stood written in Holy Scripture for centuries, yet still men go after covetousness: “There is an evil which I have seen under the sun and it is heavy upon men: a man to whom God giveth riches, wealth, and honour, so that he lacketh nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease” (Ecc. 6:1,2 RV). And still it lieth heavy upon men, still it is an evil disease!

In the days of Jesus this was true in yet another sense. In all the nation few or none could match the wealth, pomp and circumstance of the chief priests. They grew fat on the illicit revenues of the sanctuary of the Lord. As the fool in the parable was set on pulling down barns to build greater, so they, with the help of the Herods, were building a finer, more glorious temple than men thought possible. Yet Jesus prophesied that their essentially materialistic project would come to nought, and themselves with it. “Then whose shall those things be?” All that prosperity which was not carried to Rome disappeared in an unquenchable Gehenna of fire. And the priesthood and all other spiritual privileges were inherited by despised Gentile believers, friends of the Son of David. The Lord’s parable besought them to learn the lesson taught by the fate of Nabal. If he had not been fool in name and nature, he would have made friends with David, instead of execrating him, and so would have lived in health and contentment for many a year. Caiaphas, must you also, in your affluence and power, prove yourself a fool?        

Notes: Lk. 12:13-21

13.	Speak to my brother. There is a certain resembelence between this and 1Cor 6:1-6, but a marked difference in spirit surely.
19.	Soul. Rev 18:14; 1Cor 2:14; Jas. 3:15; Jude 19; Heb 4:12; Mt. 16:25; Lk. 12:22.
20.	See Eccl. 2, Almost the entire chapter is a vivid commentary on this.

The story of the healing of the blind man is marvellously impressive in itself, but to concentrate on exciting details and graphic delineation of character may mean missing the deeper truths.

The record seems to imply that Jesus paused deliberately to contemplate the blind man as he sat begging, considering the problem which his sad plight presented and also the opportunity of witness which it afforded. One of the twelve, alert to an opportunity of enlightenment, put the problem to Jesus point-blank: “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?”

There was here an implied assumption that this affliction must surely be an expression of God’s displeasure at some outstanding act of sin. There are examples enough in the Old Testament to encourage such an interpretation. The deaths of Nadab and Abihu, of Achan, of Uzzah, the stroke afflicting king Jeroboam, the leprosy of Gehazi—all of these were open expressions of the wrath of God. So it could happen again. Indeed, whenever any servant of God finds himself smitten with some special affliction he should contemplate the possibility that this might be the explanation of his own suffering (but it is not permissible for others to canvass such a possibility regarding him!).

Much ridiculous speculation is to be found in me commentaries as to how, in the thinking of the disciples, the blind man could be deemed to have sinned in some special way before he was born. Attempts have been made to demonstrate that the rabbis had theories about transmigration of souls (with this life penalised according to the quality of the existence that has preceded it), and even about the possibility of sin in the months before birth. There is precious little likelihood that the disciples, having spent nearly three years in the company of Jesus, would have much sympathy for such stupidities.

Punishment?

It has been suggested that the disciples’ point, that blindness from birth might be a punishment for he man’s own sin, was their way of expressing what they believed to be the absurdity of seeking any cause-effect link between sin and suffering. A kind of reductio ad absurdum. Much more probable is the explanation put forward by R.R. in “Nazareth Revisited” (p.216b) that they considered the possibility of God’s foreknowledge anticipating some outstanding sin in the man’s life and also anticipating its needful punishment.

The alternative, that God was visiting “the iniquity of the fathers on the children” is a commonplace notion. Hardly anyone goes through life without being made to contemplate this possibility, in the experience of others if not of self. Life presents enough examples of people being born with congenital defects which are traceable to the sin of a parent for anyone to wonder if this is the meaning of the second commandment. Yet there is also the evident discordance of such a view with the familiar words of Ezekiel: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son” (18:20; cp.Jer.31:30).

Again, it is not out of the question that the sin of the parents which the disciples had in mind, was the Fall in Eden.

So there were, and still remain, complexities enough about this problem of human suffering.

Regarding this particular case the interpretation given by Jesus was fairly explicit: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but (this affliction is his from birth) that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” In two other instances—the man healed at Bethesda (Jn. 5:13), and the paralytic let down through the roof (Lk. 5:20)—Jesus had clearly implied that suffering was a direct punishment for the sin of the individual. Here now was his warning against the facile assumption that this was the simple explanation of all such problems. In some instances, yes, but in others—the present being one of them—the specific divine intention was “a shewing forth of the Works of God.”

“For the glory of God”

Jesus had already used this expression in two different senses, and in the healing of the blind man both were valid. “The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me” (Jn.5 :36). Similarly, concerning the death of Lazarus: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby” (11 :4). But/in a very different sense: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (Jn.6:29).

In the giving of sight to this blind beggar both principles were to be very evident. Jesus put the emphasis on the former: “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh when no man can work.” These are remarkable words to be spoken on a sabbath. They can only mean that whatever is done on a sabbath with the intention of glorifying God is not a “work” of the kind God’s sabbath law proscribed. Jesus tried to teach this wider view choosing the sabbath for at least seven miracles of healing:

1. The demoniac at Capernaum (Mk.l :23).
2. Peter’s mother-in-law (Mk.l :29).
3. The man with the withered hand (Mt.12:10).
4. The paralytic at Bethesda (Jn.5 :10).
5. The man born blind (Jn.9:14).
6. The women eighteen years bowed down (Lk.13 16).
7. The man with the dropsy (Lk.l4:l).

By “the night, when no man can work” Jesus probably meant the end of his ministry. There was only a limited time—an appointed time-available to him, so an obligation lay on him to use to fullest advantage the duration of opportunity for appeal to the people of God.

“Whenever (this is what the Greek really says) I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Did Jesus mean: “Whenever I am in Jerusalem, the centre of the Jewish kosmos?” His figure of speech was doubtless intended in a double sense—as giving sight to the spiritually blind, and also providing the daylight of the New Creation (Gen.1:3,4; and consider v4, 6, 16d here).

In the last week of his ministry he employed lie same figure with reference, not to his opportunity to bring conviction to the people but to their opportunity to make up their minds about him: “Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you” (Jn.12 :35; cp. Ecc.9 :10).

Light from the prophets

Just as the sun’s course in the heavens is for a set time, so also he had now little time left to him in which to bring the light of life to this people walking in darkness (11:9,19; 12 :35,36; Ecc9:10). The recent attempt to stone him (8:59) y sounded in the mind of Jesus a note of urgency. In their blindness and wilful disregard of the call of Christ, Israel had become a nation of Gentiles. This idea is certainly behind the symbolism of Christ’s mode of healing. In the Old lestament spitting is an expression of contempt, reprobation or disgust (Num. 12:14; Dt. 25:9; Is. 50:6; Mt.26:67).

The daubing of the eyes with clay enacted the prophecy of Isaiah 44. After his long derisive description of the futility of a false religion (44:9-17), the prophet continues: “They have not Blown nor understood: for he daubed their eyes that they cannot see.” (The word “know” comes 13 times in John 9:12-10:5).

Isaiah 29 has the same theme. After a trenchant denunciation of Israel, which Jesus had already used with vigour against the blind leaders of the nation (29:13 = Mt. 15 :8,9), there comes the warning: “Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay” (v.16); so I (the Lord) will turn things upside down—Israel shall be cast off, and the Gentiles accepted: “Is it not yet a very little while, and (Gentile) Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field (Israel) shall be counted for a (wild unfruitful) forest? And in that day … the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness” (v.17,18).

Nor is this the only prophetic testimony of this kind: “I the lord . . . will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes . . . And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight…” (42 :6,7,16).

Even the rough treatment meted out to the blind man is anticipated in Isaiah: “Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, have said, Let the Lord be qlorified. But he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed” (66:5).

By the way in which he healed the blind man Jesus showed that since Israel were become as blind as Gentiles, the Gentiles also were to be offered the gospel on the same terms as Israel. This explains the use of the waters of Siloam. Zechariah had foretold the opening of a fountain of waters in Jerusalem for the cleansing of the sin of Israel (13 :1). But his next prophecy tells of living waters that shall go out from Jerusalem, east and west, to the nations of the world, “and the Lord shall be king over all the earth” (14:8,9).

Miracle symbolism

These prophecies are matched by Christ’s symbolic acts of healings in Jerusalem. The cure of the paralytic at the waters of Bethesda has already been expounded (Study 37) as a sign of the Lord’s redemption of Israel bound under the Law. And now the waters of Siloam heal the one who pre-figures the blindness of the Gentiles. Both of these were described by Jesus as “the works of him that sent me”(5 :36; 9:3,4). It is not for nothing that John records the blind man’s emphatic pronouncement: “He is a prophet” (v.17).

It has already been observed that the three miracles of Jesus worked at a distance—the nobleman’s son, the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter, and the centurion’s servant—were all for the benefit of Gentiles. But now the blind man, healed at Siloam when Jesus was no longer with him appears not to fall into the same pattern, for he was undoubtedly a Jew. Nevertheless, in all other respects this man presents a graphic picture of Gentile redemption, as will be demonstrated by and by. The close parallel with the healing of Gentile Naaman has often been commented on (2 Kgs 5). Also, this is the only known example of Jesus healing a congenital disability. The nation of Israel can hardly be described as “blind from birth,” but this description is apt enough with respect to the Gentiles. More that this, does not the phrase: “which is by interpretation”(v.7) suggest pointed application to Gentiles? What Jew should need to be told the meaning of “Siloam”?

The details of the cure suggest a New Birth. The making of clay recalls the fashioning of the first man (Gen. 2:7; cp. Job 4:19; 10:9). And the elaborate details with which John reports the neighbours’ excited discussion as to whether this really was “he that sat and begged” is surely designed to present a picture of one so changed that he is a New Man!

The details with which the miracle is introduced open the way for a parabolic interpretation of the rest. There was an attempt to take the life of Jesus, but he hid himself from them, and left them with their temple bereft of divine glory (8 :59). Then as he passed by (for Jesus had no personal mission to the Gentiles), he gave attention to the blind man, afflicted by an incurable congenital disease, he also explained the problem of his blindness, and then left him in the hands of the apostles for the completion of the cure.

‘Was this man to blame for his blindness?’ the disciples asked. No, but his predicament has presented a splendid opportunity for the grace of God. In the same way, ignorant Gentiles were not held responsible by God, but their very blindness became the occasion of a marvellous divine miracle of enlightenment through the ministry of the apostles. He who had begged for meagre benefactions of truth from Jews passing by now needed neither their pity nor their charity. He had all the blessings they enjoyed, and more.

It has already been suggested that the mode of cure was designed to imply a man new-born. But another essential element in the miracle was the recourse to Siloam. Not everything was done for him. He had to bestir himself to make his way to the water (cp. 2 Kgs.5 :14). He needed also the humility to accept the guidance of others who saw where he could not (Acts 8:31).

Siloam, John is careful to remind his readers, means Sent. This is significant, not because the man was sent to the pool, but because the water was regarded as sent from God (cp. “sent” in v.4). It came from the Virgin’s Pool, and was only to be reached by going down into a pit as deep as the grave. To the Jews this water of Siloam was their contemporary equivalent of the smitten rock pouring forth water of life, a type of Messianic Scripture, and at the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn.7 :32) Jesus had carried over that interpretation to himself.

With the clay washed away—’putting off the body of the sins of the flesh’—the man now rejoiced in the light of life, and this on a sabbath of rest from works of his own righteousness, Indeed, he was now hardly recognizable as the same person (v.9)!

There followed much scornful treatment from Jews of the temple who despised this new-born disciple of Jesus. But it was a fine opportunity to witness concerning him, and this was used with avidity and vigour. It proved too much for those who were disciples of Moses and, intolerant, they broke off fellowship.

Some time later Jesus comes again, and for the first time the man will set eyes on his Saviour. With what gladness will he now re-affirm his faith and worship Jesus as the Lord of Glory. But those who have eyes to see, and yet refuse the authority of Jesus come under judgment-“your sin remaineth!”

Thus, here, once again, woven into the fabric of the story is the watermark of truth, the stamp of inspiration. So many of the miracles of Jesus prove to be acted parables for which coherent interpretations are possible, that no other explanation is adequate which does not concede the providential control of the events, the basic truth of the divine purpose they reveal, and the inspiration of the Book which has preserved them. All these are inextricably intertwined in the interpretation of the Lord’s miracles as acted parables. This impressive example is by no means unique.

Judgment to come

The incident is rounded off with one further lesson of basic importance. Taking the mirade as his text Jesus spoke solemnly to an assembly of the Jewish leaders: “For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not (and are aware of their blindness, and would be rid of it), might see; and that they which see (that is, those who believe themselves to be already fully enlightened) might be made blind.” There is such a thing as judicial blindness, inflicted by God on men rotten with self-sufficiency and without the humility to rely thankfully on the grace of God in Christ.

Some of the better-disposed Pharisees, those who were “with him,” suspecting that Jesus was addressing his warning to them (as indeed he was), asked: “Are we blind also?” It was a sad but necessarily blunt reply which Jesus had to give them: “If ye were blind (and recognized the fact), ye would have no sin (for then what happened to the blind man could also happen to you); but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” It was a strange and unhappy paradox that such hard words must be said to Pharisees who were better than the rest. Yet it was their very inclination to side with Jesus which put them in a position of special spiritual peril. They had to learn that sympathy with the work of Jesus, and being on tolerably good terms with him, was not discipleship. They could say: ‘We see the truth concerning Jesus.’ Therefore their sin was all the more marked, because they held off from committing themselves to open and complete allegiance to him.

This incident is of special value in its bearing on the Bible’s doctrine of responsibility. When a man reaches the point of recognizing that “This is the Truth in Christ,” this is also the point at which he says: “I see.” It is then that his sin remains if he continues to rob Christ of the loyalty due to him.

In all the Bible there is hardly any figure of speech more familiar to the ordinary reader or more eloquent to express divine ideas than that of sheep and Shepherd.

The deliverance of Israel from Egypt and God’s care for them in the wilderness is described by this simile: “Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron” (Ps.77 -.20). “Where is he that brought them up out of the (Red) sea with the shepherd of his flock?” (ls.63 :11). The familiar words of the Hundredth Psalm repeat the idea: “We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture” (100:3).The twin psalm (95:7) echoes the words.

Out of intimate personal experience of the shepherd’s task, David thankfully praised the Lord for His care: “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters” (Ps.23:l,2).

There is no little fitness about the appropriation of this figure of speech to David’s own great work as the leader of God’s people: “He (the Lord) chose David his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds … he brought him to feed (shepherd) Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance. So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands” (Ps. 78:70-72).

Naturally enough, the same imagery is taken up time after time by the prophets to describe the Messiah promised under the Davidic Covenant: “I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them aqain to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. And I will set up shepherds (intensive plural for “a great Shepherd”?) which shall feed them”-and then follows immediately the prophecy of Messiah the Branch, the Lord our Righteousness, raised up to sit on David’s throne (Jer.23 :3-6).

Ezekiel’s finest prophecy of the kingdom of God has as its grand climax: “David my servant shall be their shepherd” (37 -.21-28).

Similarly, Micah foretold the raising up of “seven shepherds and eight principal men”— Messiah and his seven archangels? (Rev. 5:4)— as the vindicators of God’s people in the last days (Mic. 5:5).

It is somewhat surprising to find the most elaborate development of this shepherd allegory in the writings of Ezekiel the priest. From beginning to end his 34th chapter is at once a powerful arraignment of false shepherds and a gracious assurance of heavenly care for the Lord’s true flock. The leaders of Israel who selfishly fed themselves and grossly neglected their people will be made to answer for their evil ways (see also on this ls. 56:10-12). The people of the Lord, scattered among the nations like so many sheep, are to be gathered again and cared for in a good fold and with rich pasture. Even in the flock itself the good shepherd will exercise an unerring discrimination—between fat cattle and lean cattle, between sheep and goats. Evil beasts, ever preying on the defenceless, will be chased away, and in a land of complete safety the flock will browse contentedly under the sure care of “my servant David.”

Isaiah has a similar, but brief, picture of great loveliness: “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young” (40:11).

The catalogue of such passages is far from being exhausted, but the trend of those already cited makes clear that Jesus’ claim to be the Good Shepherd would be interpreted by his Jewish hearers as an assertion that he was the Messiah the Son of God, the manifestation of Jehovah. This is the background to all he had to say on this theme.

The chapter division in John would have come better at 9 :38. The Lord’s discourse was a straight continuation from his censure of the Pharisees (and note v.7,19). There is no example of the characteristic “Verily, verily” (v.l) ever coming at the beginning of a new section of his teaching.

Thieves and Robbers

Jesus could read the minds of the men before him. They included Pharisees who in their hearts were convinced of the truth of the Lord’s claims, but who were too timid to come out into the open in support of him; they included also some of his most vicious enemies who were even now scheming how they might wreck this new movement from within by pretending discipleship and by secretly working to undermine all progress (see Notes): “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold (that is, the true temple of God; Ps.100:3,4; 95 :6,7); but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” If a distinction of meaning is to be made regarding these terms, the thief is the one who works by craft, and the robber by violence. The same enemies of truth would follow first one policy and then, with increasing confidence, the other. Jeremiah had had to contend with the same kind of opposition. “Behold, I am against the prophets that steal my words every one from his neighbour” (23:30) —false teachers who appropriated what suited them out of Jeremiah’s message, and passed it off as their own inspiration. And again: “Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?” (7 :11)— they plotted violence against this faithful prophet and his unpopular message. So also would be the experience of Jesus and his gospel.

By contrast, “he that entereth in by the door is a shepherd of the sheep’—that is, a true, faithful shepherd. At this point Jesus was not speaking specially of himself, but of any who would conscientiously guide his flock in coming days.

Parable and Interpretation

The interpretation of the “parable” is not without difficulty, that is, if all the details are to be assigned a meaning consistent with one another. There are certain fixed points. Jesus identifies himself with the Good Shepherd, giving his life to save the flock, and also he is the door of the sheepfold (Rom.5 :2). This seeming inconsistency ceases to present difficulty once the metonymy is recognized: here “door” signifies “the one in charge of the door”, that is, the “porter.” In Psalm 24 :7, the words: “Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors,” are addressed to those in charge of the gates of Jerusalem, the watchmen who put the challenge: “Who is this king of glory?” Similarly, in 2 Samuel 18 :26 the Hebrew word for “porter” is, literally, “gate,”

Thus, the picture presented is of one who is fit to be a shepherd of the flock being admitted by the guardian of the sheep (Acts 14:27; Mk.13:34). This shepherd learns to know his sheep intimately and affectionately. He leads them out, away from other sheep which remain in the fold. The sheep follow him as their shepherd, but they give no heed to a stranger, because he is a stranger.

A worthy shepherd would not dream of trying to climb into the fold by some indirect way, but only through access granted by the One who has authority over the fold and is himself the Chief Shepherd. He guides them to good pasture, protects them from thieves, and when a wolf would ravage the flock, instead of timidly saving his own skin, he faithfully does all in his power to keep the flock from harm. The Good Shepherd is even ready to contend to the death in order that the sheep might be saved.

The general interpretation of these features of the allegory is less difficult, if, once again, it is remembered that Jesus was addressing a group of the religious leaders—Pharisees, some of whom were timid friends, and others, as different as possible, who were secret enemies, pretending to be friends.

Jesus foresaw that if any of these able men were to join the ecclesia he sought to establish, whether sincerely or deceitfully, their training and status would inevitably make them highly influential for good or evil. Any true shepherd, accepted and welcomed by the guardian of the fold, would be accepted by the sheep. The sheep would hear, that is, obey his voice (v.3).

Special emphasis

The repetition, emphasis, and development of this simple idea—a docile subjection to the shepherd, and especially to the Good Shepherd—is the constant theme of this section of the gospel:

v.4:	The sheep follow him, for they know his voice.”
v.5:	“They know not the voice of strangers.”
v.8:	“The sheep did not hear them (the thieves and robbers)”
v.14:	“I know my sheep, and am known of mine.”
v.16:	“Other sheep … I must bring, and they shall hear my voice.”
v.20:	“He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?”
v.27:	“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
v.41:	“And many resorted unto him.”
v.42:	“And many believed on him there.”

The shepherd “calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.” Here Jesus foreshadowed the separation of his disciples from Jewry, a separation made inevitable when the name of Christ is named upon them (e.g. Acts 22:16 Gk., Jas. 2:7 Gk.)

The usual interpretation of “calleth each sheep by its own name” is a very happy one (Ex.33 :12,17; 28 :21; ls.43 :1; 40 :26,11; Ps.147:4; Lk.19 -.5; Jn.l :48; 20:16). However, it is (a) far less fundamental than the suggestion given here; (b) more remote from the ideas of John’s gospel; (c) according to the Greek, less likely; (d) the blind man, in chapter 9, is not called by his own name (this is carefully left out of the narrative), but he is called by and to the name of the Son of God (9:28,35).

However, the Lord’s flock is marked off from the rest not through an unintelligent mass response (which the modern use of “follow like a flock of sheep” normally implies). The framing of the Greek verbs (verse 4) very subtly implies an individual response: “the sheep (all) follow him: for they (individually) know his voice’—as the blind man did (9 :36). Here the word “know” (v.4,5) is a carry over from eleven occurrences in chapter 9.

The reaction of the sheep to the call of a stranger (a false teacher) is equally instinctive: “they will flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.” In coming days the apostle Paul was to warn against men who would arise, “speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20 :30); but, as it proved, he warned in vain.

This “sheep and shepherd” parable was but little appreciated by the learned men who heard it (contrast v.4c). They “knew not” the voice of the Good Shepherd, because they were not his sheep. But the disciples who heard treasured the words and found them of inestimable value in later days when responsibility fell heavily upon them.

Parable and warning renewed

Because his hearers were slow to grasp his meaning (v.6) Jesus renewed his parable. This time he put even more emphasis on the possible abuses of the responsible office of shepherd over the flock of God.

The warning against “thieves” was repeated. Such come only “to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.” Here the last two verbs are interpretative. Thieves gain nothing by destroying the flock. And the word “kill” means “to kill in sacrifice.” Thus Jesus anticipated what he was later to declare yet more plainly: “The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth service to God” (Jn.16 :2). The persecutor, and his evil work!

Another grievous danger was the ferocious wild beast intent on ravaging the flock: “The wolf snatcheth them (v.29 s.w.), and scattereth the sheep.” It is tempting here to see exemplification of these sombre words in the experiences of the disciples at the arrest of their Lord (Mk.14 :27; Jn.16 :32), and especially in the way in which Peter’s loyalty was overborn in the courtyard of the high-priest’s palace. But both Jesus and Paul refer this figure to false teachers and self-accredited prophets: “False prophets … in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly ravening wolves” (Mt.7 :15); “grievous wolves shall enter in, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29).

In the face of such testing situations, Jesus prophesied, unworthy leaders of the ecclesia would show up in their own true colours. Not really caring for the sheep, but only for their own comfort, such “hirelings” would take to their heels, and let come what may in the form of dereliction and damage of the flock. This, because such false men “care not for sheep,” but only for their own well-being, just as Judas “cared not for the poor”(12 :6). “All seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s,” Paul wrote in sadness (Phil.2:21; contrast 1 :24,25).

This searing phrase of Christ: “he careth not for the sheep,” disowns those who insist on being feather-bedded in a “pure fellowship.” Such, who withdraw hastily into a righteous minority at the first sign of that whch offends their conscience, “care not for the sheep” but only for their own selfish spiritual comfort. Yet how often, alas, has such behaviour been dressed up in the garb of virtue and faithfulness (contrast 1 Sam.12 :23). In the past century the flock of Christ has suffered very sadly through such mistaken attitudes. So there has been a bad inheritance, and a bad history!

By contrast, Jesus proclaimed himself “the door of the sheep’—that is, as already explained, the Chief Shepherd who guards the entrance of the sheepfold. Only through him is there valid access. These rabbis and Pharisees to whom he now spoke must humble themselves to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Chief Shepherd of God’s true flock and as the only one with authority to delegate to them (should they prove worthy) any degree of responsibility over the flock.

It was a sweeping claim which Jesus made, especially since he linked with it a peremptory cancellation of all the privileges which these men deemed to be theirs by right: “All that came before me are thieves and robbers.” Christ constantly claimed to be the fulfilment of Law and Prophets. No other teacher could make such a claim without stamping himself “a thief and a robber.” That present tense: “are”, shows that it was Christ’s arrogant contemporaries; who were under this censure, and not John the Baptist and the Old Testament prophets who had gone before. They had all pointed the way to himself.

Probably, also, the word “came” was specially chosen to contrast these self-appointed leaders with those whom God sent for the guidance of His flock. Paul also used, rather sarcastically, the same word about one of the same sort (2 Cor. 11:4 cp. Jer. 23:21). And in the same spirit Peter exhorted: “Neither be lords over God’s heritage, but be examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3).

“By me if any man enter in (as a shepherd of the sheep), he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (cp. Rom.5 :2). Serious misunderstanding can result here from a failure to recognize the Biblical idiom. From the time of Moses, “to go in and out” was a familiar expression for leadership of God’s people: “Let the Lord set a man over the congregation, which may go out before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep which have no shepherd” (Num. 27:16,17). Thus, to “go in and out, and find pasture” very aptly describes the conscientious attention of a good ecclesial leader caring for the needs of the community, especially in the provision of good spiritual instruction-not nomos (the Law of Moses) but pasture (name).

The Good Shepherd

Thus far Jesus had concentrated mainly on the duties of all good shepherds and on the chief dangers to the flock. Now, at last, he focussed attention on himself:” I am the Good Shepherd,” that is, the Good Shepherd already foretold through the prophets. But, remarkably, this description emphasizes not the Shepherd’s goodness of character (agathos), but that he is good and skilful in the role of shepherd (kales), as a man may be a good pianist or work manager,

And that fine quality springs from his own personal experience: “I know mine own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father” (R.V.). He, the Lamb of God, who experienced in a very special way the love and care of the Father, is also the Shepherd of a flock of his own, and all the personal affection and intimacy which he experienced with his Shepherd he would fain foster between himself and his flock. This lovely relationship is beautifully expressed in the symbolism of Revelation: “the Lamb shall be their shepherd” (7 :17RV).

“I know my sheep, and am known of mine” – it is readily understandable that here Jesus should use a word which emphasises “learning, getting to know,” for the relationship between sheep and Shepherd is one of growing intimacy. But that the same word should be used again-“the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father’-is truly remarkable, especially since there was another commonly-used word available which has more of the idea: “know intimately or familiarly.” Such a phenomenon as this must be altogether baffling to the Trinitarian whose theology presents the concept of a Father and Son enjoying divine fellowship from all eternity! Over against this, the true relationship— a Son and a Father coming to know and understand one another more and more as that earthly life expanded in its powers and its spiritual perfection— becomes one of the loveliest ideas presented in all the four gospels. It is one only to be truly appreciated, surely, through the ripening of a similar relationship between Lord and disciple, Shepherd and sheep.

“O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me” (17 :25). “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the 1 Son and he to whosoever the Son will reveal him” (Mt. 11:27). These sayings use the same meaningful expression; “they teach the same wonderful idea.

“I am known of mine,” Jesus said. It is a simple phrase, but how intensely significant, specially for those who, in turn, are called to be shepherds of the flock. One mightily essential qualification is that such men know the Good Shepherd. Yet how often, alas, is a knowledge of business affairs or of the exposition of the deep things of the Truth esteemed to be a more important qualification! For leaders of the flock there is no single personal characteristic more needful than knowing the Good Shepherd— and how shall he be known if there be not diligent application to the four gospels?

And as the Son was willing to lay down his life in fulfilment of the Father’s commandment, so also as Good Shepherd he gave his life for the sheep. The experiences of Jacob the shepherd (Gen.31 :39,40) and of David the shepherd (1 Sam.17 :34,35; cp. Ez.34 :12,23) tell something of the hazards besetting the one faithful to his flock. And if true in their labour, how much more true of Jesus!

More emphasis The emphasis is very strong:

v.11:	“The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”
v.14:	“I lay down my life for the sheep.”
v.17:	“Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.”
v.18:	“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.”
v.18:	“I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”

The words just quoted from verse 18 are not easy to reconcile with those which immediately fellow: “This commandment have I received of my Father.” Even when it is recognized that the “commandment” referred to is the imperative of Holy Scripture, the Old Testament blue-print of Messiah’s work, there still remains a marked contrast between the spirit of these two sayings. “Power” means “authorisation”, “the right of decision;” there is almost the idea of privilege. Whereas “commandment” necessarily implies obligation.

The distinction is due to a difference in point of view. In effect Jesus was saying: ‘The time will come when I shall die to save those committed to me. I shall die not because unable to evade the hostile scheming of my enemies, but because it is Ike Father’s will (ls. 53:10) that I give my life for others.’

But there is also a further implication. This laying down of his life is closely linked with the love of the Father; “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, in order that I might take it again.” Here is emphasis that his imminent self-sacrifice was not only to save the flock but to realise yet more fully the love of his Father. Some men, chiefly suicides, have power to decide when and how they will die, but only Jesus had the power to decide when and how — and why — he would rise again: “as quiet and assured (wrote John Carter) as a healthy man speaks of resuming his work after rest in sleep.”

Other sheep

Linked with this obligation to die was another important divine imperative: “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd .”Sent with a mission to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” Jesus, instructed by Holy Scripture, looked beyond this to the greater work of saving helpless Gentiles, by bringing them into the fold of Israel: “they shall become one fold and (all shall have) one Shepherd” (Eph. 2:11-22; Rom. 11: 25-32). Here the future tenses are important. The redemption of the Gentiles was not the Lord’s immediate task. It lay beyond his suffering and resurrection, and even then was to be accomplished through the diligent work of his disciples. From the present occasion right up to the Passover of his crucifixion the discourses of Jesus are dotted with allusions to this great expectation. Faced with the hostility of the leaders and the indifference or timid uncertainty of the people, the prospect of Gentiles being called, through his work, to the hope of Israel, became an outstanding solace for a sorely disappointed Son of God (Is. 49:6).

It seems likely that already he had considered and appreciated the healing of the blind man as a type and sign of Gentiles enlightened by the gospel (see Study 124), and it was this encouragement which led him to foretell the inclusion of “other sheep” in his flock, even though there was also implicit in that acted parable a prophecy of rancorous Jewish opposition to Gentile privilege.

“One fold” is a mistranslation which the Roman church has always seized on as “proving” that there is no salvation outside “Mother Church.” But “one flock” (as RV etc.) means that all in this flock truly acknowledge the one Shepherd.

This latest discourse, with its clear assumption of Messianic authority, had a dramatic effect on the rabbis and scribes who heard it. The cleavage in opinion amongst them became more marked than ever. Some—most—fumed at the scarcely veiled censure of themselves as “thieves and robbers.” Others hesitated timorously, convinced in their inmost souls, yet not daring to accede openly and unequivocally to his claims. With a show of impartiality, they appealed to both his word and his works: “These are not the words of him that hath a devil;” and: “Can a man possessed with a devil open the eyes of the blind?”

That day, and thereafter, there was, doubtless, much argumentation among them.

Notes: Jn.10:1-21

1.	Other “shepherd” passages of importance: Ez.20:37; 37:21-28; Jer. 31:10; Zech 11:13 :7; Mt.25:32; 26:31; 15:24; 9:36; ls. 65:10; 56:9-12; 1Pet. 2:25; Heb. 13:20; Acts 1:21; Ps.l21; Lk.15 :4-7. Ezekiel 34 has important NT. contacts:
		v.5,12 =Mt.9:36. v.23 =Jn.10:11. v.17 = Mt.25:32,33. v.4, contrast 1 Pet.5:3. *” Also v.31 = Ps.l00:3 precisely. v.12 = Joe 2:2. And there are no less than ten links with Ez.37,38.
	Climbeth up some other way. It was a policy which was followed in later days with outstanding success: Acts 20:29,30; 15:1,24; Gal. 2:4; 1:8; Eph. 4:14; 2 Th. 2:2; 3:17; 2 Cor. 10:10-12; 11:3,4,21-23; 12:7; Phil. l:15,16;2Tim. 1:15;4:14-16; 1 Tim. 1:19,20;Tit. 1:10,11. See “The Jewish Plot”,by H.A.W. Hoskyns calls this chapter the Parable of the Sheep, the Shepherd, and the Brigands.
4.	He putteth forth his own sheep; s.w. 9 :34,35. Then is there an allusion here to God-sent persecution? e.g. Ads 8:1?
6.	This parable. Not the usual NT. word for parable, but as in Pr.l :1;25 :1. Yet on many an occasion Jesus turned these proverbs into parables. Ps.78 :2 (Symmachus) has the same word. But it has never been clearly explained why here Jesus switched from parabole.
9.	Enter in, saved, go in and out. The order of the phrases is significant. Clearly here the Lord speaks of being “saved” as a present, as well as a future, experience.
10.	More abundantly. Better: “and shall have abundance;” cp.Ps.23 :1,5: “I shall not want … my cup runneth over.” Contrast Lk.2: 16.
12.	Seeth. The Greek word here is puzzling.
15.	As the Father knoweth me. The heavenly Shepherd and His Lamb. In effect Jesus appropriates Psalm 23 to himself. Of course, if that psalm was true for David, it was true for the Son of David.
	Must means “it is necessary;” Mt.l6:21; 26:54; Lk.13 :33; 17:25; 24:7,26,44.
16.	One fold, one shepherd. In the light of v.11,14, there is here an implicit prophecy of his resurrection. Anticipations of the call of the Gentiles are to be found in Mt.21 :2-7; 22 :8-10; 24 :14; Mk.12 :9; 13 :10; Lk.14:21,23;17:18;Jn.ll:52; 12:32.
	One shepherd suggests a Messianic interpretation of Ecc. 12 :11.

It is not inappropriate that Luke should bring together and insert at the beginning of his account of the Lord’s great tour of appeal, the record of three disciples who reacted very differently to his call.

Following Luke’s arrangement (what did he mean by “in order”?; 1 :3) it has been deemed desirable to consider this section of the gospels here rather than earlier, where inserted by Matthew. And the fitness of the passage for inclusion at this place in Luke none can question. Yet there are hints that Matthew’s arrangement is chronologically more likely:

1. “The Son of man hath not where to lay his head” follows on appropriately enough from verses 17,18: “Took our infirmities . . . bear our sicknesses,” and the command to leave the crowd; and in turn the words are followed by the picture of Jesus in the storm-tossed boat “asleep on a pillow.”
2. “Follow me” (v.22); then “his disciples followed him” (v.23)
3. In Matthew it is shortly after these encounters that the Twelve are definitely chosen.

Apparently, Luke, impressed by the appropriateness of this section in Matthew to a later period, deliberately transplanted it, and added something not unlike Matthew’s personal response to the Lord’s “Follow me.”

Eager disciple

The first of the three was a scribe-Saul among the prophets! It would not require Matthew’s distinctive Hebraism to pick him out as a very unusual scribe: “Teacher, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.” What sort of a man was this, openly to acknowledge Jesus as his rabbi?

It might be thought that Jesus would be greatly delighted to have so influential and eager a follower. But the protestation of devotion was a trifle too effusive, and Jesus mistrusted it, as he did all that class of men. There were other occasions when he quietly discouraged emotional impulsiveness of this kind — when the woman cried out in the crowd: ‘Why didn’t God give me a son like you? (Lk.ll :27); and the time when Peter rashly asserted that his devotion to Christ was without limit (22 :33;cp. also 14:28).

On this occasion the Lord bade the man consider what sort of life it meant for him if he, reared in the comfort and ease which a scribe could count on in those days, fulfilled his promise: “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have their roosting places, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” It is one of the few glimpses which the gospels afford of the Lord’s life of austerity and discomfort. It is even possible that at this time in the ministry, there was a rabbinic ban on the offering of hospitality to Jesus (note Lk.10 :38,39). As will be seen later, the invitation described in Luke 14 :ltt was a hostile act, not a friendly one. He began the days of his flesh in a borrowed manger, and ended them in a borrowed tomb. And throughout them he was no stranger to the hardships of David the outlaw or of his other great ancestor who set a stone for his pillow. “In the day the drought consumed him, and the frost by night; and his sleep departed from his eyes” (Gen.28:11; 31:40).

The sparrow could find herself a house, and the swallow a nest where she may lay her young, but the heart and flesh of Jesus cried out for no creature comforts, but only for the living God and His altars of self-consecration, prayer and expiation of sin (Ps.84 :2,3). Another , psalm (8 :6-8) held out a promise to the Son of man of a crown of glory and honour, with dominion over the works of God’s hands- sheep and oxen, the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea; but at this present time he was “made lower than the angels” and in some material respects scarcely knew the blessings of the birds and foxes.

Religiously also the Lord’s discouraging words were just as true. Jesus was at home with none of the variegated segments of Jewish religious life. How would a scribe like that?

It is not said whether the Lord’s unemotional realism put this fervent disciple off. But if, after this, he persisted in his allegiance, it would be in a more sober spirit of clear-sighted resolution and tenacity than his earlier avowal gave promise of.

Fence-sitter

The next disciple was one of very different temperament. Far from needing to have the brake applied to his racing fervour, he-already a disciple-had to be helped with a blunt imperative delivered point blank. So Jesus gave it, twice. First, there was the peremptory: “Follow me.” The reaction to this was a timid uncertain: ‘Yes, Lord, but later on, when I am not hampered by other responsibilities. Suffer me first to go and bury my father.’ There lie spoke for thousands of would-be followers of Jesus who have sought the kingdom of God and His righteousness, but have not sought it first.

It is not clear whether the man’s father had just died, and there remained only to see him decently interred, or whether the excuse was: “I have a responsibility to look after my aged parent. When this is no longer necessary, then I will follow you.” But it was seventeen years before Jacob died when the angel of the Lord assured him that “Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes” (Gen.46:4).

If indeed it was only the actual burial which detained him, it is difficult to believe that Jesus would have been so peremptory about the loss of one day’s dedication to the work of the gospel. But whilst with the Jews interment took place very promptly (see Acts 5 :6), there are rabbinic indications of a long period (perhaps ten days) during which the mourners did not leave the house. Or it may be that the lord’s i insight discerned ulterior motives-the man was j anxious about the will and what would become ₍ of his share of the inheritance if he were not present to thwart the scheming of greedy relatives. Human nature is always at its worst as it leaves the cemetery.

It would appear that this was the Lord’s assessment of the situation. Otherwise it is difficult to account for the harsh flavour of his peremptory “Let the dead bury their dead,” This was the spirit of the Law of Moses. The high priest and also the Nazirite, who sought to emulate the high priest’s dedication to the service of God, were forbidden to defile themselves with the dead (Lev. 21:1-4; Num. 6:6,7). Ezekiel’s experience was even more harrowing. He lost his wife at a stroke, and was forbidden any kind of open mourning (24:16-18). And the Bride of the Lamb is bidden: “Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house” (Ps.45:10).

“Let the spiritually dead bury their own dead,” who when they were alive were like them-spiritually dead. There is no lack of other places in the New Testament where people still walking about are written off as already dead. Paul’s trenchant phrase: “dead in trespasses and sins,” comes to mind. “This do, and thou shalt live,” said Jesus to an enquiring lawyer who did not know himself to be a corpse. And die idiom is frequent in John’s gospel: “He that heareth my word, and believeth . . . hath everlasting life … he hath passed from death unto life . . . The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (Jn.5:24,25). “We know that we have passed from death unto life …” (1 Jn. 3 :14; cp. also 1Tim.5:6;Mt. 18:8).

It is doubtless praiseworthy to bury the dead and to pay due respect to them whilst so doing; but it is better by far to give people resurrection from a living death. Mourning at the grave-side is right and proper, but proclaiming the glad message of the resurrection far surpasses this in positive value.

It is noteworthy that Jesus did not advise this disciple nor appeal‘to him to seek the higher duty first. He unequivocally commanded him to do this. The fact has to be faced that there are some indecisive individuals who need saving from themselves. Well intentioned enough, they lack the resolution to commit themselves fully to loyal discipleship of Christ. With such it is an act of Christian charity to give them a good shove in the right direction. This is what Jesus did. “Go thou, and preach the kingdom of God” was a directive allowing of no quibble or argument. And within hours of obeying, this hesitating fearful fellow would know that he had done the right thing. Yet how easily he might have lost his opportunity.

In two worlds

Another disciple showed everv willingness to join in the big project, but wished to add his own conditions: “Let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.” That ominous word “first” showed that here was another who had his priorities wrong. It is hardly likely that he would choose an expression like “them which are at home at my house” to describe wife or children or parents, so there must have been social connections which competed for his time and interest (2Tim.2:4).

However, the Lord’s business brooked no squandering of good time on things, or people, of lesser importance. Abraham’s steward, once be was convinced that he had been guided to the right wife for his master’s son, would not stay for farewell feasting: “Hinder me not, I seeing the Lord hath prospered my way” (Gen. 24:56). This was God’s work, and must not be cluttered up with mere social indulgence.

Many years later this forthright single-mindedness was matched by that of Paul: “Yea, doubtless (menounge, a very emphatic expression), and I do count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ” (Phil.3:8).

The figure of speech with which Jesus quietly reproved his disciple’s attempt to live in two worlds can be interpreted in two differing ways, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (cp. Pr. 20:4). There is the familiar notion of the ploughman spoiling his work in the field by looking back instead of keeping his eye on the mark ahead so as to plough a dead straight furrow. The analogy needs no explaining.

But if Biblical allusion has any authority to guide students of Scripture in interpretation, the undoubted reference here to the call of Elisha must be given more weight than any personal judgement.

Elisha was ploughing with twelve yoke of oxen when Elijah cast his mantle on him. He promptly sought permission to bid farewell to those at home. Elijah’s enigmatic reply should probably read: “Go, return (to my service). Wherefore did I do (this thing) to thee?” meaning: ‘Don’t forget what receiving my mantle must mean for you.’ So Elisha slew two oxen as a peace offering, and putting his hand to the plough, he broke it up for fuel on the altar fire. This was his formal act of self-consecration (comparable to Levi’s feast). Then he said his farewells, and followed after Elijah.

Clearly the disciple of Jesus did not use Elisha’s words by accident. Nor was it chance which shaped the reply with reference to the same occasion. Thus it would seem to mean: ‘No man having put his hand to the plough, as Elisha did, to offer sacrifice consecrating himself to follow the Prophet of the Lord, can thereafter look back as though he would pick up the old life once again. The plough (an obvious symbol of the former allegiance) has been burnt. There can be no going back.’ For this disciple to be looking back longingly to the old life after he had already declared himself a disciple, was to insinuate doubts about his fitness for the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

In this interpretation the essential meaning of Christ’s words is not radically changed, but the symbolism of the plough is. Instead of it being a symbol of present service in Christ, it is a yet more suitable figure for the old way of life prior to the call of Christ.

In the three examples of discipleship considered here in some detail, it is specially impressive that in each instance Jesus bade the man suspect his own inclinations. Is he all eagerness and buoyant enthusiasm? Let him pause and consider what he is putting his hand to, whether he can face up to its hardships and win his way through all discouragements with unflagging resolution. Does he falter in his confidence to follow Christ, preferring to put off the day of decision? Then let him give himself a good shake, and make up his mind right away. Does he feel tempted to try living in two different worlds at the same time? Then let him forthwith shrug off the old life with all its allurements, remembering that without true dedication and sacrifice his discipleship is empty and worthless.

Here in these examples Jesus was enunciating for all time a valuable principle by which his brethren may know how to reach decisions in problems of personal conduct. In which direction would my own inclinations take me? Then I will resolutely travel the alternative road; this is almost bound to be the right one-such is the genius of human nature for inclining to the wrong direction.

It would be interesting to know what was the outcome of these three encounters, yet the gospels give no hint. But it is difficult to believe that the very direct admonition given by Jesus did not have its effect.

Three Apostles?

In his “Studies in the Gospels”, Trench diffidently but persuasively makes the suggestion that these three disciples were three apostles being called to full time service, and that they may perhaps be identified with Judas Iscariot, Thomas, and Matthew.

In support of the first point he notes:

1. Luke 10:1: “seventy other (different) also…” can be read as implying that the three mentioned at the end of Luke 9 were already enrolled, and with a different status,
2. The repeated “follow me” matches the call of apostles in other narratives: Mt.9 :9; Lk.5:27;Jn.l :43.

As to the identification of the three-

The emphasis to the first on complete absent of worldly advantage in following such a Teacher would be appropriate enough to one of Judas’s temperament. But this, it must be conceded, is somewhat meagre ground for such an identification.

It is certainly remarkable that the repeated mention of death and burial, regarding the second of the three, chimes in well enough with the fact that in other places (Jn.11:16; 20 :24,25) Thomas has similar personal associations. And his rather gloomy pessimist outlook matches the unsureness of this one I whom the Lord said, very abruptly: “Follow me”- ‘Forget the world of death with which you are obsessed, and go preach life-the kingdom of God.’

The third in Luke’s list was not explicitly told to eliminate his farewells; he was warned against the dangers involved.

In Matthew’s case, the farewell feast was held, but only after a definite decision had been made to follow a life of discipleship. And Matthew made sure that his new Master was present at the feast to reinforce the public profession of faith and to save his new disciple from seduction by prosperous fellow-publicans or by casuistic Pharisees.

To the seventy (Lk.10 :1) Jesus gave a charge similar to that he had addressed to the twelve when they first went out preaching, except that now there may be just a hint of evangelization of the Samaritans also. These eighty-two messengers of the gospel he now sent out in twos “before his face into every city and place whither he himself would come.”

The idea presented by these words is almost past believing. In a period of about two month, how many places would each of these forty-one teams cover? And to every one of these town: and villages Jesus intended to come in person, In terms of sheer physical effort, apart from any other consideration, what a gargantuan programme this was which Jesus had worked out for himself! The Great Appeal was under way.

Notes: Mt. 8:19-22

19.	Of course Mt. has to add a third example to these two, for his mind rejoiced in triplets (There are many suit scattered through his gospel. Note the three triplets of miracles in ch.8,9). So in ch. 9:9,10 he inserts his own experience.
	Whithersoever thou goest. Jesus had just commanded a crossing of Galilee to get away from, or to sort out the crowd; v.24,18. Cp. 2 Sam.15 :20,21.
20.	The Son of man. This, it must be remembered, is a title of Messiah (Dan.7 :13). Then what a paradox that such should be so comfortless!
	Where to lay his head. The same phrase comes in Jn. 19:30. Cp. Elijah: 1 Kgs. 17:1-6; 19;4-8.

Lk. 9:51-62

60.	Preach. Not the usual euangetto, but diangello: s.w. Josh. 6: 10LXX “bid”; it is the downfall of the kingdom of’ ignorance, and the beginning of the kingdom of God. It is also the proclamation of a Jubilee of freedom (s.w. Lev. 25:9).
61.	Bid farewell. The form of the Greek verb here implies self-interest rather than concern for others.

The Gospels mention two occasions when Jesus found himself in discussion with a scribe or lawyer about the first great commandment. So inevitably the question arises whether perhaps they are different versions of the same incident.

Whenever there are two versions of an incident with marked similarities and yet with differences, can it be assumed that they are the same (with differences that can be reconciled), or should the divergences lead to the conclusion that the occasions are distinct?

Most modern commentators assume that John’s and Mark’s accounts of the cleansings of the temple are the same (which they certainly are not). And the Companion Bible, normally very dependable, treats the gospel accounts of malefactors crucified with our Lord as not the same,-not very convincingly thus making five crucifixions and not three.

All such instances need to be treated on their merits, and not according to a pre-conceived idea.

Here, in Luke 10, a certain lawyer “tempted” Jesus, asking: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” When challenged to answer his own question he himself quoted: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God” (Dt. 6 :5), adding on to it: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Lev.19 :18). When encouraged, he pressed his enquiry further: “Who is my neighbour?” This happened, if the Lucan context is to be taken account of, when Jesus was neither in Galilee nor Jerusalem.

The differences from Mark 12: 28-34 are very marked. That encounter took place in the temple court in Jerusalem. The enquiry was different: “Which is the great commandment?” The quotation of Deuteronomy 6 was made by Jesus himself, and led to a much more encouraging outcome.

So it seems highly probable that the two occasions are not to be equated with each other.

A worthy question

It is unlikely that there was any element of hostility about the lawyer’s question. The word “tempted” does not have to be read in that sense. Such problems usually came from adversaries who were hoping to score points against Jesus, but this occasion hardly lends itself to that kind of interpretation. That the crux of both encounters should involve: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” is not surprising, for this commandment was recited by devout Jews morning and evening, and would often be invoked in arguments about religious priorities.

In this case Jesus was addressed with respect, being accorded the honourable title of “Teacher”, This from a man who was university-trained! And he “stood up” to ask his question. So he had surely been sitting before Jesus as a learner, a disciple.

The question itself could hardly have been more fundamental: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life? As phrased, its implications were all wrong, for a man inherits that which he has a right to, and no human being has a right to eternal life. Again, the emphasis on “What shall I do ...?” assumed that a man can earn eternal life, if only he shows enough diligence in a life of godly activity; in other words, justification by works. More than this, the form of the Greek verb suggests some special act of sacrifice or self-discipline over and above the lawyer’s normal way of life.

For answer, Jesus sent him back to the Law in which he was a specialist. “How readest thou?” The question went behind the Scripture he was about to quote in order to probe also his understanding of it.

The man’s summary of what is needful can only be described as brilliant. To be sure, it was comparatively easy for a college-trained scribe to go to: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind” (from Dt. 6:5). But by what superb flash of insight did he couple with this: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (from Lev. 19:18)?

Text variations

It is worth while to divert from the gospel record briefly to note the remarkable variations with which this first commandment appears. The Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 6 has: “heart, soul, and might.” The LXX version turns these into “mind, soul, and power”—an interesting illustration of the much-neglected truth that in the Bible “heart” often stands for “mind, intelligence, thought,” and only rarely for the feelings, emotions or instincts (which are probably better represented by the word “soul”). Matthew 22 :37 has “heart, soul, mind,” but Luke 10 :27 (the text under discussion) and Mark 12 :30 both have “heart, soul, strength, mind” (or mind, strength). Here the extra word may be added as a paraphrase of the two verses succeeding the commandment in the Hebrew text: “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them, when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” This would illuminate the phrase used by the second lawyer:”with all the understanding” (Mk. 12:33). Alternatively the word “strength” is taken to mean both “strength of body” and “strength of mind’.

Rather remarkably, in all other New Testament occurrences this word ischus means God’s strength or that which He imparts to men!

There are also strange variations in the prepositions (especially in Lk.10 :27) which are difficult to include in the present discussion. The problem of verbal inspiration comes in very pointedly in passages of this sort.

Clearly Jesus was well pleased with the admirable answer suggested by his questioner: “Thou hast answered right. Keep on doing this, and thou shalt live”-meaning, of course, gain everlasting life (Lev.l8:5), for the enquiry was about that. It is easy to imagine that as Jesus said: “Do this,” he pointed to the man’s phylactery which certainly had the first of these two commandments written on it.

The question had been so easily disposed of that the lawyer probably felt that he had to excuse himself for putting such a straightforward problem. So he added a ‘supplementary’: “But who is my neighbour whom I am to love?” How wide a scope was such a general commandment to be given? Apparently, and somewhat strangely, he found little difficulty in the commandment about the love of God. But since “a man and his neighbour” is normal Jewish idiom for “anyone” (e.g. Jer.7 :5), it is not unlikely that contemporary rabbis had made ingenious attempts to evade the evident force of the words. For example, the Talmud has this: “If a Jew see a Gentile fallen into the sea, let him by no means lift him out thence. It is written: Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour. But this man is not thy neighbour.”

In a parable quite beyond compare in its appeal to both intellect and emotions Jesus showed how far from this nationalistic exclusiveness the true meaning of the commandment really is. Any man, and especially the man in trouble and to whom you can bring direct personal aid, is your neighbour, regardless of race or religion or status or character. This is the main but by no means the only lesson Jesus sought to inculcate. It is specially important to remember that the question he was answering now was not: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” but: “Who is my neighbour?”

A telling story

In the story a man went on the rough and often steep downhill road—twenty-one miles of it-from Jerusalem to Jericho, a descent of nearly 4000 feet. It is fairly probable that Jesus told this parable just before or just after he had walked that road, for the very next paragraph in Luke’s gospel finds Jesus in the home of his friends at Bethany. The road was known in ancient times as the Ascent of Adummim-the Red Climb-because, according to Conder, a section of it is on red marl. But over the years it became a favourite haunt of brigands and robbers, so its name took on a more sinister meaning: the Ascent of Blood. A hundred years before the time of Jesus, Pompey had led a Roman legion against the brigand strongholds there. And in later times a Roman outpost was maintained on that road.

The lone traveller, going down to Jericho, was set upon by robbers and suffered grievously. Apparently he had nothing of value, so they even stripped him of his garments, and, still exasperated at the lack of plunder, they beat the man severely and then went off, leaving him helpless and sure to die.

By and by, down that road there came a priest, just off duty in the temple and going home to Jericho, which (Farrar says) was a priestly city. The common version reads that he came there “by chance.” The Greek expression is unique in the New Testament and is rare in other Greek texts. There is a distinct possibility that it should carry exactly the opposite meaning: “according to the Lord’s appointment.” This would chime in not only with the idea of a priest just concluding service in the temple, but also with the New Testament’s complete avoidance of any phrase which might imply chance or unforeseen coincidence.

From some distance away this priest saw the poor sufferer’s plight. So he kept well away, and hastened on his road. He knew, of course, the commandment in the Law that there must be prompt readiness to care for the straying ox or sheep or ass of a fellow-Israelite (Dt. 22 :l-4). Then how much more ought he not to be immediately ready to give all possible help to a fellow-traveller (cp. ls.58 :7).

In his own mind this callous attitude would be fully justified without any difficulty. He had nothing wherewith to tend the man’s wounds. It was hopeless to think that he miqht hoist the man on his back and carry him to safety. Besides, the man might die, and he suffer defilement, thus entailing all kinds of ceremonial inconvenience. Strongest reason of all, there were violent men in that vicinity. If he did not move as fast as his legs could carry him, his fate could be the same. “Whoso . . . seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” comments the apostle John (1 Jn.3 :17). Yet this priest was an instructor in the law of God!

He was followed by a Levite who did at least come near enough to look at the poor man’s plight, but then he too went away without raising a finger to help. It has been suggested that here the Lord was deliberately introducing an instance of the power of an evil example, the Levite having already seen the priest’s avoidance of moral duty. But this will hardly do, for if the priest and Levite were travelling within sight of each other, they would surely have travelled together for the sake of greater safety. The alternative is that Jesus deliberately framed this detail this way for its instructive value, even though (as in so many others of his parables) it meant abandoning verisimilitude.

Then came a fourth traveller, who was not going down from Jerusalem. He, as soon as he set eyes on the stricken man, came up to him, all compassion (see Study 88) and eagerness to help—and he was one of the despised and hated Samaritans. Thus Jesus adroitly corrected the prejudices of his apostles who would have called fire down from heaven on a hostile Samaritan village.

This outsider proceeded to enact a finer interpretation of “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself/’ such as put priest and Levite to shame.

He used the wine and oil he had with him to cleanse and mollify the victim’s cuts and bruises, and tore his own garment into strips for bandaging (see Notes). Then, hoisting him as gently as possible on to the back of his ass, he brought him with all possible care to the nearest inn. This was not a khan of the kind where people had to fend for themselves, but a hostelry where service was available. Nevertheless, the Samaritan, still moved with compassion for the man in his suffering, took upon himself to do all that was needful to ease his pains and give him comfort.

This part of the story appears to have been inspired by a remarkable episode in the reign of king Ahaz. The northern kingdom of Israel had had a particularly successful campaign against their brethren in Judah, taking many prisoners. However, responding to the exhortation of Oded the prophet, certain of the men of Samaria re-equipped their captives, succoured the wounded among them, and, setting them on asses, brought them to Jericho. There they handed them over to the care of their own folk (2 Chr.28 :9-15). The whole point of this incident is that Jews and men of Samaria are brothers.

In the parable the Samaritan went even further in his solicitude. He paid to the innkeeper enough for the sick man’s immediate needs (£30-40 in 1983) and, his credit being good, he undertook to cover on his return all further expense which might be incurred before the man was well enough to go on his way. Fully as valuable as the financial aid now assured was the strong personal injunction to the innkeeper: “Take care of him.” The sufferer was left in good hands.

Thus Jesus taught not only who was the neighbour to be loved—the man, whoever he is, whose need is before you and whom you have the means to help—but also how he is to be loved, with every degree of compasssion and personal involvement that is possible.

“Which now,” Jesus asked, “of these three, thinkest thou, became and continued to be neighbour to him that fell among the thieves?’

There could be only one answer, yet even in giving it the scribe could not bring himself to pronounce the hated word “Samarita”. He had asked for a definition of “neighbour” and had got it. But this theoretical comprehension was not enough to satisfy Jesus. There must be application of the lesson learned: “Go, and do thou likewise’—and he used a continuous imperative. This love of one’s neighbour must be a way of life.

Significant Details

For those who believe that in telling his parables Jesus was always aiming at teaching one needful moral lesson, the Good Samaritan is a perfect illustration. But it is also the best possible example for those who are convinced that Jesus intended every detail of his parable to be significant. When interpreted point by point, this parable turns “neighbour” into “Neighbour.”

“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves.” Jerusalem is the city of peace with God. Jericho was the city associated with yielding to temptation (Josh. 7:1), and therefore with curse and destruction (Josh. 7:15), and there is hardly a more downhill road in all the world. Here, then, is a picture of the human race in its natural state.

The evil work of the thieves shows each man as a prey to his own personal sins as well as his inherited condition. As this wayfarer was “stripped of his raiment, wounded and half dead”, so each sinner, whilst not yet dead, is in a dying and utterly hopeless condition. He can do nothing to help himself. His own robe of “righteousness” is torn from him. He is naked and helpless.

The sacrificial and the moral law, represented by priest and Levite, only served to emphasize the hopelessness of his case. If they could not help him, who could? They also were going downhill. “By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified … By the Law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).

But then came one who was despised and rejected of men – it does not say he was going downhill!-and this man “came where he was.” This unexpected Saviour identified himself with the stricken man as closely as possible-Jesus shared the very nature of those he came to redeem. Contrast the priest and Levite “on the other side”-the Old Testament doctrine of holiness put a wide separation between God and the worshipper.

This Saviour, moved with compassion, (for “God so loved the world”) bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine-“the oil of the Word, and the wine of the Sacrament,” says one writer. Here the gracious ministry of Jesus is clearly shown. Would the Samaritan travel equipped with bandaging? What wrapping for those wounds and that naked body except his own garments? (Is. l:6;61:l; Ps. 147:8).

“Then he set him on his beast, and brought him to an inn.” Thus, without any effort on his part, the wretched castaway found himself where normally his Saviour would have been. And the beast this Saviour rode was an ass (Jn. 12 :14,15), a token of his meek character and his kingship, both of them now shared with the one he rescued. Thus, identified with his Saviour (baptism pre-figured?), the sinner is brought to a resting place where he is cared for. “In my Father’s house” said Jesus, “are many abiding places.” There he “took care of him”- it is a picture of the continuing care of repentant sinners by their Saviour.

“On the morrow, when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host” (2Cor.8:9). The Greek work here means: “One who receives all men.” This “two pence” is the exact equivalent of the half-shekel of the sanctuary (Ex.30:15; and study 113) which was to be paid, under the Law, by all, whether rich or poor, “to make an atonement for your souls.” ls it accident, then, that this particular sum of money found its way into the parable? Jesus might just as easily have said “one penny” or “three pence.” How remarkable that he did not!

And is it accident that this was “on the morrow” and not “the same day” or “two days later”? For this implies that the Samaritan slept and rose again before he went a way-the Saviour was “raised again for our justification.” Could details be more apt than these? But there is more behind.

“Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay idee.” Here is the promise of a personal return, and also a guarantee that everything needful for the man’s restoration will be fully provided. The sacrifice of Christ is all-sufficient, not only to cover sins done aforetime, but also those which call for the exercise of divine grace in the days to come.

Not neighbour, but Neighbour

And now comes one of the most subtle, and certainly one of the most lovely touches of all.

Jesus had said: “Thou shalt love the lord thy God … and thy neighbour…”

“But who is my neighbour?”

For answer there followed the parable ending with:

“Which now . . . was neighbour to him that fell among thieves?”

“He that showed mercy on him.”

The Samaritan, representing Jesus, was “neighbour” to the wayfarer, representing the sinner. The parable is usually and carelessly misread the other way round-that the sinner was “neighbour” to the Samaritan and therefore the Samaritan loved him.

But again it can hardly be accident that Jesus phrased it the reverse way. The stricken wayfarer is bidden love his “neighbour”, the Samaritan. The sinner is bidden love his Saviour Jesus. Is there any other commandment big enough to stand alongside: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God”? And if a man loves Jesus as he should, will he not honour his Saviour by loving his fellow-men also, even as he did?

It may be that this lawyer, no fool, saw the force of this aspect of the parable also, for, when challenged to identify the true neighbour to the stricken man, he answered: “He that shewed mercy on him.” The words spendidly describe the saving work of the Samaritan. But they happen also to be an Old Testament phrase for the forgiveness of sins! (Micah 7 :18; Dan.9:4; Num. 14:18; Ps.86:5; 103 :8-10; and many more).

Notes: Lk. 10:25-37

25.	A certain lawyer. The Greek here might imply a known lawyer, one well-known in the early church?
	What shall I do… ?The same question was the chief anxiety of another would-be disciple; Lk.18 :18. *S
27.	With all thy heart. Consider: Jer.15 :16; Ex.36:2; 1 Kgs.3 :9; Lk.5 :22; 24 :32,38; Rom.10:8,9.
	Thy neighbour as thyself More likely quoted not by sudden intuition but as a long-pondered conclusion.
30.	Jesus answering said. A somewhat unusual Gk. word, apparently implying: “taking up the challenge.”
31.	By chance. The word does not imply fluke. Gk: sun-kuria might even have been chosen because it suggests “with the Lord”-the very opposite of chance.
33.	A Samaritan. A neat indirect lesson to James and John; 9:54.
34.	Went to him. The word for “neighbour” means literally “one who is near.”
	Bound up his wounds. Alternative to the explanation already offered: He was a medical man (Luke himself?), and carried bandages and medicines.
	Brought. This word suggests a picture of the Samaritan leading his beast with the stricken man on it.
35.	Whatsoever. This translation is not too emphatic. When I come again; s.w. 19:15 only.
36.	Thinkest thou… ? Here dokei implies: ‘You know, don’t you?’
	Was neighbour. As a translation, quite inadequate: “became and continued to be neighbour.”
	Mercy on him. Here again the Gk preposition (not pros or epior eis, but meta) suggests fellowship and at the same time a distinction. The Gk. of this paragraph is full of delightful, almost untranslatable, inflections.