When Jesus sent out the seventy on their preaching mission, he gave them detailed instructions how they were to go about it. These have been discussed at some length in Study 89. He added also the charge that any place which rejected the message concerning him should be given clear warning of its intransigence and folly: “Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this: that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you” Lk. 10:11).

In demonstration of the kind of reprobation intended, the gospels give examples of how Jesus shook the dust of the Galilean towns from his feet: “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, had been done in Tyre and Sidon which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” Most probably the Lord uttered this remarkable apostrophe publicly (Lk.10:13) and with considerable vehemence in the very cities he denounced, or at some spot within sight of the place named, at the time when he left them to undertake his southern ministry.

Gospel omissions

Bethsaida, already mentioned often enough in the gospels, was probably the fishing port attached to Capernaum. It had provided Jesus tith no less than three of his apostles—Peter, Andrew, and Philip (and possibly James, John, and Matthew). Yet although the crowds there had been at least as big as anywhere else, there was very little response of the kind Jesus sought, Chorazin, two miles further north, is not given another mention in the gospels. Yet it was one of places where most of his mighty works were done. Other places heard members of his band of preachers, and responded. These heard the Son of God himself, and yet did not repent.

Here, surely, is one of the most impressive and unsuspected indications of the fragmentary nature of the gospel records. But for this passage it would have been possible for critics to argue that Jesus never went to Chorazin. And, but for a passing allusion to it in the Talmud, as a splendid wheat-growing locality (Chorazin means “threshing instrument”) the very existence of the town would have remained unknown.

The gospels are like this. Before the death of Lazarus, there is only one mention of Jesus visiting his home, yet the family at Bethany were obviously among the very closest friends of Jesus.

“How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings,” Jesus lamented over Jerusalem (Lk. 13:34). Yet the synoptics give no mention of even a single visit of Jesus to the capital before the last week of the ministry! And John, who concentrates on the Lord’s work in Jerusalem, mentions only four, or perhaps five, such visits.

There is only one specific instance told of Jesus going to the garden of Gethsemane. Yet John says “he offtimes resorted thither with his disciples” (18:2). The nearest approach to any other mention is Luke’s hint that “he went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives” (22:39).

Such examples bring to mind the impressive conclusion to John’s gospel: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written (21:25). Perhaps that is not an example of flamboyant eastern hyperbole after all!

The natural meaning of the text is that more than half the Lord’s miracles were witnessed by the inhabitants of these three places, and yet, after the early surprise, they evidently began to take them for granted. Human nature can acclimatise to anything. It is just possible that the word “most” may mean “more there than anywhere else”; but even with this dilution the language is still impressive.

To the discouraged twentieth century preacher of an unheeded gospel these bitter words of Jesus addressed to Chorazin and Bethsaida are almost a comfort. For, whilst there may be healthy misgivings and self-reproaches at the seeming ineffectiveness of the message today, it remains inescapably true that the finest preacher in the world, with an incomparable message backed by copious demonstrations of the gracious powers of the Holy Spirit, was able to achieve no more in some of the towns and cities where he preached the gospel.

The experience of Jesus demonstrates just how true are the Scriptures which speak of Israel as a “gainsaying and disobedient generation.” a people “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears”, “children in whom is no faith”.

Contrast Tyre and Sidon

Witnessing the same wonderful works, “Tyre and Sidon would have repented long ago.” Jesus meant precisely what he said and not: “I feel sure they would have repented.” There came to his mind, doubtless, the profound encouragement when he had retired with the twelve to the region of Tyre and Sidon, and had there experienced the tonic exhilarating faith of an importunate Gentile woman (Mt. 15:21ff).

Tyre and Sidon would have repented long ago clothed in sack-cloth and with ashes on their heads, as though lamenting the inevitable destruction of their proud city (Ez 27:30,31). No places were less suitable for the preaching of the gospel than Tyre and Sidon, yet they were not hopeless, even though in earlier times they had had the truth of Israel’s religion, and had debased it, even though they had sent Jezebel as a missionary to defile Israel with their Phoenician Baal.

That phrase “long ago” tells a story of a long drawn-out campaign in the Galilean towns—no brief peremptory call to repentance such as Jonah had made in Nineveh. Yet hard Assyrians had repented forthwith. So also—’long ago” would those Phoenicians now dedicated to the worship of Mammon. How ruefully Jesus must have read the word of the Lord to the son-of-man Ezekiel: “Surely, had I sent thee to them (the Gentiles), they would have hearkened unto thee” (Ezek. 3:6)

So, “it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon” than for “Chorazin and Bethsaida”. That future tense has been read as a prophecy of complete destruction in the Roman War, AD. 67-70. But the meaning surely is that men from these cities will rise for judgment in the last day (cp.Mt. 11:24).

In Paul’s time Tyre had its company of faithful Spirit-guided brethren (Acts 21:3,4; and cp. Mk. 3:8). And, if the words of Jesus mean anything, it may be inferred that even those in Tyre who did not accept the Faith adopted a sympathetic attitude, thus shaming the cold hostility or self-centred indifference of Jewry.

Capernaum and Sodom

Next came a comparable apostrophe addressed to the city which had seen more of the works of Jesus and heard more of his message than any other place in all the Land: “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day,” such would have been the transforming effect on it. Capernaum had been the home of Jesus (so far as he had a home) for most of his ministry. Time and again, the people had heard his word in the synagogue, on the beach, on the hillside, in the street. In all the world and in all history noplace could match its privileges. Exalted to heaven!

Sodom, having this Man and this message, would have been brought to its knees and would have lived to tell the tale of its rescue from Gehenna, instead of being smitten with blindness and treating the Man of God as one that mocked (Gen. 19:11,14). The logic of this grim admonition should have told the people of Capernaum to flee from the wrath to come. But they went blithely about their affairs, supercilious and critical of Jesus of Nazareth in their minds, and giving no heed to the obvious truth that “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required (Lk. 12:48; Jn. 12:48).

“Thou shalt be thrust down to hell.” Capernaum could not muster even ten righteous. Instead it has gone down to history as the town where “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (Jn. 6:59,66). The place itself suffered the wrath of God. It disappeared from sight. And it is only within the past fifty years that archaeologists have settles the argument about its location as Tell Hum.

But that divine judgment on the stones of Capernaum, a site long unpopulated, was only on outward token of heaven’s rejection of a people who rejected the God of heaven and His Son. Sodom scorned the warnings of “righteous Lot” and will answer one day for its frivolous wickedness. Yet “it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom” than for heedless Capernaum.

Capernaum and “Babylon”

This bitter censure of a hard unresponsive people presents a problem by the form in which it was cast by Jesus. “Exalted to heaven … cast down to hell” was the judgment pronounced against the enemy of God’s people by Isaiah 14:13,15; cp Lam. 2:1). (Lk. 10:19 has another allusion to Is. 14:29,30). The target of his tirade was the contemporary king of Assyria, called also by Isaiah “king of Babylon” (14:25, 4) because he gloried in his recent conquest of that city. Then, why should Jesus use the words of this prophecy with reference to the fate of Capernaum?

The problem is no easy one. The prophet’s picture of the Assyrian invader (who actually overran and despoiled all Galilee) is one of a cocksure braggart, boastfully relying on what he feels sure he can achieve by his own unaided powers. Later in the prophecy, the picture is drawn in even more vivid colours (ch. 36,37). The men of Capernaum were not warriors, but with their tongues and their faithless hearts they had contended with the Son of God with just as much perverse self-assurance as the Assyrian in his campaign.

‘You know what happened to him,’ challenged Jesus, ‘then think you that your own fate will be any less drastic?’ No man snaps his fingers in the face of Almighty God, or of His messengers, and gets away with it.

With reminder of this solemn warning Jesus sent his men to their task. “He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” (cp 1 Th. 4:8) The dignity of their calling must never be forgotten. “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them,” said God to Samuel. And in very different circumstances but the same vein, Jesus, the Lord of Glory, was to reproach his new apostle: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”

Today the message is treated with comparable despite, but its dignity is unchanged.

Notes: Mt. 11:20-24

20.	Were done; not “had been done”; these wonders were still going on.
23.	Israel like Sodom: Dt. 32:32; Is. 1:10; 3:9; Rev. 11:8.
	Worse than Sodom: Lam. 4:6; Ez. 16:46-49.
	Capernaum: It is tempting to think of Jesus as seeing his rejection by Nazareth and Capernaum as a type of Jewish and Gentile indifference to the gospel.

It is not clear just where in the Lord’s ministry this fascinating vignette of Martha and Mary belongs. It may be that the opening phrase: “as they were going,” refers to the mission of the seventy (10 :1), during which time Jesus and the twelve were making their December visit to Jerusalem (Jn.10 :22). Or it may be that Luke has deliberately inserted these few verses here as further answer to the lawyer’s questions: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life? … Who is the neighbour I am to love?”

The answer now is: “Love your Neighbour” by a generous hospitality offered to Him, and to those who are His (Mt.25 :40), and-better still-by an avid attention to His teaching. Indeed, the insertion of this episode here is probably intended to correct any false inference from “Go thou and do likewise” about justification by works.

There is a studied vagueness about Luke’s mention of “a certain village” as the home of Martha and Mary. Presumably they were still living there at the time when he wrote his gospel (c. A.D.60), and the omission of “Bethany” would be to save them from the embarrassing enthusiasm and curiosity of early disciples visiting Jerusalem.

Since there is good reason to believe that this home at Bethany was also where Simon the leper lived (Mk.14 :3), it seems likely that Simon was Martha’s husband, for “a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.” The narrative very neatly implies (note the word “also” in verse 39) that Mary too joined in the welcome given to Jesus. And well she might, if she was “the woman in the city, which was a sinner,” whose moving story Luke had already narrated (7:36-50; Study 74).

Because of that redeeming experience, her proper place was at the feet of Jesus on every possible occasion. This time she was torn between duties. The Greek text implies that she gave some help to Martha in the kitchen, but from time to time broke off to sit at the Lord’s feet, facing him (cp. 2 Kgs.4 :38). Then the domestic chores were let go altogether, and she continued there, listening to his talk, drinking in every word. Minor Crisis

With mounting indignation Martha put up with this for a while. Then, unable to restrain herself any longer, she came and stood over Jesus, and burst in on his discourse abruptly; “Lord, dost thou not care that my sister has kept leaving me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.”

There is a problem here. Was Martha preparing the meal single-handed? It was a wealthy household with high social standing (Jn.12:5; 11 :19). Then were there no servants? Or is it that the mere superintendence of arrangements called for more than one? Or is Martha’s “explosion” to be taken as an indication of her frustration?—she too wanted to sit and listen to Jesus. But then what about the meal? Jesus was accompanied by his disciples, so Martha had the responsibility of providing the equivalent of a Christmas dinner (for it may have been Chanukah; Jn.10 :22) for at least seventeen people! So perhaps there was some justification for her indignition. Naturally enough, with Jesus as the chief guest, she wished the hospitality provided for him to be as splendid as possible.

It is noteworthy that her excusably blunt words were not directed at her sister, but were addressed to Jesus-as who should say: ‘She won’t take any notice of what I say. Surely, Lord, you will back me up in this.’ But her words involved a reproach of both of them: “Lord, dost not thou care that she left me. . .?”

Mild rebuke

Challenged thus, there was nothing for it but to set things in perspective. Up to this point Jesus had spoken no word of rebuke.

There are lessons to be learned here, for often enough comparable situations recur in both home and ecclesia. Yet there was no rebuke for Martha until her misplaced diligence and her frustration made impact on others. And in this difficult situation Mary apparently said never a word.

Only now, when he must, did Jesus speak his reproach, and with the utmost gentleness (for “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister and Lazarus”; Jn.11 :5): “Martha, Martha, thou art worried and troubled about many things; but one thing is needful; Mary indeed hath chosen that good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”

The words are simple. Yet nearly all of them need some explanation. Martha’s “many things” were, of course, the mass of culinary operations she was superintending. The expression: ‘one thing needful’ was a double entendre, it is as though Jesus said: ‘One course only, Martha—and the one I mean is that which Mary is now sharing with me; that is the best of them all’ (cp.Ps27:4).

A lively discussion with the Samaritan woman at the well had had a marvellously invigorating effect on Jesus. So it may be taken as certain that the understanding and appreciation of Mary was as good a “meal” as could be set before him. It was even more true that Mary also was enjoying such a “meal” as she had never known before. What Mary had that day was not to be token away from her. It was hers for ever. The word used by Luke is that which describes the special portion assigned by Joseph to Benjamin, the favourite brother (Gen .43 :34).

It is certainly a correct inference from Mary’s choice that no material preoccupation can rank alongside eagerness to receive the Lord’s instruction. But it is important to avoid the assumption that Martha had chosen a bad part, even though the word “troubled” is that which comes twice over in Ecclesiastes 3 :10: “the travail which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith;” for Martha’s motive undoubtedly was: ‘Jesus is our guest. The very best I can provide is hardly good enough for him’ (contrast Lk. 9:58).

It is important that the attitude of the two sisters should not be regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives. Both expressed a high degree of devotion to the Lord. But, when challenged, in honesty Jesus had to say which gave him the greater pleasure. It is the age-old tension between faith and works. For every one who seeks heaven’s blessing through faith in the Lord’s teaching and increasing insight into it, there are ten who are happier serving with their hands or feet.

This Martha-Mary problem seems to have been specifically in Paul’s mind when he wrote: “The unmarried woman (Mary) careth for the things of the Lord” how she may “attend upon the Lord (Lk.10 :40) without distraction” … she that is married (Martha) careth for the things of the world” (1 Cor. 7 :34,35). In the Greek text the same key words come in both places (“cumbered, part, care, the Lord”).

Notes: Lk. 10:38-42

39.	Sat at his feet And so always, see Study 74. That Mary was first and for a while torn between two duties is implied by “also” (v.39), and the imperfects “heard” (v.39), “left” (v.40).
40.	Help me, A very expressive Greek word: Num.11 :17LXX; Rom.8 :26. “Lend a hand” comes fairly near to the meaning.
41.	Martha, Martha. How often a name repeated becomes a means of reproach; cp. 22 :31.

There is real difficulty in establishing just when this next development in the Lord’s Jerusalem ministry took place. Verse 1 : “And as he passed by” seems to be intended as a direct link with the end of chapter 8 : “he went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” According to this, chapter 9 also belongs to the Feast of Tabernacles (October).

However, this conclusion is challenged by those who stress the omission by a notable collection of early manuscripts of the words just quoted.

Also, there is the strong consideration that the parable of the Good Shepherd (ch.10) follows on perfectly from the healing of the blind man, and the allusion there to his healing (10:21) seems to require that that miracle was very fresh in mind. Yet, according to verse 22, chapter 10 (and therefore chapter 9?) belongs definitely to the Feast of the Dedication of the temple (i.e. Christmas).

Thus there are chronological pointers to two different times of the year.

The discordance is readily resolved by the mention of the man being excommunicated (v.34). It is known that such a drastic decision was never reached hastily. First, with solemn warning, an offender would be suspended from religious fellowship for thirty days. If this were ineffective, another thirty days’ suspension might follow. If after that the offender were still recalcitrant, then permanent excommunication could be imposed.

Thus it is likely that between verse 1 and verse 34 a period of about two months is interposed; and indeed there are clear signs of breaks in the narrative (e.g. at v.15,24,35). So the time problem is probably to be solved by reading the story as beginning at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles, and concluding near the end of December. During most of this time Jesus would be absent from Jerusalem, being busy with the great preaching tour (Lk.10:l) in which he and his disciples were making a special appeal to the southern half of the country.

The miracle

When Jesus and the twelve paused to read the rough inscription on the man’s board: “Blind from birth,” and to discuss the problem presented by his blindness, the quick-witted fellow would readily identify the group before him. Possibly, also, he become aware of the means by which Jesus made a paste to smear on his eyes—spitting on the ground to soften a small handful of the soil. It may be taken as certain that Jesus did not need to follow this method, but evidently he specially wished to emphasize personal contact with himself in the working of the miracle. There is also more symbolism here, to be discussed later.

The commentators have some strange and unimpressive ideas here about “the healing value attributed in old time to saliva,” and about “the medical use of clay.” These notions are fit only to be bound in with Grimm’s fairy stories. As though the Lord would choose to identify himself with the ignoramuses and charlatans of that age!

Jesus offered up a prayer to God for the gift of sight (v.31; cp.11 -.41), anointed the man’s eyes, and bade him: “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.” Ever since the days of Hezekiah an important part of the city’s water supply had come via the conduit which had been driven through solid rock from the Virgin’s Pool in the Kidron valley. Approach to it was down an awkward flight of steps such as the blind man could hardly hope to negotiate without guidance, even if he had the resourcefulness to find his way across the city to the right spot. So, very probably, he was piloted there by one of the apostles who would witness his incoherent gladness as he moved into a new world of light, shape and colour.

From the outset the man had faith in the word and act of Jesus. He could have protested that clay rubbed into his eyes could only make him more hopelessly blind. He could have argued that never in history had the waters of Siloam brought sight to anyone. Instead, he obeyed implicitly, and had the reward of his faith.

By the time this happened Jesus was gone, probably to Bethany, so the man went happily home. Then began a highly excited discussion among the neighbours. Was he really the blind man they had known so long? Perhaps he had been an impostor all the time. Some were dubious, but thought he must be the same. Others were confident of his identity. Others, certain that such miracles do not happen, decided it was somebody else like the blind man they knew. But he settled it with a peremptory “I am he.”

So a lively enquiry arose as to how the cure had been wrought. He told his story, simply, factually, without trimmings, ascribing it to “the man that is called Jesus”— the man whom every one had heard about; he was rot only called Jesus but truly was this man’s Saviour. And where was this Jesus? The man could not say. He had had contact with him for only a few minutes at most whilst his eyes were being smeared with mud. It may be taken as highly probable that other blind men, hearing the story, would try anointing their own eyes with clay and then washing it off at Siloam, yet all to no purpose.

Official Enquiry

Next day these neighbours insisted on the man appearing before the Small Sanhedrin in the temple. The Great Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-two members and was convened only for consideration of questions of highest importance. There were also three “subcommittees” of twenty-three members each.

But why should it be deemed necessary to bring the man before the rulers at all? Many a miracle of Jesus had gone without official investigation. Were the man’s friends so excited about the cure that they wanted it to convert the Pharisees whom they knew to be mostly hostile to Jesus?

The bombardment of questions recommenced. In response to repeated interrogation (so the Greek verb implies) the man once again told a simple factual story and stuck to it. The result was that the learned men who heard him were divided in their opinions. Said some: ‘This man (Jesus) is not from God-he makes clay on the sabbath!’ The marvellous blessing brought into a poor man’s life was nothing to them! So they wrote Jesus off as an impostor. ‘Not of God! therefore of the devil’ was their clear implication.

Others on the committee were impressed: “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” (cp. 3 :2). The sharp dissension between them became more important than the blind man. This is yet another indication of how the party of the Pharisees had become split down the middle in its attitude to Jesus of Nazareth. The die-hards could find no good word to say about him. The others, with some reluctance doubtless, were steadily being persuaded of the divine character of his work.

But whatever the opinion held, from beginning to end of these long discussions there was never any doubt in anybody’s mind of the vital part played in the cure by Jesus, even though he was a long way off when it happened.

So the questioning began again: “What sayest thou, because he opened thine eyes?’— mat is: What opinion have you formea about this Jesus? The question was probably put by the party more disposed to accept Jesus. They knew the man’s answer was bound to favour their judgement regarding him. And it did. “He is a prophet,” the man declared, remembering Christ’s words (v.3-5), and utterly unabashed by the high dignity of the rabbis sitting before him. This answer did not please the others, so they succeeded in getting the question referred to a fresh committee (so the change from “Pharisees” to “J ews” suggests; v. 16, 18).

Bullying tactics

In the new enquiry, there was at first flat refusal to agree that the man had ever been blind. But now the man’s parents were available for interrogation, and their testimony settled that point. Then the rulers had to believe (so v. 18 implies). With their son removed from the court these poor people were subjected to such keen cross-questioning that, already put in fear by a report, carefully leaked, that one good word about Jesus would mean religious excommunication, they were almost too afraid to speak.

Yes, this was their son, for certain. Yes, he was born without sight. No, they had no information to offer about the marvellous change in him, other than what he himself had told; and since he was an adult capable of giving legal evidence, why not get the story directly from himself? The increasing agitation of these poor folk in face of the learned bullying of the rulers comes out strongly in the Greek text.

The threat that they might be “put out of the synagogue” for confessing belief in Jesus was a very serious matter, even in its mildest form for a period of thirty days. So, although the timidity of the old people in not boldly supporting all that their son testified, is hardly a thing to admire, it is easy to understand.

Next, with the man himself before the court once again, different tactics were attempted. Pretending to have come by some information which showed the whole story to be an impojture, the rulers said to him: “Give God the glory. We know that this Jesus is a sinner.” It is a mistake to read these words as implying: “Jesus has nothing to do with the restoring of your sight; it was God in heaven who did it,” for as yet these men were not prepared to admit that a miracle had taken place. The expression: “Give God the glory” was used by Joshua when urging Achan to make confession of his sin at Jericho (Josh.7 :19). So now their implication was: “You may as well confess that the whole thing is a fraud. We have special information about the character of this Galilean.”

Yet, in truth, in two eloquent passages in the prophets, there was special information about their own blindness and deafness:

“Hear ye, and give ear (Jn. 9:27a). Be not proud; for the Lord hath spoken: Give glory to the Lord your Cod, before he cause darkness (Jn.9 :39c), and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains” (Jer.13 :15,16). “Hearthe word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed” (ls.66:5).

Undismayed, the man, secure in the possession of his wonderful new gift of sight, stoutly and very shrewdly stuck to the stark incontrovertible facts: “Whether he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.” Here was a solid fact which all the argument in the world could not push on one side.

Finding him unbudgeable, they attempted the age-old device of fresh cross-examination in the hope of finding inconsistencies in the repetition of his story: “What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes?”

But he saw through their intention, and, hot in the least cowed by their official dignity, he talked back to them as man to man. With his rough well-practised wit, which had doubtless stood him in good stead in his begging days, he countered: ‘I told you just now. Didn’t you hear me? You need Jesus to heal your deafness, as he did my sight. And why do you want to hear it all again? Do you also want to be disciples of his, as I mean to be?’

The rulers fastened on this to divert attention away from the uncomfortable fact that a blind man was now undeniably seeing: “So you are a disciple of his!’—as much as to say: ‘That explains your story. You are willing to tell any lies to boost his reputation.’

They went on: “We are disciples of Moses. We know that God spake unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is.” Thus they leaped at the opportunity to jibe again (with a double entendre) at the disreputable origin of Jesus, as they chose to construe it. Did it not occur to them that, when Moses was growing up in the royal palace in Egypt, the same sneer was made behind the back of Pharaoh’s daughter?

The man was not to be side-tracked from staunch perseverance in his testimony. The more they tried to bully him, the firmer became his witness about his benefactor, and this with a biting sarcasm such as these rulers had never experienced from a man of the people: “Why, here is the real marvel—more astonishing by far than the healing of my blindness—that he has opened my eyes, and you clever men do not know by what power he has done it. God does not hear the prayers of men who are wilful impenitent sinners (he said this with reference to the prayer Jesus had offered up audibly as he put the clay on his eyes). In all the Scriptures is there any miracle of healing to compare with this (for all his blindness the man knew his Bible!)? If Jesus did not have God behind him, he couldn’t do a single thing (here was a neat side-allusion to the other miracles Jesus was known to have done).

It was a brave and powerful witness, its solid facts not to be impugned, its rugged common-sense not to be argued against. So, losing their tempers completely, these rulers shouted: ‘Altogether born in sins—you! And do you presume to teach us, Israel’s supreme authorities in godliness?—and they had him thrown out of the council chamber. His excommunication from the synagogue would follow as a matter of course (16:2).

It is a testimony to the uncontrolled exasperation of these men, that in their raving against this erstwhile blind beggar, they inadvertently conceded the truth of the very thing they were eager to deny, for “altogether born in sins” was meaningless except with reference to his blindness. Yet, such was the irony of the situation, they were in their sins, whilst he by dauntless thankful loyalty to Jesus was newborn, with the forgiveness of every sin freely available. The power to endow with sight showed that Jesus could do this greater thing also.

The disconsolate comforted

For all his bold front it must have been a bitter experience when the man found himself shut out of the religious communion of Israel. From the time of David, the blind and the lame had been excluded from worship at the sanctuary of the Lord (2 Sam.5 ;8). This man’s new endowment of sight had meant that now he too could share in the temple service. His delight in it may well be imagined. And now from this new privilege he was roughly thrust out. It was a hard blow.

The news of this official enquiry and its outcome went round the city as by radio. Hearing it, Jesus knew that, for all his courageous witness, the man he had befriended was now for that very reason a social and religious outcast. With the anger of the rulers openly declared against him, few among the people would dare to have anything to do with him. So Jesus sought him out.

“Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” he asked. The man recognized the voice at once (10 :4), and knew that he stood before his benefactor, the one he had stoutly declared to be a prophet of the Lord. Now he felt sure he was being led on to accept Jesus as greater even than that. But he sought confirmation: “Who then is this Son of God you speak of, that I may believe on him?’—as who should say: ‘I am willing to follow anyone you bid me follow.’

With characteristic indirect allusion to the miracle, Jesus replied: “Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee” (cp. Is. 52:6,8).

There was immediate and complete response. The man fell to the ground worshipping. “Lord, I believe,” was all he had to say, all that he needed to say.

Growing faith

The maturing of this conviction and witness concerning Christ is impressive:

1. He tells the simple facts of his healing: “He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see”(v.!5).
2. “He is a prophet” (v.17).
3. “Whether he be a sinner, or no, I know not: one thing I know. . .” (v.25).
4. “Do you also wish to be his disciples?’—i.e. as I intend to be.
5. “God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth” (v.31).
6. “Lord, I believe” (v.38; contrast the tone of v.27).
7. He worshipped him (v.38)

What a sequence!

There his story ends. Yet it is almost impossible to believe that a man of such lively mentality and with such a vigorous attractive personality was not brought by unflagging gratitude and faith in Christ to activity of some prominence in the early church. Is it possible that he is to be found again later in the New Testament story?

Notes: John 9.

1.	Earlier healings of the blind: Mk. 8:22-26 (and its meaning in 27-29); Mt. 9:27-34; 12:22-27. And later: Lk. 18:35-43. The apostolic commentary on all these comes in Eph. 5:7-14.
3.	The works of Cod manifest in him. But manifested to whom?—the man himself? the men of the temple? the nation generally? Cp. 11:4. What works of God?; 6:28,29 explains; cp. Ps. 145:10: men and women new-made.
4.	The fairly well-supported reading: “We must work the works of God …” might imply apostolic participation in the sign, as suggested in the text.
	Him that sent me disallows the Trinity. Jesus sent by God, and the healing water (a symbol of Holy Scripture) was also sent by God (v.7)
7.	Sent. .Siloam does not represent Christ, for he was the Sender. It represents the revelation about Christ.
9.	I am he. Gk. I am. Definitely not the Covenant Name of God (Ex. 3:14). But this is often claimed for other occurrences; e.g. 10:11; 15:1; 18:5.
10.	How opened he thine eyes? In the literal sense those eyes were open all the time, but were unseeing until Siloam. “Opened” is used idiomatically for “cured”.
16.	Division among them. The evidence of this gradual sorting-out process amongst the Pharisees is very much to the fore in John: 6:52; 8:31; 9:40; 20:19-21; 11:45.
22.	Put out of the synagogue. And so it is always when a man confesses faith in Christ.
	This man is a sinner. Were they giving a sinister twist to the known fact that Jesus had been baptized by John?
29.	We know not from whence he is. Contrast 7:27; Mt. 21:23.
31.	God heareth not sinners. Pr. 15:29; 1:28; 28:9; Ps. 66:18,19; Is. 1:11-15; 59:2,3; Mic. 3:4; Jer. 14:12
	A worshipper of God. LXX applies this term to Job three times.
35.	Found him. Like the Father, Jesus “seeketh such to worship him” (v.38; 4:23; Lk. 15:4).
38.	He worshipped him In 4:20-24; 12:20 this word describes the worship of God.
39.	Made blind. Consider: Jn. 3:17; 12:46-48; 1 Pet. 2:7,8; 2 Cor. 2:16; Is. 6:20; Rom. 11:7-10,25. And thus blind Israel found itself cast out of God’s temple (2 Sam. 5:8).
	Hoskyns draws attention to the similarities with the miracle of ch. 5: a. Signs on the sabbath. b. Official investigation by the rulers. c. Jesus meeting again with the healed man. d. A long-lasting affliction. e. “Son of God” (Son of man). f. Ignorance who Jesus was. g. Reference to “the man” (no name). h. Blind and lame mentioned together.

From time to time a spirit of envy showed itself in the apostles. As they became more convinced that their Master would one day be king of the Jews, so their ambitions and rivalries grew. One day, when they were travelling, a lively disputation broke out about the status of each in their Lord’s kingdom. Were they not his shadow cabinet? So each one of them wanted to earmark for himself a place of outstanding honour and influence.

As on so many occasions, even without tearing what they were saying, Jesus knew what was afoot. But he said nothing until they were in the house (Mk.) in Capernaum —Peter’s house, most probably, for it is hardly likely that the family of Jesus, also living there (Jn.2 :12), would welcome the group of apostles. Then he challenged them: “What was it ye disputed among yourselves by the way?” To this he got no answer. Only silence. Ashamed of themselves, or, if not that, fearful that he might disapprove of the entire topic, they had no word to say. Jesus had already made his first point effectively enough.

By and by some of them (Mt.18 :1; Mk.9 :35) decided to raise the question with him quietly apart from the rest. They came to him asking: “Who then is the greatest (or, greater) in the kingdom of heaven?” (Mt.) Both readings are possible. If the latter, then the question meant: “Who will be prime minister?-will it be Peter or, perhaps, John, James, Andrew, Matthew, Judas? It is difficult for a modern reader to put his finger on a clear-cut alternative. However, they assumed that this was something that could and should be settled in good time before the kingdom was set up.

A priority principle about priority

Jesus knew they were all in need of education on right attitudes to this problem, so he sat down and called all the rest to join them (Mk). As they saw it the issue was not whether they should have honour in his kingdom, but who should have more than the others. So he enunciated one of the most important principles to be found in all his teaching: “If any man desires to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mk.). This does not mean that the man full of ambition will be punished for his self-seeking by being brought down to the lowest place. Rather: the disciple who would have the highest honour from his Master can achieve it by readily accepting the role to which no kind of honour attaches—being everybody’s slave.

Here, as so often happened in the teaching of Jesus, there is a complete inversion of human standards and judgments. The world’s sense of values is always wrong. The principle which Jesus now laid before the twelve is so fundamental that he repeated it on no less than three other occasions. It is profitable to note the circumstances.

1. The correction of James and John when they privately sought the chief places in the kingdom (Mk. 10:4.3,44).
2. The rebuke when similar bickering broke out among the twelve at the Last Supper (Lk.22:25,26).
3. The warning against emulating the pride of place so much in evidence among Pharisees and rabbis (Mt.23:11,12).

The attitudes reprobated are all essentially the same. Whenever a man finds himself eager for prominence, reputation, or power, whenever he feels resentful because his abilities or industry are inadequately appreciated, he needs to repeat to himself this four times repeated counsel of Jesus in the words which Jesus himself used.

On the present occasion the Lord gave the twelve a vivid object lesson. As he sat there he called to a little child – Peter’s, most likely-to come to him. The boy came at once, and Jesus stood him in the middle of this ring of grown men (Mt.). Shy and embarrassed, he found himself the object of contemplation of them all. Were they wondering what Jesus was about? Or did the point register immediately in the minds of some of them?

“Be converted”

Then Jesus reached forward” and drew him to his side (Lk.). The child now stood there, with the arm of Jesus round him. How little he realised that he was now in the place of honour which, later on, James and John were to ask for. Then, very seriously, Jesus went on: “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt.). Here were men given to him by the Father (Jn.17:12), and a//of them in danger of becoming sons of perdition over a matter which nobody but Jesus deemed to be reprehensible.

Rarely could these disciples have had such a surprise. Confidently seeking high honour in a kingdom of splendour, they were now told there would be no place for them at all unless they altered fundamentally. The word “convert” simply means “turn” or “change”.

Hadn’t they all been “converted” either by John the Baptist, in the early days, or when Jesus himself called, and selected, them?

But a man needs conversion more than once. In Peter’s case, several times over (Jn.l :41; Lk.5:8-ll; Mt.16 :23; Lk.22 :32; 24 :12,34; Jn.21:3,15;Gal.2:14).

Jesus was now bidding them all abandon all their forward-looking aspirations, and grow back to childhood. Not to childishness, but to the spirit now exemplified in the wee lad by his side. Called by Jesus, he had obeyed at once, and was glad to stay there quietly, even though he did not understand all that was going on around and about him. Thus, even when his obedience and love of Jesus was being held up for emulation, it did not occur to him that the simple thing he had done was praiseworthy. So there was no pride, either, but rather the reverse-a shyness at being the centre of so much attention from grown men. “Heaven lies about us in our infancy”-Wordsworth was right in one way if not in another.

True greatness –

Jesus went on: “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt.). It is true, of course, that children are not alway> models of Christ-like behaviour. Even at an early age they can be quarrelsome self-assertive little devils. But Jesus was commending the characteristics of this little child at this particular time. A normal child instinctively recognizes the authority of parents, accepts instructions and explanations without questioning, and does not even think to impose its own opinions or wishes on grown-ups.

This was the spirit Jesus sought-and seeks-to inculcate. “All of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility” (1 Pet.5:5). “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (Jas.4 :10). That phrase: ‘in the sight of the Lord,” is all-important. When a man seeks to show humility among his fellows, he mostly succeeds in being proud of his efforts- such is human nature!

– and its reward

As he spoke, Jesus picked his little friend up, and, cradling him in his arms, gave him a warm cuddle (Mk.). “Whosoever shall receive this little child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me” (Mk.). Thus the Lord’s own recipe for a humble spirit is to seek the company of the humble and to try to bless and benefit them as unselfishly as possible. It is as though such humble service were dedicated to Christ himself.

It is evident that here the Lord’s instruction was moving away from the literal child in his arms to the wider Biblical reference. There is no misunderstanding Zechariah’s language: “I will turn mine hand upon the little ones (for good]” (13:7). “Who hath despised the day of the little ones?” (4 :10). Isaiah similarly: “A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation” (60 :22). These are they who are so often spoken of in the Psalms as “the meek of the earth.” These “little ones who believe in me” are the Lord’s faithful remnant, unpretentious in worldly aspiration, content to live in humble obscurity, rendering such dedicated service to Christ and to their fellows as they are able. “He that is essentially, basically, truly and sincerely least among you all, the same is great.” It is to be noted that Jesus made no mention of being greatest, nor of glory in the kingdom. His present tense emphasizes present worth in the sight of the King. The future can be left to take care of itself.

Causes of stumbling

It was needful, also, to add a warning: “But I whoso shall become a stumbling stone to one of I these little ones which believe in me, it is “profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea” (Mk.). It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that the Lord can hardly conceive of a greater sin than the sell-seeking behaviour which causes one of his humble disciples to lose hold and go away from faith in him. For such an offender it would be a happier destiny if he could so die as to be assured of no resurrection and judgment. Or did Jesus mean: Happier if he should so die before committing such an offence?

With human life as it is, continued Jesus, there is bound to be many an occasion of stumbling in the variegated experience of the disciples: “Woe unto the world because of causes of stumbling, for it is inevitable (necessary?) that they happen: but woe to that man through whom the cause of stumbling comes!” (Mk.). Nothing is more needful for the follower of Christ than the discipline of adversity or hard circumstance. Nevertheless, when such trying situations are provoked through the wilfulness, selfishness, or maybe mere thoughtlessness, of some human agent, he will be held answerable to God if there be stumbling, even though (all unsuspected) divine wisdom is making use of such perversity. At the same time, this saying of the Lord is an assurance to the bewildered harassed disciple of the ultimate justice of God. With this conviction he can fend off the temptation to make right triumph over wrong through his own efforts. All such provocations can be safely left in God’s hands. He knows best!

Notes: Mt.18:1-7

1.	Who then is greatest. . .? Could this question have arisen if indeed Peter had already been given a papal priority over all in the church? The present tense “is” implies an expectation of an immediate kingdom. The story of the Transfiguration had evidently gone round the apostolic band (17:19 notwithstanding).
2.	Jesus called a little child. Jesus was at home with children, and they with him: 1421; 19:13,14;21 :15,16.
3.	Shall not enter. Gk: in no wise. What a contrast with “being greatest”!
	Be converted; i.e. turn round, and grow into children again.

After his very blunt counsel regarding the resolving of differences between brethren, the brd used the opportunity to emphasize that there is an even better way through such difficulties: Let a man foster in his mind such a spirit of toleration and forgiveness that no offence is felt!

This is no easy solution. Human nature instinctively resents unfair or malicious actions. It is the most natural thing in the world to react badly to bad treatment, either in self-justification or to get one’s own back. But Jesus forbad all this in a brief warning that his disciples be ever on the alert against showing or even feeling resentment: “Take heed to yourselves.” In such an encounter it is natural enough to train an analytical spot-light on the faults of the offender rather than on one’s own almost equally reprehensible reactions. How important, therefore, so to cultivate such a sense of self-awareness as to be able to recognize immediately the storm signals in one’s own spirit.

In a very practical down-to-earth fashion, Jesus counselled: “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.” Once again, the omission, by some of the modern versions, of the words: “against thee,” seems hardly to be warranted (note the context). Their inclusion appears to be required by the command to forgive. If the sin is against God or against my brother, what right have / to pronounce absolution?

The rebuke of the sin is, of course, not to be an explosive “telling him off” or “putting him in his place.” Any such rebuke is really an infringement of the commandment: “Judge not that ye be not judged.” The only valid rebuke springs directly from the Word of God. The ideal reproof is by means of a simple citation of a relevant passage of Holy Scripture, “profitable for reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.” Yet how very rarely is this use made of it!

Forgive seven times?

Evidently Peter was learning. He now took up this point in a spirit of great earnestness: “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?” If a fault confessed is to be a fault forgiven (v.15), how often does this go on? No doubt the well-intentioned apostle thought that with a guideline such as this he was setting his standards pretty high. The rabbis were in the habit of quoting the familiar phrase from Amos: “For three transgressions and for four . . .”(1 :3). From this they inferred that the forgiving of three offences was as much as could reasonably be laid on any godly man. Peter went far beyond that, adding the three and the four together.

Judge, then, of his surprise when Jesus screwed even this exceptional standard higher and yet higher: “If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.”

Peter might well have protested at this as beyond the limits of what is reasonable. Forgiving the same individual seven times in the short space of one day! Surely a man who repeats an offence so soon and so frequently is incorrigible. More than this, if his repentance is just as frequent, is it not too facile to be genuine? What wisdom is there in putting a premium on insincerity?

Nevertheless it may be taken as fairly likely that Jesus knew what he was about. He insisted that every possible concession be made to on offending brother. If he say: “I repent,” then any inclination to doubt his sincerity must be promptly stifled. Against all lurking suspicion,a man must be taken at his word. To do otherwise is to set oneself up as an infallible judge of motives and mental attitudes. “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Seventy times seven

Even now Jesus had not finished his underscoring of this cardinal principle of forgiveness: “I say not unto thee, Forgive until seven times; but, until seventy times seven.” From which of two very different sources did Jesus quarry this fantastic total?

In the early days of the race, when Lamech’s son, Tubal-cain, developed extensive skills in fashioning of brass and iron, Lamech, with the world’s first armaments factory to back him up, celebrated this splendid advance in early civilisation with the taunt-song: “I have slain a man for wounding me, and a young man for bruising me. If Cain be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and seven fold”(Gen.4 .-22-24], Here the LXX has the exact phrase used by Jesus: “seventy times seven.” So whereas this old villain in the line of Cain gloried in his power to take vengeance, the Lord’s disciple is to glory in the piling up of forgiveness to a positively unreasonable extent. “Out of Lamech’s formula of revenge Jesus makes a formula of forgiveness” (Gundry).

Or, was Jesus aiming at a comparison, and not a contrast? In Daniel 9 a unique prophecy foretells a period of seventy sevens to Messiah the Prince. At the end of this time “Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing.” Thus he will “make reconciliation for iniquity.” Then, is it possible that Jesus was bidding his disciple go on forgiving until he has matched his Master’s atoning work?—and his love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8).

And since no disciple can hope ever to emulate his Lord’s patient bearing of contumely and cruelty, endured without any deserving, and for the undeserving, the “seventy times seven” forgiveness must mean: “Go on forgiving all your days.”

Indeed this is the conclusion to which any attempt at literal application of the commandment must lead. Long before the 490 total is reached, a man will surely weary of keeping the reckoning (at least, if he does not, it means that he is not really forgiving at all!). Also, before ever the target total is achieved, forgiving must have become such a habit as to have transformed a man’s whole outlook on life.

Whilst this commandment to forgive may appear to be one of the most rigorous precepts ever promulgated, it is actually one of the most comforting. For if Jesus lays down such a standard for his disciple to follow, will he not himself be at least equally forgiving?

Thus there is here an indirect assurance of such merciful loving kindness from Jesus as his blowers might hardly consider possible!

A king and his debtor

Jesus now rounded off all that he had to leach on this difficult topic in a parable of tremendous interest and power.

A king, suspecting peculation by officers of his administration, commanded investigation into the state of his national exchequer. Almost at once there was brought to him one whose accounts were wrong to the extent of many millions of pounds. The man had sequestrated the revenues of a province.

Since the modern equivalents of ancient money values, as given in Bible marginal notes and works of reference, are almost all hopelessly astray from reality, it may be of we to diverge from the story for a moment to attempt a more accurate estimate of the money values involved here. The Greek-Roman talent was the equivalent of 6000 denarii (Hast. Bib. Diet.), the coin which in the New Testament is called a penny. This denarius was evidently a normal day’s wage for an agricultural labourer (Mt.20:2)-in modern terms (in this year of gracious inflation 1983) equivalent in Britain to £15, at least. Then the ten thousand talents of the parable=60 million denarii=£900million.

This sum was Haman’s estimate of the plunder to be had from all the Jews in the Persian empire (Esth.3 :9). It was also a large proportion of the resources set aside by David for the building of the temple (1 Chr.29 :7). So evidently this defaulter had defrauded his king for a considerable period.

There can be no mistake that a rascal who could misappropriate such a massive sum of money deserved drastic punishment. The king’s decision was that he and all his family and all his property be sold so that at any rate some payment might be made. The implication is that his living style was nearly as splendid as the king’s, or what sort of impression on that enormous debt could such a sale produce? (Ps.44 :12). The Law of Moses provided that a thief be sold as a slave to make repayment (Ex.22 :3). In this instance, as frequently happens, the man’s sins dragged others down with him. His wife and children must suffer also.

Even though there was the comfort of a merciful release at jubilee (lev.25 :39_/41), the man, utterly horrified at the prospect before him, made an agonized and quite unpractical plea for clemency: “Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.”

What an amazing confidence this scoundrel had in his own powers! How could anyone hope ever to repay such a debt? In the interpretation, what is this but justification by works? That and the unforgiving spirit he was soon to show not infrequently go together! In the parable the word for “debt” really means “a loan’— and how appropriately, for this is most men’s attitude to their sins; always, always they mean to pay back one day, there is always some unrealised future when black strains of character will be cleaned up – but of course they never are.

Moved to unexampled mercy and kindness, the king let the man go scot free (Ps.130 :4; Eph.3 :20). The entire debt was remitted, simply on the ground of frank acknowledgment of guilt (Ps.32 :l-5; Lk.15 :21,22)— and, apparently, he was allowed to continue in office, for at the end of the story (v.32) he is still a “servant”. With such a happy outcome from a desperate situation the man’s reaction would surely be a burst of overflowing thankfulness showing itself in emulation of his master’s kindness.

But no! An unforgiven debtor         ^:

With such a memory still strong in his mind, this creature went out from the presence of his gracious king (the unforgiving spirit takes a man away from the presence of God!) and forthwith hunted down some minor official in the king’s service who owed him an inconsiderable debt compared with his own. Grabbing the man by the throat, with fierce threats he demanded immediate payment. The scene just now enacted in the royal presence took place again, but with a very different outcome. No cancelling of the debt this time! Not even a concession of more time in which to pay (2 Pet.1 :7-9; Tit.3 :3; 1Jn 4:11).

The poor fellow pleased with great persistence, even using by chance the very words which his creditor had just been using to gain mercy from the king, but the echo of that experience did nothing to change this unfeeling ruthlessness. With stubborn rejection of this importunity, and making peremptory exercise of official powers, he had the piteous debtor flung into prison “till he should pay the debt’—and how then could such a thing ever come about? The creditor did this even though there was fair prospect that, given time, such a relatively modest sum would be paid. This unregenerate character would rather have his vengeance than his money!

He was evidently quite shameless about his unfeeling action, for what he did he did openly, so that fellow-servants at the king’s court knew about it. Their revulsion of indignant feeling expressed itself in a vivid re-telling of every detail to the king himself.

What ensued was precisely what might be expected.

Retribution

Brought once again before the throne to answer for his misdeeds, there was now no opportunity for the man to plead his own cause (what plea could he possibly offer?). Instead, there was only bitter upbraiding from the king: “Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt (even the king thought it an awful lot), because thou besoughtest me. Shouldest not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on thee?” And the man was speechless (cp. 22:12).

It was only now that the king became angry. In cold contempt of such small minded unfeeling selfishness, he commanded that the man be punished—not merely shut up in prison, but handed over to the court specialists in beating and torture (contrast v.25), till his own vast indebtedness should be discharged. The man’s case was now hopeless. None, even if some fellow cabinet-minister had the resources to do so, would dream of coming to the rescue of such a wretch. He had forfeited the sympathies of all. Even the mercy of a jubilee release was now denied him.

There is here a feature of the parable which is specially not true to life. In human dealings when a debt is cancelled it is cancelled. But in this instance the debt was, so to sped, regenerated. Men cannot do this, but God can—and He does.

Forgive! Forgive!

So Jesus rounded off this grim conclusion with the solemn warning: “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts (Eph.4 :31,32) forgive not everyone his brother.” Here the unexpected “my heavenly Father”, in place of the more usual “your heavenly Father, was doubtless designed lo suggest the estrangement which an unforgiving spirit is bound to create. And that vital phrase “from your hearts,” is a pointed reminder that there can never be any kind of substitute for genuine whole-hearted forgiveness. Formal handshake, brief spoken apology, or whatever other outward token of restored fellowship there may be, these are of no consequence at all in the Lord’s eyes if bygones be not truly bygones. The man who can “forgive but not forget” has in him no true spirit of reconciliation.

Elsewhere in his teaching Jesus is at pains to stress that except there be forgiveness of one’s fellows there can be no forgiveness from heaven: “For if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Mt.6 :15). In this parable, the converse of the proposition holds good; “Shouldst not thou have had mercy on thy fellowservant, even as I had mercy on thee?” The one who knows “the calm of sins forgiven” will want to extend the same to his brother, and this all the more readily because of the vast disparity between the mighty “debt” God has forgiven him and the triviality his brother owes to him.

Notes: Mt. 18:21-35

23.	His servants. This word slaves would apply also to high officials; e.g. Naaman (2 Kgs.5 :6). Such a usage served to exalt the majesty and authority of the king.
24.	Talents. The figures given in Ex.38 :25-28 would double the estimate given in the text, and would make one debt 1,200,000 times as big as the other.
28.	Pay me that thou owest. The reading in the best manuscripts: “Pay me, if thou owest,” might perhaps imply: “and so it shall be with all my debtors.”
31.	Fellowservants. In the interpretation who are these?
33.	Thou wicked servant. It was his lack of compassion that was his wickedness.
	I forgave thee . . . because thou desiredst me. Because thou didst beseech me. The man had asked for time, not for cancellation, yet he got it!
	Shouldest not thou.. .? Gk: was it not necessary? (morally necessary).
34.	Jas. 2:13 surely refers to this. Cp. also Ps.l8:25,26

	CHRIST			ELIJAH-ELISHA
	Luke			1, 2 Kings
1.	9:4;	“Into whatsoever house ye enter	17:9	Given hospitality by widow woman
	10:7	there abide
2.	9:6	Healing the sick	17: 17-23	Widow’s son healed.
3.	9:8	“Some said that Elias had appeared.”
4.	9:9	“Herod . . . desired to see him”	18:10	Sought by King Ahab.
5.	9:16	Feeding the five thousand.	17:14	Widow’s food miraculously multiplied.
			4:42-44	20 loaves feed 100 people
6.	9:19	“Some say, Elias”
7.	9:22	Rejected, raised the third day; 1Kgs. 19:2-8. Then, 40 days.	19:2-8	After third day, went forty days to the presence of God.
8.	9:23	‘Let him take up his cross daily, and follow me.”	18:21	“If the Lord be God, follow him”
9.	9:28-35	Theophany in the mount of God	19:11,12	Wind, earthquake, fire and – voice at Horeb.
10.	9:30	Elijah at the Transfiguration.
11.	9:37-42	Restored (dead) child when disciples failed.	4:31 -35	Restored dead child when Gehazi failed.
12.	9:46	Disciples eager for greatness	5:22-26	Gehazi’s ambition.
13.	9:51	“The time was come that he should be received up.”	2:1	“When the Lord would take Elijah up to heaven.”
14.	9:54	“Fire from heaven, as Elias did?”	1:10	“Let fire come down from heaven, and consume…”
15.	9:55	What manner of spirit.	2:9	A double portion of Elijah’s spirit.
16.	9:56	“Not to destroy, but to save.”	2:9	Elisha- “God saves.”
17.	9:58	“Nowhere to lay his head.”	19:5	Lay and slept under a juniper tree.
18.	9:61	“Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell which are at home. “	19:20	“Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee.”
19.	. 9:62	“No man, having put his hand to the plough…”	19:19,21	“Elisha plowing . . . boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen.”
20.	10:4	“Salute no man by the way”	4:29	“If thou meet any man, salute him not.”
21.	10:7	“Eating and drinking such things as they give.”	17:9ff	Lodging with the widow.
22.	10:13,14	. “If the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Zidon.”	17:9 16:31	A widow of Zidon. Jezebel of Zidon.
23.	10:19	“I give unto you power…”	2:9	Elijah’s power given to Elisha.
24.	10:38	“Martha received him into her house”	4:8ff	Shunamite woman received Elisha “as often as he passed by”
25.		(and received her brother back to life)		(and received her son back to life).
26.	12:24	“Consider the ravens…; God feedeth them.”	17:4	“I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.”
27.	13:32	“Herod (Herodias!) will kill thee. . . Go ye, and tell that vixen.”	19:2	Jezebel’s threat, and Elijah’s flight

Notes on the fore-going

A.	Some of these items, if they stood alone, would be of doubtful force, but together they make an impressive case.
B.	This set of allusions suggests a different interpretation of 9:61,62 from what is usually advanced.
C.	10:4 “Salute no man by the way” now implies: “Your errand is to go and raise the dead”.
D.	12:24 “raven.” Contrast Matthew’s more general: “fowls of the air” (6:26).
E.	What is Luke trying to teach by such a catalogue as this?

Jesus had spoken very earnestly about the responsibility of exercising special care that those whom he calls his “little ones” shall not be caused to stumble. Then he broke off to enlarge on the dangers of inadequate self-examination and self-discipline. Now he returned to his original theme. It is a measure of the importance he attached to it. Apparently he had specially in mind the big responsibility which the apostles would bear as leaders of his Ecclesia after his ascension.

So he warned them: “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones.” “Little ones” and shepherding of the flock (v.12,13) come together in Zech.13 :7. “For (he went on) I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”

The care of angels

The Bible doctrine of angels is considerable in its scope and complex in its detail—much too big a topic for elaboration here. One thing at least is clear—a good deal more clear than modern thinking on the subject would normally allow— that one of the functions of the angels of God is the providential care of His chosen the control and guidance of their lives. Whether it be good or what men with their limited horizons deem to be “evil,” all these things are committed by Almighty God to his angels.”Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” (Heb.l :14). It is a doctrine which can greatly help limited human understanding to a higher faith in God’s providence. Lk.15 :7,10 has the same truth and the same emphasis.

Nevertheless, these words of Jesus are not without their difficulty. For how can angels (the highest angels for the humblest folk! Lk.1 :19) “always behold the face of the Father in heaven” and simultaneously “encamp round about them that fear him”? The seeming contradiction arises through failure to recognize that both expressions are figures of speech The one describes direct contact with the Lord in heaven, the other direct contact (though unperceived) with the “little one” who belongs to the heavenly family.

There is also this fact to take into consideration that whereas God’s people on earth are necessarily creatures of a three-dimensional world, angels are outside this framework, and therefore superior to (lie limitations which are part of it.

It is perhaps not amiss here to issue a warning, in passing, against allowing the modern scientific world to impose too much of its mode of thinking. Science insists always on cause and effect and on the rigid authority of “laws of Nature.” The Bible never mentions any of these, but instead always refers all happenings, big or small, normal or abnormal to the will and act of God. Laws of nature are simply the smokescreen which the scientist interposes between God and His world. By this means he seek to put God out of sight, and if possible out of action. The Bible in many places, and Jesus in this place in particular, insists that in the life of the lowliest disciple all is under God’s control through the agency of His angels. And, strangely enough, it is the lowliest disciple who is usually most aware of this truth. This, as much as anything, is what makes the “little one” precious in the Lord’s sight.

A lost sheep

Therefore there is special responsibility to do all in one’s power to save any disciple from going astray. So Jesus told his lovely parable of the lost sheep. Here he introduced it differently from the other occasion when he told the same story (Lk.15 :4). The Greek phrase seems to imply a shepherd’s responsibility falling almost unexpectedly on a man: “If a hundred sheep come (or, happen) to a man, and one of them is led astray. . .” In neither detail is this normally true to life. But the words are apt enough with reference to ecclesial responsibility and how sheep are lost from its care. This tender parable is lifted almost bodily out of the teaching of austere Ezekiel (34 :6,11,12,16). The good shepherd goes to the mountain, taking endless trouble and wearying himself, because he deems the search worthwhile. In the first century “the mountain” of the temple held the greatest danger to the flock, for the pull back to Judaism was considerable. Today it is in the city (or in the ecclesia!) where most sheep are lost.

The eager search of the shepherd, neglecting (at least, for the time being) those who are safe, is the Lord’s strong imperative that whenever any are caused to stumble or to lose faith in the Truth of Christ or are lured by illicit desires, nothing should have higher priority in the ecclesia’s concern than the finding and recovery of the lost sheep.

There are few ecclesias which do not have experiences of this kind. Unhappily success rarely follows. The Lord’s “if so be” plainly recognizes this fact beforehand. But no situation should ever be accepted as one of final irremediable failure. Even where there is failure, contact should be maintained, or at least details carefully preserved of how contact may be renewed. From time to time every ecclesia should mount an Operation Lost Sheep. If this were done systematically by every ecclesia in the world, the results would far surpass the mightiest preaching efforts ever planned. “It is not a thing wished before your Father (by the angels; v.10) that one of these little ones should perish.” What an understatement of the eagerness of the heavenly host to see the lost ones of the Lord restored to his fold! And it needs to be remembered that “the ninety-and-nine which were not led astray” are silly sheep just like the hundredth. There is little room for self-congratulation.

“We be brethren”

Jesus next moved on to the problem of reconciliation of brethren between whom fellowship has broken down.The Lord’s idealism was not so finely drawn that he lacked the realism to recognize the inevitability of discord among his disciples. He knew what was in man! And throughout his ministry had not the twelve time and again given him reminders enough?

The ideal reaction to any personal offence is a steady determination not to be offended. If the one whose susceptibilities would normally be injured by some thoughtless or offensive action is not susceptible, then no breach of fellowship ensues. If, in spite of sustained provocation, this policy is patiently persisted in, then in due course the offender ceases to offend. He is gained as a brother in the true sense of the term.

This hard road to the healing of bad personal relationships is by far the best, when it can be made to work. But there are those not to be won even by such gracious methods. Those who can pocket pride and put up with continued provocation, the while maintaining a tolerant unresentful attitude are a very rare breed.

So when one’s spirit is tried to the point where offences are not to be shrugged off, even with the help of prayer and self-discipline, then a resolving of the strained situation must be sought through personal encounter of the right, not the wrong, sort, for a continuing enmity is a dead loss to both parties.

Jesus couched his instruction in plain unambiguous terms: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone” (cp.Pr.25:9). There can be little doubt that the two words “against thee,” omitted by some of the modern versions really belong to this place. Quite apart from the preponderant textual evidence, the parallel passage in Luke 17 :3 is unambiguous and emphatic on this. The context in Matthew (see v.21) points to the same conclusion.

The spirit in which this reproof of the offending brother is to be undertaken is clearly seen from the words: “If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” Breach of harmony means that a brother has been lost, no matter how technically correct the fellowship position between the two may be. The whole purpose, then, of any attempt to “talk it out”, must be reconciliation, and not “getting it off my chest” or “giving him a piece of my mind.”

In the precept of Moses on which this wisdom of Christ is built, there is a slightly different but comparable emphasis: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev.19 :17,18). Here is the important reminder that when two brethren in Christ are at odds, there is sin in the heart of at least one of them, a sin not to be resentfully cherished but to be expurgated by reconciliation. The motive of “gaining thy brother” must be paramount.

Thus the words: “Go tell him his fault”, carry no hint of an angry tit for tat. Rather they suggest a persuasive attempt to present facts in a different light—to convict the offender of his fault.

“If he hear thee’—in the sense of ‘give heed—’thou hast gained thy brother.” This means more than mere reconciliation, highly desirable though that is in itself. A brother offending or a brother smouldering with resentment is in a false position before God. For this higher reason there must be reconciliation.

But “a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and contentions are like the bars of a castle” (Pr.18 :19). So it may well turn out that, with the best will in the world, there is no progress towards mutual understanding.

Then, “if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” The mere presence of others may serve to import a better spirit into the discussion. The insertion of a few questions as to the facts of the case may do much to elucidate a tangled .situation.

Again, the principle of having “two or three witnesses” was that of the Law of Moses. But, so far as one can discover, no one has yet come up with an explanation of why two or three. If two witnesses are sufficient why should it be necessary ever to specify three? Is it possible that three witnesses were to be insisted on when one of them happened to be a relation of the protagonist or had some close personal involvement in the problem?

If it should prove that even with witnesses present there is no progress towards agreement, the next step is an appeal to the ecclesia, that through its elders the community may offer a balanced opinion not lightly to be set aside. The individual who will stubbornly assert the correctness of his own judgement against that of the ecclesia is a rarity. Indeed it is difficult to envisage such situations arising at all in the early church, when ecclesial leaders were guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Today, even though the counsel of a completed New Testament is available, it is conceivable that ecclesial misjudgements may happen and under present ecclesial organization there is then no further court of appeal.

What has just been written envisages a distinctly unusual situation. More likely is the other which Jesus went on to legislate for: “lf he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee .as a heathen man and a publican.” Even when not convinced that the ecclesia’s pronouncement, is the best possible, the individual who refuses to.’ accept it demonstrates very plainly that he is too wilful to accept the Lord’s authority either—for in this discourse Jesus plainly makes the ecclesia’s judgement final. Even when not content with the attitude adopted by the ecclesia, a man should have the meekness to accept it, willing to persuade himself that his own judgement may be untrustworthy.

To be treated as a Gentile or a publican means neither religious nor social fellowship But it also means, as Burgon has well put it, that such a brother is “one for whose repentance and conversion the church toils night and day.”’ It is surely significant that Jesus said: “Let him be unto thee (not, the ecclesia) as a heathen man and a publican.” This describes the attitude of the one originally offended. The words could mean that there is no official exclusion from the fellowship of the ecclesia, but that the individual offended is left to implement his own personal attitude to the offender. However, Paul’s practical insistence on ecclesial discipline (2 Th.3:6,14) suggest that he gave these words of the Lord a wider reference.

Ecclesial authority.

A further conclusion from this prescribed appeal to the ecclesia is worth noting. By saying: “Let the ecclesia decide,” Jesus was in effect forbidding recourse to any of the world’s courts of law. Evidently this was how Paul understood his words, for in his familiar ruling to the ecclesia at Corinth he wrote with censure and scorn of brethren who invoked the processes of Gentile law (1 Cor.6 :l-6) to settle differences between one another.

Jesus rounded off his very practical precept regarding this unhappy problem with a blunt reminder that the ecclesia’s assessment hostile ratification of heaven: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In those days synagogue decisions required, and usually got, ratification from the Sanhedrin. Behind apostolic judgements stood a higher court than that in Jerusalem.

It is not difficult to see how true these words of Jesus must be regarding decisions and actions of the apostles, for they were men consciously guided by the Lord’s special authority. But to assume that the same stands true in this twentieth century is not at all easy. Yet it is even conceivable that an imperfect ecclesial judgement may be used by God as a test of the Christ-like spirit of those involved.

Nor is it easy to believe that the Lord’s next words have a completely literal application today: “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven” [cp.Dan.2:18; Acts 1:14).

The context clearly restricts this to requests helping forward the well-being of the ecclesia. But the Father only gives “good things” to His children (Mt.7:11). Therefore the things asked for must be good (contrast Jas.4 :3). And with the best will in the world this is not always the case (cp. 2 Cor. 12:7-9).

James and John agreed enthusiastically enough regarding that which they asked of Jesus (Mk.10 :35), but this was not done for them, nor will be, as Scripture plainly proves (Rev.3 :21), Even so there is a positive teaching in this Scripture which no good ecclesia will ignore today—the importance and efficacy of united prayer regarding specific needs or problems.

“Two or three gathered together”

The saying with which the Lord rounded off this part of his discourse is one of the best-known and most misapplied: “For where two or three ore gathered together in my name, there am I in tke midst of them.” In the present context—a long discussion on how best to save a lost brother and how to bring reconciliation in place of discord—reference to the Breaking of Bread Service (which is the meaning most commonly assigned) is hardly possible, especially since the institution of that memorial rite only came some: six months later.

Instead, possible meaning are these:

1. The gathering of two or three for earnest prayer regarding the needs of the ecclesia (this could follow directly from the previous verse.)
2. The meeting of the elders of the ecclesia to decide on disciplinary action against an uncooperative brother (this goes back to verse 17).
3. The gathering together in reconciliation of those who have been estranged. This is most likely, since the Greek expression is, strictly: “gathered together into my name.” If this is accepted, then extension to the Breaking of Bread service is easy enough inasmuch as that expresses the close fellowship of brethren in Christ better than anything else.

Notes: Mt. 18:10-20

10.	For I say unto you. Lk.l5:7, 10 has the same truth and the same emphasis.
	Their angels Ps.91 :11; Lk.15 :7, 10;Acts 12 :7,23; contrast23 :8.
	Always. Literally: through everything.
11.	That which was lost. Gk. middle voice might imply ‘wanted to get lost—true of not a few lost sheep in this generation also.
15.	The little one (v.14) is now thy brother,
16.	In 2 Cor. 13 :1 Paul refers to these words of Jesus and not to Dt.19 :15. This evident from his phrases: “the second time, the third time,” precisely as in Mt. 18 :15-17.
17.	Neglect to hear them; s.w. Is.65 :12 LXX only.
	Tell it to the church. 1 Cor.5 :4,5; 6 :l-6; 1 Th.5 -.20; v.17,20 seem to imply Christ’s absence. It is possible that v.15-20 were originally part of the 40 days’ instruction?

Illustrating the wholesome Christ-like disposition which can ignore all pride of place, Jesus had taken a little child in his arms: “Whosoever receiveth one of such children in my name, receiveth me.” John realised that the scope of this commandment went a long way beyond children of the kind Jesus was now holding. It meant adults also. Then here was a problem. Who were they to consider as included among Christ’s “little ones”?

A Competitor?

So, with uneasy conscience, John told of a recent experience: “We saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us.” The question in John’s voice added: ‘We did the right thing, didn’t we?’ There may even have been a suggestion of sour grapes about the apostles’ antagonism, for this man was succeeding just where they had failed (Mk.9 :38). John’s implication may also have been: ‘Since he does not follow us, of course we have not “received” him. So he can hardly reckon as one of your ‘littleones’, Lord, can he?”

Yet it may be inferred that the man in question was a true believer in Jesus, for he was casting out devils, not merely attempting to do this. He was not like the evil sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14), dressing up a mountebank performance with an appeal to the well-known name of Jesus of Nazareth.

More than this, the Greek imperfect tense implies that several of the apostles had demanded time after time that the man desist from this practice which they disapproved of. But evidently, the man had taken no notice.

Another useful detail to observe is that when John said: “He followeth not us,” he meant the “us” to include Jesus and the twelve, for this is the meaning of the “us” used by Jesus in his reply (Mk.9 :40). Thus John’s words imply a marked sense of superiority over this lone disciple. What is worse, they breathe a distinctly sectarian spirit. There is no complaint of false teaching or unworthy character, but simply that “He doesn’t belong to our fellowship!” For long generations this very thing has been the greatest evil in the Ecclesia of the Lord.

The Lord’s comment on this situation is worthy of close study: “Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.” The actual doing of miracles was itself an evident sign of God’s approval and support. Then who was John, to take upon himself the authority to forbid what was being done? And was it likely that a man who found power in the name of Jesus would be disposed to say anything damaging about Jesus?

Moses and Paul

The situation was exactly that which faced Moses when he chose the seventy elders to share his labours (Num.11 -.24-30). He gathered them at his tent outside the camp, and there the Spirit of God was poured upon them so that they “prophesied”. But unexpectedly the Spirit also overflowed on to Eldad and Medad in the camp itself. Learning about this, and jealous for the authority of his leader, Joshua cried out: “My lord Moses, forbid them.” But Moses’ mature reply calmed him: “Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets!’—and he promptly went and joined them! (Cp. 1 Cor.12 :3). The exclusive attitude of Joshua was well-intentioned but wrong.

In Rome Paul had to cope with a much more provoking experience of this kind. Whilst he was a prisoner chained to a Roman soldier, certain of the brethren in the Rome ecclesia took advantage of his being under restraint to proclaim a slanted gospel in a contentious and factious spirit: “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife… of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds.” The surmise is almost certainly correct that these were Judaists, glad of the opportunity to spoil with their own dogmatic sectarianism the gospel Paul preached. They made hay while the sun shone. Paul, without his freedom, heard what was afoot but was unable personally to counter or correct their deleterious work.

Yet there is no hint of him writing sweeping censure of their activities, no hint of vexed, frustrated indignation. Instead: “What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice” (Phil.1:15:18).

The quiet steadfast faith that God can bring good out of men’s evil intentions or imperfect understanding does not flourish in many minds. All too often the egotistic attitude is this: If /do not save the Truth of Christ, it will perish.

As was his wont, Jesus summed up the present problem with a governing principle: “He that is not against us is on our part.” Separatists, who find little comfort or encouragement for their attitudes in this incident, are more at home with the complementary saying which Jesus had used on an earlier occasion: “He that is not with me is against me” (Mt.12 :30).

It seems necessary to supply the ellipsis (for it is obvious that there is an ellipsis) thus: “He that is not against us (when he might be expected to be) is on our part.” Those who attempted the casting out of devils in the time of Jesus were usually people of the character of the sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14ff)-charlatans, impostors, rivals, rather than disciples. So the rare phenomenon represented by this lone healer who was also a firm believer in Jesus was one to rejoice in.

On the other hand, the scribes and Pharisees were able, Bible-instructed men who should surely have been among the first to recognize and acclaim Jesus as the Son of God. Instead, in a desperate effort to besmirch his character they blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, basely misrepresenting his gracious miracles as inspired by the Devil. So concerning them Jesus said: “He that is not with me (when there is every reason why he should be with me) is against me.”

Offences

Jesus went on to warn against the grievous sin of discouraging one whom he is glad to recognize as “one of these little ones, that believe in me.” And how needful such a warning is! lf apostles could blunder into this serious error, what likelihood is there that smaller men will avoid it?

A remarkable aspect of this present episode is this. By his earlier question: “What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?” the Lord had given further proof of his remarkable ability to read the minds of his disciples. Then must he not have been equally aware of their exclusive behaviour towards this “loner”? Yet he did nothing about it until they brought the problem to him!

But when they did so, how weighty was his disapproval! “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, (as though he were a dangerous mad dog), and he were cast into the sea . . .” to stay there, so the Greek text seems to imply. In other words, better for such a man to die without any prospect of resurrection than to have to rise from the dead in the Last Day to give account for such an action! (But, for such a one, is a peaceful uninterrupted oblivion possible?)

Here, for the spiritual seed of Abraham, is the counterpart to that element in the earlier promise: “I will curse him that curseth thee” (Gen.l2 :3). On the other hand, the smallest gesture of goodwill-a mere cup of water-offered to a disciple, because he is a disciple, does not go unrewarded by heaven. The destitute and desperate widow of Zarephath gave a drink to Elijah, recognizing him to be prophet of the Lord, and thereupon received a reward beyond her wildest dreams (1 Kgs.17 :8ff). Think you, asks Jesus, that you are any less important than Elijah?

Gehenna

The Lord now turned from the much-needed lessons of toleration and kindliness, to the exact opposite—a ruthless intolerance of one’s own besetting sins; and, appropriately, he employed some of the most vigorous language to be found anywhere in the gospels. The picture of a man (lilting off hand or foot or plucking out an eye, in order to save himself from the smoky destruction of Gehenna is not matched by any of the Lord’s vivid figures of speech.

First, it is well to recognize how hopelessly mistaken are the misapplications of these words in support of the old and still widely held doctrine of hell torments. Taken literally, this language makes nonsense. “It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, halt, with one eye, than to go fully equipped into hell.” Is it possible to conceive of enjoyment of everlasting life bereft of powers and faculties with which God graciously endows a man in this life?

Again, “where their worm dieth not” positively refuses a literal interpretation. So also does the picture of a man plucking out one of his eyes, because it is a cause of offence, for obviously with his one remaining eye his vision is not drastically impaired; he is, for example, still well able to “look on a woman to lust after her.”

Self discipline

Of far greater importance than the misapplications of these words is their far-reaching relevance to the problems of daily living. The Law of Moses has a very dramatic picture (Dt.13 :6) of drastic action against others who would draw away the people of God from their loyalty to Him. Now Jesus bids his follower direct the same intense spirit of intolerance against the evils of his own life. Whereas there is to be every possible allowance made for weakness in others, and forgiveness extended unto seventy times seven, with the faults in oneself the Lord calls for relentless ruthlessness. A man is always in love with his besetting sins. That is why they are always with him. So, very honest and frank appraisal of one’s own spiritual hindrances is a responsibility no true disciple would want to evade. Especially do the practical activities of life represented by hand, foot, and eye, need to come under constant scrutiny in a spirit of self-mistrust.

It is something of a puzzle why Jesus selected these three examples. The high priest was anointed on hand, foot, and ear (Lev. 8:23). Perhaps the third item was intended to signify the consecration of a man’s head to the service of God—all the faculties of mind, speech and hearing being included. More likely, both in Law and Gospel the three powers mentioned are no more than examples, to remind the man of God that in all life’s activities there is a call to rigorous self-discipline and the fullest possible consecration to God of whatever a man finds himself endowed with.

The hand stands, of course, for a man’s daily work and for the special skills with which God has blessed him. The younger generation, planning careers for themselves, are well advised not only to choose such callings.as are reasonably clear from worldly defilement or temptation, but also to aim at a means of livelihood which makes a positive contribution to the well-being of society and is not parasitic.

The hand also represents hobbies and ploys to which a man turns in his leisure time. Some of these can be dangerous, luring him into undesirable company. Some are obsessive, capturing imagination and enthusiasm to such an extent that, instead of filling the odd hour of relaxation, they become insatiable. Bridge and billiards fall readily enough into this category. But it is little realised that the more respectable diversions such as music, chess and gardening can be every bit as evil. Elegant time-wasters, all of them!

Very expressively, when the Old Testament wants to say “dedicate” it makes use of the idiom: “fill the hand” (e.g. 1 Chr.29 :5; 2 Chr.29 :31). This goes back to the consecration of Aaron as high-priest. In that ritual the Lord’s portion of the sacrifice was put “upon Aaron’s hands, and upon his sons’ hands”, and thus it was presented before the Lord (Lev.8 :27). Now the exhortation of Jesus bids a man take care to consecrate all the activities of daily life to God. He is to “fill his hand” with that which pleases his Maker. And where there is risk of diversion or perversion of effort, He calls for unhesitating self-discipline.

“It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell.” This, one may be sure, is how it may appear to limited human judgement. To worldly acquaintances many a saint in Christ appears to live a cramped and stunted life. But that individual, who has, for Christ’s sake, foregone interests and activities which are deemed by the world desirable or even fascinating, knows that he has made a good exchange, finding profound satisfaction in this life, whatever the life to come may have to offer. And what value have all the fine cultural and entertaining diversions of this life if the end of them is an irreversible fate in Gehenna?

During the reign of some of the apostate kings of Judah, the valley of the son of Hinnom had been given over to the worship of Moloch. There little children had been passed through the fire in an act of dedication to Moloch, most of them—one may be sure—not surviving the frightful ordeal. Later Josiah’s reformation devoted that valley to the disposal of the city’s rubbish and sewage. Thus the fires constantly burning there became a well-understood figure for utter destruction. It was a place where “their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (cp.Jer.7:20; 17:27).

The figure of speech went right back to Isaiah. He used it to add vigour to his prophecy of a Jerusalem finally cleansed of all abuses: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me.”

It is their “worm that dieth not.” It is they who shall be an “abhorring unto all flesh” (ls.66:24).

With powerful admonitory repetition, the Lord said it all again about the foot and the eye. In not a few Scriptures the foot is associated wild the religious side of one’s life: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet . . . holy ground!” (Ex.3 :i). “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God” (Ecc.5 :1) “Trampling my courts” is Isaiah’s caustic phrase for heedless insincere worship (1 :12). At other times the warning is against intimate social contact with the godless

There are dangers both ways. It is often a big temptation to let the outward forms of religious service do duty for true piety and the realities of a dedicated life. Attendance at Fraternal Gathering or Bible School may afford much religious and social pleasure without adding appreciably to the joy in heaven. It all depends on the attitude of mind.

Young people especially need to be alert to the dangers of where their feet— or their wheels — may carry them. Choice of friends and social activities is a far more serious matter than is usually assessed. It is so easy to drift thoughtlessly into friendships and activities harmless enough in themselves, yet fraught wild many a subtle unspiritual risk.

The eye, similarly, may be the cause of many another danger. In these sex-ridden days there is no need for warning against the havoc which the lust of the eyes can let loose. The saint in Christ who weakens his own defences with time spent on bad novels, salacious magazines, blue radio and TV programmes, is a fool (cp. Jud.16 :21). Corruption spreads fast in our time. There is no need to give it a helping hand, “Flee also youthful lusts” (2 Tim.2:22). “If thine eye cause thee to stumble, pluck it out.”

In many another way, the eye may be the gateway of evil. Looking at oneself or one’s belongings with pride! Looking at the possessions or the happiness of others with envy! Such attitudes, always evil, may become positively cancerous.

And is it not evident that Jesus also intended reference to the imagination? One of the most spiritually enervating habits it is possible to cultivate is that of idle reverie and unwholesome fantasy. Here again is a a vice to which young people are specially prone. It never does any good. It often works serious damage on mind or character.

Whatever kind of self-indulgence calls (or self-discipline, the counsel of Jesus is: “Cut it off… pluck it out.” The world in its plausible cynical wisdom says to its cigarette smokers: “Phase it out gradually.” There is no false wisdom of this kind to be found in the Bible. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth” (Col.3 ;5)—and “mortify” means “put to death.” Regarding other, and worse, things than smoking, the world’s rotten pseudo-science of psychology says: “This is your inheritance from your parents or youir upbringing. These guilty feelings are uncalled (or, they are themselves a guilt. So, follow your inclinations, express your personality, work it out of your system. You are burdened not with a besettting sin but with a complex. Do your own thing, and you will be all the better for it.” Alas, they do not add: “But all the worse in the sight of me Lord you say you follow.”

Hi’s counsel is: “Pluck it out, and cast it from thee.” Follow this road of self-discipline, and the world will deem you to be mutilated, handicapped, disfigured. But Jesus would rather see you like that, and entering into “life.” Nor does he lack the power to make the loss good. “When they saw . . . the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see, they glorified the God of Israel” (Mt.15 :31-hand, foot, and eyes, both eyes).

Also, as far as possible, let there be positive effort at replacing unworthy activities and habits with the healthy directives of a Bible-guided outlook on all the routine of life: “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 in the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shall bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes… (Dt.6:6-8).

“Salted with salt”

At this point the thought of Jesus appears to go off, somewhat enigmatically, at a tangent: “For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” The meaning is not exactly obvious, but two observations can be immediately made with fair confidence. There is a definite link with what has gone before. The conjunction “for” requires this. Also, “salted with fire” is a meaningless expression, since it is only possible to salt with salt. But “salted for the fire” (a perfectly valid translation; see Notes) makes sense. Thus the idea is that, as in the temple every sacrifice must be salted (Lev.2 :13) before being given to the fire which devotes it to the glory of God, so also the salt of self-discipline is needful in the life of every disciple before he may consider himself worthy of God. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom.12 :1,2).

But, Jesus warned, to be of real value self-discipline must be lasting: “If the salt become saltless, wherewith will ye season it?” Whilst salt is valuable to impart flavour to many a food otherwise insipid, there is nothing that can similarly add a tang to the taste of salt. Then the only alternative is the fire and salt of heaven’s reprobation: “The whole land thereof shall be brimstone, and salt, and burning . . . like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah” (Dt.29:23).

Concluding this part of his discourse Jesus came back to the problem of relationship with other disciples, as it had been raised by John: “Have salt in yourselves, and (so) be at peace one with another.’—meaning, fairly obviously: Cease this concern about applying discipline to others; concentrate on the discipline of yourselves; in this way you will establish, and maintain, a wholesome fellowship in Christ with one another.

In this century has there been any commandment of Christ more blatantly disregarded than this?—and by those who call themselves disciples!

Notes: Mk. 9:38-50

38.	John answered him. In the synoptic gospels, these are the only words attributed to John, acting alone (Mk.10:35; 13:3). In the fourth gospel, 13 -.25 and 21 :7.
	One casting out devils in thy name. Gk.: a certain man in thy name casting out devils. There seems to be the implied query: “But, lord, when is a man in thy name?” Contrast 3 Jn.7,8,9.
	He followeth not us. Lk: with us. Which of these readings represents John’s ipsissima verbal Is Luke diluting the strength of the more contentious assertion?
41.	In my name links with v.37-39.
42.	In the parallel passage in Mt.18 there is a closer connection than is usually recognized between v.6-14 and v.15-35
	Cast. Mt. uses the same word as in Mt. 14:30
47.	Enter into the kingdom This and v. 43,45: “into life,” explain each other.
48.	Where their worm dieth not. Manna gone bad through ignoring of God’s precept; Ex. 16:20.
49.	Salted with fire “for the fire (of the altar).” Compare the force of the Greek dative in Rev.21 :2; Heb.6;4; Jn.3 :26; Mt.6 :25;2 Cor.2 :1;5:13.

Jesus now said farewell to Galilee for a long lime. He had finished with public preaching in that region some time before. Lately, apart from the time spent in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, the education of the twelve had priority overall else.

Now, a big new development was initiated— the journey to Jerusalem, which was to culminate in his suffering and death. It was a journey which could have been accomplished in two or three days, yet it took up about five months, a period every bit as busy as the hectic year in Galilee when his popularity there was at its height. John’s gospel indicates that there were at least two appearances in Jerusalem during this period, but (as will be seen in due course) these were flying visits to make use of the special opportunities provided by the Feast of the Dedication and the raising of Lazarus.

Luke’s gospel has a long section here (up to 18:14) which describes in much more detail than the other gospels this part of the ministry, (or, rather, the Lord’s teaching in the course of it). Where Mark’s record is restricted to one chapter, Matthew’s to two, and John’s to three, Luke has nine.

A long indirect journey

In this Lucan travel narrative there is built up a wonderful impression of a Jesus constantly on the move, always going on, on, on, with Jerusalem as the pre-determined end of the journey (Mt.19 :1, Mk.10 :1 seem to imply the something).

• “He steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (9:51).
• “His face was as though he would go to Jerusalem” (9:53).
• “They went to another village” (9 :56).
• “As they went, he entered into a certain village” (10:38).
• “And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem” (13:22).
• “And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee” (17:11).
• “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written . . . shall be accomplished” (18:31).
• “He was nigh to Jerusalem, and they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear” (19:11).
• “He went before them ascending up to Jerusalem” (19:28).
• “He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee to this place” (23 :5).

The cumulative impression made on the mind by this piling-up of repetitious descriptions is very powerful. Luke introduces them with an unusual and ominous expression: “When the days were being fulfilled that he should be received up …” If, as seems to be the obvious meaning, there is allusion here to the ascension of Jesus, this is to be seen as a striking attempt on Luke’s part to get his readers to look past the Crucifixion and the Resurrection to the glorifying of Christ at the right hand of the Father as the true climax and consummation of his redeeming workl

There is a possibility, though with less linguistic support than one could wish, that the words may mean: “the days of his being received back (in Jerusalem)” -that is, with the Crucifixion as the goal. That grim expression: “he steadfastly set his face,” seems to carry this implication, especially when put alongside the Old Testament prophecy to which it is almost certainly a reference: “The Lord God will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed” (ls.50:7).

Unexpected O.T. anticipations

The remarkable expression occurs again in a most unexpected context and opens up the possibility of an altogether unsuspected type of the work of Christ: “Hazael (king of Syria) set his face to go up to Jerusalem” (2 Kgs.12 :17). At first glance it would seem impossible that there should be here any sort of connection between this pagan power seeker and the ministry of Jesus. Yet the context brings a remarkable picture to light:

This man, called “The Vision (or, Seer) of God” was anointed for his work by Elijah (compare the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist). He set his face to go to Jerusalem. Overcoming Gath (Gethsemane), he took to himself all the holy things, leaving the temple standing but desolate. Then he went up (see margin of2 Kgs. 12 :18) from Jerusalem.

Apart from the story of how he seized the throne, this is practically all that the Bible tells concerning this man. How are such similarities to , be explained?

A like impression of the pre-shaping of events is conveyed by the phrase: “When the days were being fulfilled.” Here is the word which describes the fulfilment of the prophecy of the seventy years captivity in Babylon, and also (Daniel 9 :2 LXX) the “seventy weeks” prophecy pointing to “Messiah the Prince” and “the reconciliation for iniquity” (9:24,25). Thus Old Testament and New Testament combine to underline the truth of the words of a psalm which Jesus was to quote on the cross: “My times are in thine hand” (Ps.31:15).

Luke’s and John’s gospels together present a picture of a Jesus with a vast programme to fulfil and with only a limited amount of time in which to do it. He was set on making a great appeal to the entire nation before he came to Jerusalem for the last time (see Notes). So he is to be pictured as moving ceaselessly from place to place, always surrounded by crowds of people, so that all the country which had not heard him in person (especially the more remote parts of Judaea) might have opportunity to see and know that Messiah, the Son of God, was in their midst. During those months, Jesus drove himself hard, so that when this ministry culminated in a week of special appeal to Jerusalem, he was a worn-out man. Who else could have stood up to such a programme as he set himself?

Matthew sums up the general impression of this period in a favourite phrase: “and great multitudes followed him.” Different people in different places, but always a crowd. Both Matthew and Mark intimate the commencement of this work as being in “Judaea beyond Jordan.” On the face of it this looks like an error, hence the alternative reading, inadequately supported by the manuscripts, yet followed by some modern versions: “Judaea and beyond Jordan’—a modification of the text which looks like some scribe’s attempt at elucidation of a difficulty. Yet apparently there was a “little Judaea” on the east of Jordan, the name commemorating the early close link between the tribe of Judah and the sons of Jair in Manassite Gilead (Josh. 19 :34; 1 Chr. 2 :21-23).

A Samaritan village

After some time in this region, Jesus crossed the Jordan and moved south through Samaritan territory. At one point “he sent messengers before his face … to make ready for him.” The assumption is usually made that this was to arrange overnight accommodation for their party. But if this were the case, would not “for them” be the more appropriate expression? The words could just as easily mean: “to prepare (the people) for him;” and this is supported by Luke 10 :1: “The Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and village, whither he himself would come.”

It was to be expected that the Samaritans would receive him readily enough, for the enthusiastic report of the people of Shechem (Jn.4 :39-45) had doubtless gone all through their country by this time. But now religious prejudices supervened. On the former occasion Jesus was travelling north, having “abandoned Judaea” (Jn.4 :3). Now he was heading for Jerusalem—to become King there, so his disciples probably asserted. So the Samaritans turned hostile. Josephus has a lurid story of bitter quarrelling between Jews and Samaritans which was touched off by Samaritan persecution of Galilean pilgrims.

In the present instance there is a mordant irony about the situation, for the men of the temple in Jerusalem were the Lord’s most bitter enemies. Jerusalem did not want him, either. There is also irony of a different kind, far these Samaritans were nailing their colours to the mast, and the signal said: “If you are in fellowship with them, you are not in fellowship with us!” To this day some who are convinced they are the Lord’s people avow the same doctrine and, by the same token, the Samaritan quality of their religion!

Sons of Thunder

James and John bridled at this Samaritan hostility. Their Jewish blood boiled, and without giving a thought to what Jesus would wish then to do, the Sons of Thunder demanded lightning, “Fire from heaven will teach them a lesson. And after all that is the way Elijah replied to the bullying tactics of Samaria. Did he not say, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty? Lord, show them that you too are a man of God” (2 Kgs. 1 :10,12; the reference cannot possibly be 1 Kgs. 18:38).

The phrase: “sent messengers before his face.” echoes Malachi 3 :1. The disciples doubtless looked for the stringent judgment which follows that passage. Hadn’t the Transfiguration proved that their Jesus was greater than Elijah? But instead Jesus insisted on a ministry of “the still small voice” (such as Mal.4 :5,6 describes). No miracle by fire until (lie full manifestation of his Messianic glory (2Th.l:8, 2Pet.3:7).

James and John were showing normal reaction to Samaritan hatred. And the rabbis justified it by quoting, with ruthless disregard of context, the denunciation by Hosea: “As troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way towards Shechem” (6:9).

Whilst the sons of thunder were still justifying the course they were urging upon Jesus, he had turned away, already metaphorically wiping the dust of the place off his feet. So he had to turn again to speak his reproof of their violence: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” If he acceded to their suggestion and punished these Samaritans with fire from heaven, then the whole of the province of Samaria would have been shut to the gospel thereafter.

It is a simple lesson, which the apostles were slow to learn, that once you have used violence or hard words against a man, your hope of influencing him for good is gone for ever. “God hath not given us the spirit of fear (from which the sons of Zebedee’s blood-and-thunder really sprang); but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Tim.l :7; cp. Jas.3 :9— the same James).

So “they went to another village.” The Greek word implies: “a village different in character from the first.” The commentators mostly assume that this must have been a Jewish village. But if it were , wouldn’t they have gone straight to it in the first place? And since they were in Samaritan territory, wouldn’t the next village almost certainly be Samaritan also? And there, the narrative implies, their reception was altogether different.

A year or two later the apostle John was in this vicinity once again, this time to confirm the fine work done by Philip the preacher (Acts 8 :14). There, in Samaritan country, he had taken the gospel concerning the resurrection of Jesus to these outsiders, and had been accorded an intensely enthusiastic reception. And John and Peter came there to impart to these new converts the guidance and blessing of the Holy Spirit. Would that heartening situation have been possible if on this earlier occasion fire had been called down from heaven?

Notes: Lk.9:51-56

51.	He set his face. The context of ls.50:7 calls for careful study; cp. also ls.49:4 and Jer.21 :10 which in LXX has the same words. For the last great campaign by Jesus consider Lk.10:1,2; 13:8; 15 :28;23 :5;Jn.9:4; 11 :4.
53.	They did not receive him. See Josephus B.J. 2 :12 :3ff for details of a great quarrel between Jewish pilgrims and Samaritans, which led to Felix being made governor. The Greek here is literally: his face was going to Jerusalem. Compare identical words (in LXX) of Hushai addressing Absalom as though he were King of Israel: “I counsel. . . that thy face go to the battle” (2 Sam. 17 :11). That Luke should use this Hebraism, and several others, in this part of his record means a remarkable familiarity with the Septuagint Version. Wilfred Ali has suggested, with fair reason, that Luke was a Samaritan.
	Unto Jerusalem. Those Samaritans who had heard reports of Jn.4 :21 would find Christ’s present journey hard to understand.

The Feast of Tabernacles concluded, multitudes of Jews were now leaving Jerusalem. But Jesus continued his big campaign in the temple court. A number of the leaders (v.30,31) were hesitating whether they should commit themselves to a wholehearted belief in him. To these he repeated his earlier warning: “I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sin: whither I go, ye cannot come.” The time was not far away when he would be with them no longer, so they must make the most of the present opportunity. “The days will come when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it” (Lk.l7:22). Further indecision could lead to disaster: “ye shall die in your sin.” He meant one particular sin, and that not their rejection but their non-acceptance of him.

The repetition of the warning so soon after the earlier occasion (7 :34) is a measure of the intense earnestness of this appeal. It was the experience of Ezekiel, the earlier “son of man,” over again: “If thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity” (3:19), It was also a reminder of the terrible fate foretold for this faithless people by Moses: “And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them” (Lev.26:39; contrast v.40-42). Men who were making up their minds against Jesus of Nazareth were also storing up a terrible legacy for their nation.

It seems fairly clear that when Jesus added: “Whither I go, ye cannot come,” he was alluding to his sacrifice rather than his ascension. Further anticipations of the crucifixion came into his disputation with the Jews, and the same meaning is undeniable on a later occasion: “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come, so now I say unto you . . . Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards” (Jn.13 :33,36).

The rulers recognised that some specially sombre meaning was intended, for already “Man of sorrows” was written on the countenance of Jesus. ‘Surely he doesn’t mean to kill himself they sneered, getting nearer to the truth than they realised (10:18).

Jesus reproved their malice: “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” As a proof-text of trinitarian dogma these words are valueless, for “from above” is no more to be taken literally than is “from beneath.” Jesus was speaking of spiritual loyalties rather than origins, as his repetition of “this world” shows. Other examples (Jn.7:4,7; 12 :19,31: 15 :19; 17 :25; 18 :20) show that Jesus was repudiating this punctilious conformity to a soulless Judaistic system.

Nor is his dreadful pronouncement: “ye shall die in your sins,” to be read as rigidly determinist or predestinarian: “for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” By and by it will be possible to demonstrate that that mysterious phrase: “I am he” meant: “I am the saviour whom you need” —that is, you must come to rely on my – death, or face the fact that your own is inevitable. The very popular idea that “I am he” was an appropriation by Jesus of the Covenant Name of God, must surely be let go; for, had this been the evident intention, these hostile rulers would have pounced on it as an outrageous blasphemy which would have brought Jesus to the cross months ahead of his time.

“Believe or die”

The alternatives: “Believe, or die in your sins,” which Jesus set before them echoed his Father’s ultimatum to faithless Israel in the song of Moses: “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand” (Dt.32:39). It was an option which had been presented anew two weeks earlier at their Day of Atonement, as indeed it was on every Day of Atonement.

“Believe that I am he”!-what were they to_; make of him? So, doubtless in the hope that he would commit himself to some dangerous indictable statement, they pressed for definition: “Who art thou?” If only they could be sure that that “I am he” really was a blasphemous misuse of the Divine Name!

The reply of Jesus not only left them baffled; it has also perplexed generations of commentators ever since. For a short sentence of six words ( in Greek) the difficulties could hardly be more numerous: “Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.”‘ Almost every word can be read in more than one way. There are also problems of grammar, punctuation and ellipsis.

So perhaps it is permissible to try a different approach. It has already been emphasized in these studies that all the Tabernacles discourses of Jesus were shot through with allusions to Law and Prophets. It is then, almost to be expected that this part of the Lord’s teaching will, on examination, show similar characteristics. This time it would appear to be Isaiah 43 which was laid; under contribution: “Shew us former things (LXX: the things from the beginning) … Let them bring forth their witnesses. Ye, and my, Servant whom I have chosen, are my: witnesses (this reading of the Hebrew text is valid, and is supported by Is. 42 :1 and Rev 1 :5): that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour… I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen (the Lord’s earlier allusion to the smitten Rock and the gift of the Holy Spirit).. .I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins (an allusion to the blood on the mercy-seat, in the Day of Atonement ritual; Lev. 16 :15). Thy first father (Jacob) sinned, and thy teachers (RV: interpreters) have transgressed against me” (ls.43:9-11,19,20,25,27).

Besides these verbal connections these two Scriptures also have several ideas in common. And it will be recalled that the first few verses of Isaiah 44 had been quoted by Jesus in his appeal on the great day of the feast (Jn.7:37-39; Study 111).

If, then, it is established that this Scripture is the background against which the Lord’s present encounter with the rulers took place, it would almost require that the debated passage under consideration should read thus: “(I told you) the former things, even that which I am (now) speaking to you” -that is, himself as the Saviour whose “going away” and whose “lifting up” would achieve immeasurably more than all the feasts and sacrifices appointed through Moses.

Sent from the Father

There was much yet to be expounded concerning his redeeming work, and also regarding the serious position of those who rejected him, but he was hindered by their unwillingness to receive it. Nevertheless, their opposition notwithstanding, “He that sent me is true.” To the modern reader this last saying is wrapped in vagueness until the idiomatic meaning associated with the word “true” is recognized. In the Old Testament “mercy and truth” is a common phrase for God’s Covenants of Promise. Indeed, used separately, these key words often require such a meaning. Thus, “He that sent me is true” may be paraphrased: “In me God is fulfilling His Covenants of Promise; and (therefore) I speak to the world (the Jewish kosmos) the things which I have heard from him.” It is certainly correct to read these words as signifying the fuller declaration of Old Testament truth which was now abundantly available to them in his own teaching. But flat keyword: “heard”, implies more than this, as parallel passages clearly show: “He that cometh from heaven is above all; and what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth” (Jn.3 :31,32); “All things that I heard from my Father I have made known unto you” (15 :15). These declarations indicate that Jesus had the experience of personal revelations from his Father far surpassing even the treasury of truth available to him in the Old Testament. After all, if the Law was revealed to Moses though the medium of personal communication from the angel of God’s Presence, what kind of intimate revelation must have been possible to one who was the Father’s only begotten Son?

The twentieth century believer, with the full picture of the status and work of Christ before his mind, can take such a concept in his stride; but to these rabbis, who thought of God’s revelation to Moses as a phenomenon

altogether unique in human history, the idea of a man like this Jesus having personal communion and fellowship with the Almighty was utterly unthinkable. Consequently, anything which Jesus said to them about this could not possibly be taken at its face value. “They understood not, because he spake to them of the Father.” The AV reading here is full of difficulty. They certainly knew that he was speaking of God as his Father. He had already done this in their presence several times (e.g. ch.7:16,17,28; 5:17-27). But now what defeated them was this personal communion with God which Jesus claimed as a normal experience. It was on this basis that he asserted his right to re-interpret the prophets in the way he had with reference to his own mission.

“Lifted up”

In a further attempt to “get through” to them, Jesus added: “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself.”

This “lifting up” was undoubtedly his crucifixion. Not only was that the theme of his present discourse (see v.21,24,26), but also the other occurrences of this expression (3 :14; 12 :32) clearly have this meaning. But how would his crucifixion bring conviction of the truth of his claim to be a divine Saviour? In two ways. The exact fulfilment of his own prophecies concerning himself would validate all else that he said (“I tell you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he;” 13:19). Almost certainly the crucified malefactor and Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus came to right convictions about Jesus because everything about his death was according to Old Testament prophecy and according to his own prognostications. Also, the amazing phenomena which accompanied the crucifixion — darkness, earthquake, theophany—were sufficient in themselves as proof that here was the death of no ordinary man.

A prophet like Moses

Then, if not before, would come recognition of the uniqueness of Jesus, and that “as the Father taught him he spake these things.” Acknowledgement of this truth necessarily meant assent also to his claim to be “the prophet like unto Moses,” for had not God said: “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I will command him” (Dt.l8:18)?

The Moses allusions in this part of the Lord’s discourse are very forceful. “When ye have lifted up the Son of man” looks back (as in Jn.3 :14) to the brazen serpent set up on the pole. Then the stricken people lived only because they acknowledged: “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the lord” (Num.21 :7). And now Jesus reminded their equally faithless progeny that “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (v.24).

“Then (Jesus continued) ye shall know that 1_AM (hath sent me; v.16), and I do nothing of myself…. He that sent me is with me.” This is an echo of God’s commission to Moses: “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you .. .Certainly I will be with thee… Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind” (Ex.3 :14,12; Num.16 :28).

God also promised Moses that he would not bear the burden alone, but that the heavy responsibility was to be shared by seventy others (Num.11 -.17,16). “The Father hath not left me alone,” Jesus said; and it was very soon after this that seventy Spirit-endowed helpers shared the burden of his final appeal to the nation (Lk.10 :1).

This was the second time that he had spoken of not being “left alone” by his Father. The words carry a hint of the strain of the lonely struggle which Jesus had to endure, every day of his ministry. Even the presence and support of his disciples went only a small way towards providing the fellowship which he yearned for as much as any other human being does.

As his hour drew near this need was to intensify: “Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” (Jn.16 :32). Again the words emphasize a degree of real personal fellowship between Father and Son such as ordinary mortals cannot experience. If John had never written words such as these, it would have been necessary to pre-suppose them.

What was it about this discourse of Jesus which made such a marked impact on his hearers? “As he spake these words many believed on him.” Yet through the rest of the ministry there is little sign of the existence of a considerable body of believers committed to open discipleship. Nevertheless, the impact had been made. No doubt those multitudes who joined the community of the believers at Pentecost (Acts 2:41) and soon afterwards were really the converts of Jesus, resulting from his great appeal which began at Tabernacles.

Secret believers

There were also others among the rulers who believed (see the RV of v.31), but who did not believe into him; that is, they could no longer resist the truth of his claims, but were not prepared to give him the open allegiance he called for. The significant difference in phrasing points to under-cover conviction. A man like Nicodemus, one of the top ten of the academic and religious world in Jewry, needed an extraordinary degree of courage to make open declaration of his faith in this hated prophet of Galilee.

To this group, whom Jesus could identify, man by man, in the crowd around him, although their sympathies were unknown to their fellows, Jesus now addressed a special appeal: “If ye abide in my word, then are ye my disciples.” The form of the Greek verb shows that this was not an exhortation to steadfast loyalty (for as yet they were not committed to open discipleship), but that Jesus was asking for a decision to be made there and then. The kind of “Decision for Christ” which the modern evangelist appeals for is mostly a thing of no value at all, because it is based on over-wrought emotions instead of fundamental knowledge and understanding of the Person and Work of Christ. But these men needed no instruction in the Scriptures or in the main principles of God’s purposes. All they needed was a complete conviction that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the prophet like unto Moses, and the courage to avow that conviction openly.

Once this step was taken, they would move at a stride into yet fuller knowledge and o better world: “Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.” Again it is necessary to recall that this Truth was no abstraction of the philosophers but the central theme of all God’s dealings with Israel-His Covenants of Promise centred in Jesus as Saviour and King. Here, as the context shows, the allusion was specifically to God’s Promises to Abraham. ‘Believe them as Abraham himself believed them, and this Truth will make you free men from the rigorous bondage of the Judaistic system under which you now spend every moment of your lives.

This implication, that they were men in bondage, provoked an angry retort-not, it may be inferred, from these uncommitted believers to whom the words were directly addressed, but from others with them in the crowd who hated Jesus and resented his claims: “We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man.”

Factually the first statement was true enough. But with the six hundred years of Gentile domination represented by segments of the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, how could they say the second? Never a day passed without bringing them unpleasant reminders that Tiberius Caesar was lord of the Holy Land. Then did they mean that as a people they had never quietly accepted the role of a subject people? Or is it just that, as one writer has tersely put it: “the power which the human mind possesses of keeping inconvenient facts out of sight is very considerable”? Doubtless these Jews had their thoughts on the stirring promise to Sarah: “Kings of people shall be of her” (Gen.l7:16); and to Abraham: “Thy seed shall ‘ possess the gate of his enemies” (22:17). But there was no present fulfilment (cp. Rom.9:6-8).

Isaac and Ishmael

Opposing their lie with his own “Verily, verily”, Jesus answered them from their own premises: “Whosoever goes on committing sin is the slave of sin. And the slave (of sin) abideth not in the house (of the Father) for ever (Gen.21 :10): the (true) Son, he abideth (in the Father’s house) for ever” (Gen.25:6; Heb.3 :5,6). Until the allusion to the expulsion of Ishmael from Abraham’s family is recognized, these words hang in mid-air.

When Isaac, the child of promise, was growing up, he had to endure the taunts of Hagar’s son. The gist of these can readily be surmised. There had been the unhappy incident of Abimelech, king of Gerar, seeking to appropriate Sarah as his wife. Then, not long after her restoration to Abraham, Isaac was born. Ishmael, encouraged by his mother to consider himself the true heir of Abraham, was able to make the most of these circumstances. Isaac’s birth a special act of God? Who could believe such a thing? He had been begotten, of course, in the harem of Gentile Abimelech!

This was the very insinuation which Jesus was having to face from his adversaries. Far from acknowledging his claim to be the Child of Promise, the promised Seed of the Woman, they threw mud at him, sneering at the abnormal circumstances of his birth. Yet in truth they, priding themselves on being Abraham’s true seed, were really the spiritual seed of Ishmael. He was no true son, but a slave, begotten of a slave. And as Ishmael, refused an inheritance, was sent away into the wilderness because of his spiteful mockery of the Beloved Son, so also, as penalty for the same sin, these proud Jews would find themselves disinherited and sent away from God’s Land and God’s House. Filled with chagrin, they would come to witness all the signs of the Father’s approval for this man whom they stubbornly rejected with the nastiest insinuations their acute brains could coin.

Abraham’s seed they were (v. 33), No one could dispute the point. But they were not Abraham’s children (v.39)-and they proved this just as conclusively by their hatred of Jesus and their plotting against him. There was no sign at all that they were prepared to receive his teaching. “I speak that which I have seen with the Father. Therefore (Jesus bade them) do ye also the things which ye heard from the Father (through me).” (See RV margin here.)

But they were not prepared to acknowledge any kind of common origin with Jesus, much less that he came to them from God. “Abraham is our Father,” they asserted once again, making thereby the vile sneer: ‘but we doubt whether he is yours.’

“Then, shew the family likeness,” Jesus retorted. “If ye are Abraham’s children, ye were doing the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me … this did not Abraham.” Was there ever such understatement? Indeed, Abraham could have killed Christ, by refusing to believe the Promises concerning him-just as, today, a man may similarly crucify the Son of God afresh by going away from the Truth he has learned concerning him (Heb. 6:6).

But the great work of Abraham, the Friend of God, was the offering of his well-beloved son as a sacrificial act or faith. And to this he had added faith in the promised Seed (Gal.3:26-29). This was “the truth” which Jesus spoke about, the Covenant of Promise which Abraham had heard from the angel and which Jesus had heard from the Father through the eloquence of Holy Scripture.

By contrast, out of disbelief and hatred these men would gladly murder the only-begotten of the Father. So their ancestry was very different. This policy proved it.

Thirty years later Paul was to follow the same line of argument against Jewish pride of birth: “They are not all Israel which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom.9 :6-8). ^ It dawned on these Jews that, when Jesus said: “Ye do the works of your father,” he was concerned with higher considerations than mere physical descent. So, very cocksurely, they followed him with their self-justification: “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” It was a clever retort, for it made a nasty insinuation against the birth of Jesus, and their phrase: “One Father” continued the sneer against him, by implying that he had two fathers: Joseph, his putative parent, and the unknown who (they fain would believe) actually begat him. By using a common Old Testament idiom for religious apostasy—fornication —they also claimed to be the heirs of an untarnished religious tradition of faithfulness (very much as the Catholic today blithely asserts that he belongs to what is and always was the true church!). Hence the emphatic phrase: “one Father.” Yet was there any known idol before which their fathers had not bowed down? Had not Hosea denounced the nation as “children of whoredoms” (2 :4) in desperate need of re-adoption as “sons of the living God” (1 :10)?

Jesus bluntly exposed the hypocrisy of their claim: “If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” To claim to be God’s children, and yet to hate the one who was so evidently His Son, was too obvious a contradiction. Jesus apparently duplicated his phrases for emphasis. Yet there is a distinction. “I came forth from God” sums up his entire mission. “I am come” spotlights his present appeal in Jerusalem. The second of these phrases is common in the New Testament, (nearly thirty occurrences), and with hardly an exception signifies divine action of some kind.

Oddly enough, this emphasis, which was so necessary to convince his hearers of the divine character of his work, has since been much misused by Trinitarians intent on proving his deity. Their carelessness becomes immediately evident to anyone who will read and think about the words: “neither came I of myself, but he sent me.”

The signal of stubbornness of these men regarding himself, his teaching and his miracles seems almost to have bewildered Jesus: “Wherefore do ye not understand the pronouncement about me (the Promise of a redeemer); and wherefore is it that ye are not able to hear (i.e. grasp) the Word (in the Old Testament) about me?”

Seed of the Serpent

And the only explanation of this spiritual obtuseness he could supply was markedly predestinarian: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye wish to do.” The devil referred to was the serpent in Eden. Jesus had already hinted at the idea of such a spiritual connection (in verse 41, and perhaps verse 38). Now he declared baldly that these, his enemies, were the seed of the serpent foretold in the great Promise of Redemption made in Eden. The time was to come when he would renew the accusation with great vehemence and plainness: “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Mt.23 :33).

In the present arraignment he spoke less explicitly with double meaning applicable both to the serpent and to the beginning of the serpent’s seed, Cain. “He was a manslayer from the beginning (just as Jesus was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” so also the temporary triumph of the serpent was foretold); he abode not in the truth, nor does he abide in the truth (the first and greatest lie came from the serpent), because there is no truth in him (the reference is not only to speaking truth but also The Truth-God’s Promise of a great redemptive Purpose).” In every point Cain exemplified this character of the serpent. He was a manslayer. And he lied about it. Also, instead of abiding in the truth, the forgiveness which God held out to him, he “went forth from the presence of the Lord,” preferring to vindicate himself and be his own saviour.

The allusions to Eden carry over into the ensuing argument: “sin” (v.46), “God’s words (the promise of a Saviour; v.47); “taste of death” (v.52). In every point, also, the seed of the serpent now in altercation with Jesus were to follow the same pattern. Rejecting the redemption God was providing in his Son, out of envy they were even now planning to slay Jesus (v.37,40), preferring to depend for salvation on their own futile works of righteousness.

There is a running commentary on all this in 1 John 3 : “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil (this is Genesis 3 :15). . .In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil (the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent): whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his Brother (Jn.8 :42: ‘If God were your Father, ye would love me’). For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous . . .Whosoever hateth his Brother (Judaistic hostility to Jesus) is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him ” (v.8,10-12,15). 1 John 2 :22 also is specially apt: “Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? . . .Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.”

The precise force of the Lord’s next words jot the end of verse 44) depends on translation. The common version has them referring entirely to the serpent. But the alternative makes more pointed allusion to the Lord’s present antagonists: “If a man (like yourselves) speaketh a lie (in denying the truth of Christ), he speaketh of his own (i.e. he is talking the language of his own family), for his father (the serpent in Eden) also is a liar.”

“But,” Jesus went on, “because I tell you the truth(of God’s redeeming Purpose in myself), ye believe me not.” And whilst they thus did the deeds of their father, Jesus challenged them with the evidence that he did the deeds of his Father: “Which of you convicteth me of sin?” What a contrast with the dramatic incident of yesterday! Then there was not found a single one without sin to cast the first stone. Instead, convicted by their own conscience, they had sneaked away from the presence of the Light of the World. To be sure, the Lord’s challenge was not a proud assertion of his own spiritual superiority. As such it would have vitiated his own claim. The point’of it was to ram home to his adversaries that whilst their lie and their enmity proved them to be the seed of the serpent, his own character, “without blemish and without spot,” similarly proved him to be the promised Seed of the woman. And since they could say no word in denial of his claim, why did they not believe him? Why indeed!

Strangely enough, it is believers in Jesus who fail to marvel as they should at this astonishing truth. It is normal human experience that the holier a man becomes, the more convinced he is of his own sinfulness. Three passages from Paul illustrate this perfectly: “I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle” (1 Cor.l5:9). A few years later he describes himself as “less than the least of all saints” (Eph.3 :8). Near the end of his days this became: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1:15). A spiritual giant like Paul chronicles such a progression, but from Jesus there is only the unselfconscious truth: “I do always those things that please the Father.”

Jesus went on: ‘You call, yourselves God’s children (v.41). But how can you be? For if you were His children you would believe His words about me. But no! you are seed of the serpent really, and so by nature are wedded to the serpent’s lie and the serpent’s enmity.’

More sneers

The Jews, with neither fact nor argument for answer, could only fall back on vituperation and slander: “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?” It was a useful jibe to throw at him. The Samaritans were a mixed race, an upstart people, who founded a false religion. Thus these rulers labelled Jesus as bastard and false prophet. But it is a commentary on their desperation that they also had to fall back on the smear they had used against him more than a year before-that he was possessed with a devil, and in league with Baalzebub, the chief of all the devils.

Reviled, Jesus reviled not again, but gave them the truth which they knew to be truth. Whilst they threw at him all the mud they could gather, he honoured his Father with all he said and did, and the Father honoured him: “I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh (my glory), and judgeth (them that dishonour me).” Thus he reminded his enemies of their own peril.

Death and “death”

Very solemnly he bade them seek salvation from the judgment they were storing up for themselves: “If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.” What did he mean? Believers in the immortaliy of the soul or in eternal life without judgment make this a favourite proof-text. It is hardly an adequate answer to read it as a reference to the second death. Then is there any reason why the words should not mean what they say? The consistent teaching of Jesus and his apostles is that for the true believer death is not death but a sleep, for he has died already in his baptism into Christ (Rom.6:2-1 1). And from the Lord’s point of view, the faith of the disciple keeps him immune from any judgment of condemnation.

Here was teaching to outrage the opinions of the rulers more than ever, for these Sad-ducees (and the Samaritans also!) taught that there was no future life of any kind, except in one’s descendants (Study 165). Had not Israel heard the voice of God Himself at Sinai? And they died in the wilderness! Then what could the word of Jesus accomplish? So they jeered at him: ‘Never taste of death? Abraham and the prophets are dead and buried. And you say that through you a man will never know death? You are quite mad.’

Jesus answered them:

‘It isn’t a question of who I think I am, for my own unconfirmed witness to myself is worth nothing.’ Thus he cancelled out their move to stone him for blasphemy. However, by and by they were to grasp at another and better excuse (v.58,59).

He went on:

‘It is my Father who glorifies me, the One whom you call your God, and yet you don’t acknowledge me. Thus you prove that your self-glorifying claim to be .God’s children (v.41) is worthless; you don’t belong to Him at all. And if I were to depend on my own witness I should be no better than you, children of a lie, seed of the serpent.’

‘But I know the Father, and I keep His Word, fulfilling His great Promise about the seed of the woman.’

Abraham’s Faith

‘And another great Promise as well! For the Promise to Abraham is fulfilled in me. Abraham understood and believed it; but you don’t, therefore no matter how vociferous your claim (v.33), you are not true sons of Abraham at all, any more than m unbelieving Ishmael.’

‘But Abraham rejoiced in the Promise. Does not the Scripture say that he laughed; for joy, saying, A child shall be born to him that is a hundred years old, and Sarah that is ninety years old shall bear. And did not Abraham, himself new-named, take delight in calling his son Isaac?’ (Gen. 17:17; 21:3).

But Jesus was not referring merely to the birth of Isaac, or even to his own birth Abraham rejoiced, thus expressing his faith, in order that through his faith he might see the great day of Christ (Lk.17 :22), yet future, when his Seed will possess the gate of his enemies (Gen.22 :17). On the day of the offering of Isaac Abraham had confidently declared: “God will provide (Hebrew: will see) a Lamb-my son” (22 :8; cp Moriah, the seeing of Jehovah). Thus Abraham “m afar off (Heb. 11 :13), and was glad.”

It must have been obvious enough to these highly intelligent Bible scholars just what Jesus was getting at. They knew well enough what he meant, but they could only answer him by a deliberate misunderstanding, giving a slick twist to his words:

‘You’ve seen Abraham? Why, you are not yet fifty. Don’t talk rubbish!’

Irenaeus, a rather foolish early ‘father! not to be taken too seriously, inferred from this that when crucified Jesus was nearly fifty. But perhaps there is a hint here of how worn out and prematurely aged Jesus was. Or were they referring to priestly retirement age (Num. 4:3, 39) thus satirically insinuating; ‘Are you claiming to be Abraham’s king-priest, Melchizedek?’

Jesus did not follow them in their foolish prevarication, but brought them back bluntly to the essential truth: “Before Abraham was, I am.”

It is a simple fundamental of faith, that the entire purpose of God with this world centres in Christ and was so fore-ordained from the beginning (1 Pet.1 :20; Rev.13 :8). “He is first in relation to me,” John the Baptist had declared. “He is first in relation to me” was also Abraham’s saving faith.

Stoned for blasphemy?

It by no means follows from the use of “I am” that he was appropriating the Covenant Name of God to himself, but it may surely be inferred from the context that in fad he did so intend, for “they took up stones to cast at him.”

With deep satisfaction these men recalled the drastic action of Israel in the wilderness when face to face with what they deemed to be an exactly parallel case to their Jesus-of-Nazareth problem:

“The son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian . . . strove in the camp and . . . blasphemed the Name” (Lev.24:10, 11). The decision then had been: “Let all the congregation stone him.” So of course they must do the same to this Jesus, son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was they knew not who, for had they not just heard him repeatedly blaspheming the Name?

But Jesus, not depending on any self-glorifying claim, knew that his Father would glorify him-and his Father did, for Jesus “was hidden” (Gk.) from them. It does not say how he was hidden. But it is not outrageous to believe that he was shrouded in the Cloud of the Shekinah Glory so that not only was he protected but also the truth of all that he had been saying was vindicated.

Thus he, and the Glory of the Lord . .. “went out of the temple, going through the midst of them” as the Glory had gone through the midst of the sacrifices (symbols of Israel) when God made His Covenant with Abraham (Gen.15 :17).

“He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty … He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shall thou trust . . .He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone . . . Because he hath set his love upon me therefore will I deliver him” (Ps.91 :1,11,12,14).

Notes: Jn.8:21-59

24.	That I am. Evidently this was not taken to be a claim to the Divine Name, but in v.58, yes.
25.	The reading of Is.43 :9 suggested in the text is a valid translation of the Hebrew, and it finds support in LXX and in 42: land Rev 1 :5.
26.	He that sent me is true. In expansion of the comment in the text consider:
	a.	Gen.24:27;32:10;2Sam.l5:20;Ps.89:14;Mic.7:20.
	b	lKgs.8:23;Dt.7:9;2Chr.l :8; ls.55:3; 16:5.
	c.	2 Sam.2 :6; Ps.31 :5; 40 :10,11; 132 :11; ls.38 :18,19.
28.	Even as he taught me. Gk. aorist perhaps indicates an Old Testament education, especially the Scriptures about Moses.
29.	Is with me. If Is.50 :6 is a prophecy of Jesus, then so also the two preceding verses.
31.	Abide in my word. cp. 15 :7; 1 Jn.2 :6,24,27. The phrase could mean: “in the Word about me.”
	Make you free. So also Paul: Gal.4 :l-7,22ff.
38.	The alternative to following RVmg (as in the text) is to take AV and read it as a further allusion to Isaac and Ishmael: “I speak the things which I have seen with my Father (the scripture about the offering of Isaac?-‘ In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen’), and ye do the things which ye have heard(RV) with your father (Ishmael’s mockery of Isaac)”, that word “heard” playing with the meaning of Ishmael.
39.	Abraham is our father. Pride in natural descent had been declared worthless by John the Baptist; Mt.3 :9.
41.	AllusiontoDt.23:2; contrastEx.4:22;ls.63:16;64:8.
42.	Is it possible that the entire verse is an allusion to Joseph and his brethren?
46.	The Bible’s claims concerning the sinlessness of Jesus are copious: Jn.8 :29; 4 :34; 14:30; 15 :10; Heb.3 :15;7 :26; 1 Pet.l :19; 2 :22; 3 :18,.|s.53 :9; Ps.18 20-26; 1 Jn.3 :5; 2 Cor.5 :21. There are many more.
48.	Hast a devil. In LXX this word means a false god. Then were they referring to the gods the ancient Samaritans brought with them? 2 Kgs.17 :29-33.
53.	It is possible that the allusions to Genesis are being continued through these verses, thus: ‘You know that I honour the Father, and you despise me for it (as Cain despised Abel for his godliness). I do not seek my own exaltation (any more than Abel did): but God seeks out your evil motives and judges them (as He did Cain’s). If a man hold on to the Promises about me he will not see death (for through me there is the conquest of the serpent and its power; 3 :14).’
	‘Now we know that you are possessed with a devil, you are the seed of the serpent, for you say that if a man rests on your teaching he will not taste of death (as Adam and Eve did by eating of the forbidden fruit). Yet our great father Abraham died, promises or no promises. Are you greater than he?’
51.	Those who would be over-literal with the Greek here, reading it “not taste of death forever,” should try it-in Jn.13 :8 where the Greek is the same. Death of the believer asa sleep: Mt.27:52;Jn. 11 :11; Acts 13:36; 1 Cor.15 :20,51; 1 Th.4 :14
55.	There is an effective switch here from “know” meaning ‘learn, get to know’ to ‘know intimately or without effort.’
56.	Saw it. But he only go to glimpse of it (Gk. aorist).
58.	Could read: Before Abraham is to become, I AM
	To cast at him. Cp. also Heb.12 :20. Several attempts to stone Jesus culminated in his being thrust through with a dart.
59.	Part of this verse is unwarrantably omitted by some modern versions.