Jesus was back once more in the district on the east side of Galilee where earlier he had healed the man possessed with a legion of devils. No doubt the witness of that grateful man was now considerably responsible for the great eagerness of the people to see and hear Jesus. They, who formerly had required Jesus to get away from their locality without delay, now could not be persuaded to leave him in peace. Matthew’s repetitious language (v.30,31)seems to imply a sustained campaign of healing as well as teaching.

It was high summer, and the people could live out of doors without discomfort —except in one respect: such food as they may have had with them was now eaten, and by the time the third day came they were desperately hungry. On the earlier well-remembered occasion Jesus had been moved with compassion for the hungry people when they had been with him less than a whole day. Perhaps it was the discouraging outcome of the feeding of the five thousand which now held him back from providing similar help to this crowd. He talked to the disciples about the problem, seeking to teach them not only his own great concern for the well-being of this crowd of strangers, but also the wisdom of carefully weighing pros and cons as to the best way of coping with the difficulties to be met with in their own later ministration.

Doubtless they recalled the earlier miracle. Indeed, it had probably been in their minds for the past two days. Yet, strangely enough, their only reaction was: “Whence can a man satisfy these with bread here in the wilderness?”

A Gentile Multitude

There are several hints in the record that this was a Gentile crowd. It was in Decapolis, an outstandingly Gentile district. The record of the miracles of healing there ends with the words: “and they glorified the God of Israel” (Mt.l5:31; cp. ls.49:3,6). Had it been a Jewish multitude, the obvious expression to use would be: “they glorified God.” Also, in view of the highly undesirable outcome of the earlier miracle of providing food, it is difficult to imagine Jesus allowing a situation to develop in which he would feel himself under pressure (from his own feelings) to enact the wonder a second time. He would have foreseen this contingency, and have sent the crowd away long ago.

It may be presumed, then, that the disciples assumed no miracle of feeding would take place simply because the crowd was Gentile. And had they not quite recently heard their Master say: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and castittodogs”(Mt.15:26).

The Lord’s Compassion

However, Jesus was not only intensely sympathetic towards these patient loyal folk, but, lest his disciples should fail to observe his distress on their account, he told them so: “I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me (this is the operative clause) three days, and have nothing to eat: and if I send them away fasting to their home, they will faint in the way: and some of them are come from far” (Mk.8:2,3). It was a pointed attempt to impress on the twelve his own sympathetic attitude to others, even though they be Gentiles. It was also an exhortation to those who today minister at the Breaking of Bread lest they send their brethren away fasting, to faint in the way!

There is, perhaps, special point in Mark’s use of the phrase: “they come from far”, for instead of the commonplace Greek word there is here another which seems always to imply (from its context) “God at work” (eg. Jn.6:37; 8:42; Heb.lO:7,9,37etc). Increasingly in this last year of the ministry Jesus was having the problem of a gospel for Gentiles thrust upon him.

As on the earlier occasion, he bade the twelve muster all their resources of food: seven loaves, and a few small fishes. Elisha’s disciple was appalled at having only twenty loaves for a hundred men (2 Kgs.4:42,43). Then how for would these seven loaves go round a hungry multitude of four thousand? No matter! The people were now told to sit down-but the narrative makes no mention this time of their being organized in companies. But thereafter the miracle proceeded, in its main details, exactly as the other had done. The record, in both Matthew and Mark appears to be framed to emphasize the close resemblance: “he took the loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them, and they set them before the people.”ln other words,this repetition underscores the truth that the gospel to the Gentiles is as important as that proclaimed to the Jews-and it is exactly the same gospel!

Meaningful Details

There is one small but significant difference to be noted. Whereas, before, Jesus himself distributed the fishes to the multitude (Mk.6:41], this time this task also was delegated to the twelve. There was meaning and intention behind all this. Whereas Jesus himself had a ministry to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, the work of taking the gospel to the Gentiles was to be entirely a responsibility of the disciples. In later days they would recall these miracles, so pregnant with meaning, and appreciate more the spiritual lessons behind them.

It is noteworthy, also, that he “gave thanks'” for the loaves, but he “blessed” the fishes. Here there is no distinction in procedure, but two ways of saying the same thing (as a careful comparison in the feeding of the five thousand makes clear: (Lk.9:16; Jn.6:ll). The fact needs to be well learned, that the act of thanking God for providing food is the means through which God’s added blessing is imparted.

Fragments

Thus this great assembly of four thousand Gentiles, “besides women and children”, were privileged to receive the Bread of Heaven idol day. Again, there was scrupulous care to gather up the fragments of food. This time seven baskets were filled-a much larger quantity than the twelve baskets’ full from the earlier miracles, This may be inferred from the different words used for “basket”. At the first miraculous meal the baskets were the smallish kind in common use among the Jews. But now seven man-sized hampers were filled with the food left over. This basket was the sort used to let down the apostle Paul when he made his escape from Damascus (2Cor.11:33).

On the instruction of Jesus, the crowd dispersed, with plenty to talk about on the long walk home. Jesus himself, with the twelve, embarked in the fishing boat and crossed the lake to Magdala. Mark calls the place Dalmanutha, a name which the experts can apparently make no sense of. Yet if the two names are put together they are immediately intelligible: Migdolm’nath means “The watchtower of the territory”. At ancient Magdala, the westernmost point of the waters of Galilee, the remains of a watchtower have been located. Perhaps Jesus and his party landed there because a difficult wind made a course to Capernaum, further north, less practicable.

Notes: Matthew 15:29-39        

31.	Remarkably, there is no mention at all of teaching, only healing.
	The dumb to speak. By putting this first Mt. seems to show awareness of the miracle in Mk. 7:32 ff.
	The maimed to be whole. Missing limbs restored? Consider the implications of this with reference to Mk.9:42,45.
32.	I will not… means: I do not wish to send them away (implying: as you asked me to on the former occasion; 14:15).
33.	Whence… ? Num.ll:22; Ps.78:20-32; 106:210.
36.	A few fishes. Fish and bread in7:9; 14:19; Jn21:9.
37.	In this miracle, fewer people, more food to start with, and more left-overs. Suppose Mt. had preserved this account and omitted 14:15-21, what a field day the critics would have had, emphasizing wrong timing, distorted numbers, different kinds of baskets etc! It is interesting to note how much more emphatic Mt. is here, than Mk: they did all eat. . . seven baskets full. .. 4000 besides women and children. Remarkable too that with large baskets of surplus food the twelve were almost immediately without; 16:7.
39.	Magdala. Not Magadan (utterly unknown), as some modern versions choose to read, following an inferior text.

Jesus took his disciples away north into the country near Tyre. There was acute need to get them away from all the deleterious influences to which they had lately been subject. Matthew’s word means “he cleared out, he fled;” and Mark seems to imply “next day,” after the violent disputation with the Pharisees. There was also need to further the apostles’ spiritual education. Their understanding of their Master must be filled out. So Jesus was glad to let go the crowd in order to concentrate on saving the Twelve from collapse of faith (cp. Mt. 16:4,6).

It is not unlikely that the house to which they came in this north-western region was put at the Lord’s disposal by one of his wealthy sympathisers, maybe one of those like the Capernaum nobleman who felt everlastingly grateful to Jesus for his miraculous help.

This is the first of a series of allusions in this part of the gospels to Jesus spending time in the more remote corners of Jewish territory and in the Gentile areas just beyond (compare Matthew 15 :39; 16 :13; 17 :1; Mk. 7 :31; 8:10). It was evidently his intention at this time to avoid the Jewish crowds who followed him so excitedly, but who were nevertheless so impervious to the essential character of his teaching.

A plea for help

Even in the neighbourhood of Tyre it was impossible to go unrecognized. A woman there immediately knew that this was Jesus of Nazareth, the one man who could help her daughter in her desperate plight. She is described as “a Canaanite”, and as “a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by race.” The first of these terms was long obsolete. It belonged properly to the races whom Israel were commanded to eliminate when they conquered the Land (Dt. 20 :17), but who had persisted right through the centuries, especially in those areas where in ancient days Jewish domination had never been well established. Perhaps Matthew has included the name so as to hint at the time when the people of Canaan and Tyre were numbered to David along with the tribes of Israel (2 Sam. 24 :7). The mention of Syrio links with the pointed allusion to Gentiles—Naaman and the widow of Sarepta, praised by Jesus for their faith (Lk 4 -.25-27). The latter had had her child restored to her by the man of God. Now there was to be a like act of grace to another Gentile mother in that area. The description “Greek” is equivalent to Gentile (Gal. 3 :28). Since she “came out from those borders” (RV), it almost seems as though she knew of the Lord’s approach, and came to meet him.

Matthew’s characteristic “Behold” emphasizes the unexpectedness of the recognition of Jesus and also the highly unusual attitude of the woman herself. This poor soul was made miserable by the calamitous condition of her little daughter who was “possessed by an unclean spirit”. Judging from the one detail given, the affliction was probably epilepsy, but it is difficult to be sure.

Out on the road this woman came crying after them: “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David.” Like the man whose epileptic son was healed just after the Transfiguration (Mk. 9 :22), she suffered acutely in the suffering of her child, hence her cry: “Have mercy on me.” That she should call Jesus “Lord” and “Son of David” showed her quality. Canaanite she might be, but she knew the Hope of Israel, believed it, and believed also that in this Jesus the great Promise to David would be fulfilled.

She was surely a “proselyte of the gate,” that is, not a full convert to Judaism but at least one who accepted the main principles of the religion of Israel.

Persistence

Her repeated cries appeared to fall on deaf ears. Jesus took no notice—or seemed to. After a while the disciples lost patience. Wasn’t it obvious to her, as it very plainly was to them, that Jesus did not intend to help her. Then why couldn’t she take “No” for an answer and go away? But she persisted, to the point of getting on their nerves as she followed them on the road. So they repeatedly asked Jesus to cope with the situation: “Send her away, for she crieth after us.” If they meant (as many have so understood) that Jesus should do what she asked and so gain peace and quiet for them from her importunity, it was a strange way of expressing it. Yet, had they stopped to think, they would have been hard put to recall a single occasion when anyone in need had gone away from Jesus empty-handed.

However it seemed that this was such a time. After all, she was only a Gentile, and they knew Jesus was set on avoiding the publicity which his wonders of healing inevitably brought. When he replied: “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” they knew that they were right. That light-hearted Puritan, Tom Fuller, called them “miserable mediators, interceding for her repulse.” Did they stop to ask themselves what lost sheep he was busy rescuing at that very time? Except for themselves, practically all the people in that area were Gentiles.

Why should Jesus appear so heedless of this moving appeal? Burgon comments: “We have often found cause to wonder at the Saviour’s words, but never till now at his silence.”

The explanation often advanced, that the seeming indifference was a deliberate testing of the quality of the woman’s faith, is anything but satisfactory. It can hardly be said to present Jesus in a good light. At least as plausible is the idea that Jesus did nothing at first because he was genuinely puzzled to know what was best to do. His natural inclination was to respond at once to this cry for help. His almost ungovernable compassion for people in need meant that only by dint of much internal conflict could he say “No”. Yet if he were to go to the woman’s home and exercise his healing power there, massive publicity was bound to follow, and the entire purpose of this retreat to the north would be brought to nought. It is a likely guess that Jesus, unable to resolve the dilemma which the woman presented him with, gave himself to silent prayer about it as he went on the road.

The answer came in the outworking of events. When they got back to their headquarters, the woman, desperate and undaunted, followed them into the house. There, with a puppy, one of the household pets, close by her, she knelt at the Lord’s feet and repeated her petition: “Lord, help me.” Nothing could be more simple, nothing more eloquent or moving.

Jesus framed his reply to fit the circumstances. With his mind obviously on the familiar fact that Jews so often referred to Gentiles as “dogs”, he countered: “Let the children first be filled: it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it unto the dogs (Gk. kunaria: puppies).” The “children” he had in mind were, of course, not the children of Israel, but the twelve. Might not his responding to her plea be the means of robbing them of the weeks of instruction and spiritual rehabilitation which this northern holiday was intended to provide? And if word got round about him going to a Gentile house to heal a Gentile child, would there not be a massive build-up of Jewish prejudice against him? Among his own people the minds of thousands would be closed to all further appeal.

Insight

“Let the children first be fed.” Here was clear implication that in due time Jesus hoped to gather Gentiles also within the scope of his gracious ministry. Whether the woman went so far, or not, in her understanding is difficult to say. But, in any case, to her, in urgent need, it was beside the point. She clamoured for the immediate aid which she was sure Jesus could give. With marvellous readiness of mind for one so distraught, she saw her opportunity and pressed it home: “Yes, Lord, yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.”

Again, Fuller comments neatly on this pertinacity: “Indeed she showed one of the best qualities of a dog, in keeping her hold where once she had well fastened, not giving over or letting go until she had gotten what she desired.” She held on, doubtless, because she detected signs of irresolution in the face of Jesus.

What marvellous insight and faith were wrapped up in her short rejoinder. With a word she accepted the inferior spiritual status of Gentiles as “dogs” compared with the true household of God. And the mighty miracle which she pleaded for was but a “crumb”, hardly worth noticing! Then what was the main repast provided for God’s own? What but the forgiveness of sins and all the gracious blessings of Messiah, the Son of David?

Her amazing confession of faith involved even more than this. In his half-playful allusion to the dogs, Jesus had also mentioned the children as having prior claims. In her reply the woman dexterously changed the word into one which also very commonly meant “servants” (just as in French “garcon” means “boy” and also “waiter”). This means that she saw Jesus as the master of the household, his disciples as the children, the rest of the Jewish nation as servants, and herself as a Gentile “puppy” scavenging for crumbs on the floor. What a contrast with the obtuseness of the twelve! (e.g. in Mt. 16:7)!

This faith and persistence and spiritual insight provided the greatest stimulus Jesus had had for a long time. What she had done for him was far greater than what she asked. “O woman, great is thy faith. For this saying go thy way, and be it unto thee even as thou wilt. The devil is gone out of they daughter.” And here again, as always in such instances, Jesus chose his words so as to imply that the cure was permanent. There was nothing to fear for the future.

Healed from a distance

And the woman went, believing, and there was no disappointment. Instead of the stertorous breathing of a contorted little body, and the fierce angry unnatural hue of the poor sufferer’s face, there was one of the loveliest sights in all God’s creation-a child peacefully asleep, relaxed and untroubled. The devil was gone (cp. Jn.4:46ff).

Thus this Gentile woman joined the honourable order of those who refused to be put off, and were blessed for their persistence: the paralytic and his loyal friends (Mk.2:4),, the leper (1:40), blind Bartimaeus (10:48), and wrestling Jacob (Gen.32:26).

There is here an impressive study in unanswered prayer: First, there were persistent requests-No! Then the disciples interceded-again, No! A further direct appeal —and still, No! Then faith seized its opportunity for persuasive expression-and the answer now is Yes! But suppose she had taken that triple refusal for an answer!

But how did the apostles know the outcome of their master’s assurance about the little girl’s recovery? Did one of them escort the woman home? Or did she promptly return to pour out her gratitude?

Many hundreds of years before, the prophecy had been spoken: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem (the Name); Canaan shall be his servant” (Gen. 9:26). Now those ancient words found a wonderful new meaning in the devotion of a thankful woman.

This was the third time that Jesus chose to work a miracle from a distance. There was the servant of the Roman centurion, and the son of the noblemen in Galilee of the Gentiles; and now this little daughter of a woman of Canaan Later, there was also the Samaritan leper. They all foreshadowed a wonderful truth-how from a distance Jesus was to bring healing to Gentiles in desperate need.

Notes: Mt. 15:21-28

22.	Behold. Thus in a word Matthew tells how extraordinary it was that the woman should know Jesus was there, and —knowing —that she should appeal to him.
	Son of David. A Messianic title used of Jesus only in 9:27; 20:30; 21:9.
28.	Great is thy faith. Besides the paralytic and Bartimaeus, already mentioned, a like commendation was reserved for the woman who touched the Lord’s robe in the crowd (9:22), the two blind men (9:29), the Samaritan leper (Lk. 17:19), and – differently—the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet (Lk. 7:50).

Jesus was in a quandary. The reaction of the multitude to his miracle of feeding them and the reaction of both populace and Jewish leaders to his discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum presented him with difficult alternatives. To make up lost ground among the people, it was imperative that he appear at Jerusalem throughout that Passover week, and use the occasion to impress them afresh with the divine character of his mission. But other factors pointed to a different decision. The hostility of the Pharisees had crystallised out against his blasphemy (as they deemed it), and plans were now in train to get rid of him altogether. To go to Jerusalem would be to invite them to do their worst. Not that Jesus lacked courage to face this, but there was so much essential work still to be done. Especially, he must reclaim the faltering loyalty of the twelve, and so further their instruction that when his time came the task of nurturing the faithful remnant could safely be left to them.

Another Collision

So Jesus decided to break the commandment: “Three times in a year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” (Ex. 23 :17), in order to fulfil an even higher duty. He was now confirmed in this decision by yet another sharp clash with the same group of Pharisees and scribes, a collision which quite obviously had a seriously damaging effect on his closest followers.

This apparently took place on the same day as that momentous disputation in the synagogue about Bread of Life. These eagle-eyed adversaries saw the twelve eating some of the food which they had left over from the feeding of the multitude, and this without the normal Jewish procedure (normal to this very day) of washing hands thoroughly before beginning their meal. They had learned also of how Jesus had provided food for a great multitude the day before, and no insistence on careful hand-washing then. It was a wonderful opportunity to drive the wedge deeper between Leader and disciples. So, for at least the tenth time (see Notes), these men, sent specially from Jerusalem, came aggressively at him with their criticisms. Probably they were the more eager to use this opportunity because they had some inkling of the existing strain between Jesus and the twelve.

“Unwashen Hands”

They asked; “Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?”

No Pharisee ever ate a meal without hand-washing first of all. It was an extreme form of ceremonial caution, going far beyond what Moses had laid down, a routine item in the intricate elaboration of the straightforward precepts of their Law, as worked out by generations of hair-splitting rabbis. On no account must a man eat food “with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands.” Mark has added the parenthesis here for the sake of his Gentile readers unacquainted with the artificialities of the Pharisaic system. But the phrase also demurs from the Pharisee prejudice. Mark adds further examples of their extremism: “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not; and many other things there be, which they have received to hold, os the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.”

How were these Pharisees expecting to make capital out of this attack? They certainly hoped to create friction between Jesus and his disciples. More than this, if Jesus agreed that the preliminary hand-washing was necessary, he would in effect be accepting “the tradition of the elders” as authoritative, and since the scribes were universally regarded as the spiritual heirs of these men, this would acknowledge them as the supreme religious authority.

On the other hand, if Jesus shrugged off the value and importance of this tradition, which the scribes had succeeded in imposing on “all the Jews,” he would have the prejudices of nearly all the nation lined up against him. For, since in most minds there was only the haziest distinction between what had been taught by Moses and what had been superimposed on his teaching by the rabbis, it would be comparatively easy to represent Jesus as one who set Moses at nought. So, these evil men felt confident that one way or the other, they were sure to score over this troublesome man of Galilee.

Bitter Retort

A moment later they were almost literally reeling back from the violence of the onslaught Jesus turned on them. With biting sarcasm he quoted them their own Scriptures about themselves!

Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines die commandments of men” (Is.29:13). The text of the Septuagint Version used by Jesus (even to rabbinic scribes from Jerusalem!) is very expressive here: “their heart holds off remote from me,” is the idea behind the words. Originally the prophecy probably had reference to the hypocritical men of Jerusalem who whilst still hankering for the old evil ways pretended enthusiasm for the great reformation in the reign of Hezekiah. How wrong they were shown to be when God vindicated the king by a miraculous “resurrection” from an incurable disease and by the vanquishing in a night of the great Enemy of Israel.

That prophecy was also designed, so Jesus declared, to foretell the poisonous attitude to be adopted by the adversaries of the Son of God. And so also the context of the Isaiah quotation:

“They are drunken, but not with wine: they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes . . . And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned” (29:9-12).

It is a caustic commentary on the Biblical incompetence of the nation, and especially of the scribes.

So in more ways than one, this Scriptural hammer-blow could hardly have been more fitting. “They honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” —never was a more telling definition of a religious hypocrite. It is apt for every generation!

In launching this attack on religious tradition, Jesus had undertaken “a Herculean dangerous task” (A.B. Bruce). Bitterly he underscored the truth of the words he had just hurled at them: “laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold fast the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.”

“The oral law was professedly a ‘fence’ to the written law; in practice it took its place, and even reversed its decisions. When the two were in competition the tradition was preferred” (Swete). The issue these scribes had raised with him was no isolated instance but typical of all their attitude to the Law of God. And Jesus boiled with anger as he spoke about it.

The Witness of Law and Prophets

It was unlike him to ignore a question raised in controversy, unlike him to round on his opponents with fiery denunciation. It is a measure of his fears for the well-being of his disciples. The entire success of his work hung in the balance that day. He could have quoted against these Pharisees the powerful warning of their own Moses: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it” (Dt. 4 :2); but it was not strong enough for his purpose, for these men were worse than this. So brushing aside their remonstrations, with mordant irony he went on: “How handsomely ye reject the commandment of God, for the express purpose of keeping your own tradition!” It was a situation anticipated by the prophet Ezekiel also: “They executed not my judgements, but despised my statutes, and polluted my sabbaths … wherefore I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live” (Ez. 20:24,25). These scribes knew well both Isaiah and Ezekiel, yet they lightly shrugged off the possibility that such sayings of the prophets might have any reference to themselves.

Jesus therefore proceeded to ram the accusation home in utterly ruthless fashion. He quoted them the Fifth Commandment. God Himself said this at Sinai. And to emphasize its high importance, there was also the extension of it, given by God through Moses: “He that curseth father or mother shall be surely put to death” (Ex. 21 :17), on which the Mishna has this elusive comment: “He that curseth father or mother is not guilty unless he curses them with express mention of the Name of the Lord.” It needs to be remembered that “Honour father and mother” means financial support as well deference. (Compare the use of this Greek word in Mt. 27 :9; 1 Tim. 5 :3,17; Acts 4 :34; 5 :2,3; 7:16; 19:19).

These religious authorities had their own way of getting round such a duty to parents.

Corban

If a man wished to evade the obvious humanitarian responsibility of caring for his parents in their old age, all he need do was to dedicate all his property to the temple treasury, Corban (Mt. 27 :6), and then, since all was now God’s, none of it could be profaned by being used for such a mundane purpose as the support of aged parents. But the accomplishing of this ignoble aim did not mean that the man forthwith handed over everything to the temple. By no means! A modest token payment was regarded as sanctifying all the rest for the same holy use. However this did not stop the man from continuing to enjoy the use of it himself for the rest of his life.

The evil conspiracy went even further than this. The man need only declare his intention to give his goods to the temple. This in itself made them too holy for gift to parents. But decision when the gift should be implemented was left to himself. All remained for his own selfish use right up to the day of his death, if he so chose.

Nor was this the limit. This heartless casuistry was declared irreversible. Once the vow had been taken, the man was positively forbidden to give any kind of practical aid to his parents in their need: “And ye permit him no more to do a single thing for his father or his mother.” Indeed, the suggestion behind the whole sordid transaction was, even more hypocritically, that the poor parents themselves ought to find considerable satisfaction in the arrangement, since all was to the honour of God’s House —a much more important thing, surely, than the paltry problem of their own meagre subsistence! This kind of “honour” which these Pharisees taught a man to pay to his father was matched by the kind of “honour” they paid to their Father!

One wonders, did Jesus also quote the trenchant proverb: “Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith, It is no transgression; the same is the companion of a destroyer”—he is as good (as bad) as a murderer.

There was something ominous about the Lord’s citation of the Fifth Commandment against the Pharisees, for it was the first commandment with promise: “that thy days may be long upon the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Since their unloosing of this precept was so flagrant, and exposed as such, ought they not to infer that their days in the Land of their fathers were now numbered?—hence his acid figure of speech about an unnatural plant being rooted up (v. 13).

It was a very angry Jesus who rounded off his castigation of such spiritual small-mindedness. “Thus,” he concluded, “ye make the Word of God of none effect (s.w. Pr. 1 :25; 5 :7) through your tradition: and many such things ye do,” With what biting sarcasm would Jesus repeat that word “tradition,” for it carried also another sinister meaning: “betrayal”!

Whilst this scathing word rang in their ears, Jesus turned away from them and called the crowd around him. He had now declared open war against this spiritual wickedness in higli places. The scribes’ attempt to drive a wedge between himself and his disciples was up against unexpected retaliation —his exposure before the multitude of their own hypocrisy, The time was to come, a year later, when his invective against them would dissect yet more savagely many of the similar hypocritical things they did (cp.Mt.23, the entire chapter; Studies 167,168).

Defilement as God sees it

With the crowd around him, and the discomfited Pharisees listening from a distance, he proceeded to answer the criticism about defilement, and he did it in plain unvarnished language: “Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: there is nothing from withouto man, that entering into him can defile him: bu! the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.”

Mere familiarity with the words tends to blind many a modern reader to the dramatically revolutionary character of this pronouncement At a sweep Jesus was now setting aside not only all the ridiculous accretions which had grown up round the Mosaic food laws but also the Torol principle itself of distinction between clean and unclean food. The literal application of Leviticus ch. 11 was being consigned to the waste-papei basket. This last conclusion was so radical, that even after explanation the twelve were reluctant to believe that their Teacher really meant this. So they and the multitude must have concluded that Jesus was striking only at the rabbinic food laws.

Yet even so this astonishing aspect of the Lord’s law of liberty was surely the most radical teaching they had heard from him yet. For, in those days, scrupulous observance of rules about eating and drinking were at the very heart of Judaism, and have been ever since. In the time of the apostles it was this more thoo anything else which was to turn Jewry awoy from acceptance of the gospel. Jesus knewwhaf a tremendous shock he was giving to all who heard him. From now on, as had been already exemplified in the synagogue that day, hewos resolved on making no sort of concession to either teachers or multitude for the sake of having their sympathy or support. If they found his word “a hard saying,” he would be content *o concentrate on the instruction of the faithful remnant left to him. But he went on to underline the basic importance of this issue: “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”

Reaction of the Twelve

The reaction of the people is not indicated, but probably their prejudices were offended almost as much as those of the scribes, the more so since the Lord’s earlier discourse had already gone so far towards estranging them.

The twelve heard him with incredulity and dismay. When they were alone in the house (Peter’s home, most probably), they came nearer to open rebuke of their Leader than they had ever dared: “Knowest thou not that the Pharisees were offended at this saying?” In effect: “Do you realise what you have done? You have made enemies of the most influential people in the country’ — and no wonder! This, on top of their Master’s intransigent behaviour and teaching during the past twenty-four hours, was almost more than they could stomach. Had he lost all sense of proportion? He certainly seemed to have lost his usual uncanny intuition which on so many occasions had enabled him to bow unerringly what was going on in men’s minds. This for sure, or he would hardly have flouted the opinions of the scribes as violently as he had done.

Further Denunciation

But Jesus was not to be restrained. His indignation was still running high. “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up,” he answered grimly, with pointed allusion to a proverb they knew well: “The wicked shall be cut off from the Land, and they that deal treacherously (with God’s Law) shall be rooted out of it” (Pr. 2 :22). It was another fateful reminder that, according to the commandment he had just quoted, those who failed to honour the Father in heaven would not have long to live in the Land which He had given them.

“Let them alone,” he went on, “they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit.” The injunction here can be read as meaning: “Forgive them.” But if indeed Jesus did mean it this way, it is only possible to read the words as charged with the most biting irony. The present mood of Jesus would not allow of any more tender interpretation.

Again he was harnessing the Old Testament to his diatribe. “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone,” Hosea had cried against the northern kingdom. Jesus could yet be moved with compassion by the needs of the ignorant multitude, but for these men who should, and did, know better, he had nothing but scorn and censure.

Newly come into the Land of Promise, Israel had heard the curses of God thunder out from the slopes of mount Ebal: “Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way” (Dt. 27 :18); and all the people had added their mighty Amen. Following this up, Isaiah’s scornful denunciation had anticipated the Lord’s caustic parable: “The leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed” (9 :16). “O my people they which lead thee cause thee to err, ana destroy the way of thy paths. The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgement with the elders of his people” (3 :12-14). Those who have seen Rembrandt’s marvellously vivid cartoon illustrating this parable of Jesus will need no further exposition.

Yet there is a further biting implication behind the Lord’s figure of the blind and the blind. Because of David’s intense frustration outside the walls of Jebus due to the confident taunt about the blind and the lame, it became the rule from that day forward that “the blind and the lame shall not come into the House” (2Sam.5:8).

Thus, by his angry mini-parable the Lord of the House pronounced these pernickety purveyors of spiritual trivialities disqualified from worship in the temple; and those who followed them (Mt. 23:16,24) were likewise written off.

Well-meaning Peter

Peter was worried with the way things were going. He could even envisage some of his colleagues, their faith in Jesus already badly shaken, swinging right over to the side of the Pharisees. So, with a heavy-footed attempt at tactfulness, he interposed: “Declare unto us this parable.” They had surely misunderstood him, as so many others already had done that day This talk about food and the law of defilement must be yet another of the vivid figures of speech he delighted in. It was as though Peter said to his fellows: ‘There’s no need for ail this puzzlement and indignation about these sayings. Remember his talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? This is no more meant literally than that was. Give him a chance to explain himself. Declare unto us this parable!’ But even Peter this time omitted the title “Lord.” Yet he did encourage Jesus in what he thought the right direction by using the word which Nebuchadnezzar’s magicians had chosen to describe the interpretation of their monarch’s mysterious dream (Dan. 2 :4).

At this time even Peter found the Lord’s talk difficult to accept. Later, with the vast enlightenment of the Forty Days, followed by Pentecost, he was still to be found thinking on the old lines: “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14).

So it is not to be wondered at that also in modern times loyal Peters read Mosiac proscriptions of blood and certain foods, as unclean, and proceed to make for themselves various prohibitory food rules, deeming them necessary to their obedience of Christ. It is needful to think clearly about this. If he wishes, every man is fully at liberty to come to such conclusions and decisions — for himself. But as soon as he seeks to impose them on others or to censure others for their non-conformity, he proclaims his own spiritual immaturity or blindness. More than this, he is a sinner against both his Master and his brethren, in that he makes the way of Truth narrower than Jesus did, and he condemns those who refuse a doctrine of justification by works.

Further Explanation

Peter’s well-meant effort in what he thought the right direction sickened Jesus. He turned on the twelve in dismay and discouragement. The situation was even worse than he feared. “Are ye (like them) so (completely) without understanding?” Were they as unspiritually stubborn as the scribes? Difficult as this day was for the apostles, it was proving to be at least as sore a trial for their Leader.

So Jesus settled down to explain, as to children, that he had meant literally and precisely what he said. If they, bewildered, were willing to learn, then he would spare no pains to enlighten them. But for these clever wilfully-blind academics he had only one word: “Let them alone!”

So he settled down to demonstrate to the twelve, as to children, that they were making a mystery out of a plain matter. It was only a hard saying because they were reluctant to believe it to be true.

“Whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught. It cannot defile him, because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man ” So what he had said earlier he had meant very literally: “Nothing (in the form of food) from without a man, entering into him, can defile him . because it entereth not into his heart.” A man’s mind is the only part of him that can be defiled The only food that can make a man uncleanis his bad intellectual food —his reading ad his listening —this is the nub of the argument, lit that which goes into and comes out of a man’s heart which defiles him —and when Jesus spott of the heart, he meant, of course, according It the familiar Hebrew idiom, not a man’s emotions or affections, but his mind (see Notes) By contrast the blunt words of the Lord about gastronomical processes made it very plain, that, far from a man’s food defiling him, he defiles it.

“All meats clean”

At this point Mark’s record adds a phrase translated: “purging (cleansing) all meats This, in its context, is meaningless. King James’s translators followed inferior manuscripts here The better texts have only one letter different but this is sufficient to require that the phrase be referred to Jesus himself. A parenthesis is implied and required: “(This he said) making all foods clean.” It cannot be too strongly emphasized that this is, not may be, the correct reading of the passage. It settles once and for all the question as to whether disciples of Christ are ever to allow themselves to come under a yoke of bondage by which one’s food is subject to rules and regulations.

It is true that in the earliest days of the church Gentile converts to the Faith made concessions of this kind for the sake of the tender consciences of their Jewish brethren reared under food laws all their days. This was, however, only a temporary agreement. The time came, in solidly Gentile churches, when it could be set aside.

This Paul proceeded to do in unequivocal fashion: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus (with reference to the incident now under review) that there is nothing unclean of itself” (Rom. 14 :14). “Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse’ (1 Cor. 8:8). And especially : “In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits. . . commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the Word of God (Acts 10 :15) and prayer (grace before meat)” (1 Tim.4 :l-5). There can be no arguing with words like these, no questioning of their intent.

Spiritual Defilement

In a further bluntly-spoken attempt to set this question in its proper perspective Jesus went on: “From within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness; all these things come from within, and they defile the man.”

It is a brutally frank assessment of human nature. From the first item, which comes last in the Ten Commandments-“evil thoughts or reasonings” (Jer. 4 :14)-spring all the rest. This Is the human Messiah, followed by his twelve terrible apostles, the last of whom (in the place of Judas) renders all the rest incurable. The mere enunciation of a catalogue like this was surely designed by Jesus to make evident to his twelve that no man can re-shape his own life to the glory of God by mere self-discipline, such as the scribes demanded. What is needed is regeneration, a new creature, nothing less. And then: “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life” (Pr. 4:23).

In comment on this frightful catalogue Dean Inge once inveighed against “the poisonous sentimentalism which teaches that man is always innocent, society always guilty, that we have to reform not ourselves but our institutions.”

It is noteworthy that Jesus spoke of “the heart (singular) of men (plural);” thus in a phrase he put all human nature in the same category, none is at liberty to preen himself for his moral superiority. All are made of the same stuff.

Retreat

Next day Jesus and the twelve got away from Galilee, and headed north to the very limits of the Land of Promise. In time of drought and famine Elijah had gone off in the same direction, and had found subsistence and encouragement in the humble home of a woman of Zarephath. In this the most acute period of spiritual drought and starvation in his three and a half years of unrewarding witness Jesus was similarly to have his spirits refreshed by the faith of a Gentile woman.

But it was not with this aim or hope that he turned northwards. His greatest anxiety now was the disaffection of the twelve. They were more important to him than all the crowds of Galilee. So he took them away from the subverting influence of arrogant Pharisees and from the seething nationalistic excitement of the crowds who were interested in their Master only as a political deliverer and worldly king. At all cost the Twelve must be rescued. And they went with him, these twelve lost sheep of the house of Israel, wanting to go away, yet having no one to go to. For them and for Jesus the next few weeks would be a crucial time.

Notes: Mk. 7:1-23

1.	Came together. Gk: synagogued. This, and “the bread” in v.2, and “Then” (Mt. 15:1), all combine to suggest the idea in the text.
	From Jerusalem. An official delegation, as in Mk. 3 :22. To gain an impression of the incessant attacks on Jesus, consider: Mt. 9:3,11,14; 12 :2,10,24; Jn. 4 :1,3; 5 :16; 6 :41; and also Mt. 16:1; 19 :3; Jn. 7 :32; 8 :3,48; 10 :31; 11:53.
	Certain of the scribes. This phrase seems to imply divided attitudes towards Jesus.
2.	That is to say. With this expression Mark demurs from their prejudice in this matter.
3.	Alt the Jews; i.e. all the nation. This is not the Johannine usage: Jews = the rulers.
	Except they wash. A gross misapplication of Is. 1:16 (See Jer.4 :14). Gk: “baptize”, i.e. immerse their hands. But disciples of Jesus immerse completely before they eat of the Bread of Life! Wash oft. Literally: with the fist (of wickedness? Is.58:4).
5.	Then. Gk: “thereupon” links with v.2 (with v.3,4 as a parenthesis). Why walk not…? An allusion to Halachah, the rabbinic term for standard Jewish religious practice.
6.	Esaias. Mt. gives this Isaiah quote and the Lord’s counter-charge in reverse order, but it is difficult to see why.
	You hypocrites. Careful attention to the details of verses 6,8,9, 13,14,18, Mt. 15 :3, shows how intenselyexasperated Jesus was.
	With their lips. Cp. Mt. 15 :5: “ye say”.
9.	Your tradition. In Mt. there is a very effective repetition of “Transgress . . . tradition,” with a sudden switch to “commandment.”
10.	Moses said. Mt: God commanded. At Sinai, the voice of God Himself. (But which phrase did Jesus use?).
11.	Corban. In O.T. this word 80 times means “offering.”
12.	No more. The word implies that the duty had been done hitherto.
14.	RV: He called to him the multitude again. Inclusion of “again” is textualy uncertain. But if correct it seems to imply that Jesus had been instructing the crowd, then the Pharisees took over the discussion, and now Jesus calls the people away from these evil men in order to expound the contrast between the two teachings.
16.	Characteristically, RV omits this verse in spite of the massive witness of almost all the MSS. Is it or is it not relevant? (Mt. 15:13) Every plant. . . rooted up. There are other remarkably vivid scriptures in line with this: Judeli, Dt. 29:28,22; 2 Chr.7 :20,17; Ps.52 :4,5,8; Lk. 17:6. “Let them alone” and this rooting up both suggest allusion to the parable of the tares. God had planted His Commandments; the Pharisees had sown their tradition (tares).
17.	From the people. An unfavourable reception from them also?
	The parable. And misunderstanding from the disciples also; cp. Mt. 16:7,22; Lk. 22 :38; Jn. 14 :5; 11 :13.
18.	Out of the mouth. But some of the evil things mentioned (e.g. murder, adultery) are hardly covered bylte expression.
19.	His heart. For heart = mind, consider Jer. 15:16; Ex. 36:2; 1 Kgs. 3:9; Pr.2:2; Lk.5 :22;24:25,32,38; Rom. 10 :8,9. There are a great many more.
21.	Out of the heart of man. A few Bible assessments of the quality of human nature: Ps. 39 :5; Jer. 17 :9; Mt. 7:11; 10:17; Rom.7:15; l Pet. 1 :24; Eph.2:3.
22.	Six plurals and then six singular nouns. Why? Is this to emphasize the evil of the race and of the individual?

After Peter’s great confession Jesus began to feel that he could now venture further in the spiritual education of his disciples. “From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be raised again on the third day.”

This is the first of a steady series of attempts on the part of Jesus to help the twelve understand the inevitability of his suffering. John the Baptist had bidden them see him as “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” They had also heard mysterious words about the Bridegroom being taken away, and the temple taken down, about eating his flesh, as though he

were a peace-offering-but these things made only a temporary impression, and were pushed into the back of their minds. They forgot them because they wanted to forget them.

But now, with a plainness (Mk 8:32 Gk.) not to be evaded he kept on showing them the dramatic things written in the prophets concerning himself. These things must be. There was the imperative of divine predestination about them. Written beforehand in the Scriptures, they had for Jesus all the force of a positive commandment. And they must be, because there was no other way.

The Greek of this phrase: “rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes” (Lk.) is very expressive. The one article governing three collective nouns pointedly emphasizes the evil unanimity of these men of power and prestige. And the word “rejected” clearly implies a cool analytical examination before rejection. It looks back to the great Messianic prophecy of Psalm 118:22: “the stone which the builders rejected’, a scripture which Jesus was to use with telling effect regarding himself at the end of his ministry (Mk.l2:10).

It makes an interesting and instructive piece of research (not to be followed here) to track down the various Old Testament scriptures which foretell the six separate items of precious instruction which Jesus was now seeking to inculcate as an essential foundation in the understanding of the twelve.

Alas, there was little in the way of encouragement for him, this patient misunderstood Son of man who so much needed the added strength which his followers could impart by their sympathetic understanding and encouragement.

Peter to the rescue

However, Peter understood exactly this theme of sacrifice which his Lord was now expounding, and he interposed briskly, taking Jesus on one side apart from the rest, to remonstrate with him vigorously: “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall in no wise be unto thee.” Matthew’s phrase “he began to rebuke him” surely implies that Peter said much more than is recorded here, or he intended to say much more.

It is commonly assumed that Peter personally reacted strongly from the idea of being a disciple of a suffering Messiah. But there is another possible interpretation which certain details of the context seem to make more likely-that Peter, unflinchingly loyal in all circumstances, was primarily concerned about the effect of these grim warnings on his still wavering fellow-disciples. The dissuasion he now sought to apply to Jesus as good as said: ‘Don’t you realise, Lord, that if you talk in this miserable pessimistic fashion they will all leave you? You will soon have no disciples left at all. So for your own sake provide them with a more encouraging programme and more cheerful prospects.’ Peter’s imperative was strongly expressed: his negative was actually a double negative in Greek. Yet whenever men used this mode of speech regarding Jesus, the outcome always proved them wrong (Mt.26:35; Jn.11:56; 13:8; 20:25). And so in this instance also. But maybe Peter thought himself inspired once again (Mt.l6:17).

There can be doubt that, with his marvellous flair for making well-intentioned efforts in the wrong direction, he was doing his utmost to help his Master in another critical situation. And the very sharpness of the rebuke administered by Jesus is a measure of the intensity of the temptation which his wonderful disciple all unwittingly provoked. It was the third temptation all over again (Mt.4:8)-to by-pass the road to Golgotha, and choose instead the pleasant path to human glory.

Alas, Peter! how you have misunderstood! Not only must this happen to your Lord, but it must come upon you also—a day when the sufferings of “the Christ, the Son of the living God” shall be your sufferings also, and this without complaint, reproach or rebuke. Indeed, within the year there was to be a desperate situation when Peter was to say: “Be it far from me”-and to say it with oaths and curses (Mt.26:74).

One pauses here to note that John Mark, writing Peter’s gospel for him, records this rebuke by Christ in detail, but yet has not a word about the unique blessing which Peter had from his Lord. What is said and what is left out together make a powerful witness to the veracity of this gospel and also to the humility of the man who is behind it.

What a change was to come over Peter in his attitude to the sufferings of Christ! Six months later he was to be heard saying: “Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death” (Lk.22:33). A few weeks after that he boldly required the people of Jerusalem to believe that “those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled” (Acts.3:18). And shortly before his own martyrdom he was to write: “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps (as I shortly must?)” (1 Pet.2:21). The apostle who at Caesarea Philippi would fain save his Master from suffering and death was steadily maturing in appreciation and sharing of the cross of Christ.

“Behind me, Satan!”

But just now, as he sought to wean Jesus from morbid expectations, (the disciple leading his Master!) he found his good intentions rebuffed with a vigour and disapproval which hitherto he had thought his Lord only capable of when demolishing the dialectic of scribes and Pharisees: “Away behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling stone unto me: for thou thinkest not the thinking of God, but the thinking of men.” Was it possible that Peter, who loved his master as much as did all the rest together, should cause him to stumble? Peter hadn’t even dreamed of the possibility of it. Much less was his ingenuousness capable of appreciating how subtle was the temptation he had inadvertently insinuated in his well-meaning effort to be helpful.

Satan! No longer was he speaking by the inspiration of heaven and providing Jesus with unexampled encouragement. As he now shrank bewildered and spiritually bruised by these hard words from the kindest and most compassionate of men, did he-the “stumbling stone”-recall hearing Jesus speak of the day when “the Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all that cause stumbling, and them which do iniquity”? (Mt.13.-41; and note 18:7).

What a build-up of discouragements were adding to the Lord’s problems at this time in his ministry! It began with the beheading of John the Baptist; then came the utterly wrong reaction of the five thousand after that amazing miracle for their benefit; there was the growth of doubt and uncertainty in the minds of the twelve; the contention in the synagogue at Capernaum; the head-on collision with the scribes concerning their rules about food and eating; the acrimonious demand for a sign from heaven; the apostles’ crass misunderstanding of his warnings; and now Peter, with the best will in the world, was saying the most hopelessly wrong things. (See notes).

Yet it would be a sad injustice in one’s thinking to leave Peter to bear alone the burden of his Master’s cutting rebuke. He had been moved to speak as he did by the wavering attitude of his fellow-disciples, and it was for their sake as well as to help Jesus that he had said what he did. Jesus knew this, and showed that he knew. In Mark’s record there is the valuable detail that in the very act of rebuking Peter he “turned about and looked on his disciples.” Thus, by this single glance of disapproval, he included them also in his censure of too-human thinking.

Clearly there was need for a special effort to persuade them, and all others who would give him allegiance, that the path of glory is the path of self-denial and suffering. So he gathered the twelve before him and called also to the rest (Mk) who were evidently not far away.

The challenge of the Cross

Then, very solemnly, he presented them with his new manifesto, with continuous emphasis (Lk) inviting them in effect to join him in a cause that was fore-doomed to failure, as men judge failure: “If any man wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” This was almost certainly the first time any of them had heard this austere call to commit suicide. They were to hear it repeated at least twice more in the days ahead, so hard was the lesson, and so vitally necessary.

Had not Isaiah prophesied that there would come a day when men would be called on to “deny (LXX) idols of silver and idols of gold, which your own hands have made unto you for a sin” (31:7)?

Now, more than that, “let him deny himself”-‘ Jesus used the very word which was to describe Peter’s repeated and desperate denial, not of himself but of his Master, in the courtyard of the high-priest’s palace. A man must learn to mistrust his own instincts and inclinations. He must learn that in most instances the wisest decisions are those in which he deliberately chooses to do the opposite of what he wants to do.

Describing this as ‘taking up the cross’, Jesus now added to what the twelve had already learned from him (Mt.16:21), that the death appointed for him in Jerusalem must be the dreaded crucifixion. If the disciples, horrified, failed to grasp that they were being bidden share that ghastly fate, there was correction of this in the Lord’s demand that each take up his cross daily {Lk.) and follow him (cp.l Cor.l5:31; 9:27). How long did it take them to make the startling inference that everyday they had been with Jesus he had been carrying a cross of his own? Did they also reflect on the significant fact, known to everybody, that by far the greater number of those crucified were slaves and revolutionaries?Mass crucifixions only followed a revolt against the established order!

Five Reasons

Jesus knew how unpalatable and even frightening was his demand that his followers throw their lives away. So he patiently reinforced his appeal with a set of five spiritual principles (each introduced by the word: “For”) which would only make sense when they thought patiently about them.

1. “For whosoever wishes to save his life (or soul) shall lose it: but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, this man will save it” (Lk.) This paradox becomes intelligible only when it is recognised that the word “life” or “soul” (Gk. psuche) was not infrequently used by Jesus for a man’s lower nature, and his natural inclinations, in contrast to the aspirations of the New Man in Christ (Mt.26:38; Lk.l2:19,20; Jn.12:27; Rev.18:13; Heb.4:12). lt is only when the fully dedicated disciple is ready to let go all that the natural man deems desirable and worth having (Heb.l1:15) that he finds instincts and inclinations being transformed into instruments for the service of Christ. All self-seeking is self-destruction. Self-denial aids self-preservation.
2. A commonsense reason for seeking this new life in Christ, which means denial of the old: “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?” (Lk) Whether this gaining of the world be the piling up of material wealth or a self-dedication to the making of converts (as in 1 Cor.9:19), it may become a man’s destruction. In the former case, this is almost inevitable. In the latter, only rarely (one imagines). Yet even then wrong motives can play havoc with a man’s spiritual progress.
3. With almost brutal realism the Lord underlined another commonsense reason. “For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mk.) If he lose his life, forfeit to the justice of God, he has lost all. After it has been given up for his sins, has he anything by which he may buy it back again? “They that trust in their wealth (faith in the wrong saviour!) and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother (i.e. become another man’s saviour), nor give to God a ransom for him that he should live always, that he should not see corruption” (Ps.49:6-9). Then how when God has consigned a man to the grave, can he possibly do anything to help himself!
4. And then comes Christ’s own reaction to the disciple who thinks that he can live two lives at the same time: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed” (Mk.) And since the Son of man is the only one who can give to God a ransom for a man’s soul, the door of redemption then stays shut. After the word-picture of men with crosses openly following their Leader as he bears his cross, this insistence on open witness to Christ becomes almost frightening. To think that the Lord should find it positively repugnant to consider as his own one who has no liking for open association with him! But there is also (lie comforting antithesis: “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man confess before the angels of God” (Lk.l2:8).
5. And last, there is the solemn reminder that one day a man must answer for the way he has lived his life: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works” (Mt.). This was a tremendous claim to come from the lips of a homeless peripatetic preacher. In ancient days visions of the Shekinah Glory of God had been vouchsafed to holy prophets of Israel, and in this presence they had prostrated themselves as dead men. Now Jesus clearly implies his going away to heaven, and very solemnly bids his disciples look-with fear or with gladness-to the day when he, endowed with this heavenly Glory, will bring to those who claim his Name the spiritual perspective of an honest self-assessment.

A Problem Promise

Never had the disciples heard their bra¹ in such earnest and sombre speech. He was pressing them for a decision whether they were prepared to go all the way with him or not, He held before them the reality of his own futon glory and also of his own divine authority as judge and king: “Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen (to kingdom of God come with power”(Mk.)

On the face of it this saying surely meant that the Lord’s return must come to pass in the lifeline of some who now heard him. In the normal understanding of the words this did not happen, In consequence a wide variety of explanations of the difficulty have been advanced:

1. The Transfiguration, which came a week later.
2. The Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension.
3. Pentecost and the impact of the Holy Spirit’s message.
4. The preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles,
5. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
6. The Second Coming of Christ, yet future.

The first of these is the explanation most commonly adopted. Yet it hardly copes adequately with the words. Where is the point of saying: ‘Some of you here will not die before next week’? The language Jesus used requires a much longer lapse of time. Indeed, it seems to suggest a privilege accorded to only a few, though this is perhaps not to be insisted on. The second, third and fourth explanations listed here fit neither the words nor the context.

Reference to the Fall of Jerusalem is an increasingly popular idea, but a re-reading of the passage is sufficient in itself to expose the inadequacy of the interpretation: “the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels. . . the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.” If these words do not describe the personal visible coming of Christ for judgment and a kingdom, there are no words anywhere in the New Testament adequate to prove the doctrine of the Second Coming. Those who can make this saying of Jesus refer to an invisible coming of Christ in A.D.70 without glory and without a kingdom can make any Scripture mean anything.

There is one detail which requires reference to the Second Coming. In Mark, the Greek perfect participle describing the coming of the kingdom carries a clear implication of ‘come to stay’. This means that any reference to the Transfiguration can be at best only in the nature of a token fulfilment. (More on this in study 105).

But if the actual Second Coming is the true meaning of the words, what of the promise that some would not die before that mighty climax? Another explanation, adequate to the magnitude of this problem, is the idea that, but for a massive postponement, the coming of the Lord would have taken place in A.D.70 or very soon thereafter. The details of this explanation have been set out in some detail in an appendix to ‘Revelation’, by H.A.W. (pp. 259-273).

Notes: Mt. 16:21-28

21.	from that time. The words express an important new development; cp. 4:17; 26:16.
	Must. Compare the power of the same imperative in Lk.2:49; 4:43; 13:33; 17:25; 22:37; 24:7,26,44,46; Jn.3:14; 12:34; Acts.l:16; 3:21; 17:3.
	The third day Mt. Lk. But Mk. has: after three days.
22.	Be it far from thee is literally: ‘Mercy on thee’, precisely as in Is.54:8,10 LXX. If a deliberate allusion, was Peter implying: ‘Isaiah prophesied an end to Israel’s suffering, and you are Israel’s Messiah; therefore he foretold an end to yours also’? If so, correct!-except that Peter’s timing was wrong. Contrast Peter again in Acts.3:18.
	Took him. The Gk. word means ‘took either to help or to be helped’. Here clearly, the former!
23.	Behind me, Satan. Note the echoes of the temptation in v. 1,8,16,26. Why does Rome appropriate to itself the lord’s great blessing on Peter, but not this repudiation?
24.	take up his cross. Lk. 14:27 (Study 135;Mt. 10:38). The second of these must be placed later in the ministry or even after the resu rredion (see Study 90).
25.	This saying was evidently spoken on four separate occasions: Mt.10:39; 16:25 and parallels; Lk.17:33; Jn. 12:25.
	Lose his life… find it. Mk adds to the paradox with his addition: ‘for my sake and the gospel’s (the good news.’)’. What superbly good news that a man is called to crucifixion!
26.	Lose s.w. Acts .27:10,21; lCor.3:15;2Cor.7:9;Phil 3:7,8
	Here Mk. includes:
38.	Whosoever shall be ashamed. . .
	The words ‘shame, ashamed are well worth following in the concordance. Note especially Rom.1:16; 2Tim.l:8;2:12;Heb.2:11; 11:16.

Again, the progress across the lake of the now famous little vessel was noted by watchful eyes. So it was not long before Jesus was approached by the Pharisees who had provoked the earlier altercation after the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum. Now they were joined by a group of Sadducees, the Jewish high-priestly party, who were becoming just as anxious as the Pharisees about the activities of Jesus. Doubtless the excited talk after the feeding of the five thousand, about making Jesus king of the Jews, had seriously disturbed them. And not then, only, for it is possible to infer (Mk.8:15) that Herod, who was guessing Jesus to be John the Baptist risen from the dead, was also behind this latest move. This is understandable, for Herod thought himself to be King of the Jews.

Adversity and fear make strange bedfellows. This was not to be the only time that such an unholy alliance would go into action against Jesus. Less than a year later all these vested interests were to join together to accomplish their evil work thoroughly (Jn.18:3; Mt.27:62). The death of Jesus was to make Herod and Pilate into friends (Lk.23:12). Similarly in later days, Pharisees and Sadducees in Jerusalem were to gang up against Paul (Acts.23:6-10); and likewise Epicureans and Stoics in Athens (17:18).

A Sign from Heaven

The present campaign consisted of pressing for a sign from heaven, and they did this “arguing with him” (Mk.8:11). The point appears to have been this: You, Jesus, claim to be the Messiah. But the Scriptures declare that Messiah’s day is to be heralded by the appearance of Elijah. Don’t tell us that John the Baptist was he, because we know that he wasn’t. Elijah’s ministry ended with a manifestation of the heavenly Glory, but John ended his with his head on the block. And the same argument applies to you, Jesus. If you are the successor of a prophetic forerunner, your great work will be ushered in, as Elisha’s was, by the manifestation of the Shekinah Glory, “the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof”. So, show us the same sign from heaven, so that we may know and believe.

More than this, had they not heard John the Baptist proclaim: “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33)? ‘Then if you are he, Jesus, your abiding Spirit power should enable you to feed the whole nation every day as Moses did (cp. Jn.6:30,31); but you do nothing of the sort, therefore you are not Messiah, and, like you, John also was a false prophet!’

Their attack was now at full power.

These cunning men had noted the Lord’s constant efforts to avoid sensationalism in the good works he did. His second temptation (Mt.4:5-7) had made this a settled policy for all his ministry hitherto. And now the temptation was being renewed, was in fact being pressed with a persistence which sorely taxed his spirit (cp. Ex.l7:3,4,7; Ps.42:3,10). For, at that very moment there were twelve legions of angels eager to do his bidding. It needed only that he should will his own self-vindiction, and there would be seen such a display of heavenly majesty and power on his behalf as would put these carping adversaries in fear for the rest of their lives. But this must not be. The marvellous powers of the Holy Spirit were given him as a witness to the character of his mission, and not to bulldoze small-minded opposition out of the way. This temptation was one of the most acute Jesus had encountered, and his half-audible prayer to heaven for help was heard, and marvelled at, by the bystanders.

“Why” he asked, “does this generation seek after a sign?” Why indeed? Not out of any earnest seeking for truth, nor in any plea to have genuine doubts set at rest; but in order to score a debating point, and so that this man of Nazareth, whose sandals they were not fit to unloose, might so commit himself that they could triumphantly discredit him before the people.

A Different Kind of Sign

His reply gave them a sign from heaven of a kind they had not expected. Would they see the Shekinah Glory of God? It is there in the fiery splendour of a majestic sunset telling them that after the Son of man has slept and risen again there will be a day of wondrous blessing—this is what the gracious loveliness of his present ministry betokened, if only they could read the signs aright. But if their bitter opposition still continued, then that morning of resurrection would be for them one of dull red sky and threatening appearance, a day of heavenly glory but also a day of drastic divine displeasure. So let there be an end to their pretended puzzlement regarding his own character and his claims! They already had all the signs they needed.

There was more to this argument which lie now put to them. When Israel came out of Egypt, the same Shekinah Glory (the very sign from heaven which they were now asking for] was darkness to the Egyptians but light to the people of Israel —a portent of marvellous divine deliverance to Israelites unable to help themselves. Similarly, it was no accident that Jesus hit on this present reminder of the Glory of God in the sky. The same kind of majestic splendour in the heavens could herald a day of calm and loveliness or of foul weather with the very elements at war against puny man. Then let them learn to read the signs already available to them.

Angry Jesus

“An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.” It was a strange description to use. By it, was Jesus telling them that he knew right well that they had been encouraged in their present attack by evil and adulterous Herod (Mk.8:15)? Or was his mind still running on the Exodus, and how in the wilderness the people had disowned “this Moses” in order to redesign their own religion with its lascivious adulterous worship of the golden calf (Ex.32|! That shameful episode had ended with the threat of the utter withdrawal of the Shekinah Glory from the camp of Israel (Ex.33). It was only the fervent pleading of Moses which saved Israel from complete and final rejection. As it was, the Glory was now associated with his tent outside the camp (Ex.33:7). In harmony with this acted parable, Matthew rounds off ft section of his gospel with the abrupt words “and he left them, and departed.” It was in effect, the end of the Galilean ministry.

Jonah – a Sign

But the Lord’s last word to them was this “There shall no sign be given to this generation, but the sign of the prophet Jonah.” No sign from heaven, but instead a sign from hell-his own death and resurrection. From every angle was the most incisive thing Jesus could have slid to them, for not only would his resurrection provide the complete vindication of all hi claims, but also the outcome of it would follow the pattern of Jonah’s experience. After his death and resurrection, he went to the great concourse of godless Gentiles, calling them It repentance, and was blessed with a marvellously whole-hearted response to his warning: “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Now Jesus was, in effect proclaiming the same message, but was getting little sign of repentance to hold off this threatened judgment.

There was an even greater fitness about the sign of the prophet Jonah to this malevolent affiance of Pharisees and Sadducees. The former, like the churches of the present day, believed in the immortality of the soul. The latter disbelieved in any kind of after-life. They had no room for the Old Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Thus, Pharisees as good as denied that Jonah went into the belly of the whale; and Sadducees denied that he came out of it! Within a year the death and resurrection of Jesus exposed both errors.

At this point Mark’s record has, more briefly: “There shall no sign be given unto this generation.” This simply puts emphasis on the fact that the sign of the Lord’s death and resurrection was to be without effect on these unbelieving men: “neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.”

Saving the Disciples

Forthwith Jesus went on board the boat once again and crossed to the other side from which he had only just come. The reason for this is easy to discern. No matter what the cost in terms of personal inconvenience and dislocation of his own plans he must shield the twelve from the damaging influence of these clever and evil men. There are examples enough of the Lord’s watchful care for his “little flock” (Mk.7:24; 7:13,15; Lk.5:30,31; Mt.l2:l-9). At this time, when the faith of the twelve was in a specially precarious condition, such concern was most necessary.

During the crossing Jesus said nothing to the disciples about this encounter because some of them were needed for the handling of the boat. But when they were ashore and he could have the full attention of them all, he began to impress on them, with repeated emphasis, that they “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”

Misunderstanding

The disciples, mindful of their Master’s denunciation of the Pharisees’ attitude to the Mosaic food laws, were puzzled. Had he not lately said to them that what a man ate was of no consequence? Then why this apparent change of attitude, spoken with such emphasis? They had re-embarked hastily, and were short of food either because the seven baskets of fragments left over from their Lord’s recent miracle had been given away or because, overawed by Pharisee criticism, they had deliberately left that Gentile food behind. So they could only conclude that Jesus was warning them against buying their next stock of food from anyone who gave allegiance to either of these religious groups. As though Jesus was one to indulge in petty faction and party warfare!

It was true they had only one loaf with them— “and what is that among so many?” they doubtless queried. Indeed, if they had eyes for the symbolism of the situation, that one Loaf was more than adequate Bread for all. But just as formerly (Mk.7:17) they had taken their Lord’s words as a parable, when he spoke in strictly literal terms, so now when he adopted a readily understood figure, they tried to take him literally. In a surreptitious way and without unanimity they talked it over among themselves, and only succeeded in adding to their own bewilderment.

Jesus was aware of what was going on, and took them to task about it: “O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves?” Here once again was his most censorious reproach: “Little faith!”, deploring this time their lack of insight into the meaning of their Lord’s words and miracles. Could they not appreciate the symbolism behind his miraculous feeding of both Jews and Gentiles?

Patient Instruction

He went over the facts as one might patiently reason with little children: “Five loaves for five thousand. How many baskets of pieces left?… Seven loaves for four thousand. How many baskets?” And like children they gave him answers, groping uncertainly for his meaning.

Here, in miracles like these, was the demonstration of his authority. And these also were parables of his work and purpose. Then were they going to match the purblindness of his adversaries and doubt him because there was no sign from heaven? How slow they were to see that he was warning them against being corrupted by the cleverness of these enemies who would stick at nothing in a determination to discredit him and wreck his work!

These were hard days for the Son of God. The people seemed to appreciate him only for the physical and material blessings they could get from him. The rulers, more openly hostile than ever, were incessant in their varied attempts to undermine his standing and authority. .Worst of all, the confidence of his specially chosen followers had been shaken to its foundations, and so far all the careful efforts he had made to nurture their faith and to fill out their understanding seemed to have achieved little. Was there no way of stopping the rot?

Reproach

“Do ye not yet perceive nor understand?” he reproached them; “have ye your heart yet hardened?” Was their faith in him still paralysed with the same spirit of disaffection which had broken out after the feeding of the five thousand?

“Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?” He had just given them a reminder of their own important part in the feeding of the multitudes, and also in gathering up the fragments for the benefit of others later. But they could only fulfil the vital role intended for them if they had complete confidence in him and real insight into his work and mission. His final reproach was: “And do ye not remember?” It was (and it is) blameworthy if the disciple experiences an outstanding instance of God’s Providence and forgets it, or remembering gives little heed to its meaning.

It was a sorely discouraged Jesus who now took his little band of uneasy dispirited doubting disciples into retirement once again, this time into the northern region of Caesarea Philippi, there to be refreshed and again discouraged (Mt.16:17,23).

The sequence of events in this part of the ministry is probably so recorded because it became an acted prophecy of the experience of the twelve in later days when faced with a similar Judaist onslaught. Unable to cope with strong self-confident criticism they retreated from preaching to the Gentiles to whom they had been sent (e.g. Gal.2:12), and rested content with the One Loaf they already had; and it was left to Paul to save the situation when it was almost past repair.

There is remarkable relevance to this part of the ministry in a paragraph of Jeremiah’s prophecy:

“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes and see not; which have ears and hear not… this people hath a revolting and rebellious heart… they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they seta trap, they catch men… Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord” (5:21-29).

And see also Ezekiel:

“Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not… son of man, remove by day in their sight… I have set thee for a sign unto the House of Israel… And the prince that is among them shall go forth (Herod banished by the Romans)… They shall eat their bread with carefulness… and the land shall be desolate” (12:1-20).

Notes: Mt. 16:1-12

1.	Tempting. The temptations of Ch. 4 are renewed in this chapter: v. 4,8,16,23-25.
	A sign from heaven. It is promised that one day they shall have it; 24:30; 26:64. This demand for a sign from heaven was made three times (Mt.12:38; 16:1; Ik. 11:16,29). Realising that this was not Jesus’ intention, they made this challenge a good scoring point in argument.
2,3.	Quite unwarrantably omitted by RV because of slavish adherence to Sinaitic and Vatican MSS, yet in the face of massive witness from almost all the rest.
3.	Lowring; s.w.Dan. 2:12.
	Hypocrites. Pretending a lack of understanding concerning Jesus’ works which they didn’t have; and also hiding their present alliance with Herod.
4.	This verse repeats 12:39. Is there a problem here?
	He left them, and departed. This tautology emphasizes that Jesus now recognized that there was to be no -f progress with the nation, but only with the faithful remnant he could gather round him. Hence, in v,16-19, there is emphasis on personal confession, the establishing of an ecclesia, and authority vested in his apostles.
6.	The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Very different men with one evil intent—the corruption of the Lord’s bewildered disciples.

Mk 8:11-21

11.	Seeking.. .tempting. The verbs indicate sustained aggression in argument.
12.	Sighed deeply. What is essentially the same Greek words comes in Rom.8:26,23; Ads.7:34;l Cor. 5:3,4; 15.
15.	The leaven of Herod. Had Herod recovered his nerve (6:16), and was now set on getting rid of Jesus also?
	He charged them. He said it repeatedly.
17.	Jesus links concern about food with lack of spiritual insight!

The whole tenor of the teaching of Jesus that day was more than the people could stomach. “The true Bread. . . I am come down from heaven … Work not. . . Believe . .. Eat my flesh and drink my blood . . . I will raise him up at the last day.” These were strange words. Whatever they meant, there were certain highly unwelcome implications. An end to both personal and national striving for deliverance. Instead, personal self-sacrifice both by Jesus and those who sought to follow him. Dependence on God’s leading rather than on rugged self-determination.

“This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” Even those who reckoned themselves his disciples found their confidence in him draining away. His sayings were hard to understand, hard to agree with, hard to put into practice. Worst of all, he talked in terms of dying, as though he were a needful sacrifice, of greater worth than Passover lamb or altar oblation. And they wanted him as Messiah. What good would a dying Messiah do them? Or is it possible that they found his words “hard” in the sense of “offensive” (as in Jude 15)? As seed of Abraham were they not entitled to eternal life? Who was this Jesus to talk as though without him they were lost souls?

“Ascend up”

As on so may other occasions, even though the murmuring went on out of earshot or behind his back, Jesus knew about it (cp. v.64,70), and proceeded to make matters worse by a yet more mysterious challenge: “Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”

There has been plenty of divergence of opinion as to what the Lord intended here. Reference to the actual ascension of Jesus at the end of the forty days is natural enough, especially since the mention of the “Son of man” would link readily with Daniel 7 :13, an ascension prophecy. In that case the meaning is: You will surely change your present attitude when you see me ascend to heaven. But—big difficultly!-apart from the twelve, these disciples did not themselves see the ascension take place, so that “ye shall see” will hardly bear literal meaning (1 :51; Mt. 26 :64). Also, “where he was before” would then surely imply a personal pre-existence in heaven. Orthodox expositors are happy enough with this conclusion, but those who hold the Truth in Christ will be unwilling to resolve a difficulty here at the expense of a fundamental doctrine.

Much more likely, because more suitable, is the suggestion that Jesus spoke of his own resurrection: “What and if ye shall see me ascend up out of the tomb to be with you again on the earth as I am now? Perhaps you will understand more readily then.” This interpretation harmonizes well enough with the context: “It is the Spirit that maketh alive; the flesh profiteth nothing.”

A grammatical difficulty in the way of both of these interpretations is that the question put by Jesus actually presents a contingency (see RV, RSV), not an inevitable fact (as both resurrection and ascension must have been, in his mind).

In this particular respect a third interpretation goes more smoothly. The word translated “ascend up” is used nine times in John’s gospel of Jesus going up to Jerusalem or to the temple. The same matter-of-fact meaning goes readily enough here also: ‘Suppose you were to see me setting off for Jerusalem with you this Passover (to go into the temple court once again to assert my Messianic authority there, as I did once before). There would be no stumbling over such a policy, would there?’ Of course there would not. This was the very action some of them had tried to force upon him, only the day before (v.15).

But, immediately, Jesus threw out such a scheme as morally impossible: “it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.” Neither national revival nor individual rehabilitation is possible through human plan or contrivance. Only through spiritual regeneration-the kind of thing John had taught through his rite of baptism—was there hope of any good. So, Jesus went on, even though my teaching calls you to self-sacrifice and “death”, these very words in which I so appeal to you, “they are spirit, and they are life.” With double meaning, he bade them understand his teaching spiritually, and not with rigid literalism, and then only would they make progress in understanding the spiritual life to which he called them.

The Problem of Judas

But there was no starry-eyed optimism about Jesus. Even now he knew, and told them plainly, that they were unwilling to put confidence in him— “children in whom is no faith!” “From the beginning Jesus knew who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.” If these words be taken to mean that from the earliest days of discipleship Jesus knew what would be the ultimate reaction of each disciple, they involve a serious moral difficulty, especially regarding Judas. Is if credible that when Jesus called Judas to be one of the twelve, he already saw clearly that this man would one day hand him over to his enemies? This would be predestination-to-damnation of the starkest quality.

That such is a serious mis-interpretation is shown by two other very clear sayings of Jesus. “Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them perished, but the son of perdition”(John 17 :12). So Judas was “given” to Jesus by the Father just as the rest of the apostolic band were. It was only at some subsequent time that he “perished”. Also: “In the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19 :28). This was spoken only a week before the crucifixion. So even at that late hour it was still possible to include Judas as one of the princes-elect of Israel.

Is it possible, then, that this foreknowledge of Jesus was what the Old Testament Scriptures taught him?—that his own people were they who would “believe not,” and that the traitor would come out of his specially chosen band of followers (Ps. 41 :9; 55 :12-14). Or, assigning a different meaning to the word “beginning”, was it that from the earliest moment of doubt Jesus knew when men no longer believed in him, and especially when it was that a spirit of disillusionment began to creep over Judas?

If this latter is the correct resolving of the difficulty, then these words included here can only meant that this Passover, exactly a year before the crucifixion, marked the beginning of the end for the traitor apostle.

God in control

Evidently some of those whose loyalty to Jesus was now ebbing away made some crude rejoinder to the effect that he could not expect them to go on believing in him when he said such difficult and discouraging things.

In reply Jesus reminded them of what he had already told them: “No man can come to me, except it be given him of my Father” —that is: ‘It may not appear so to you, but I know that without a special guidance from heaven none you can come to me as loyal disciples.’

In this way Jesus came to terms with what was surely one of the most difficult at disheartening situations in his ministry. And with this philosophy he would fain have his disciple in every generation face their own problems and disappointments: God knows-and He knows best!

It was a point of view which the faithless self-determinist outlook of this multitude could stomach. So, “as a result of this many oft disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” The Walking (Halakah) has always been the Jewish word for the rules of daily living lot down by the rabbis. So here is intimation that these who lapsed ceased to accept the Lord’s authority, they no longer obeyed his commandment. When they said. “This is s hard saying: who can hear it?” they meant, as in common Old Testament idiom: ‘Who can obey such a teacher?’

“Will ye also go away?”

Not without some dismay (for what leader could view such a situation and be altogether unmoved by it?), Jesus turned to the twelve with the question: “You also don’t want to desert me, do you?” By a certain dramatic irony, this the very expression which Mark was to use later on (14:10) to describe Judas going off to the chief priests (with an interesting contrast in 12:11).

Before any of the rest could muster courage to give uneasy expression to their own doubts (which were certainly real enough), Peter jumped in to assert unwavering loyalty or, behalf of all of them. In effect, he gave three reasons for standing firm:

a.	“To whom shall we go?” We need a teacher. Then if not you whom can we follow? A ruthless implacable Barabbas?
b.	Your “words of eternal life” have left their mark on us already.
c.	Even though we seem to hesitate, on experience with you has left us with a confidence of knowledge we can’t shake off.

“We believed and we still believe, and we have learned and we are still convinced that thou are the Holy One of God” (see RV). How Jesus must have warmed to Peter for this! In spite of much discouragement, twice within a few hours he had shown, that neither things present nor things to come would be able to separate him from the love of God in Christ Jesus his Lord.

“The Holy One of God”

But what made Peter refer to Jesus as “the Holy One of God”? The only other time in the gospels that this title was given to Jesus was when at the beginning of the ministry the demoniac screamed out in the synagogue. Then, has John preserved this here in his gospel because, looking back, he saw Peter as viewed in a similar light by some of his fellows? Only a lunatic would now accept Jesus of Nazareth as God’s Holy One!

Or is this detail retained in the narrative to recall the great psalm of Messiah’s resurrection?: “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Ps. 16:10). Had not Jesus repeatedly insisted: “and I will raise him up at the last day”?

Yet another possibility is that Peter, a man of real Biblical insight, had recognized his Lord’s allusions to Psalm 78, and now added his own flash of insight: “They turned back (v.66), and tempted God, and limited (LXX: provoked) the Holy One of Israel” (v.41).

Alternatively, if the suggestion made in the last study is correct that Hosea 11 was one of the prophecies Jesus had appropriated to himself in his discourse that day, then Peter may have had that in mind: “for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee” (Hos. 11 :9).

The Betrayer

“Did I not choose you the twelve?” replied Jesus, “and one of you is a devil.” The implication here would appear to be: ‘I could surely count on the loyalty of you twelve; yet even among you there is one who has begun to think wrongly of me.’ Nevertheless it took Judas a full year to make the break with a cause which he now deemed to be lost. As the months went by, and Jesus spoke increasingly of suffering and death at Jerusalem, “they understood not his saying, and were afraid to ask him” —but Judas understood. Had he understood as clearly the prophetic Scriptures about resurrection and glory, he would have been a different man. But that insight came too late.

“Have I not chosen you the twelve?” Making the link between the words “chosen” and “elect”, one ancient commentator very wisely observed: “There is therefore an election of grace from which one may fall.” The name of Judas was “written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Within a year it was to be “blotted out” (Rev.3:5). He was one of those given by the Father to His Son. Soon he was to become “the son of perdition” (Jn. 17 :12). He-Jesus’ own familiar friend—who had but a few hours before eaten of his bread, was now for the first time of a mind to lift up his heel against him (Ps. 41 :9).

Notes: John 6:60-71

60.	A hard saying. But not too hard, as the prophecy In Dt. 30 :11 RV insists. Whocanhearit(him)?.e. Who can be a disciple of such a man?
62.	It is the Spirit that quickeneth. The Spirit, the word of God (Is. 40 -.7,8), either shrivels humanity away to nothing, or it gives life. Here begins the very common New Testament idiom which uses Spirit for the new life in Christ; e.g. 2 Cor. 3:4,6; Rom. 8:9,10; 1 Cor. 15:45.
63.	They are spirit; i.e. to be understood spiritually, and not literally. Is there another Ps. 78 allusion here?: “He remembered that they (Israel in the wilderness) were but flesh, a wind (spirit) that passeth away, and comethnot again” (v.39).
65.	Except it were given him; cp. v.39,44.
66.	Went back. Ps. 78 :41 (again!) In v.68 Peter’s word for “go” supports the idea of going off to join Barabbas or some such leader.
67.	The twelve. John tacitly assumes that this detail (12 special apostles) is known to his readers from the other gospels. Similarly, in ch .18, 19, he introduces Pilate and also Mary Magdalene without a word of explanation.
69.	Believed and are sure (have learned). Then why the different order in 17 :8 and 1 Jn. 4 :16? A thing of no importance?
	RV: the Holy One of God. There is excellent textual support for both AV and RV. But Ps. 78:41 surely settles that RV is correct here.
70.	Is a devil. Not: has a devil, as orthodox ides would require.
71.	RV: Son of Simon Iscariot is correct. Does this imply that Simon was known to some readers of this gospel?

It seems likely that in the synagogue at Capernaum Jesus delivered a formal address besides taking part in the discussion which centred round his teaching about himself as the Bread of Life. The address itself (verses 37-47) had a perceptibly different theme.

He began with pronouncements of a startling predestinarian character: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me . . .” The Greek here is puzzling. As literally as possible it runs thus: “All (neuter) that the Father giveth me he did lead to me.” The first phrase seems to refer primarily to the twelve (17:11, 12). But immediately, and throughout this passage, there is generalisation to include all who are “taught of God” and brought to Christ: “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (v.37, 39).

These words (and v.65 also) declare, in the most unequivocal fashion imaginable, a doctrine of election such as receives little emphasis in these days-and indeed little credence, in some quarters.

Yet, remarkably enough, in this very context Jesus went on to put equal emphasis on the vital importance of the right response made by an unfettered free will: “him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (v.37). This saying would be meaningless if the “coming” were not the result of individual decision. Again: “this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life” (v.40). Free response as a disciple is plainly implied here.

Contradictory ideas?

There are those who have succeeded—to their own satisfaction, at any rate-in producing a tidy reconciliation of these two ideas, which seem to be so hopelessly inconsistent with one another. Neither Jesus, here in John 6, nor Paul in Romans, makes any sort of attempt to demonstrate the consistency of these apparently contradictory principles. Yet presumably they are reconcilable in the purposes of heaven, even if not by limited human thinking. One has yet to encounter a better attitude to this bewildering problem than that which says: “The Bible teaches me to believe in the foreknowledge of God and His will to predestine certain individuals to redemption and glory; therefore I believe it. The Bible also teaches me, what I also know well enough from personal experience, that I am a creature of free will, endowed with the power of making my own decisions. Then, even if I have difficulty in reconciling these principles, I shall humbly and thankfully go on believing in them both, confident that one day, when I no longer see through a glass darkly a clearer understanding of all such problems will be vouchsafed to me.”

The same superficial contradiction is traceable here in the words of Jesus. “This is the Father’s will . . . that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing.” Yet at the end of his ministry Jesus was to say: “Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition” (17 :12). It would certainly appear that the Father’s will regarding Judas, one of those given to Jesus by Him, came to be frustrated

One way of avoiding this impasse is to assume that Judas never was given to Jesus by the Father. But such an approach only solves one problem by creating a greater, for then it is necessary to conclude that Judas was deliberately chosen in the first place for a fate so black that Jesus himself said: “It were better for that man that he had never been born.”

There is no great harm in leaving such enigmas unsolved.

Another Unsolved Problem

These verses present another problem of a very different character-one not perceptible to the reader of the English version unless he be unusually alert. In the Greek text of the words quoted, there are quite unaccountable switches of gender. “All that the Father giveth me” is neuter! “Him that cometh to me” is, of course, masculine. “Lose nothing” is, again, neuter, as also: “but should raise it up at the last day.” But “everyone which seeth the Son” is masculine, once again. The same phenomenon is even more marked in John 17. So far as one is aware, no explanation with any degree of convincingness about it has yet been offered of this strange feature.

The claim made by Jesus to have “come down from heaven” (v.38) need not worry those who have good Bible-based convictions that Jesus had no personal pre-existence in heaven. This is just one of the idioms characteristic of John’s gospel. As was observed in the previous study, the description of the manna as “bread from heaven” (v.31) cannot reasonably be read literally. The expression clearly means “of divine origin”, or “supplied by heaven,” and in this sense it is highly appropriate to Jesus also (inv.50,51,58also).

“My Will-Thy Will”

The careful reader will observe that the identical verse makes personal pre-existence of Jesus an impossibility: “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Unless it be conceded that in certain respects the “will” of Jesus-that which he wished to do—was at times different from the “will” of the Father, these words border on the nonsensical. This is not to suggest (God forbid!) that Jesus ever did anything but the will of his Father. But, apart from anything else, the record of Jesus in Gethsemane is sufficient to Illustrate the point that is being made here: “0 my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Ml. 26 :39; cp. Jn. 5 :30). Notwithstanding that clear expression of a difference of “will”, Jesus meekly endured that which was appointed for him.

At this particular time in Capernaum the Father’s will was that His Son should “lose nothing” of all that had been given to him (v.39). This emphasis reinforces strongly the idea, already elaborated, that in the strong tide of reaction after the feeding of the 5000 Jesus was in danger of losing not only many of the multitude who had followed him eagerly but even the loyalty of the twelve also.

Drawn by the Father

Far from willing that any should be “lost”, the Father (Jesus declared) was actively drawing men to him. Indeed, without this pre-disposition imparted by God, any real acceptance of the leadership of Christ is impossible. Again there is echo of the discourse to the woman of Samaria. True worshippers worship the Father in spin! and in truth, and such the Father seeks (4:23).

The classic example is that of Lydia at Philippi. She had a Bible and in Paul she also had the finest expositor in the world. But the Lord opened her heart to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul (Acts 16 :14 RV). Instruction in the truth of Christ is a vitally essential element in bringing any man to him, but it is not the only thing needful.

Here, then, are facets of Christian experience very different from the mystical emotionalism beloved of modern “come to Jesus” evangelists. “No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God” (v.44, 45). The two ideas expressed in these words are often taken to be identical rather than complementary —that the only way in which a man is drawn to Christ is by being taught. It is, of course, evident (although the modern conversionist assumes otherwise) that instruction in Christ is an absolute necessity. But clearly, as much dispiriting experience has shown, there is need also for the valve of a man’s will to be set the right way; and here, according to the copious witness of Scripture and much impressive personal experience, God is often-maybe always—silently at work to incline a man’s disposition to the receiving of the message (see Notes).

The Witness of the Prophets

In underlining the absolute need of all for instruction and understanding concerning himself, Jesus referred to what was “written in the prophets.” Yet in the summary of what he said, John quotes only from Isaiah 54:13. So it is reasonable to enquire what other Scriptures Jesus used at this time to reinforce the point he was making. Although it is not possible to be sure about this, there is fair probability that Jeremiah 31 and Hosea 11 were also used powerfully in this part of the Lord’s argument, The Isaiah and Hosea passages, especially, are beset with many obscurities, but in all of them there is a singular aptness about the context.

In Isaiah 54, the apparent withdrawing of divine favour from Israel (v.7,8) is compared to the plight of a ship in a storm: “O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted” (v.ll). Yet the prophet is emphatic that “this is as the waters of Noah unto me.” In other words, the seeming tribulation of God’s people is designed for their salvation. Thus the twelve, with the previous night’s experience on the waters of Galilee still fresh in mind, were bidden see themselves as being saved for God’s New Creation at a time when the unworthy multitude was being discarded. The present crisis in the Lord’s ministry did not mean that the bottom had fallen out of his work: “My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed.”

But the worldly efforts of those who would fashion their own salvation by rebellion against the Romans must have no place in this God-provided righteousness: “Behold, they may stir up strife, but not by me” (v.15). Strife against the Romans (Jn. 6 :15), strife amongst themselves (6 :52), were alike out of tune with the ministry of Jesus.

The next chapter begins with Isaiah’s familiar offer of the Lord’s free salvation: “Come ye to the waters. . . come ye, break (bread) and eat; yea, come, buy wine and fatness (or marrow) without money and without price” (55 ,1) It is an offer of freely provided water and bread, which somehow transform into wine and flesh of the highest quality. This is exactly the theme of Christ’s discourse: “and the bread that I will give is my flesh . . . Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”

Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant links with that of Isaiah, just quoted, and has the same theme. Amid his threnody of woe and spiritual castigation the prophet weaves a winsome appeal: “The Lord appeared to me from afar, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee” (31 :3). “After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts . . . and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and everyman his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord” (v.33,34). This New Covenant, brought to men through God’s “drawing” and “teaching” was to be ratified by Jesus in symbolic Bread and Wine: “This is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mt. 26:28).

Although Hosea 8, 10 are chapters with many Messianic overtones (Study 223), chapter 11 does not read like a prophecy of Messiah, yet for all it obscurity, phrase after phrase lights up when read against the background of the momentous events of John 6. “I taught Ephraim to go, taking them by their arms (Ephraim was the Northern Kingdom including Galilee); but they recognized not that I was healing them. I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the (Roman) yoke on their jaws, and I laid food before them (the 5000). . . the Assyrian (and Caesar) shall be his king, because they refused to return (to Me). And the sword shall fall in his cities. . . because of their own counsels (it did, in A.D. 70). And my people are bent on backsliding from me (many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him). . . How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? (God’s people doomed to become another Sodom and Gomorrah). . . my compassions are kindled together (he was moved with compassion toward them because they were as sheep not having a shepherd). . . for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee (Peter: We have believed and are sure that thou art the Holy One of God; Jn.6:69).”

Is it at all possible that the aptness of these Scriptures is accidental?

Taught of God

Jesus went on to be yet more explicit about the process of divine education: “Everyone therefore that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me” (v.45). Thus the complete sequence is set out:

a.	The Father draws him.
b.	He is taught of God.
c.	He hears, i.e. gives heed to the message,
d.	He learns (he “sees”, i.e. appreciates Christ; v.40).
e.	He comes to Christ as a disciple (“believe into’, v.40, implies baptism),
f.	“Everlasting life” (v.47).
g.	“I will raise him up at the last day.”

That expression: “heard from the Father” is very emphatic. Literally, it is: “from beside the Father.” It is matched by the similar description, in the next verse, of the Son as being “from beside God” (see Notes). Once the forceful Johannine idiom is recognized for what it is, such passages cease to be available as a springboard for any doctrine about the pre-existence of Christ.

Allusion to Moses

Here the allusion is, once again, to Moses and Israel in the wilderness. The people verily heard “from beside God” the declamation of the Ten Words at Sinai. And there in the mount, in a much more intimate and personal way, Moses had the Law of God communicated to him. As Israel heard the Divine Voice, and thereafter were content to receive God’s Word through the medium of Moses, so now in a much more fundamental sense “every man that hath heard from beside the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.”

“Not that any man (save he which is from beside God) hath seen the Father.” Here the allusion to the wilderness is being continued. The people of Israel did not see the Divine Glory in the way that Moses saw it in the mount. Yet, in truth, it was only in a very limited sense that Moses beheld God’s Glory, by comparison with the fulness of the intimacy with the Father which was normal with Jesus and which he was then making known to his own.

John 1:18 is in itself adequate commentary here: “No man hath seen God at any time (not even Moses); the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father (and not hidden in a cleft of a rock, to glimpse the receding Glory), he hath declared him.”

This discourse culminated in the same climax as the discussion on Bread of Life. There it was: “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Here: “He that believeth hath everlasting life.” The equation makes very evident that by “believing” Jesus intended something much more deep and comprehensive than a mere intellectual assent to certain Biblical propositions. “Eating his flesh and drinking his blood” goes further than that. It involves, it demands, a transformation to an outlook on life which is in all things Christ-guided, Christ-controlled, Christ-empowered.

And its outcome, emphasized by repetition (v.39, 40, 44, 54), is a resurrection at the last day. Clearly, Jesus was not speaking here of the process of resurrection, involving coming out of the grave, being brought before Christ the Lord, hearing judgment pronounced, and then being made immortal-not that, but the outcome of the process: an eternal union with Christ in his kingdom. This is New Testament usage in a fair number of places (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:21, 42, 50; Lk. 20:35; Phil. 3:11; Heb. 11:35).

Notes: John 6:37-47

37.	I will in no wise cast out. In the Pentateuch this word is often used of Israel casting Gentile nations out of Canaan Then, is Jesus here preparing the way for the rejection of Israel and the acceptance of Gentiles? And would that explain his strange use of neuter pronouns?
38.	Come down from heaven. Or is the allusion not to manna but to Moses coming down from mount Sinai; Cp. on v.46?
39.	Lose nothing. This has been linked with the Lord’s insistence (v. 12) that no fragment of the Bread be lost. Literally: “that everyone whom he gave to me I may not lose away from Him”
40.	Seeth the Son, goes on beholding the Son-an allusion to Num. 21 :8 or to Ex. 34 :30?
44.	Draw him. Consider 4:23; 12:32; (21 .-11;) 10:29. 15:16, 17:6; 18 :9, and with these contrast 1 :11,12;3.19; 12:48
45.	On the remarkable problem of this difficult verse, consider Jas 1 :5, 1 Th 3 :12,13; ;Jude 24; Heb. 13:21;2Th. 3:5;Ps. 119:18,32-36; Lk. 24:45; 1 Kgs. 8 .58
	Learned of the Father: ”from beside.” This use of para with genitive comes in 1 :14;7 :29;8 :38,40; 9 :I6:33, with reference to Christ; and in 1 6 with reference to John the Baptist

That long, satisfying, and even exhilarating day had gone sour. The great crowd, thrilled with their repeated experiences of the powers ot the Messianic kingdom, were now sorely dissatisfied, for Jesus, so obviously the right man to be King of the Jews, resented the selfish and political flavour of their enthusiasm. The twelve, too, were bitterly disappointed with their Master’s unco-operative attitude, and were beginning to question whether indeed they were following the right man. Nor were they slow to recognize that Jesus’ insistence on their departure had no practical purpose at all except to get them away from this conflagration of political enthusiasm which appealed to them so much.

Indeed, from one angle this surge of enthusiasm greatly appealed to Jesus himself. But he knew that the spirit of it was wrong. The crowd wanted him to be King of their Kingdom. They were not seeking first God’s Kingdom and His Righteousness.

The slowly widening space between the boat and the shore as the disciples pulled unwillingly on their heavy oars was symbolic of a growing gap between the Lord and his most faithful followers.

At last they were lost to sight in the gathering darkness. Jesus meanwhile was high on the hillside, alone in prayer to his Father. As the big Passover full-moon climbed from the horizon, he was able to pick the boat out, making heavy weather of it in that choppy sea. Nevertheless Jesus left the disciples to it. Since they were infected with the crowd’s eager confident spirit, which would seek national salvation through rebellion against Rome, it would perhaps be no bad thing if they were left to realise in one of the smaller hardships of life just what sort of futile struggle such a movement must mean for them.

A Bad Crossing

The amazing thing is that the fishermen amongst them, recognizing what a desperate job it would be to get the boat across to Capernaum that night, did not flout their Lord’s orders and either lay to or come back to shore until the rising gale had blown itself out. There must have been some dominant spirit among them who insisted: “Boys, Jesus says we are to get across to Capernaum. So there’s nothing else for it. We must keep going regardless of the weather”.

Until they were halfway across (Mt) conditions were not too bad. But then the wind strengthened, and progress was almost impossible. They were “toiling in rowing”, says Mark, appropriating a word which contemporaries used of getting evidence through torture.

Scared Disciples

Jesus knew of their predicament, but it was not until the fourth watch — between 3 and 6 in the morning — that he broke off his prayer to come to them walking on the water (Ps. 77:19). When they picked him out by the light of the Passover full moon, they stared (Jn) in amazement and fright. As the distance narrowed, they knew for sure that it was Jesus. Yet, even though he had promised to rejoin them (Jn. 6:17 RV), unmindful of his other astonishing miracles, they could not believe that this really was he — walking on the sea! It must be his ghost! They were sure of it (Mk). Did-this mean that, when they left him on the beach, the crowd had turned resentful and lynched him, because of his unreasonable refusal to co-operate with their schemes? And now, because they too had wanted to join in this eager move to make him King of the Jews he was come to haunt them. Perhaps one of them thought of that remarkable passage in Job: “Hast thou walked in the search of the depth? Have the gates of death been opened unto thee?” (38:16, 17)

Letting out involuntary cries of terror (Mk) they stopped their rowing and their baling out, to stare, fascinated and scared as never before, at the awesome sight as, minute by minute, Jesus came nearer to the boat.

Just as it dawned on them that this apparition was not coming directly towards them, but meant to pass them at some distance (Mk), Jesus called out: “Take heart, it is I, be not afraid”.

Peter’s Eagerness

Peter’s response was immediate and positive: “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee on the water”. In that “if“ there is no hint of doubt in his own mind. But he knew that with the rest it was different (cp. the “if” in Mt. 4:3; 27:40; Lk. 23:39). Such as Thomas would only believe when Jesus came on board.

The apostle’s eagerness to emulate his Lord’s marvellous powers has been read as rather small-minded presumption on his part. And doubtless it was so interpreted by his fellows. Surely some said: ‘Don’t be a fool, Peter. Do you have to tempt Providence that way?’ But indeed the apostle’s word deserves a better interpretation than that: ‘Lord, I know it is your very self. But let me prove it to these others’. As the next day was to show (Jn. 6:60, 66, 67), the policy and message of Jesus were now creating an unpopular reaction not only with the multitude but even with his own chosen twelve. So Peter’s gesture was not the cocky self-assurance of an egotist but a deliberate demonstration of loyalty in face of the coolness of the rest. Here also was an expression of his characteristic eagerness to be close to his Lord (Mt. 17:4; Lk. 22:33, 54; 1 Pet. 5:1; Jn. 20:6; 21:7). That his intentions were altogether admirable is also to be inferred from the Lord’s response — the single encouraging word: “Come”.

In a moment Peter’s legs were over the side of the boat, and he too, to the utter astonishment of the rest, was walking towards his Master. “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also” (Jn. 14:12). But then, a moment later, his eyes came away from the figure of Jesus and in terror they took in the violence of the wind (Mt) as it whipped the spray into the air and piled the waves as high as the apostle himself. All at once that initial burst of confidence was gone. He was no longer on the water but in it. Cephas, the stone, was sinking like a stone.

His fellow disciples saw him disappear helplessly in the tumultuous waters, and gave him up for lost in that foaming turbulence. Momentarily he fought his way to the surface, and let out a shout for help: “Lord, save me”. Forthwith Jesus was close to him, catching hold of his outstretched hand, and within a couple of seconds Peter had resumed his power to walk the waves with his Master. “When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held me up” (Ps. 94:18; 73:2). The time was to come when Jesus, unable to reach out a hand to rescue his apostle, would save him by a look instead (Lk. 22:61). “Christ lets us sink, but does not let us drown” — unless we want to.

Thus Peter walked, and sank, and walked again. It was an experience he was to repeat in the sequel to his great confession (Mt. 16:16, 23; 17:4), in the time of his vehement denials (26:35, 74, 75) and later in the great crisis at Antioch (Gal. 2:12; Acts 15:10, 11).

But now, as together they walked back to the boat, Jesus reproached his disciple: “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” That past tense — ”didst” — is eloquent of Peter’s marvellous renewal of confidence. The rebuke was addressed, not to his presumption in wanting to walk to Jesus on the water, but to his sudden loss of faith in the doing of it.

A Lesson to be learned

It is a lesson disciples of the Lord in this age have been astonishingly slow to learn — that the act of faith ranks highest of all in the estimation of Christ. Here is a yardstick by which a man may estimate the Tightness of his actions. Any policy which leads him to depend on faith in God rather than his own planning and worldly wishes is specially acceptable in His sight. There is much patient endeavour and dutiful service undertaken in the cause of Christ, in the doing of which the strain on faith is negligible. High above these ranks the faith, which many would call rashness or presumption, the faith which takes a leap in the dark. Whenever a man is prepared to get out of the boat and essay to walk on the water, he should not be criticized or censured, but encouraged and helped, no matter how ill-judged his venture may appear to be. The Lord did not say to Peter: “Wherefore didst thou come?” And the one who sets out to attempt any such exploit, depending on Christ, must learn also that once he is committed to an abnormal course of action, there is to be no going back, no occasion for disappointing heaven with “little faith”. Yet — note the further lesson — even in such moments of human infirmity which bring little credit to his cause, the Lord will not let his disciple down.

It is at this point in the story, when Jesus now came to the boat at Peter’s side that John’s narrative inserts a quite astonishing detail: “They were willing therefore to receive him into the ship”. The words seem to imply that up to this moment the disciples were not willing to have him on board. But as a further hint of cleavage between Jesus and the twelve (or some of them), this passage is of great value. Along with others (Study 97) it serves to show how the greatest day in the Lord’s ministry had ended with acutely strained relations not only with the multitude but also with his own closest followers.

Transformation

As Jesus and Peter clambered on board, the roar and howl of the gale ceased, and there was a dead calm. It added one more element to the impact made by all these astonishing happenings on the apostles. As though anxious to make amends for their wrong attitude hitherto, some of them offered homage to Jesus, saying: “Of a truth thou art the Son of God” (Mt). It is doubtful whether this title (anarthrous in Greek) has anything like the force of the similar phrase in Peter’s later confession (16:16). On this Alfred Morris has very neatly observed that after their Lord’s thrusting aside of royal honour, Nathanael, who was there in the boat, did not add, as in his earlier confession: “Thou art the King of Israel”.

Mark’s Greek uses every device available to picture their amazement: “they were utterly astounded (RSV) beyond measure, and wondered”. The next verse makes it clear that this was the cumulative effect not merely of what they had just witnessed but also of the earlier wonder of the feeding of the multitude: “they considered not (i.e. they did not understand) about the loaves”. They did not grasp the spiritual significance of the miracle (nor did they, next day, when Jesus expounded it in their hearing).

Indeed, until this moment “their heart was hardened”. It is difficult to see how this can mean anything except a feeling of resentment against Jesus, because, with the power at his command to work these great wonders, he was obviously determined not to fall in with their nationalistic aspirations or those of the populace.

In the midst of their bewilderment the twelve suddenly became aware that their boat was practically in port. From the details of the record (Mt. 14:24; Jn. 6:19) it is possible to infer that with all their struggle at the oars through the night, they had gained only about half a mile. Now, immediately (Jn), the rest of the trip was accomplished.

More Healing

Nor was this the last miracle in that amazing sequence. As Jesus came ashore there was instant recognition (Mk), and forthwith messengers were dispatched in various directions to inform the people in the different localities nearby (Mk). Consequently as Jesus moved on steadily to get into Capernaum itself, it was possible for those who were eager to bring their sick folk to him to have up-to-the-minute information where he might be found.

Many especially sought to be healed by getting close enough to Jesus to be able to touch the fringe of his robe (Ps. 133:2) — this because the story of the healing of the woman with the issue had gone round, and many in their superstitious ignorance assumed that this was part of the ritual to be gone through in order to bespeak the blessing of this man of God. Remarkably, Jesus did not rebuke their attitude: “As many as touched him were made whole”. Very evidently there was in the Son of man more compassionate tolerance of ignorance than would be found in many of his disciples today. The verb tenses (Mk. 6:56) are very expressive, implying that one after another the people were beseeching him that they might touch the border of his garment for an instant, and — Jesus not forbidding them — this happened time after time; and all who did so were healed. Considering the bad situation which the compassion of Jesus had brought about the previous afternoon (Mk. 6:34; Mt. 14:14), this latest willingness to give aid to those in need is an eloquent witness to the Lord’s compulsive sympathy for all who suffer.

Another Acted Parable

At this point it is worthwhile to look back over the whole sequence of events packed into this twenty-four hours, in order to recognise the marvellous fore-shadowing of greater things which it represents:

• Jesus separates his disciples by water.
• There in the wilderness they are joined by a multitude.
• He teaches and heals them.
• Then he feeds them miraculously with Bread of Life.
• It is a Passover meal ministered to them through the apostles.
• Twelve baskets of fragments are carefully gathered up — for the benefit of others not yet brought near to Christ.
• Then comes night.
• Jesus is in a high mountain, alone, and praying.
• Meantime the disciples are storm-tossed, and making no headway.
• Then, as the new day is about to dawn, Jesus comes to them walking on the water.
• As soon as he joins them the storm ceases, and immediately the ship is at the port they have been striving for.
• Recognized by the people, Jesus heals the sick whom they bring to him from all the region roundabout.

This is not just a “sign” but a whole series of signs. No other book ever written has features of this sort.

As a kind of postscript, it may be interesting to consider whether in this sequence there is room for the mis-recognition of Jesus, for Peter’s walking on the water, and for the willingness of the disciples to have Jesus in the boat.

And there should be special significance in the five loaves and two fishes.

Notes Mt. 14:22-36

22.	While he sent the multitude away. More correctly, “until”. This emphasizes the reason for getting the disciples out of the way.
	Sent away is, literally, “bade farewell”, either implying the Lord’s reluctance to leave the crowd (contrast v. 16); or that he was now losing popular support for good (Jn. 6:66).
23.	Into a mountain — to pray. Cp. other occasions of prayer: Lk. 5:16; 6:12; 9:28; Mk. 1:35.
25.	Went unto them. Literally: “came away” (from his prayer).
27.	It is I. Literally, I am. It is doubtful if there is any intention of appropriation of the Covenant Name of God. But probably, afterwards, the disciples made this association of ideas; see v. 33; Job. 9:8. Cp. Lk. 24:39 Gk.
28	In a section of the gospel where Mt. and Mk. go in step in their records, here Mk. (i.e. Peter) studiously omits the walking on the water.
32.	The wind ceased. Or was it that, as at another Passover, the crossing of the Red sea (Ex. 14:21, 30), there came a sudden dramatic reversal of what had been so adverse?

Mark 6:48

48	He saw them toiling. Cp. Ex. 3:7; Ps. 56:8.
	Would have passed them by. Cp. Lk. 24:28 and “He is risen indeed” (H.A.W), ch. 11. Here was a test for them; Jn. 11:6.
	Gk: he wished to pass by seems to contradict the very purpose of his coming to them.

Jn. 6:15

15	Again; i.e. he had been on the hillside with the crowd, then came down to the shore to see the disciples off, and now goes right away into the hills again.

It may be helpful to pause here and recapitulate, with apologies for repetition, certain significant details associated with the feeding of the five thousand.

It has frequently been observed that that miracle, a marvel provoked by Christ’s compassion for the suffering of the loyal multitude, had just the opposite effect from that which the miracle deserved; the people’s reaction was completely contrary to what he sought.

Instead of seeing in this wonder a further reason for dedicated discipleship, the crowd tried to impose its will upon its leader: “They were about to come and take him by force that they might make him king”.

Jesus, instead of finding his appeal to the people made easier, had to face afresh in an aggravated form the old temptation that he had grappled with and vanquished in the wilderness: “All these things (the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them) will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me”.

Disciples under strain

But quite as serious as the attitude of the crowd was the impact of this challenge of worldly ambition upon the minds of his disciples. The words of the gospel writers are eloquent of strain and conflict: “Straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side” — thus Mark. And John adds: “When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone” — ”to pray”, says Mark.

All the Lord’s natural sympathies were on the side of this Jewish restlessness against Roman domination. Often he must have speculated on the dramatic changes he would love to bring in if only the reins of power were in his hands. There would be a clean sweep of all the political and religious abuses which irked his spirit; the poor would be helped and encouraged by an elimination of social injustice; the great days of David would be renewed to a dispirited people; an unequalled surge of true godliness would enrich the tone of the nation. These transformations, and many more of like character, he would speedily bring about — if only he were King of the Jews.

Faced, then, with this temptation, Jesus must fall back on his best line of defence, or suffer defeat and disgrace at the hands of the Enemy.

What was to be his true calling? — social reform for the masses, or redemption for repentant sinners? Since those days many a well-intentioned disciple has been lured away into making a false choice.

Even in this emergency the Lord’s first thought was for his disciples. The terrific surge of popular feeling had already swept them off their feet. Unless they were quickly hauled right out of this roaring torrent of uncontrollable enthusiasm, they were lost men. So with peremptory gesture he hustles them into the boat before they can take active part with the forces of patriotism and unfaith. Then with hard set face and long lean stride, he breasts the mountain slope to seek the sanctuary so needful and so sure.

All this is simple inference and commonplace conclusion from the facts of the narrative.

A Continuing Crisis

This incident was only the beginning of a crisis which beset Jesus for some time to come and which nearly robbed him of his chosen band of disciples, me twelve were as eager as the multitude to have Jesus as King of the Jews there and then, and his vigorous repudiation of any such intention could well lead to estrangement on the part of these whom he would fain have to continue with him in his temptations.

There are enough hints in this part of the gospel narrative to suggest that at this particular time it was touch and go. The Lord was in serious danger of losing not only popular support but also the loyalty of his chosen few.

Walking on the Water

For instance, during that very night, whilst this band of bewildered and disappointed men bent to their oars against the gale, and argued fiercely as they rowed, Jesus came to them walking on the water, “and willed to pass them by!” Surely he who had compassion on the multitude would not be callously heedless of the toil and terror of his own. Can it be that on this occasion Jesus deemed himself unwelcome in their midst? “And when the disciples saw him walking on the water (Jesus must have been .recognized?), they were troubled saying. It is a spirit” (Mt. 14:26). But when reassured, “they were willing (John adds) to receive him into the ship”.

Why this detail in the narrative? Surely it may be taken as axiomatic and utterly unnecessary of mention that they were willing to have him with them. Is there here the implied idea-that only a short while before they would have been unwilling to have him? Were they resentful of their Master’s hopeless lack of worldly opportunism in refusing so emphatically to head a new Maccabean revolt? The text suggests something of the sort: “They understood not the miracle of the loaves: for their hearts were hardened” (Mk). When Pharaoh hardened his heart against Moses, it was not that he failed to recognize Moses’ divine mission but rather that he wilfully and stubbornly refused to conform to that mission. The twelve likewise, it would seem, were peevish about their Master’s rejection of kingly honour and dignity. They failed to recognize, because they did not wish to recognize, that the miracle of the loaves implied a teaching mission and not red revolution. Had not Jesus multiplied the food and given it to them that they might distribute to the multitude? What else could this mean?

Wavering

On the following day there was the same atmosphere of strain and estrangement’ in the synagogue of Capernaum. Jesus discoursed on bread of life, on death and resurrection: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world… Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this, said, This is a hard saying: who can hear it?… From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?” His question is charged with yearning and anxiety; it speaks volumes about the indecision of these men who in that very hour should have been his strongest supporters. And the very form of Peter’s reply suggests a man frantically striving to stifle doubts by vigorous over-emphasis: “To whom shall we go? (to Barabbas?). We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the son of the living God”. How the heart of Jesus must have gone out to Peter for those words! And yet had not Peter hinted at his own doubts by the very way he began: “Lord, to whom shall we go?” So the possibility of going away was not altogether excluded from his mind.

Of one piece with all this is Peter’s unique part in the stirring episodes of the previous night; “Lord, bid me come unto thee on the water”… as who would say: These others may doubt your leadership and authority, yet will not I!

It is only when viewed in this light that Peter’s action is seen to be no braggart flouting of the commandment: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”. And how Jesus must have loved Peter for it!

Pharisee Criticism

It was immediately after these stirring events that the Pharisees made the first of a series of attempts to drive a wedge between Master and disciples. “And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands, they found fault” (Mk. 7:2).

Jesus sensed grave danger, and he flew to their defence with a caustic vigour not normally characteristic of him. “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men… making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye” (Mk. 7:6, 7, 13).

The outcome of this tirade was unusual if not unique in the ministry of Jesus: “Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?” (Mt. 15:12). Do you realize, they say, what you have done? You have actually made enemies of the most important people in the country. Why did you do it?

But Jesus was not to be deterred from his polemic. The hen gathering her chickens under her wings! “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Mt. 15:14).

Let them alone! Keep right away from them! This is the key to the whole situation. Jesus, feeling his lead of his disciples to be seriously weakened, was sparing no effort to save them from Pharisaic corruption.

And again it is Peter only among the twelve who is on the side of his Lord: “Declare unto us this parable”, he says. But it is as though he addressed his fellow disciples: ‘Boys, you can let your indignation against the Master cool off. He is not really talking about literal food at all. It’s another of these strange sayings of his, just a parable like the one we had after yesterday’s feeding of the multitude. And the Pharisees are upset because they have misunderstood him too!’ But well-intentioned Peter was as far from the truth of the matter as he well could be, as Jesus was soon at pains to make plain. Thus the cleavage between Master and disciples continued.

The Canaanite Woman

If Jesus was to save his little flock they must be sealed off — for a time, at least — from all these violently disturbing and subversive influences. So he led them away into “the borders of Tyre and Sidon”. And there God provided a most astonishing lesson of faith for these men whose loyalty was now strained to the limit.

A Gentile woman came seeking help for her stricken daughter. But the disciples, still seared by the flame of nationalism, were in no mood to be patient with a mere Gentile — and a woman, too! And Jesus, for a different reason, shared their sentiment. He had his own lost sheep of the house of Israel — these twelve! — to care for. And it was still fresh in his mind how his compassion for the multitude had led to such bewildering and unhappy results. “Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it unto the dogs”.

“Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs”. The ready answer which flashed at him bore witness not only to a quick wit but also to a penetrating insight. This astonishing miracle which I ask, she says, is only a mere crumb compared with what you con provide. Then what was her understanding of the full meal provided for “the children”? What else but the forgiveness of sins? No wonder that out of deep thankfulness an encouraged Jesus responded: “For this saying go thy way: the devil is gone out of thy daughter”. She had given more than she got!

No sooner was Jesus back by the lake than he found himself once more beset with crowds. And again moved with compassion, he fed the people with bread of life. In all probability these were Gentiles (Study 101), or he would scarcely have dared provoke a repetition of the difficult situation created by his earlier miracle.

The Pharisees again

After this he and the twelve crossed the sea again, only to encounter an aggressive delegation of Pharisees and Sadducees. These astute men had already grasped a truth which the disciples were loth to receive, that Jesus was not now set on kingship or any form of temporal power, and realizing that this gave them a tactical advantage they were bent on using it to the full. Hence the repeated arrogant demand for a sign from heaven.

Such a sign would be appropriate enough to an assertion of kingly authority, but it did not become his present work in Israel (Mt.12:16-21).

So he dealt with their challenge curtly, and hastily re-embarked with the twelve. Clearly enough the retreat was not on his own account but to take the disciples right away from the danger zone of these evil men with their pseudo-authority and specious argument.

Nor was this sufficient. He must needs warn them point-blank of the danger in which they stood by reason of their unwarranted reverence for these men: “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees”.

Again he was misunderstood. “And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?” Not only was there a lack of spiritual understanding but also still a stubborn unwillingness to accept his authority. “Have ye your heart yet hardened?” He was still nominally Master and Lord, but they neither did nor believed the things that he said.

Two Remarkable Miracles

It was immediately before and after this incident that there came two miracles of healing which in their details are quite without parallel in the rest of the gospels. The one is accompanied by an elaborate ritual of healing, in marked contrast to the single word or touch of power which represented the Lord’s normal method, whilst in the other the cure was gradual rather than instantaneous. Here are the words:

“And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him. And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit and touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain” (Mk. 7:32-35).

“And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit in his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought. And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly” (Mk. 8:22-25).

What are these miracles if not acted parables of the enlightenment of his blind and deaf disciples whose unseeing eyes and unhearing

ears he had lately found such a cause of personal distress? “And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened”. It was another expression of the intense and frequent prayers Jesus had offered that these, his chosen, might truly have their ears opened and their minds enlightened to understand him better.

In the second miracle there is the unusual element of gradualness. Was there something especially stubborn about this physical affliction or about the man’s frame of mind, or was the power of Jesus less intense at this time, that this cure must be wrought in stages? Hardly so.

A much more reasonable view is that Jesus deliberately did it in this way that the healing might provide a vivid picture of what at this time constituted his biggest problem and anxiety — the obtuseness of his disciples. And the gradualness of the cure expresses doubtless the Lord’s own conviction that he could not expect any sudden solution to this difficulty. The only thing to do was to persevere in a patient educating of the twelve to a better point of view. Hence the journeys to Tyre and Sidon and, shortly afterwards, to the region of Caesarea Philippi: “he was teaching his disciples” (Mk. 8:31; 9:31 — the continuous form of the verb is significant).

This very method and purpose is reflected in a further detail. In both of these miracles — and in these only — did Jesus first take the afflicted man into solitude “out of the town”, “away from the multitude”.

And another puzzling detail is common to these two miracles! In each case Jesus spat! Why? One may safely consign to the waste-paper basket the trivial babblings of the commentators about the therapeutic value of spittle or about a concessive gesture to the quack methods of the times. Already there can be no doubt that this unusual procedure (elsewhere to be found only in Jn. 9:6, another acted parable) was part of the symbolism of both transactions. What did Jesus mean by it?

In other parts of Scripture spitting is associated with shame and contempt. Nearly always it is a token of reprobation or deliberate indignity. Certainly there is no instance where it carries the idea of anything good, wholesome or praiseworthy. “I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (ls. 50:6). “The Son of man shall be spitefully entreated and spat upon” (Lk. 18:32). “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed?” (Num. 12:14).

Then in these two exceptional miracles was not the spitting of Jesus an indication of his displeasure at the continuing blindness and deafness of his disciples? How is it, he must have asked himself almost impatiently on many an occasion, that these men who have known such privileges should show such a disappointing response?

Loyal Peter rebuked

About this very time Peter was once again a comfort and a strength to the discouraged Leader. When Jesus sought to sound their opinions concerning himself it was Peter’s heartening confession of faith in the ultimate Messiahship of Jesus which provoked such a glowing response from his gratified Master: “Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona”. The words are to be read as an expression of Jesus’ profound relief that in one at least of the twelve there was faith enough to look past his recent refusal of temporal power to a future day of divine glory.

Nevertheless Peter’s zeal was not all encouragement and comfort. Within a very short time he was being sternly bidden: “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men”.

Can it be that there was more behind this remarkable volte face on Peter’s part — and on his Master’s too — than is often suspected? Jesus had begun to speak of his impending suffering and death in Jerusalem. “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee”, responded Peter with warmth and eagerness. Before Jesus rebuked him, “he turned about and looked on his disciples”. Why? Possibly because Peter in speaking for himself had spoken for all. But in that case why should the denunciation be reserved for Peter only?

It is much more likely that Peter, aware of the uncertain loyalty of his fellow-disciples — although himself in no wise sharing it, was warning: “Lord, unless you abandon all such thoughts you will soon have no disciples left at all!” The unspoken wavering loyalty of the others Jesus rebuked with a look. This well-meant but disastrous policy of expediency and compromise, now openly advocated by Peter, Jesus saw as the work of the devil.

It was immediately after this that he spoke so emphatically of the need for every follower of his to take up the cross of self, even as he, in order that there might be reward in the day of glory. First, shame and suffering, then divine glory. So it must be, for Master and disciple alike. It was this lesson above all others which his chosen few were reluctant to learn. And as in every class some pupils respond more readily than others to the lead of the teacher, so also it was with these.

Here, surely, is the explanation why Jesus chose Peter, James, and John only to be with him at the Transfiguration whilst the rest remained at the foot of the mountain. Here, too, perhaps, is a reason for the indictment of the others when Jesus rejoined them: “O faithless generation, how long shall I suffer you?” But it is difficult to be sure of one’s interpretation in some of these details.

This part of the gospels builds up a consistent picture of a group of men loyal but unhappy, following and yet protesting, believing and yet dubious, willing but at the same time resentful. “Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?”

In three and half years Jesus made few converts. It was no small achievement that he converted the disciples. “Them whom thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost save the son of perdition”.

Having concluded their mission of apprenticeship to the preaching of the gospel, the twelve returned to Jesus to report progress (Mk, Lk). Appropriately, it is the only time that Mark refers to them as apostles.

Meantime, the Lord himself had not been indulging in a holiday, for “when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and preach in their cities” (Mt. 11:1).

This return of the twelve is mentioned so briefly that some expositors have inferred a certain degree of failure about their first evangelism. But the gospels are always reticent about any achievements of the twelve, as individuals or as a company, so the conclusion does not follow.

Need for a break

Indeed, it might rather be that the crowds now besetting Jesus were, many of them, drawn to the Lord through the apostles’ witness concerning him: “many were coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat” (Mk). Evidently as some in the crowd went away, feeling the need for rest after long and concentrated attention on Christ and his teaching, others arrived, so that there was never any easing of the pressure.

An accumulation of reasons combine to explain why there was this tremendous pressure of popular attention. The death of John would inevitably lead many of his disciples to gravitate towards Jesus. The preaching campaign of the twelve must have brought many more to the one they proclaimed. The recent very sensational miracles added to the pressure of popular attention. And the Passover holiday, just coming on, set people free to see and hear Jesus all the more.

Jesus knew his disciples were in need of relaxation, so he got them aboard the fishing boat. “Come ye yourselves apart (the Greek is specially emphatic) into a desert place, and rest awhile” (Mk). Not only were they in need of peace and quiet, so also was he. The news had just reached them of the brutal and senseless execution of John the Baptist, and the Lord felt this very keenly. Besides the ruthless taking away of one of his best friends, it was a sinister foreshadowing of the fate he too must suffer (cp. Mt. 14:12).

So they sailed for a quiet locality, which is precisely identifiable, near Bethsaida Julias at the north-east corner of the lake (Lk). Matthew’s word here means that “he cleared out”, or even “he fled”. The physical and emotional pressures of the ministry were becoming too great. But, as events proved, that day and the next they were to intensify to the point of crisis.

Persistent Crowds

As the now famous little ship set course across the lake, it was a simple matter for multitudes along its shores to recognize it and tell what place Jesus was heading for. So offer they had gone a mile or two, it would be obvious to all in the boat that this attempt at retreat was hardly likely to succeed.

They could see the multitudes hurrying round the shore (Mk) so as to be with them when they landed. The people were undeterred either by the distance (five or six miles) or by the need to ford the Jordan where it entered the lake. Indeed some evidently took with them their sick and suffering friends in hope of healing. Consequently, when Jesus landed and went up the hillside with his disciples, there was already a crowd to greet him (Mk), and it grew in numbers steadily.

Lifting up his eyes, Jesus could see a great multitude coming to him (Jn). The additional reason for this, supplied by John, was that Passover was coming on. The Greek text there seems to imply two different crowds, one of them probably being a great caravan of Passover pilgrims coming down from the north (from Damascus?). These found time to stay and listen and see: “they beheld the signs which he did on them that were diseased” (Jn). The word used here suggests the fascination or enjoyment of an unusual spectacle. Yet Jesus welcomed (Lk) even those who came for such inferior motives. Any other man would have showed signs of vexation at the frustration of his own need and intention.

Sheep without a Shepherd

But not so Jesus, for “he was moved with compassion towards them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd” (Mk). This expression is derived by Mark, with set purpose, from the account in Numbers (27:17) of Moses’ appeal to God to provide for the people an adequate leader to take his own place. His prayer was answered by the consecration of another Jesus (Joshua) who would bring Israel out of the wilderness and lead them into their inheritance. Now, once again, here were the people in the wilderness (both literally and spiritually), with another Joshua to provide for them better than Moses did and to give them prospect of a better inheritance.

All four narratives of this occasion echo repeatedly, both in phrase and idea, the experience • of Israel being cared for in the wilderness (see Notes for details)!

So Jesus “spake unto them of the kingdom of God” (Lk). This, almost certainly, had been the enthusiastic emphasis of the twelve during their mission. Many of the crowd now gathered here had doubtless come in response to that message.

And now they heard the same appealing message from the Leader himself.

Within an hour or two they were to find it proved in their own experience that for those who seek first the kingdom of God all other things needful would be added unto them (Mt. 6:33). They had not only the comfort of the message but also healing and food. The powers of the kingdom were demonstrated before their eyes: “he was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick” (Mt). In describing this Luke significantly uses a word which the New Testament often appropriates to describe spiritual regeneration as well as physical cure (e.g. Mt. 13:15; Lk. 4:18; 5:17; Heb. 12:13; 1 Pet. 2:24; Jas. 5:16?).

The Need for Food

Meantime, so it is possible to infer, the twelve were away from the crowd getting the rest Jesus had intended for them, and (most probably) having a meal together.

The day wore on. With deliberate allusion to the sacrifice of the Passover lambs “between the two evenings” (Ex. 12:6 mg), Matthew mentions the onset of evening twice over (v. 15, 23), two or three hours apart. (On the day “Christ our Passover” died, there were literally two evenings!).

So it was somewhere about four in the afternoon when the twelve came to Jesus insisting that he call it a day: “This is a lonely place, and time’s up (Mt). Send the crowd away so that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food (Mk) and get lodging (Lk)”.

This very practical and eminently reasonable suggestion may, even so, have been spoken with impatience, for had not the crowd interfered with their holiday? However Jesus set it aside. Once again, as on so many occasions (e.g. Jn.4:31-34), the exhilaration of the work and his eagerness to use every opportunity to the full made him reluctant to have done. “They need not go away”, he said, “you give them something to eat” (Mt).

Earlier in the day, as it would seem, Jesus had tested matter-of-fact Philip with the question: “Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?” (Jn). One denarius would provide a day’s meals for about ten people, so “two hundred penny-worth would hardly be adequate for such a crowd as this. And, in any case, where in that empty countryside were they to find such an immense supply of bread?

Now the apostles declared themselves beaten with the problem.

They took up again Philip’s suggestion about trying to buy “two hundred penny-worth of bread”. But instead Jesus steered their thinking in a different direction (Is.55:1). “How many loaves have ye? Go and see” (Mk). Soon Andrew was back to report. They themselves had no food left at all, but they had found a boy who was willing to give or sell his own small store of victuals—five barley loaves and two fishes (John’s record uses the word meaning sauce or appetiser, which is precisely what the fishes were for). “But”, Andrew added, “what are they among so many?”

Few as they were, their precise number was not without importance, for in a later repetition of this situation there were seven loaves for Gentile disciples (Mt.15:34), making twelve for the New Israel faithful to the Son of David in the time of his rejection (1 Sam. 21:3, 6).

The Miracle

“Bring them here to me”, (Mt) Jesus now commanded, and he then went on to issue instructions that the people sit on the grassy stretch between lake and hillside in fifties and hundreds (Mk). The suggestion that they were so organized to facilitate counting is almost certainly wrong, for it is hard to believe that Jesus was interested in knowing the exact magnifying power of his miracle. The idea which many in the crowd would leap at was that of military formations for this seems to have been the normal army unit in Old Testament times (2 Sam. 15:1; 1 Kgs. 1:5; 2 Kgs. 1:9-14). So there would be even greater excitement among those who had already talked openly about replacing the despised king Herod (who had just beheaded their wilderness prophet) with Jesus, the son of David. But this fifties-and-hundreds arrangement — itself calling for a considerable feat of organization—was intended as a reminder of Moses who numbered Israel in the wilderness according to this method (Num.2). (Mark’s word for “companies” later became one of the early church’s favourite names for the Breaking of Bread).

The people did as they were bidden, expressing in this way their faith that their needs would somehow be met through the powers of the teacher of Nazareth. The word used by Mark describes the brightly-dressed groups of people as looking like so many flowerbeds in the meadow (cp. Num. 24:5,6): “He maketh me to lie down in green pastures… He restoreth my soul” (Ps. 23:2, 3).

Comment has often been made about the casual harmony — the hallmark of truth — between Mark’s mention of “green grass” and John’s time note that “the passover was nigh”. In this country grass is always green, but in sun-scorched Israel only in the spring is it both green (Mk) and abundant (Jn). This is not the only undesigned coincidence to be traced in the narratives of this incident.

However, Mark did not take the trouble to mention “green grass” merely to present another incidental credential for his gospel, but rather by allusion to Gen. 1:30 to give a further reminder of a New Creation now under way.

When they were seated and expectant, before them all Jesus took the loaves (Jn), and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks for the food (Jn) and sought a blessing on it (Lk). Then he broke each loaf and for a long time kept on distributing quantities of food to the twelve who promptly took it in their baskets to be shared out to the various groups assigned to them (Lk). Similarly with the fishes, except that this time Jesus personally shared out the marvellous increase to the seated companies. Everyone knew that they had been the sharers in a mighty miracle. The reality of it was something all would talk about to their dying day.

There has been a fair amount of guesswork as to just when those small barley loaves were multiplied. Some opine that the entire miracle happened as the Lord gave thanks. But if it is permitted to argue back from the undoubted symbolism of the miracle, then is it not likely that first the Lord multiplied the food enough to fill the basket of each apostle, and then when they came to distribute to this group and that (each ecclesia!) there was further amazing increase in quantity.

Further spiritual significance is suggested by the phrasing: “he blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples”, so very like the description of the Last Supper (cp Mt. 14:19 and 26:26). Jesus himself gave this miracle a sacramental exposition next day (Jn. 6:23).

The loaves were leavened barley bread, the food of the poorest people and made from the last of the previous year’s harvest. The new harvest would begin to be cut during the ensuing week (Lev. 23:10, 11). After mention of the five porches where the preceding “sign” described in John’s gospel was wrought, these five loaves suggest a similar comparison with the books of the Law. But of the food given through Moses the people had complained: “Our soul loatheth this light bread” (Num. 21:5). Yet for those who are prepared to go away from the world and join him in the wilderness, Jesus adds to the old dispensation that which makes it palatable and appetizing and abundantly satisfying to those who know their own need. A “sign”, truly! And there is much more to it than this, as will be seen by and by.

The Fragments.

It was, doubtless, much to the surprise of all that Jesus at last gave instructions to the twelve to gather up all the food which had not been consumed. When such miracles of plenty could be performed at will, what need to be so punctilious about the “left-overs”? What a contrast with the manna given each day in the wilderness! Then every attempt, except at the week-end, to keep this God-given food for later use proved worse than useless. “It bred worms and stank” (Ex. 16:20). Thus those who sought to make the Law of Moses an aim in itself found their efforts ending always and only in corruption and self- condemnation.

But now Jesus added his own personal gracious elucidation and exaltation of the principles of the Law (Gal. 3:18-24). Now all was valuable, both what had come down through Moses and the Prophets and that which Jesus and his apostles were to reveal. So: “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost” (Jn).

On the lowest level it was a rebuke of the sin of waste, even though there are times when God’s providence seems limitless. It was a safeguard against superstition — lest anyone should carry a piece of the food home, intending to keep it as a relic. It taught thoughtfulness for others — how many poor people would be glad of those broken meats later on! Especially, however, it taught the value of every crumb of the Bread of Life — there is no aspect of the character of Jesus, no detail of his work or teaching, which can be dispensed with. All is of incomparable worth.

Most of all, this gathering up of the bread and fish reminded the people that it was to be thought of as like the manna in the golden pot (Heb.9:4) which never corrupted. There is a splendid “contradiction” in that phrase “a golden pot”. It means earthenware covered with gold, and points to a unique combination of frail humanity and divine glory. Jesus, Son of man, Son of God. It may be taken as certain that in later days the early church made much of that eloquent detail: “twelve baskets, filled’ — twelve men preserving and interpreting Christ to their brethren. And when the numbers in that early ecclesia reached five thousand (Acts.4:4), the fact was deemed to be specially noteworthy.

Excitement

The reaction of the multitude to this mighty miracle was just what the Lord wanted, in one respect. In another it could hardly have been more wrong that it was. “This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world” (Jn). The allusion was, of course, to Moses’ prophecy of the coming of a prophet like himself (Dt. 18:18). This miraculous provision of food in the wilderness was as plain a sign as could be wished.

So there was a great surge of enthusiasm among them for making this Jesus King of the Jews there and then, whether he wanted it or he didn’t. Was he not of the house of David? Did he not talk to them unceasingly about the kingdom foretold in the prophets. Had he not shown them in his miracles all the tokens of God’s promised Messiah? True, he was not at all as nationalistic and warlike as they would like him to be, but there were plenty among them who could make up for such deficiencies. So, in intense excitement, “they were about to take him by force, to make him king” (Jn).

What dramatic irony there was in this queer situation! At the next Passover “he says that he himself is Christ a King” (Lk. 23:2) was to be the main Jewish accusation by which the nation hoped to be rid of him!

Temptation

This move to thrust political greatness upon Jesus presented him with one of the most taxing situations of his life. For himself it was the third temptation over again: “Forget the cross. The crown can be yours now, without effort.” It was a sorely-tried Jesus who now found that by his own gracious loving-kindness and compassion he had created for himself an almost overpowering temptation. For eager Jewish blood flowed in his veins. All his sympathies were with the people. And when he thought of all the good he could do them when ruling in Jerusalem, and of all the gracious uplifting influence he could then bring to bear on this unspiritual people, the prize dangled before his eyes had an allurement not easily thrust aside.

Worse still was the visible effect on the twelve. They were dazzled by the prospect far more than he. But how much of his balanced outlook and strength of character did they have to help them withstand it? Jesus saw that it was touch and go. At any moment now the twelve could be swept helplessly from their spiritual moorings by the sudden violent racing tide of nationalistic spirit which swamped both reason and godliness. Matthew’s record (14:22 Gk) very neatly implies what John says explicitly — that the crowd were creating a problem.

Drastic Action

So without staying to ponder the situation, without any attempt at remonstration, he hustled the twelve back into the boat and peremptorily bade them make sail for Bethsaida by Capernaum. Conditions were far from promising for the voyage. The last hour of daylight was badly obscured by banking clouds in the west. A lively wind — ‘Sure to get a lot worse’ said those fishermen — was already whipping the tops off the waves. It would be a wild night. But Jesus would not be gainsaid. So fearing his anger more than a bad crossing, they pushed off.

As soon as they were under way, Jesus turned and dismissed the crowd, leaving them to seek lodging in the nearest villages or to make use of the Passover full moon for the weary walk home at the end of a day in which only excitement and his gift of food had kept them going.

This dismissal took no time at all, and Jesus set out up the hillside at his strongest pace to seek the solitude of “the mountain” and the spiritual re-inforcement through prayer to his Father, which he was now so desperately in need of. Seeing him go, the crowd melted away. Soon the mellow light of the moon looked down on scores of tired folk slowly picking their way once again round the head of the lake, on a small fishing boat tossing on a choppy sea whilst brawny men pulled hard and gloomily at the heavy oars — and on a Son of man high on a mountain side, kneeling in prayer and slipping into a relaxed and quiet spirit as his strength came again; (cp. Lk. 5:16; 6:12; 9:28; Mk. 1:35).

Was there ever a day like this?

Notes Lk.9:10-17

10.	Bethsaida Not to be confused with the Bethsaida, the fishing suburb of Capernaum, which was the home of Peter and Andrew (Mk. 6:45 = Jn. 6:17).
	Departed. “Fled”, according to LXX usage. The hungry men (Mk. 6:31) would manage a snack during the crossing (if they had any food on board). Otherwise, v. 12, 13 may be taken to imply that it was then that the twelve had a meal, but not Jesus.
17.	Filled. s.w. Ps. 107:9.
	After this there is a fairly considerable break in Luke’s record. The third gospel has nothing to match Mk. 6:45 – 8:26.

Jn.6:1-15

4.	Passover. This indicates a one-year gap between ch. 5 and ch. 6
9.	A lad. Was he the only one in that great crowd who had food? Or had he just returned with this after being sent by one of the apostles to the nearest village?
10.	The men. Then were the women and children in separate groups?

Special note

A remarkable number of details in these gospel records recall (by design?) the experience of Israel in the wilderness. These are brought together here.

Mk. 6:33	On foot. Num. 11:21
34	Sheep not having a shepherd. Num. 27:17
40	Hundreds and fifties. Num. 2.
Mt. 14:15, 23	The two evenings. Ex.12:6 mg.
21	Besides women and children. Num. 1:46
Lk. 9:12	Victuals; s.w. Ex. 12:39; Ps. 78:25
17	Twelve baskets full: s.w. Ex. 16:12
Jn. 6:7	Sufficient. s.w. Ex. 12:4. Philip’s desperation matches that of Moses: Num. 11:11, 22.
Jn. 6:12	Fragments. Contrast Ex. 16: 19, 20
14.	The prophet that should come into the world. Dt. 18:15, 18.
41, 61	Murmuring: cp. Ex. 16:7, 8.