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.

It was a strange complex of historical events which led to the tragic death of John. One of the sons of Herod the Great, Herod Philip, spent most of his life in Rome. He married Herodias, his niece, the sister of the Herod who had the apostle James put to death. Another son of Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, who (under the Romans) was the ruler of Galilee, fell in love with Herodias and lured her away from her husband. But this marriage meant abandoning the wife he had already. She went back to her father, Aretas, the king of Arabria Petraea. War followed between the two kings, and Herod’s army suffered a disastrous defeat.

These events boiled up soon after the baptism of Jesus. John deemed it his duty to rebuke Herod for his flagrant disregard of the Bible’s principles of marriage. Such blatant evil, coolly practised by one of its rulers, was not likely to be without effect on the morals of the nation. How could John call the Jews to repentance and at the same time appear to ignore this wickedness in high places? So he not only denounced the king’s behaviour to the crowds who assembled to hear his preaching, he also somehow gained access to Herod’s presence and rebuked him to his face.

John a prisoner

There was no doubt in Herod’s mind that John was a man of outstanding holiness. More than this, he probably believed him to be a prophet of the Lord. But the inevitable and implacable resentment of Herodias had to be appeased somehow, so Herod had John arrested and

thrown into prison in the fortress of Machaerus (Mt. 4:12; 11:2). It seems likely (Mt. 17:12; Mk. 8:15) that the Jewish rulers supported Herodias in bringing influence to bear on Herod. After John’s open denunciation of them (Mt. 3:7), they had no love for the prophet, and would be glad to see him out of the way. Josephus says (Ant. 18.5.2.) that Herod feared John’s influence over the people. That was probably the official reason for John’s imprisonment.

All this happened eighteen months or more before John’s execution. Tristram, a late-19th century traveller, claimed to have explored the ruins of Machaerus and to have found two dungeons with “small holes still visible in the masonry where staples of wood and iron had once been fixed. Presumably one of these was where John spent many miserable months.

The wrath of Herodias was far from being appeased. Mark’s vivid phase means “she had it in for him”. At the very least she wanted John put to death (Mk. 6:19). Herod was willing to do this (Mt. 14:5) in order to please her, but he dare not because of John’s great reputation with the people. The text seems to imply that Herodias made attempts to get rid of John, but these failed because “Herod feared John… and kept him safe” (Mk. see RV).

From time to time John was brought out of his cell to discourse to the king. With unbroken spirit he kept on insisting: “It is not lawful for thee to have her”-on two counts: this was adultery, and it was a union specifically forbidden by the Law of Moses (Lev. 18:16).

Evidently John made such an impression that Herod “did many things” (Mk) which John commanded, but it was not in him to get rid of that “whorish imperious woman”.

Nevertheless, with a strange inconsistency, “he heard John gladly.”

A Second Elijah

The entire situation, bizarre in the extreme, bore an amazing resemblance to the experience of Elijah. Herod was like Ahab — well-intentioned and outstandingly able, but weak and corrupt and quite under the thumb of his unscrupulous wife. Herodias was every bit as masterful and vicious as Jezebel, and just as determined as her colourful prototype to advance the influence and power of her husband. In later years her efforts in that direction were to bring about his ruin and exile. Elijah escaped the wrath of his Herodias by the skin of his teeth. John was not so fortunate.

Although the text does not say so explicitly, it looks as though all the circumstances leading up to John’s death were carefully and cunningly contrived by this implacable adversary.

For nearly two years Herodias nursed her resentment and schemed for revenge. There could be no comfortable married life with her unlawful husband until John was out of the way, for he activated Herod’s conscience too much and too often for comfort.

Birthday Celebration

At last her patience and persistence were rewarded, and her lust for revenge was fully satisfied.

The Bible mentions only two birthday parties, and both of them were thoroughly pagan in character — as of course, almost all birthday parties are to this day, instead of being occasions of thanksgiving to God and opportunities for re-consecration to His service.

Herod’s birthday was celebrated with a feast and a drinking party with his nobles and the representatives of Rome (Mk. 6:21 RVm) who, of course, must always be flattered and consulted. The tables and divans are to be imagined as set out to form a large square. Into the midst of the assembly came Herodias’ daughter, to entertain them with her dancing. This item in the party was not a sudden inspiration on the girl’s part, but one may be sure — carefully schemed and prepared for by her mother. At this time Salome (Shalom!) would be about sixteen. It is known that she had two husbands within the next five years.

Salome’s Reward

The character of the dance and the quality of the appreciation of it may well be imagined. The tipsy king was moved to ridiculous extremes of enthusiasm for Salome’s lewd performance. “Ask what you like as a gift from me, and you shall have it—to the half of my kingdom”. He was not too drunk to have the wit to compare himself to the great Persian king Ahasuerus granting lovely Esther’s request, even to the half of his kingdom (Esther 7:2). But he had sufficiently lost control of himself to go on repeating the fantastic offer, reinforcing it with a wild variety of Jewish and pagan oaths as they came to mind (Mk. 6:26 RV).

In high delight Salome danced away to her mother to ask how she should best take advantage of the king’s munificence. And so completely was she under the domination of Herodias that she was even prepared to fall in with the horrible scheme now put to her. No doubt, over the past year or more she had been cleverly and thoroughly brain-washed by Herodias into a hatred of John the Baptist almost as cold and bitter as her mother’s.

So, without a moment’s loss of time, so that Herod should have little opportunity for second and wiser thoughts, back she went to the banqueting hall. “I want here, right now, the head of John the Baptist on a dish”.

Herod trapped

The horror of the demand brought Herod nearer to being sober than anything else could have done. He was deeply sorry that through his own folly the life of John was now forfeit. More than this, he was vexed that he had allowed himself to fall into what was now clearly seen to have been a carefully contrived trap. In his dilemma a really strong man would have said: “No! what you ask is more than half my kingdom. Put some other request”. And most of those reclining there would have concurred with the decision. By their silence those who could have protested but didn’t made the crime theirs also. But doubtless Herodias had amongst the guests special friends who were acquainted with her evil scheme and she would insist: I “Herod, you have sworn! You cannot go back!” So since Herod was really a weak man, and a I rather fuddled weak man at that, trying to appear strong, he spinelessly concurred, and gave the necessary instructions.

There is here a remarkable similarity to the situation Pilate was to find himself in a year later. He, too, was a weak character who, wishing to spare his victim, nevertheless gave way to external pressure. Like Herod, he granted a feast-time boon, and was trapped by his own offer, so that, very reluctantly, he had to order execution.

Beheaded

It was only a matter of minutes. In the dungeons down below, John, mystified but resigned, said his brief prayer of faith and submitted his neck to the reluctant axe of the executioner. There was a moment of horror as that austere face looked down on Herod .Antipas for the last time, and then the maiden bore away the ghastly reward of her lascivious performance, that her inhuman mother might feast her eyes in triumph on the head of her enemy. Here the gospels describe the “damsel” by a word which suggests “raven”, the ghoulish unclean bird of prey. She was her mother’s daughter! And Herodias, so Jerome records, pierced with a skewer the tongue that had bluntly spoken the divine rebuke of her wickedness.

Not for nothing do the gospels choose an unusual word for Herod’s “birthday”, Classically it meant “a feast in honour of the dead”. Here, surely, is one of the Bible’s most mordant examples of dramatic irony.

The feast went on, but as a birthday party jt was ruined beyond repair. The story of it went round the Roman Empire. One scholar has pointed out that there is an almost certain echo of it in the writings of Persius who died about A.D. 60.

Herod, it may be guessed, spent the next day in recriminations against his wife, in self-excuses, and in religious devotions in the hope that the God of Israel would not make him answer for it.

Disciples of John, who had been permitted to visit him in prison almost as they liked, learned, when next they came to the prison, of the ghastly fate that had befallen him. There was no difficulty about getting custody of the body — and of that gory severed head. (If the head of John had been kept as a grisly memento in the castle, would Herod have considered the possibility of John rising from the dead?) These remains of their revered leader they carried away, perhaps to the family tomb, and, interment completed, they went with haste to tell Jesus.

John and Jesus

It was very soon after this that the impressive stories about Jesus now came repeatedly to Herod’s notice. Hitherto the king had not taken Jesus very seriously.

Now he began to wonder about the prophet of Galilee and his possible connection with John. Various popular guesses were reported to him.

Some who believed (mistakenly) that Elijah had been taken away to heavenly glory said about Jesus: “Elijah has been manifested” (Mal. 4:5).

Others, less definitely, conceded that he might be some other OT prophet, perhaps inclining to identification with Samuel who was famous for his institution of the schools of the prophets. Jesus and his group of preaching disciples seemed to follow the same pattern. And did they not read in Holy Scripture (again, mistakenly) that the dead Samuel had appeared to king Saul, so perhaps John would reappear to Herod.

Herod was a Sadducee (cp. Mk. 8:15 with Mt. 16:6), with a cynical contempt for the widely-held belief in the resurrection of the dead. But he had heard John discourse on this aspect of the purpose of God. And now the sensational accounts reaching him about Jesus combined with his uneasy conscience to give credence to a popular speculation which made nonsense of his Sadducee scepticism: “John has been raised from the dead”. Was there a family likeness between John and Jesus which encouraged this idea?

Herod fastened on this suggestion, and kept on talking about it. How could two such remarkable men appear within weeks of each other? “John I beheaded” (in his self-reproaches he made no excuses), “but who is this of whom I hear such things?” (Lk).

The guess crystallised out into a firm opinion: “It is John whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead”.

Thereupon Herod made repeated efforts to see Jesus (Lk).’ He wanted to see some of the startling miracles he had heard about (Lk. 23:8). More than that, he wanted to say: “It wasn’t really my fault.”

But Jesus, made aware of Herod’s purpose, kept well away, and left Herod to his sleepless nights.

Manaen

How came the gospel writers by the remarkably intimate detail which this account of John’s death includes?

Almost certainly the explanation lies in the mention (in Acts.13:1) of Manaen the teacher in the early ecclesia who “had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch”. There is evidence that this Manaen was probably the son of a rabbinic family which enjoyed the favour of Herod the Great. Then, again probably, he is to be seen as the source of much of the detail in this vivid narrative. He would be present when John and Herod talked together. Through him disciples of John would get permission to visit their leader in prison. It would be through his mediation that these disciples were given John’s body for burial. And it would be to him that Herod would express the doubts and speculations in his mind about Jesus.

Notes Mt.14:1-12

3.	Philip. Not the Philip of Lk. 3:1. But for this one mention in the gospels, this Philip is an unknown quantity.
8.	Instructed. What a sharp contrast with Dt. 6:7 LXX which has precisely the same word.

Mk.6:14-29

20.	RV: much perplexed is tempting, but lacks really good textual support.
	Gladly; s.w. Pr. 9:17 LXX.
23.	Unto the half of my kingdom. Thanks to the evil influence of Herodias, later in life Herod was to lose all his kingdom and suffer banishment to Gaul.
25.	The Gk. text has “the head of John the Baptist” at the end of the sentence as a very dramatic climax.
26.	Exceedingly sorry. Vexed, annoyed; cp. Jn.21:17; Rom. 14:15; Mk. 3:5; Mt. 14:9; 18:31; 17:23; 26:22. It was also used classically for “harassed” (with reference to guerilla warfare) Mt. 26:37; Mk. 10:22; 1 Pet. 2:19.

The second part of this discourse contains a number of features hardly appropriate to the present mission of the twelve. There are warnings of bitter antagonism, of Gentile persecution, and of the break-up of families brought about by the gospel. Even life itself might be in danger. All this makes a different picture from that of delighted success which the disciples had to talk about when they came saying: “Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name” (Lk. 10:17; 22:35-37).

So, very probably, it is correct to conclude that, according to his usual method, Matthew has assembled here other words of Jesus spoken in the Olivet prophecy and at other later occasions (cp. v.18-21 with Lk. 21:11-15; Mk. 13:12), including maybe otherwise unreported discourses of the Forty Days after his resurrection. This assembling together of material on a common theme without regard to chronological sequence is characteristic of Matthew. It is well illustrated by his chapters on miracles (8, 9) and also on parables (13).

It is advisable, then, to bear in mind that most of what now follows was intended by the Lord as exhortation and guiding principles—verses 16-23 specially for the Twelve, and the rest for disciples generally when they would be called upon to face much bitter opposition and would not have the heartening presence of their Lord to fall back on.

Warning against Enemies

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep (Lk: lambs) in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men…” (v.16, 17). These are telling similes. They compress much valuable advice into few words. But the first and most ‘surprising thing of all is that Jesus sent his followers out on this mission, knowing them to be lambs! Here is his answer, by anticipation, to those who would insist that before a man can become a missionary for Christ he must learn the job by slow patient application in more sheltered fields. There is little or no sign that the apostles acquired ability for the work in this way. The impression given in the gospels is that they were, so to speak, thrown in at the deep end. When in faith a man is prepared to take Christ at his word, the Lord does not leave him in the lurch.

As in not a few of the Lord’s parables, there is an element of unreality about this figure of speech, for it can have been but rarely that a sheep found itself in the midst of a pack of wolves. But it would not be an uncommon thing for one wolf to be ravaging a flock of sheep (Jn. 10:12). However, the figure was true enough to the spiritual circumstances.

But although these men went in their simplicity and inexperience, they were warned to be on the alert against evil in all its insidious forms: “Be ye wise as serpents”. Careful readers of the Genesis story will have noticed that the serpent insinuated doubt in the mind of the woman by simply asking questions (Gen. 3:11). It is a method which might well be copied, for a better purpose: Be as wise as the serpents you encounter, but as harmless to others as the Holy Spirit is (e.g. in my miracles). One writer has well observed that in time of danger the serpent’s first care is to provide protection for its head. As is the natural, so is the spiritual. When under attack, the Lord’s missionaries will first be on guard for their Head-the well-being of the cause of Christ will be their first concern. And all the guile of the most subtle beast of the field will be necessary, for antagonism will come from men, who ore the Serpent. Circumstances, however adverse, are not to be feared. But men are not as persecutors, but as a spiritual peril.

Paul weaves an unmistakable allusion to this saying of Jesus into what is almost a running commentary on the serpent in Eden:

Both Jesus and Paul were fearful that the Fall in Eden would be just as disastrously repeated in the New Creation. And it was.

Jewish and Gentile Persecutors

“They will deliver you up to councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues”. Unlikely as it may seem, this came literally to pass. “I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee”, Paul was to remind his Master in later days regarding that evil time when Benjamin ravined as a wolf (Acts. 22:19; Gen. 49:27). And it was even earlier than that when Peter and the others had their first taste of the bullying and browbeating which a Jewish council could lay on (Acts. 5:29-41). But the very fact that Jesus spoke of his men being punished in the synagogues for their faith carried with it the implication that they were to use the synagogues as their best opportunity of witness. Instead of an extreme separation, which would set the brethren inside their own spiritual stockade, they were to go on being Jews, but always witnessing fearlessly concerning Jesus their Messiah.

The warning: “Beware of men: for they will deliver you up (s.w. betray; v. 4, 21) to councils”, strongly suggests that the Lord foresaw much evil arising from secret enemies within the ecclesia, a kind of ‘fifth column’ working for the enemy (cp.13:25, 28; Gal. 2:4; Acts 20:29; and many other passages of this character).

A staunch insistence on Truth meant that clashes with Gentile rulers were also inevitable: ‘Ye shall be brought before governors and kings (the Caesars) for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles” (cp. Ps. 119:46). This was, of course, one of the main reasons, though by no means the only one, why Christ would allow his infant church to face the afflictions which hostile unbelievers were to bring upon it. There is good reason to believe that the main purpose behind Paul’s “Caesarem appello” was to provoke a test case which would establish the legality of the Christian Faith in Roman law.

In all such circumstances there was to be no paralysing anxiety as to what argument or evidence it would be best to advance, nor in what style it should be put forward. “It shall be given you in that same hour (as it was to Moses; Ex. 4:12) what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in you”.

This is stated quite explicitly to have been the experience of Peter (Acts 4:8) and of Stephen (6:10; 7:55). Paul also knew and claimed it for himself: “I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words pf truth and soberness” (26:25). In the New Testament and the LXX the Greek word translated “speak forth” invariably carries the idea of inspired utterance (or a false claim to inspiration, and that of course would be unthinkable in Paul’s case).

It has been very wisely observed that if God would guarantee His servants a Spirit-guided utterance when they were on trial for their Faith, He would all the more certainly guide by His Holy Spirit the writing of the fundamental documents of the early church … gospels, history, epistles with authoritative rulings on doctrine and Christian behaviour. So this promise is in itself a firm evidence of the inspiration of the New Testament.

The Test — then and now

Hatred and persecution, Jesus promised, would come to be the normal lot of his followers (Is.66:5). Within a hundred years “Away with the atheists” and “The Christians to the lions”, became familiar cries. But today there is practically no sign of this persecuting spirit. Then it was palpably true that “he that endureth to the end, shall be saved”.

What “end” did Jesus refer to?

a.	The end of life — saved in the day of resurrection; v. 28.
b.	The end of the Jewish age — saved from the tribulation of A.D. 70; 24:16, 21.
c.	The last days — saved from its horrors.

Which of these? Or some other “end”?

Today a man is dragged away from his faith in Christ by more subtle means than violent persecution. No longer is his power of physical endurance put to the test. But his ability to stand up to the softening influences of material prosperity, his dogged holding on to faith in face of cocksure scientific gnosticism, his integrity in resisting the eroding effects of a civilisation gone morally rotten — these are the insidious tests provided by cancerous foes which destroy the red corpuscles in his blood and rot the marrow of his bones.

So today, as then, it is still true that “he that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved”. Today, perhaps more than ever, “blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me”.

The church of Christ today could well do with the bracing tonic of persecution. Nothing is more obvious than this. Yet it would be wrong to seek or to provoke hostility. In the early generations, before the time of Constantine, there came surges of almost hysterical enthusiasm for martyrdom. Christians foolishly courted it, prayed for it, and resisted reasonable attempts of their brethren to save them from the worst.

“Flee”

The precept and example of Jesus were all against this, “When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another” (v. 23). He did this himself when rebuffed by a Samaritan village (Lk. 9:51-56). When bitter hostility erupted in Nazareth or in Jerusalem, he got .away as quickly and quietly as possible (Lk. 4:28-31; Jn. 8:59; 10:39, 40). When the Sanhedrin resolved on strong measures against him, he promptly moved out of their territory (Jn. 11:53, 54; but contrast Jn. 10:11-13, when there is a flock to be cared for).

So the early brethren were right when they “scattered abroad” because of the persecution raised by Saul of Tarsus (Acts 8:1). And they were right in insisting on the hasty and even undignified flight of Paul when the Jews were after his blood: “the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket” (Acts 9:25). “The brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea” (17:10). On both occasions it was obviously very much against the inclination of Paul’s ardent nature. However, there were plenty of other cities to preach to: “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come”.

But when silence became the price to be paid for safety, then was the time for the disciple to be resolute, no matter what the danger: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts.4:19,20). And when flight was of little use, because the same hostility in high places was to be met with everywhere (as happened eventually in the Roman Empire), then there was nothing for it but to stick one’s toes in, and doggedly testify regardless of consequences. Is it conceivable that such circumstances should happen again, in the twentieth century?

Like Master, like servant

Jesus added an observation which was doubtless intended to be of special comfort to his followers in time of trial: “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord”. Since Jesus himself had already encountered no little censure and contumely, and was to suffer much more acutely in the days ahead, it was only to be expected that his followers, lacking his personality and power, would be treated with contempt (Jn. 15:20).

Jesus added, with a marked touch of irony: “It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord”. Enough, indeed! And since the verb here really means “become”, his point is all the more pungent. As though the disciple could ever become as his Master in anything! Filling up that which is lacking of the sufferings of Christ (Col. 1:24) is about the best that he may aspire to. Not that there was anything lacking or inadequate about his sufferings. But there is a good deal lacking even in the sufferings of a Paul, denying them comparison with all that Christ endured. Then how much more must this be true for any other disciple! “If they have called the master of the house Baalzebub, how much more shall they call them Baalzebub who are of his household?” (Mt. 10:25). Nowhere do the gospels record that the Lord’s critics got so far as actually calling him Baalzebub, but evidently they had found no difficulty in escalating from the original contemptible smear (Mk. 3:22). These enemies being so much less in awe of the follower than of the Leader, it must be evident long before trials ensue that disciples can expect only short shrift from their persecutors.

Unflinching Witness

This discouraging prospect notwithstanding, they were never to flinch from their greatest responsibility of taking the message about Christ to all people everywhere: “There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops” (v. 26, 27). Paraphrased, this would appear to mean: ‘There are important truths which I have not been able to teach you as yet, but in due time all these will be made known to you. And then, what you thus learn through my private instruction and the guidance of the Holy Spirit you must make known fully and freely to all!’

“What I tell you in darkness”, may be an allusion to the Shekinah Glory of God shining forth to the high priest on the Day of Atonement in the darkness of the Holy of Holies. In that case, “speak ye in the light” continues the idea, with reference to the high priest going forth to pronounce to the assembled people the blessing of sins forgiven. Certainly, the gospel now entrusted to the disciples was a message every bit as gracious.

The parallel commandment: “What ye hear in the ear, that proclaim ye upon the housetops”, followed by the Lord’s triple exhortation to “Fear not them that kill the body,” is apparently built on the corresponding message in Isaiah, written originally to strengthen Messiah, that he might “set his face like a flint” and “not be ashamed”: “He wakeneth me morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious…Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his Servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God” (ls. 50:4, 5, 10). The next chapter continues: “Fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings…I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die…and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor?” (51:7, 12, 13).

The similarity of theme here to the encouragement Jesus now offered to the preachers of his gospel is very evident through all this section of the prophecy.

“Fear them not”

The perspective in which the Lord taught the disciples to view the most extreme forms of persecution provides a sterling test of faith: “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul”. Very bluntly these words say: ‘Death does not matter. Men cannot take away your life for ever. Therefore do not fear them even for a moment’.

In sharp contrast to this: “Rather, never cease to fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”. The common misuse of these words in easily exposed by the answering of a simple question: Where is the body destroyed? Answer: In the grave. Then this defines the Gehenna of which Jesus spoke. And the “soul” is destroyed there also. The words mean that he (Jesus) can and may destroy a man’s life utterly in the grave, by sending him to it for ever. “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death” (Rev. 1:18). This means that Jesus has the authority not only to unlock the grave and bring forth whom he chooses, but also to lock the grave eternally on those whom he reprobates. He only is to be feared, and then only regarding the exercise of this power.

But fear of “man that shall die” is a blatant breaking of a thrice-repeated commandment (v. 26, 28, 31). Fear even of the horrors of persecution is a sin. Since the greater includes the less, and the ungoverned excesses of religious animosity are among the most extreme evils human nature is capable of, it follows that ideally the disciple of Christ should be able to go through life completely free from fears or anxieties of any kind. Fear and the life of faith are incompatibles.

“Two Sparrows for a Farthing”

Jesus proceeded to make his point afresh by means of a telling illustration: “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father”. On another occasion, with similar intention Jesus said, “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings?” (Lk. 12:6). These tiny birds were of such trivial value that, if you bought two farthingsworth, they threw in an extra sparrow as ‘this week’s special’. Yet the life of even such an unimportant creature is in the hand of God. Jesus did not say that God would keep that tiny sparrow from harm. But he was at pains to emphasize that nothing of good or of evil (as it might seem to our limited human judgement) could come to it without the will and control of God.

It may be that Jesus had in mind especially the two birds which were to be used in the ceremony of the cleansing of a leper (Lev.14:4-7). In that ritual one of the birds was slain, whilst the other went free, although daubed with the blood of the first one. Even the apparently unimportant decision as to which bird was chosen for death and which for life was a thing altogether in the hand of God. “Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows”. Then, in all circumstances of adversity or opposition, let the disciple lean on his faith and relax in the over-all control of Almighty God. Even in the worst situations fear is out of place.

Time and Chance?

The somewhat odd viewpoint is met with from time to time: True, God knows about the sparrow falling to the ground, but He does not control it. This is one of the trivialities of life which He leaves to “time and chance”.

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that such a philosophy of life is not only altogether foreign to the spirit of these words of Jesus, but it is also quite without support in the rest of the _v Bible. The only passage ever cited to reinforce ‘such a viewpoint (Ecc.9:11) is misused, as its ij context and a careful examination of the word „ translated “chance” very conclusively demonstrate. (For more detail on this, see … “Through Patience and Comfort of the Scriptures” by H.A.W. ch. 1,16).

In every way possible Jesus sought to inculcate an unflagging confidence in the overruling wisdom and power of God. Far from being unimportant and providentially derelict, as the tiny sparrow might appear to be, the exact opposite is true. A long chapter at the beginning of the book of Numbers preserved before God an enumeration of the tribes of Israel coming out of Egypt. A quick glance confirms that the tribal totals of this Chosen Race are rounded off to the nearest fifty. With the chosen in Christ such a scale of accuracy is altogether inadequate: “The very hairs of your head are all numbered”. This is the way the Lord’s redeemed are taught to think of their place in the purpose of God. In time of hardship or persecution it is a philosophy of inestimable value, and not only then, for it disallows that there can be anything in the experience of the saints in Christ too small for the notice of God, too trivial for His providence and guidance.

Personal Witness

But this unlimited confidence in the leading of God is one side of a reciprocal relationship: “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (v. 32). The implication of the Greek phrase is: “confess faith in me”. It would be a mistake to consider this as applicable only to those who are preachers of Christ’s gospel, or—with even more circumscribed reference—to those whom he personally appointed and sent out. The repetition of these words in other contexts in Luke and Mark shows that they have far wider reference.

There is no escaping the responsibility laid here on all who would follow Christ. The worthwhile disciple is a talking disciple, one eager to use every opportunity, however, meagre, for witness to the faith that is in him. Clandestine Christian is a contradiction in terms. It is a poor ungrateful faith that keeps itself to itself in return for the forgiveness of sins and all the other countless blessings which a man enjoys in Christ. More than this, such an attitude is foolish, for faith is a quality which feeds on testimony to others as much as on the fellowship which others give.

The build-up of emphasis in the Lord’s repetitions of this Christian duty is most impressive: “him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32); “him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God” (Lk. 12:8); “I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels” (Rev. 3:5 — combining the preceding two); and negatively: “Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels” (Lk. 9:26).

This dreadful converse to the promise of heavenly recognition has present force as well as omen for the future (Mt. 10:33). The logic of it seems to be that there may be many a well-meaning disciple of Christ who goes unacknowledged before the throne of heaven because of his own marked unwillingness to make open avowal of Christ. “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you”. This is the Lord’s own Lex Talionis.

Division

It is, of course, because confession of the name of Christ can have unpleasant consequences that most of the Lord’s men have to struggle against their own reluctance to make known their faith in him. The gospel which tells of peace with God and which should be received by all with joyful eagerness somehow succeeds in stimulating opposite reactions. This is because there is a “bad news of the kingdom” about human nature, which often provokes intense resentment. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (v. 34). Jesus spoke not of the intention behind his ministry, but of its consequences.

Plenty of the Lord’s followers know how the challenge of the gospel has led to bad feeling in families: “I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man’s foes shall be they of his own household” (v. 35,36). The words are a straight quotation from a rather obscure passage in Micah (chapter 7), which turns out to be one of the most detailed and complete and impressive Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Jesus did not cite the words because they happened to express tersely the idea in his mind; he used them because they were inspired by God to tell beforehand the great work of the Messiah.

The Law of Moses has a rather frightening instruction how to deal with the beginnings of idolatry: “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying. Let us go and serve other gods… thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him…but thou shalt surely kill him… because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God” (Dt. 13:6-10). But now-the irony of it!-when disciples went to their fellows with the Word of everlasting life, the salvation of their souls, they would experience an almost unbelievable inversion of the commandment. They, with the Hope of Israel on their lips, would have brought against them all the worst rigours of the Law’s penalty for idolatry.

Jesus himself had already found that they of his own household, although doubtless very well-intentioned, had done him and his cause serious damage (Studies 75, 77). Moses had had a like experience, through the jealousy of Miriam and Aaron, and also of Korah and his fellow rebels. There is reason to believe that the apostle Paul knew the same bitter discouragement (Phil. 3:7, 8).

In some families, Jesus foretold, hatred of his name would be so intense as to dry up all spirit of kinship. Rancour and opposition would displace family affection: “Brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father the child: and children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death” (v. 21). In this century extremes of this kind are rare. Nevertheless, it would be possible to compile an impressive dossier of those who have proved the truth of the Lord’s prophecy of rejection and despite by family and closest friends because of the gospel.

This family cleavage for Christ’s sake (the Lord went on) would be accentuated by love of the Truth as well as by hatred for it. He laid it down with almost brutal clearness that if a choice has to be made, then his claims must come first, no matter how strong the ties of family affection. He put the issue in the most comprehensive way possible: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (v. 37). This is a hard saying, by which Jesus tacitly set his own authority higher than the Fifth Commandment. He was echoing the call of Moses after the sin of the golden calf: “Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me”. To those who responded, Moses said: “Put ye every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour”. But now Jesus required the spirit of self-consecration which would treat as secondary those loyalties and affections which are normally of highest intensity and value in a man’s life.

Self Denial

Indeed the disciple must be prepared to say an emphatic “No” to the strongest instinct of all — his own self-love: “He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me” (v. 38). Even before Jesus ever spoke to them plainly about the vile end to which the plotting of the rulers would bring him, this challenge which he made to them would carry a terrible meaning. In those days most people had seen, at some time or another, condemned men being led through the town to be crucified at its Golgotha. Picture, then, a long line of Christian “criminals” with Jesus himself at their head, each of them — like their Leader — carrying the cross on which self is to die in agony and wretchedness. The crowd stares fascinated, some in pity, others shouting their contempt or hatred, but hardly a soul disposed to help them in their plight. Yet they are content to be as they are, because they wish for no other Leader than the one have. They are satisfied that the servant should be as his Lord.

It was an austere challenge truly, which Jesus made to these men of his, that each take up his cross daily (Lk. 9:23). Yet how much more grim and repelling it would appear when they witnessed from “afar off” (Lk. 23:49) just what this meant for Jesus himself. But how heartened they became to respond to his challenge when they saw him alive again on the third day, thus adding meaning to the exhortation: “He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (v. 39).

Just as the allusion to bearing the cross of self did not mean the disciple’s literal crucifixion, so also here. The follower of Jesus is called upon to “lose his life” without necessarily having to die. For whilst this Greek word psuche normally describes a man’s natural life, it is also used not infrequently for the propensities, affections and appetites which characterize “flesh” rather than “Spirit”. This, primarily, is the “life” which a man is called upon to put away. Indeed, except he do so, he loses all: “He that findeth his life shall lose it”. What the world would deem a full, rich, satisfying existence is really selfishness. Concentration of ambition and effort on that can end only in utter loss.

The aorist tenses in which Jesus couched his ultimatum strongly suggest the idea of decision, as though giving point to the idea, that, at some time in life (and this not necessarily on the occasion of one’s baptism into Christ — it may be long after that), a deliberate choice must be made between aspirations which Jesus himself esteems and those which are illicit.

The Lord’s Envoys

Jesus now rounded off his exhortation and warnings with an amazing declaration of the high status of his disciples. Even though they should be scorned, despised and harassed by critics and persecutors, and even though called upon to forego all pomp and circumstance in favour of the regimen of a simple life, they must not forget their standing and high privilege in the sight of God: “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” (v. 40). The reason why there came such blessing on the new ecclesia in Thessalonica was that they received the word of God from Paul “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God” (1 Th. 2:13). The Galatians similarly “received him as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus” (4:14).

The further expansion of this principle now given by Jesus is susceptible of more than one interpretation: “He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward” (v.41). This might mean that he who receives the message of the gospel from one of Christ’s men, recognizing it for the divine message which it is, shall receive the reward which only the Truth can bring into a man’s life. The widow of Zarephath gave her widow’s mite of food and hospitality to Elijah, believing him to be a true prophet of Jehovah, and was blessed for her faith and generosity (1 Kgs. 17).

Or can it be that Jesus was enunciating for the benefit of his ecclesia in later days the spiritual equivalent of the principle David had laid down for Israel’s campaign: “As his share is that goeth down to the battle so shall his share be that tarrieth by the stuff: they shall share alike” (1 Sam. 30:24)? All too easily it can be overlooked that this holds good in spiritual activity for the Lord also. Not all are equipped to be front rank exponents of the Truth of Christ. Nor are all as well endowed as others in opportunity, disposition or circumstances for a life prolific in good works or witness for the Lord. Nevertheless it stands true that when a man uses his time and ability well and worthily in Christ’s service, even though he have no more than one talent to work with, his reward shall be comparable to that of the best.

Even a cup of cold water given to one of Christ’s “little ones” (Mt. 18:10) for the specific reason that they belong to Christ (Mk. 9:41), shall most certainly have due recognition from God. It was for this very reason — a cup of cold water-that David’s men (2 Sam. 23:16) have their place for all time in the Book of Holy Scripture. Jesus now says: ‘What those heroes would do for their great king you are to be ready to do for the least of my disciples’.

This is also the Lord’s re-statement of the promise made to Abraham: “I will bless them that bless thee” (Gen.12:3). Christ’s disciples are the true Israel of God, the most important people in the world. Almighty God takes notice of the disposition of men towards His chosen, and He deals with them accordingly.

Notes: Mt. 10:16-42

16.	Harmless as doves. In Rom. 16:19 Paul’s specific interpretation of this phrase appears to be: Uncontaminated by evil company in the ecclesia!
20.	The Spirit of your Father. .Cp: “l will give you” (Lk. 21:15; 12:11, 12; 2 Cor. 13:3; Pr. 16:1).
21.	Children. The term of special affection! Jesus may have used these phrases in the sense of spiritual fathers and children, as in 1 Jn2:12-14.
22.	From v. 23 this surely applies to saints in Israel.
	He. The pronoun is emphatic: he and no other.
23.	One of the problem passages of the N.T., raising too big an issue to be discussed here. See “Revelation”, by H.A.W., p. 259ff.
24	Lk. 6:40 has a very different context.
25.	It is enough. Cp. the irony in Mt. 6:34; 1 Pet. 4:3 s.w.
	Baalzebub. The name Baalzebul means ’master of the dwelling’ — hence the Lord’s phrasing here.
27.	Note Jn. 18:20, Christ’s own memorable example.
	The version in Lk. 12:2, 3 has future tenses, to be read as Hebraistic imperatives, like the Ten Commandments.
28.	Fear him, as in Gen. 31:42.
29.	In Lk. 12:6, “forgotten” seems to come from Ps. 9:18.
32.	Confess before my Father, as in Jn. 17:9. Mark the sharp contrast between Rev. 3:5 and 3:16.
38.
39	A few examples of this use of psuche: Lk. 12:19; Acts 14:2; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:22; Rev. 18:14. And now consider: Jn. 10:15; 1 Jn. 3:16; Mt. 26:38; Jn. 12:27; 15:13.
40.	The sayings in these verses are remarkable for the number of separate occasions Jesus said them:
	v.38: 3 times: Lk. 9:23; 14:27.
	v.39: 4 times: Mt. 16:25; Lk. 17:33; Jn. 12:25.
	v.40: 5 times: Mt. 18:5; Lk. 10:16; Jn. 12:44; 13:20.
41.	A righteous man. This is added because there are false prophets as well as true.
42.	There is a suggestion that these verses belong with v. 5-15, whilst v. 16-39 are part of a later discourse
	A cup of cold water. Contrast Rev. 3:15.
	His reward. Yet this is not to be the motive for the kindness, but: “in the name of (i.e. because he is) a disciple”.

Jesus now began his last appeal to the northern areas of Galilee and Decapolis. This was to occupy the last few months up to the Passover before he died.

He “went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people” (Mt). The words are almost identical with those describing his earlier campaign in Galilee (4:23).

It is noteworthy that he did not despise the villages, as being too small to provide him with a substantial audience. His policy in this respect is in marked contrast to that of Paul who concentrated, almost without exception, on the big cities of the empire. But of course Paul was not evangelizing a relatively small country; he was set on scattering the seed as far and as fast as possible, knowing that his team of young and enthusiastic helpers were well capable of nurturing the growth.

Jesus likewise had need for vigorous reinforcement of his efforts, and, recognizing this, he set about the training of the twelve.

Both the physical and spiritual condition of the crowds besetting him everywhere moved him to compassion, “because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd”.

The gospels’ word for the Lord’s compassion comes very rarely indeed in the OT, the outstanding place being Pr. 12:10: “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast”. Did Matthew write with his eye on a figurative use of this passage? His sheep metaphor suggests this. So also does the word “fainted’ — literally, ‘flogged, the very word that would be used colloquially today for a worn-out horse. And “scattered abroad” is, more precisely, thrown out’. It has been suggested that this was a sabbath year, bringing shortage of food and lack of employment—hence the specially large crowds and their marked distress.

The sheep-and-shepherd figure was also an allusion to the way in which Joshua-Jesus was appointed to take over the shepherding of Israel from Moses (Num. 27:17; cp. also Mt. 10:6; Ez. 34:5, 23; Zech. 10:2).

Jesus pitied the people the more, seeing their evident physical symptoms as significant of their inner spiritual distress. Earlier in his ministry he had pressed the need upon his disciples: “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are’ white already to harvest” (Jn, 4:35). Nearly a year later the need was still the same — the harvest plenteous, the labourers few (Lk.10:2). The words seem to imply that Jesus was always on the look-out for likely recruits.

So now he bade the twelve take it as their own personal responsibility, first of all by praying about it: “Pray ye the Lord of the harvest” (Mt.9:38). It was another indirect appeal to them to prepare their minds for this work, rather like God’s indirect appeal to Isaiah: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (6:8). And Isaiah was quicker in response than the twelve were.

But, Jesus reminded, the harvest belongs to “the Lord of the harvest”. No attempt must be made to bring it in except on the initiative of the Heavenly Farmer. It must be He who sends forth (the Greek word is a strong one) workers into His field.

Disciples become apostles

It may be taken as fairly certain that the disciples did as Jesus bade them. They prayed about it (no doubt wondering whence God would raise up the right kind of men for onerous urgent work of this sort), only to find a day or two later that, much to their astonishment, they were the “labourers” appointed for God’s harvest in Jewry. Their Master called them aside and proceeded to commission them for their first efforts in this new and exhilarating and rather frightening work. Hitherto they had been disciples. Now, as he “began to send them forth by two and two” (Mk), they were to be apostles. It is possible that “began to send” is meant to imply that the twelve were not all sent and returned at the same time but that this was a continuous process spread over a period, with apostles constantly coming and going.

A not unimportant aspect of this undertaking was its value as training and experience for the twelve as well as the added impetus to the Lord’s ministry.

Now, just as Israel had six cities of refuge (Num. 35:6) and a central altar also for refuge {Ex. 21:13, 14), there was a message of mercy not only from Jesus but also from six pairs of preachers.

First, the Lord endowed his men with divine powers of healing like his own. Perhaps, in token of this, he laid his hands on them or maybe breathed on them, as on a later occasion (Jn. 20:22). This temporary gift of the Holy Spirit power was imparted, doubtless, because he could not be with them in person during this work. The more lasting endowment in later days was for the same reason (cp. Jn. 16:7). Matthew uses (not by accident, one may be sure) the very words with which already, twice over, he had described the miraculous powers of Jesus: “healing all manner of sickness and all manner of diseases among the people” (4:23; 9:35; 10:1). And evidently (Mk.6:13) he instructed them to associate their healings with an outward sign — the anointing with oil — which was in no way necessary in his miracles.

Detailed instructions

Then, systematically, came their instructions: who to preach to, what message they were to proclaim, the vindication of the message, their own personal equipment, how their needs would be met, how to face up to seeming failure. The details are both interesting ana full of instruction for modern preachers of the gospel.

They were to go in twos (Mk. 6:7), the number which has been called the Lord’s ideal committee! (Ecc. 4:9, 10; Ex. 4:16_; Josh. 2:1). This, in any case, seems to have been the natural grouping of the twelve. In the various lists, the names appear to fall readily enough into pairs.

They were to keep strictly to Jewish localities and to seek only Jewish audiences. At present their message was not for Gentiles, nor for Samaritans, even though they had known their Master relax his own rule in these respects. This restriction was a concession to Jewish prejudice. If, at this stage, equal or greater effort was made to win those whom the Jews deemed to be outsiders, there would soon be insurmountable walls of resentment and prejudice between the chosen race and the gospel which they needed as much as anybody in all the wide world, for, as Jesus was careful to emphasize, they were lost sheep (Mt.10:5, 6) every bit as much as the rest.

In this ministry of the gospel the prior rights of Israel were not to be gainsaid. Abraham was God’s Friend. “Shall I hide from Abraham that which I do?”, God had said (Gen. 18:17). And in Jesus’ day He would still have it so. There was little likelihood that the apostles, with Jewish pride almost as strong in them as in any of their fellows, would forget this principle. “Unto you first”, declared Peter emphatically to the crowd in Jerusalem, “God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you” (Acts. 3:26). To you first!

So also Paul and Barnabas: “It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you (Jews): but seeing ye put it from you… lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts. 13:46). The Lord’s word to the twelve remained an imperative to preachers of the gospel after his ascension. Paul never forgot to go first to the synagogue.

The Kingdom “at hand”

The theme of the preaching was almost taken for granted by Jesus. It was to be, of course, the kingdom of God. No definition here, for the apostles had known this message from boyhood; and the Jews also, to whom they were to preach, knew it, for was it not the theme of many an inspiring prophecy in their ancient Scriptures? But most in Israel assumed that their share in the wonders of the Messianic kingdom would come automatically just because they had the blood of Abraham in their veins. They had little idea that it was conditional on their own personal response to the good news of the kingdom. That opportunity was now. Faith in the message and a clear-cut personal decision of loyalty to the King now in their midst were of paramount importance. The later part of the Lord’s instructions would make this truth almost brutally clear.

But in what sense was the kingdom “at hand”, for in its fulness the kingdom has not come yet? At least four alternative explanations offer themselves:

a.	If Israel repented, the Messianic kingdom would very shortly be established (Elpis Israel p.301; Nazareth Revisited p.16).
b.	The King of the kingdom is soon coming in person, following up our mission (Lk. 10:1).
c.	The powers of the kingdom are being displayed before you (Lk. 10:9, 11).
d.	Become part of Christ’s New Israel, and you are thus citizens of God’s kingdom (Ex. 19:6; Rom. 14:17).

Healing

In the exercise of the gifts of healing committed to them the twelve (including Judas!) were to be as lavish and open-hearted as they had seen their Master to be. And the reason: “Freely ye have received, freely give”. Since the context here is specifically the use of healing

powers of the Spirit, this would seem to imply that at least some of the apostles had personally experienced the blessing of instantaneous cure by Jesus. Yet the nearest that is known to anything of this kind is the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law when she was struck down by a fever. But it is possible that Ps. 35:13, 14 is a prophecy of how special healing came to Judas!

Evidently the twelve were instructed to exercise their healing power through the symbolism of anointing with oil (though, rather remarkably, there is no instance of this practice being used by the Lord). Here is the simple solution of a difficulty in Jas.5:14: “Let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord”. The “church” referred to here was the church in Jerusalem; its elders were the apostles. Note the context — the forgiveness of sins.

No doubt Jesus meant his words about free and generous use of healing power in more than one sense, for it is very evident in many a place in the gospels that he saw his own miracles as acted parables of the spiritual regeneration which he sought to impart also.

No elaborate provision

There is also something symbolic about the instructions regarding the equipment of the preachers: “Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves.” The scrip was either a preacher’s collecting bag, or a kind of rucksack. Josephus mentions (Ant. 17.5.7) that the wearing of two coats was not uncommon. The Lord’s evident intention was that the preacher should not go in dependence on his own strength or resources, much less in an acquisitive spirit, but with faith in God’s providence and confidence in the power of Christ. And in this life of faith they were never let down (Lk. 22:35).

Mark’s version reads: “a staff only”, as though these disciples were to regard themselves as leaders of a new Exodus (Ex. 12:11). But a further detail in Luke unfolds a different idea: “and salute no man by the way” (10:4). When the Shunamite woman came to Elisha pleading for the restoration of her dead child, the prophet sent his servant: “Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: if thou meet any man, salute him not; and if any salute thee, answer him not again: and lay my staff upon the face of the child” (2 Kgs. 4:29). So the Lord’s men were to regard themselves as sent to raise the ‘dead’ — not by their own power, however, but with his

Some writers have made quibbling comparisons here between the gospels, relating to “contradiction” between Matthew’s and Luke’s detail: “no staff”, and Mark’s “a staff only”. The suggestion just made, that they were to see their mission as a conscious extension of that of Gehazi, may help. The staff each disciple took with him was not his own but his Master’s, the symbol of an authority greater than his own. And in the light of Mk. 6:9, “neither shoes” (Mt) probably meant “no spare shoes”. Some expositors suggest a distinction between “take… a staff only” (ie. the one you already have) (Mk) and “provide (ie. acquire)… nor yet staves”. (Mt).

Dependence on God, and not on their own resources, was made the more explicit by the emphatic mode of speech: “neither gold, nor silver, nor brass, in your purses”. Thus the Lord warned against the covetous spirit of Gehazi (2 Kgs. 5:20-23).

It is no easy problem to decide what, if any, should be the influence of such an instruction on the outlook and methods of a twentieth-century preacher of the gospel. There is little danger of over-literal application of this precept, any more than one might be disposed to insist on the use of a staff or the wearing of sandals. But it has to be confessed that the Lord’s preachers in this era have not been outstanding for their exemplification of even the spirit of the words. It is an aspect of the work where there is room for more faith and less of the hard scheming and planning more characteristic of modern business than of the early church.

Hospitality

Jesus added reassurance. God does not hold back the wages of his workers. ¹ He does not allow his faithful servants to starve: “the labourer is worthy of his hire”. These words, as they come in Lk. 10:7, are quoted by Paul in 1 Tim. 5:18, being introduced by the words: “For the scripture saith… “ Thus, even before Paul died, he could quote as a familiar Scripture a passage from Luke’s gospel. This implies very clearly not only that Luke’s gospel was in circulation before A.D. 66 but also that it was recognized as inspired Scripture alongside Deuteronomy which Paul quoted with it. The point is valuable as evidence of the early authority of the New Testament.

In another place (1 Cor. 9:3-15a) Paul expounds at length the principle that there is nothing amiss when preachers of the gospel receive salary or subsistence for their labours.

Filling out this promise of all needful subsistence for his preachers, Jesus went on to explain how God would provide. The apostles would soon find by enquiry who were the outstandingly godly people in any town or village they came to, and they were not to scruple about asking for food and lodging there. They could do this with untrammelled conscience, knowing that they brought with them a far greater blessing than the blessing they themselves sought.

The instructions to the Seventy added also this: “And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give” (Lk. 10:7; cp. Acts. 16:15; 17:5-7; 18:7). In later days, when the gospel went further afield, this counsel would help solve a very tricky problem for the Lord’s evangelists. Not infrequently they would find themselves in Gentile cities and with only Gentile hospitality open to them — this increasingly, as Jewish hostility to the gospel slammed doors in their faces. In such circumstances, Jewish preachers were to forget their Jewishness and live with Gentiles as Gentiles (cp. 1 Cor. 10:27).

But they were not to go “from house to house”. Jesus knew human nature well enough to foresee that no little social mischief might follow from activities of such a nature. Instead, then, “there abide till ye go thence”. By the end of the 1st century abuses made nonsense of this commandment: “If he stay three days, he is a false prophet” (The Teaching of the Twelve, an uncanonical writing).

There should be a formal invocation of God’s blessing on the home offering hospitality: “When ye come into an house, salute it” (Mt) saying, “Peace be to this house” (Lk). It needs to be recognized that in the vast majority of places where this word “Peace” is used in Scripture, it does not mean absence of strife but “peace with God” (ch. 50). Thus the greeting “Shalom” is a most meaningful benediction, and no trite formality: “And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it (Num. 6:23, 26, 27b): if not, it shall turn to you again” (Lk). This can only mean that, just as the bringing of the ark of the covenant imparted perceptible blessing to the house of Obed-Edom (2 Sam. 6:11), so also warm hospitality to those carrying the gospel message was bound to bring the grace of God upon the home that offered it.

This is a principle which must be just as valid today, though it is probably no exaggeration to say that it is rarely thought of in this age. But, then, what servant of the Lord today thinks to invoke a specific blessing from God on the home that offers shelter in Christ’s name? There is teaching here which has, in more ways than one, suffered grievous neglect.

Sullen reception

Jesus continued his commission in a different strain: “If the house be not worthy, let your peace return to you” (Mt)—but, let it be emphasized, without personal bitterness or resentment. Again, behind these words lies a reality of experience. This is no empty platitude. The form of the verb here seems to point to an attitude of mind in one who finds that he is no longer welcome. Then without resentment or bitterness, but with his “peace” returning to him (Ps. 35:13), the preacher is to go elsewhere.

Where, however, there was open refusal to hear the gospel, then: “Go your ways out into the streets, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you” (Lk cp. Lam. 2:7). Some open act of reprobation was not only permissible but a solemn duty, as Jesus was to show in his apostrophe against Chorazin and Bethsaida (Lk. 10:13-15). Apparently, at Antioch in Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas did this in a very literal sense: “They shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium. And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Spirit” (Acts. 13:51) — that is, their peace returned to them again.

This act of reprehension had a mordant symbolic meaning behind it. The Law of Moses required that when a house was leprous, the very dust of it must be scraped off and shaken off without the city in an unclean place (Lev. 14:40, 41). Thus the preacher whose message was rejected was to declare openly the unclean and incurable condition of those who despised the word concerning Christ. “Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you”.

In intensely ominous words Jesus underlined the dire tragedy of such rejection of the Good News: “Verily I say unto you (the disciples), it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city”. Here again, as in so many places, Jesus was condensing the teaching of the prophets. Isaiah had warned that it was only the existence of a faithful remnant which had saved the “men of Sodom” and the “people of Gomorrah” dwelling in Jerusalem. In the time of the decay of the kingdom, Ezekiel and Jeremiah had sought in vain for a man of rightousness to stand in the breach, that God should not destroy the Land, and had found none (Ez. 22:30; Jer. 5:1). So, “the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment” (Lam. 4:6). The just judgment of God will operate in like fashion in the last day, warned Jesus, against men who scorn the message of those bringing the gospel of peace. And if rejection of the gospel after a brief encounter with a learner-preacher brings a judgement comparable to Sodom’s, what of those who obstinately resist the Truth of Christ for half a life-time?

The sombre note injected here into the apostolic commission was doubtless an element in the Lord’s effort to convince the twelve of the greatness of the work now entrusted to them. They were not going as proselytizers, they were not just preachers, they were bearers of a message of Life. A gracious God was using them, untutored Galileans that they were, as His ministers of redemption. Perhaps also these solemn warnings expressed the Lord’s forebodings that the present wave of popularity would recede. It was not possible that a nation which had flouted the message of the prophets would be capable of any radically different attitude to the claims of the Son of God.

Notes: Mt. 9:35 – 10:15

35.	Sickness; s.w. Dt. 7:15. Such deliverance a promised blessing for faithfulness.
1.	Gave them authority etc. and this applied equally to Judas!
5.	Not to the Gentiles — with the implication: Not yet, but later. Cp.the implication in 5:17 that in time the Law would pass away.
6.	Lost sheep. Gk. text implies: they have chosen to get lost. Yet still Jesus is compassionatel
11.	Enquire — who is worthy. Jesus himself did not do this when he came to Jericho. But the fact of Zaccheus in a fig tree told him all that he needed to know.
12.	When ye come into an house. Exp. Gk. Test, suggests not just for hospitality but for preaching; in other words, a home mission; cp. Lk. 10:4.
13.	Not worthy. The Gk. is rather sardonic here.
14.	Not receive you, nor hear. Two inseparable attitudes. Even a fine harvest (9:38) may have thistles in it.
	Shake off the dust. Alternatively, is the figure that of a traveller removing irritating grit from between foot and sandal?
15.	The day of judgment; Lk. 10:12: “in that day”. Cp. Mt. 7:22; 1 Cor. 3:13; 1 Th. 5:4; 2 Tim. 1:12, 18; 4:8.

Mk.6:6-13

7.	Power over unclean spirits is paralleled in Lk.10:9 by “heal the sick”.
9.	Sandals; ie. not shoes, such as the more prosperous might wear.

Lk. 10:1-12

4.	Salute no man. Or, was the Lord alluding to 1 Kgs. 13:9, 16 and its outcome?

Seven times in the synoptic gospels, the spring and source of the miracles of Jesus is said to lie in his compassion. It was this which impelled him to extend to sufferers the wonderful divine help which he had the power to give.

In six out of the seven instances, either he pitied the wretched condition of stricken people brought to him or else he felt impelled to bring help to those afflicted by hard circumstance. It is worthwhile to list these, noting the special factors in each case.

1.	There was the leper who followed Jesus into the house, and kneeling before him, shewed his sorry plight, asking in faith for healing. Jesus responded immediately, showing his deep sympathy by the additional and quite a unnecessary action of touching the man’s disfiguring defilement (Mk. 1:41).
2.	Next was the ineffable comfort given to the widow of Nain when her only son was given back to her. “Weep not”, said Jesus, making a clearly implied promise that she should soon have grounds for joy and praise in place of mourning (Lk. 7:13). In the next minute that sorrowful lonely figure was transfigured with a gladness she would not have thought possible.
3.	The two miracles of feeding the multitude are both singled out as examples of the visible compassion of Jesus for the crowd in its distress. Mt. 14:14 tells how, when he crossed the Lake with the twelve, to get them a way to peace and quiet, vast numbers of people followed them round the shore, many even labouring under great difficulties to bring their sick and suffering friends to Jesus. Consequently when he came ashore from the boat, already there were many awaiting him, hoping pathetically that he would use his wonderful powers for their benefit. Without any of the vexation which might well have been warranted, Jesus responded to their prayers and gave the help they craved.
4.	Some time later it was the Lord’s tender feeling for a tired and hungry multitude which led to the feeding of the four thousand: “I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat. I do not wish to send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way” (Mt.15:32). His sympathetic imagination saw not only their present need but also their hardship and misery before they got back to their homes. There was nothing for it but to provide food in large quantity, and at once. And this Jesus did in a way that amazed them all.
5.	The next example followed immediately after the Transfiguration. At first it seemed that Jesus was showing himself to be anything but compassionate. When told about the epileptic boy whom the apostles had failed to heal, he kept the poor distraught father there answering questions whilst the boy rolled on the ground in a violent fit. At last the tortured parent burst out with an appeal there was no thrusting aside: “If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us” (Mk. 9:22). Both father and son were suffering terribly, in different ways. It was an appeal beyond the power of Jesus to resist, even had he in wished to do so. The poor man’s honesty iH about his present mixed-up state of doubt f’i and faith made further delay out of question. As the attack left the boy unconscious and apparently dead, Jesus lifted him up and gave him back, perfectly well, to his father.
6.	Last in this group is the healing of blind Bartimaeus and his blind friend. Their piteous cries as Jesus passed on his way were not to be gainsaid. So, called to the Lord, they told their story, and their faith. Full of pity for their plight, Jesus did what they asked, touching their eyes so that they might know for sure that their healing came from him (Mt. 20:34).
7.	The Lord’s enemies, quick to note how strong his sense of pity for sufferers was, actually traded on it in such a way as to apply a kind of spiritual blackmail-on a sabbath. They deliberately planted in front of him a man bloated with dropsy (Lk.l4:l,2). Jesus’ solution to such a challenging situation was masterly. All the foregoing examples have to do with the physical distress or hardship of those on whom Jesus took pity. There was in him a tenderhearted appreciation of the plight of these afflicted people which made it impossible for him to turn a deaf ear to their pleas for help or to move heedless away from the sight of their suffering.
8.	The remaining example, like one of those already listed, comes in the story of the feeding of the five thousand, but it concerns the spiritual need of the people: “Many ran afoot thither out of all cities, and out went them, and came together unto him. And Jesus when he came out (from the boat) saw much people, and was moved with compassion towards them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things” (Mk. 6:33, 34). The answer to this need was not more miraculous healing, but instruction. And although Jesus had crossed the lake hoping for rest and relaxation for himself and the twelve, his compassion for hungry sheep looking up unfed was a more insistent imperative. Their need was greater than his own.
9.	Like Father, like Son. This overmastering pity of Jesus for men in need was not to be excluded from his parables, where in two instances out of three it is the dominant characteristic of Almighty God forgiving helpless men their sin and bringing them freely and graciously into His favour. There is the parable of the unmerciful servant who pleaded quite impossibly: “Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all”. The response was immediate, and far surpassing even the most abnormal standards of human mercy: “The lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt” (Mt. 18:26, 27). The bad reaction of this fortunate man was as evil as it could have been. It serves, however, to throw into relief the loveliness of the loving-kindness shown to him. It spotlights the compassion of God.
10.	Similarly, in the parable of the prodigal son, a typical human father would have said: ‘He is an ingrate and a waster, a selfish sinful fool. He is my son no longer’. Instead: “when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Lk. 15:20). It is the same irrepressible divine love forthe undeserving.
11.	In another equally eloquent parable the same story is told. The man who fell among thieves was left helpless and hopeless. Then “a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him” (Lk. 10:33). A superb selfless rescue operation followed. The spring and motive power of it all was .. this surge of compassion for one in dire “ need. Thus the key phrase sums up all that Jesus, the Samaritan Saviour, did throughout his ministry and in the climactic suffering to which it led. All his preaching and teaching, all his works of healing, all his patience and personal example, and all that he endured in pain, torment and shame at Golgotha sprang from a deep dominant feeling of pity for helpless men who must be helped. Must!

All three synoptic gospels record an occasion when Jesus returned to his home town along with his disciples (Mk), and preached in the synagogue there. But there is considerable disagreement as to whether Matthew and Mark are describing the same incident as Luke. There are certain striking similarities-his teaching in the synagogue, the astonishment of the people, their allusions to Jesus as being well-known among them, the Lord’s sardonic reference to a prophet without honour among his own folk, and their ultimate rejection of him. Normally these would be adequate to justify equating the three records. But there is a chronological difficulty. Matthew and Mark set this incident well on in the ministry — in the middle year-whilst Luke has it as the first detailed incident offer the temptation. Even Matthew and Mark are at variance in their placing of this Nazareth incident.

Two considerations lead to the conclusion that Mark’s order of events is to be followed: 1. Even in Luke 4 there is an indication that there had been considerable activity earlier in Capernaum: “Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country” (v. 23). The phrase “as his custom was” (v. 16) confirms this. 2. There is evidence that both Matthew and Luke sometimes abandon chronological order for the sake of a different emphasis in line with the aim and purpose of their gospel. Matthew assembles his material according to topic. Luke also rearranges incidents, though it is not always easy to see with what intention. Perhaps he set this at the very beginning of his account of the ministry because he intended it to be read as a typical sample of the reaction of the nation to the preaching of Jesus, or maybe to explain why Jesus moved his centre of operations to Capernaum (see also Study 27).

There was not a little interest in the town when it was known that Jesus the carpenter was back home and that he was to take the synagogue service on the ensuing Sabbath. “As his custom was” may describe his attendance at the synagogue, for through a period of eighteen years he had never been out of his place there; or it may refer more specifically to his “standing up to read” (though this happens to be the only place in all the Bible where Jesus is spoken of as reading). More likely, the expression alludes to the normal pattern of his preaching at this time in his ministry-a public message delivered by invitation of the ruler of the synagogue.

A gracious Scripture

“There was delivered unto him the roll of the prophet Isaiah”. The Greek word here implies that this followed the routine reading from the Torah. And he found and read the gracious prophecy in chapter 61, because that was appointed for that particular sabbath according to the standard synagogue lectionary of the time- in which case this was the third Sabbath before the Feast of Tabernacles.

As he concluded the Scripture portion and returned the scroll to the chazzan, the entire congregation became the more expectant when

he made to occupy the preacher’s seat: “the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him”. Their ears also were eager to catch every word when he startled them with his exordium: “Today is this scripture fulfilled in your ears”.

It seems very likely that at this point he launched into a detailed exposition of what Isaiah 61 was about. His reading of the passage would be from the Hebrew text, with a translation in Greek or Aramaic improvised verse by verse or when it was concluded. The version given by Luke follows the LXX text verbatim nearly all the way, but has a significant addition: “to set at liberty them that are bruised”, culled from Isaiah 58:6. Here is a plain hint that the discourse of Jesus did not stick solely to the original passage. However, this was his main theme. It is worth careful investigation.

Jubilee

The historical setting of Isaiah 61 is one of outstanding interest. The only national observance of the Year of Jubilee recorded in the Old Testament is that which was appointed by God as a sign to Hezekiah of divine deliverance from the Assyrians: “Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof” (2 Kgs. 19:29). More than this, it was to be a sign of the release and return of the 200,000 captives Sennacherib had carried away from the cities of Judah: “And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall yet again take root downward, and bear fruit upward”.

It was to this that Isaiah alluded, by the Spirit of the Lord which was upon him: “liberty to the captives, the opening of the prison to them that are bound… the acceptable year of the Lord… that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified. And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations… For your shame ye shall have double (blessing)… in their land they shall possess double (harvest)” – according to the promise in Leviticus 25:20,21.

Besides all this, Jubilee was a time when Jewish bond-servants were released from service by their fellow-Jews. And since this time of blessedness came in at the Jewish New Year, it was right and proper that in later generations the synagogue lectionary should appropriate this Scripture for one of the sabbaths just before the Day of Atonement. Hence also the allusion made by Jesus to Isaiah 58, the out-standing prophetic Scripture about the Day of Atonement: “to let the oppressed go free”.

Here, then, was a wonderful symbolic prophecy of God releasing His people from the bondage of sin-forgiving their trespasses, their debts, and at the same time requiring that they each forgive one another the debts owing among themselves.

In the phrase “deliverance (or release) to the captives”, that key-word is what the LXX Version used repeatedly for the Year of Jubilee, in Leviticus 25: 28-33. It is also the usual New Testament word for “forgiveness of sins”.

The loveliness of this message and of the fine prophetic phrases which expressed it were, no doubt, laid before the people that day with a charm and power such as they had never known: “good tidings to the meek … binding up the broken hearted … comfort for all that mourn … beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness”. Lovely words to proclaim a lovely theme! Weddings for funerals, comfort and rejoicing instead of hardship and struggle.

There are those who would have it that Jesus stopped where he did in the reading of the Scripture because, regarding “the day of vengeance of our God”, it was inappropriate to say “this day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears”, inasmuch as this part of the divine purpose belonged to some forty (or two thousand) years later.

On the other hand, an interruption, which splits a continuous prophecy in two parts, and puts a long time gap between the two at a point where there is no sign of a gap, can hardly be regarded as satisfactory. If this can happen with one prophecy it can happen with others, and the time of reference of any given Old Testament Scripture is reduced to guess-work or to the uninspired insight of any self-confident interpreter (and that is only another way of saying the same thing).

The better approach, already suggested, is illustrated by the New Testament use of Psalm 2. In Acts 4:25-27 that prophecy is given specific reference to the first century. In Revelation 19:15 and 2:27 it is applied to the future age of the kingdom of God. The one is a prototype of the other.

So also with Isaiah 61. The presence of Jesus, endowed with the powers of the Kingdom, gave to the men of Nazareth a wonderful oportuniry to experience a fulfilment of that gracious symbolic prophecy, but its true and greater outworking is reserved for the time when Messiah’s kingdom comes in its fulness.

“This day”

As it turned out, Nazareth would have none of him, so “the day of vengeance of our God”, which Luke does not quote, but which was almost certainly read by Jesus along with all the rest, became the most relevant part of the whole prophecy for these rejectors of the Son of God.

“This day”, Jesus insisted, “is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears”. The earlier portion of the Law assigned for that Sabbath was Deuteronomy 29:9 to 30:20. It included this repeated exhortation: “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God … But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, I denounce unto you this day that ye shall surely perish …1 call heaven and earth to witness against thee this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live”. Since nowhere else in the gospels is Jesus said to use this emphatic expression: “this day”, it may surely be taken that his discourse echoed Moses as well as Isaiah the prophet.

The telling exposition of this alluring message of salvation, anciently written in Law and Prophet, went home, so that “all bare witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth” (Ps. 45:2). There is a delightful double meaning about Luke’s phrase here. For whilst “grace” is one of the New Testament’s commonest synonyms for “the forgiveness of sins”, it is also used idiomatically in many a place for the gift of the Holy Spirit. In this sense it is apt commentary on the Scripture Jesus read: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor…”

Bad reaction

Mark’s record describes how the people were utterly flabbergasted by the power of what they heard: “Whence hath this man these things?” Their minds flew to reports of amazing miracles done down by the lake-side: “What wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?”

But the wave of astonishment which swept through the congregation as the message made its impact very soon gave way to a very different sentiment (Lk. 4:22,28,29). After all, was not this Jesus raised there in their village? Many of them had known this son of Joseph for years. Some of those present had gone to school with him. They had seen him in that synagogue hundreds of times. There was hardly a house in the place which did not own a chair or table, a yoke or a plough, made by him. Then by what right did one so ordinary presume to come among them as though with all the authority of an Isaiah or a Moses?

“Is not this Joseph’s son? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?” Those who used that last expression doubtless had long memories and were insinuating an unworthy innuendo about his birth. And since he was only a carpenter and not college-trained, what right had he to assume to himself the authority of interpreting Scripture as though he were a rabbi?

They had forgotten Zechariah’s prophecy of a “craftsman” called Jesus-Joshua who would build the temple of the Lord (6:11-13). All they could harp on in their small-minded way was that this Jesus was an ordinary villager like themselves. Then why should he set himself up as superior to any of them? “Is he not the brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and his sisters, are they not all with us?” Most of the family had joined the move to Capernaum, but evidently the three half-sisters of Jesus (1 Sam. 2:5) had married and settled down in Nazareth, and were present in the synagogue at that very moment-or does the Greek expression in Mk. 6:3 imply: “they agree with us”?

Jesus picked up their murmuring: “Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself”. This curt proverb is usually taken as equivalent to our: “Charity begins at home”-an interpretation suggested by the ensuing complaint: “Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do here in thy country”. But “Heal thyself” more likely has a different point, a more personal barb: “You claim to be Messiah? Then show in yourself some of Messiah’s glory. We see nothing more in you than an ordinary member of an ordinary Nazareth family”. It was the temptation he had faced in the wilderness all over again-the temptation to appeal to the people through sensational superhuman achievements which would capture the crowd.

Or, did their proverb have a different barb?: ‘Jesus, you have a poor reputation here in Nazareth, for we hear of you using your powers to help Gentiles and the unclean! – the son of one of Herod’s noblemen; the servant of a Roman centurion; a woman from Caesarea; a demoniac living in the tombs; blind men, outsiders. Now is the time to mend your reputation with miracles amongst your own folk’. In answer to which Jesus talked of miraculous help brought to an outsider and to a Gentile by the great prophets Elijah and Elisha.

Reasoning calmly and coolly, Jesus laid before them the natural prejudices against him now operating in their minds: “A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country (Nazareth), and among his own kin (his sisters living there), and in his own house (the rest of the family in Capernaum)”.

Jeremiah’s experience with the men of his own home was an acted prophecy of what was to befall Jesus in the place where he grew up: “Even thy brethren and the house of thy father, even they have dealt treacherously with thee; even they have cried aloud after thee” (12:6); “the men of Anathoth seek thy life saying, Prophesy not in the name of the Lord, that thou die not by our hand” (11:21).

The widow of Zarephath

Demeaning himself, Jesus reasoned that the pattern of his own ministry was precisely that of other prophets of the Lord, so he was not surprised to be accorded similar treatment. “Of a truth I say unto you, There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah ... but unto none of them was Elijah sent, save unto Serepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow”. The shape of this sentence seems to imply that the widow was a woman of Israel who, presumably, had married away from the faith of her fathers, or had been unfaithful to her true husband. 1 Kings 17:18 combined with Numbers 5:15 might suggest the latter conclusion. Yet she, of all the sufferers in Israel, was blessed throughout that famine with an inexhaustible supply of food. The explanation lies, of course, in the remarkable faith which led her to prepare the last vestiges of her food supply for Elijah, believing implicitly his assurance that “the barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail”. Faith in the man of God was the redeeming virtue then, and so also in Nazareth now.

Naaman

To make his point yet more clear, Jesus went on to cite another extreme example: “There were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, but none of them was cleansed save Naaman the Syrian”. It was faith which had come by hearing, which had brought Naaman, believing, to the home of Elisha. And although at first faith staggered at the commandment: “Go, and wash in Jordan seven

times”, he did as he was bidden, believing in the power of the God of Israel, and at the seventh dipping, not before, “his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child”.

The gist of that argument, that these people of Nazareth who should have been closest and most loyal to him, were right now showing themselves to be vastly worse than Gentiles and outsiders, was immediately clear to all in that synagogue. Roused to fury, they rushed on Jesus and dragged him violently out. Quite near, at the back of the town, was a rock face with a forty foot drop. They hustled Jesus out there with the savage intention of throwing him over the edge. The lynching could then be completed by hurling rocks on him from above. This, perhaps, in perverted obedience to a commandment in their Law (Dt. 13:6-10). Or were they saying: ‘He seems to love Gentiles. Then suppose we treat him as our forefathers treated their Gentile neighbours!’ – for the word translated “cast him down headlong” comes in only one other place, describing one of the most barbarous acts in all Israel’s history (2 Chr. 25:12).

Escape

However, this savage intention came to nothing. He escaped out of their grasp, and got away.

Perhaps they chose this unusual form of violent action as a sardonic response to part of the Lord’s own discourse. As already mentioned, the words he had used: “to set at liberty them that are bruised”, were quoted from a prophetic commentary on the Day of Atonement. Presumably, then, this had been the theme of part of the Lord’s exposition to them. On that great day in the Jewish year, one of two goats became the nation’s sin-offering, whilst the other was led off into the wilderness, traditionally to be pushed over a precipice. All this was an acted parable. It laid before Israel, as they remembered their sins at the sanctuary of the Lord, the alternatives of being reconciled to God through the atoning blood of an appointed sin-offering, or of being symbolically thrust out from God’s presence to suffer in a waste howling wilderness.

It may be surmised that in his sermon that day Jesus had similarly put before the congregation in Nazareth the stark alternatives for the nation of enjoying the gracious blessings of a Messianic Jubilee or “the day of vengeance of our God”, the fate of the goat that was sent away to be destroyed.

These very alternatives had been put with almost brutal plainness in their other Bible reading that day: “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil… therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live” (Dt. 30:15, 19).

Now, in high indignation that so ordinary a person as Jesus the carpenter should presume to address them with such assumed divine authority, they thought to turn the tables of his discourse on himself, treating him like the wretched goat destroyed on the Day of Atonement.

Such was Nazareth where Jesus lived for thirty years. There is no mention of the place in the Old Testament or in the Apocrypha or in the Talmud or in the histories of Josephus. Deservedly its name does not exist in history, except as the place which raised Jesus and rejected him.

The escape of Jesus from these violent men has provoked a vast amount of speculation. Says one: It was through sheer force of personality that he made them let him go. To another it was an exercise of the divine power that was in him (though does not the principle behind the first temptation rebut such a conclusion?). Another suggests that “the eyes of the people were holden”, whatever that means. “Perhaps old memories softened them”, says another.

No one seems to have thought of the matter-of-fact possibility that the twelve, rallied by a fiercely loyal Peter, were ready to rescue their Leader by a sudden onslaught when the men of Nazareth let go their hold on Jesus rather than face the incalculable violence of a body of determined men. The Bible’s explanation is, of course: “He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up”. But there is nothing unreasonable in seeing the angels at work through the agency of the apostles, as just suggested.

Abandoned

So Nazareth saw Jesus for the last time, until it is ready to say: “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”. Matthew concludes his account in a way that could be expected^ “And he could do there no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them”. No wonder he could do so little good there if this was the attitude of the people. Probably these few who were healed were neighbours of one of his sisters whilst Jesus was staying at the house.

The last sorry commentary on Nazareth is that as he went away Jesus “marvelled because of their unbelief”. These people whom he knew through and through left him altogether amazed at their obdurate spirit. The only other time that the gospels tell of Jesus marvelling is when he was moved to audible astonishment by the far-reaching faith of the Roman centurion: “I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word and my servant shall be healed… And Jesus marvelled at him” (Luke 7:6-9). What a contrast!

And what a rebuff to Jesus at the very height of his popularity! He had come unto his own, and his own received him.not (Jn. 1:11). The cold hard shock of this expereince was to be of value to him in the near future when the tide turned with dramatic suddenness.

Notes: Lk.4:l 4-30

14.	The power of the Spirit looks back to v. 1, and also forward to v. 15, 18.
15.	He taught in their synagogues. The pronoun is specially emphatic, perhaps to point a contrast with John the Baptist.
	Glorified of all, as in v. 20, 22. But then comes the stark contrast: v. 28, 29.
16.	Some items in Lk., like this section, are chronologically out of place: 1:66, 80; 3:20; 11:24 ff; 11:42 ff(?); 13:34, 35; 19:41, 37; 21:37, 38(?); 22:21-23, 24-27 (Study 1).
	Brought up. Literally: fed. At Is. 61:1, one of the targums reads: “The Spirit of prophecy hath brought me up”.
	His custom; s.w. Num. 24:1.
16.	To read. Note the implications behind Ps. 40:7; Dt. 17:19. And only once is Jesus expressly said to have written: Jn. 8:6.
17.	The reading from the Law this day, according to the synagogue lectionary, was Dt. 29:9 – 30:20. where note (at 30:19): “that thou and thy seed may live”; cp. v. 26: the widow and her son saved from famine and death.
18.	The Spirit of the Lord is upon me: 3:22; v. 14, 22. The quote, as given here, is LXX slightly modified.
	Heal the broken-hearted. Omitted from modern texts, but certainly there in the Hebrew and LXX. It must have been there (as in Dead Sea scrolls) in the synagogue copy.
	Recovering of sight to the blind. This authenticates the equally valid LXX reading. The Hebrew phrase in 61:1 is ambiguous.
19.	The acceptable year of the Lord (s.w. in v. 24). From this phrase men like Origen and Clement of Alexandria deduced that the Lord’s ministry lasted only one year. Slipshod Bible study!
	B.C. 701 (circa) was a Jubilee. Therefore, working with a 49-year cycle, A.D.27-28 was not. The next Jubilee still to come will be A. D. 1995approx.
20.	Gave it again to the minister. ls. 29:11(?)
21.	Began to say. Then is this report in Lk. 4 only the beginning of what Jesus had to say to them?
	Today. Used emphatically by Jesus only in 23:43.
22.	Gracious words. Literally: words of grace. Is the meaning here (a) forgiveness? as in Rom. 3:24; 5:17 ,20, 21; 6:1; Eph. 1:6, 7; 2:5, 7, 8; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; (b) a gift of the Holy Spirit? (v. 18) as in Rom. 12:3, 6; 1 Cor. 1:4, 7; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 4:7; 1 Pet. 4:10; Heb. 10:29. Here cp. Ps. 45:2; Mk. 6:2.
	Joseph’s son. Contrary to what is commonly assumed, Joseph was still alive; Jn. 6:42. In Mk. the question: “Whence?” might mean: This wisdom is surely not from Joseph or from Mary. Of course Jesus learned craftmanship from his “father”, the carpenter, but also from his Father: Am. 9:6; Ps. 104:3; Job 38:5-7; Pr. 9:1.
23.	Physician, heal thyself! Later they said just this: Lk. 23:35. And he did what they said: Heb. 13:20.
24.	No prophet is accepted in his own country. Answering a proverb with a proverb. Cp. 1 Sam. 10:12. See also Mk. 3:21; Jn. 7:3-5.
25.	In the days of Elias. He too was “Joseph’s son” (of the tribe of Manasseh).
	Three years and six months. This is not precisely intimated in 1 Kgs. (18:1 is hardly exact enough). Then did Jesus infer this from the “time, times, and a half” of Daniel, arguing back from the literal to the type?
27.	The two examples are fairly closely paralleled by Mk. 7:24 ff and Jn. 4:46 ff
28.	All. Note the force of this repeated “all”; v. 20, 22.
30.	Went his way. “Nazareth” is usually taken to mean Branch-town. But it may also mean Preservation (s.w. ls. 49:8). There is still the problem presented by Jn. 8:59; 10:39.

The unwelcoming excitement created by the episode of the Gadarene swine constrained Jesus and his party to return across the lake. By this time that fishing boat was well known all round Galilee as the travelling headquarters of Jesus of Nazareth. So, as once again they neared Capernaum-“his own city” (Mt)-everyone knew already that Jesus was back again. A great crowd (Mk.) mustered as the ship drew to shore, all waiting to see Jesus, all welcoming their Galilean prophet (Lk.). This short period of a few weeks was the climax of the Lord’s fame and popularity. A few months later he was to be heard uttering the most solemn and complete reprobation of Capernaum and its sister cities that ever were spoken of any place by a man of God (Lk. 10:13ff).

At present all were eager to hear and even more eager to see, for more than anything it was the marvels Jesus wrought which brought the crowds together. Once again the beach was his auditorium. There the crowd pressed all round him. Mark’s expression almost warrants the translation: “they were on top of him”.

Jairus in distress

As he discoursed to them on the lakeside there came an interruption. According to the best texts, all three gospels mark this with a note of special surprise: “Behold!”. It was the approach of Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue, which cut short the Lord’s discourse. Here was a man of considerable prestige and authority among the local Jews. It was his responsibility to arrange for the Bible reading and appropriate instruction thereon in the synagogue services. Probably, also, he was the headmaster in the school attached to the synagogue.

It seems likely that Jairus had already had close contact with Jesus. It may well have been he who, on more occasions than one, had authorised Jesus to take the service in the Capernaum synagogue. So it is reasonable to imagine him witnessing the healing of the paralytic man let down through the roof (Mk. 2:1ff). Very probably he was one of the elders of the Jews who sought the help of Jesus on behalf of the dying servant of the Roman centurion (Lk. 7:2-5). And it would be surprising if he had not heard the full story of the healing of the Capernaum nobleman’s son, and indeed of many another miracle Jesus had performed in that locality.

This man came now to Jesus through the crowd. With intense anxiety written on his face he knelt before him and poured out the story of his great need. His only daughter (cp. Lk. 7:12; 9:38), a girl of twelve, had become grievously ill. Now it was all too evident that she was dying (Lk). In deep anguish he prostrated himself at the feet of Jesus, telling again and again (Mk.) in broken sentences charged with sorrow that she was near her end (Mk). Matthew’s report probably means: “Just now we thought her dead”. It says much for the confidence Jairus had in Jesus, and it is a measure of the extreme hopelessness of the poor child’s plight, that her father could tear himself from her bedside to go in search of the only aid that could snatch the sufferer from the cold hands of death.

The agonizing plea for help would have brought some sort of sympathetic response from the hardest heart. When Jairus intensified his prayer for help into an imperative: “Come, and lay thine hands upon her, and she shall live” (Mt.), it was beyond the power of this marvelously compassionate Jesus to do other than comply at once.

So he moved off with Jairus at his side. His close disciples came also. And so too did the crowd. Full of eager anticipation they pressed and pushed, heedless of the hindrance and discomfort they caused him. Thus quite effectively they reduced Jesus’ progress to a mere fraction of his normal walking speed. It all served to intensify the anxiety and frustration of Jairus.

Twelve years without healing

Before the interruption there had been one in the crowd who had been steadily and stealthily edging herself through the throng with set purpose to get close to Jesus. But the denseness of the multitude had made achievement of her objective almost impossible. Now that they were all on the move there was better opportunity, but even so it was no easy task. But she was set on getting within arm’s reach of Jesus.

Poor soul! She was only a young woman (Mt.), yet already for years life had been made miserable by an incurable internal haemorrhage. She, who should have been full of energy and vigour, felt and looked continually pale and listless. More than this, her wretched disability rendered her permanently unclean (Lev. 15:25). It effectively shut her out of society. It left her with little of present enjoyment in life and with no prospect of betterment for the future.

In desperation and eagerness for relief she had gone hopefully from one doctor to another, and these after their kind had “healed the hurt of the daughter of God’s people lightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there was no peace.” Through twelve long years that poor woman had persevered in her search for health, only to “suffer many things of many physicians’ (Mk.).

In those days medical diagnosis was mostly ignorance and guesswork, and the doctor’s pharmacopoeia was a veritable chamber of horrors. One of the more attractive prescriptions for this complaint was “Persian onions stewed in wine”. Other remedies were just unprintable.

No wonder, then, that this pathetic search for health left her “not one thing better, but rather she grew worse”. Mark’s phrase here is eloquent of disappointed expectations. Now, with health in irreparable ruin, she found herself reduced to proverry by the exactions of the sharks and mountebanks who had traded on her plight with their bogus claims and pretentious ignorance.

Faith and resolution

Hearing the almost unbelievable reports about the marvels wrought by Jesus of Nazareth, she pondered and believed. Her faith came by hearing, and hearing by the spoken word (Rom. 10:17) about the Son of God. Here surely was her last and best opportunity of restoration to normal health.

But how was she to go about it? Doubts and difficulties crowded in. It would be almost impossible to get a private interview with the Teacher. And if she did, what guarantee was there that Jesus would agree to heal her? In any case it would mean facing the acute embarrassment of telling him frankly all about her disability. And if she were to see him in the presence of the multitude or of his own disciples it would be even worse to have to tell all the details of her suffering. It might even come about that she would be severely reproved for taking her uncleanness amongst all these other people.

Pondering her problem, her wits sharpened by necessity and desperation, she decided that the only thing was to seek and receive her healing without Jesus even being aware of it. She thought over all that she had heard concerning his astonishing miracles-how he spoke a word and lame people walked, how he touched sightless eyes and they saw, how he laid a gentle hand on repulsive leprosy and the flesh came whole and firm and healthy under his fingers. Especially she thought on that expression so often on his lips: “Thy faith hath saved thee”-and what he meant was faith in himself. Then she would show her faith in her own special way. It would bring her healing-of this she was convinced-and yet she would be saved the acute embarrassment which an open appeal to Jesus would make inevitable: “If, if I also may touch his clothes, I shall be whole” (Mk.). What personal contact with Jesus had brought to others it would surely bring to her also.

So as the crowd round Jesus moved on slowly and excitedly, she summoned all her resolution and her flagging energies to edge surreptitiously closer to him without too much of the pushing or shoving which would bring notice and resentment on herself. At last Jesus was within reach. So, dropping to her knees-a risky device, this, in that dense heedless crowd—she put out a hand between the people who were immediately behind Jesus, and secured a momentary but fervent grip on the blue cord with which his robe was edged.

Healing and confession

It would have been so much easier to reach out and touch his shoulder or to get effective contact with his sleeve. Then why this awkward manoeuvre to grasp the border of his robe? The context in Numbers 15:38-41 explains. Fringes or tassels of blue (the colour of heaven; Ex. 24:10) were to be a constant reminder to godly Jews of their duty to keep the commandments which had come to them from heaven. So it is to be inferred that this poor sufferer was set on showing her total dependence on the virtue of Christ in his complete fulfilment of all that God commanded. Her healing lay in this unique fact and in her faith that only thus can stricken sinners be healed.

Accordingly, in that moment of contact her faith had its reward. There was immediate perceptible change in herself. She could feel (Mk: she knew) in her own body a sudden transformation to normality, so that she was ready to cry out with joy and thankfulness. A year later Roman soldiers were to find contact with the garments of Jesus having a like influence on themselves (Mt. 27:35, 54).

But in that same moment Jesus stopped dead, and speaking up above the buzz of the crowd, he asked: “Who touched my garment?” Those round about looked their surprise. The question was repeated (Mk.), only to elicit denials from all within reach. In her desperate fear of exposure the woman herself joined in the general disclaimer (Lk.), whilst Peter, as uninhibited as ever, spoke what was in everybody’s mind: “Thou seest the multitude thronging thee and sayest thou, Who touched me?” But Jesus persisted, turning round (Mk.) and scrutinizing the face of every woman (Mk.) within a few yards. “Someone did touch me”, he repeated, “for I perceived that power had gone forth from me” (Lk.).

Wild panicky thoughts raced through the woman’s mind. She had her healing, but how could she go against the repeated wish of her benefactor to know who had been healed? Then, too, was it possible that the one who had such marvellous powers to bless might also have the power to cancel out the blessing she had just received? But how could she bring herself to tell before them all what she had done, and why?

And what of the crowd’s bitter indignation when they knew of their contact with one unclean like herself?

But Jesus waited, and asked yet again. How unlike him to show such apparent unkindness, not only to the intensely embarrassed woman but also to frantic impatient Jairus, who saw the last hope (as he saw it) of recovery for his daughter now being frittered away over a triviality (as he saw it).

But Jesus knew that the salvation of a desperate soul was at stake, and he persisted.

So, confused and fearful, the woman spoke up her confession, and as the crowd moved back, she fell down before Jesus. There trembling with fear (Mk), glad in her heart that she was well again, yet terribly apprehensive of the present outcome, she poured out in a torrent of broken phrases all the story of her disease, her suffering, her faith, and her cure, whilst people all around (Lk) strained their ears to catch every word, and then shrank back-from her defilement.

The reaction of Jesus was, of course, just what-if she had had time to ponder it-she would have expected of him. “Daughter, take heart (Mt), your faith has saved you (he meant the word in a double sense). Go in peace, and stay healed of your disease.” And she did. The Sun of righteousness was risen with healing in his wings (s.w. Num. 15:38). That day she saw the Lord as upon a throne, high and lifted up, and the skirt of his robe (s.w.) filled the temple of which she was now a perpetually consecrated part. As the precious ointment went down to the skirts of Israel’s high priest, so now-this woman had proved-there was like fragrance in the robe of the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. And had he not blessed her in the name of the most high God? So, from that hour (as in Mt. 15:28; 17:18) she had roses in her cheeks. And that blessing: “Go in peace” (Lk) echoed Eli’s benison on Hannah (1 Sam. 1:17), so perhaps it may be inferred that she who hitherto had had no hope of children was now given assurance that one day she would rear a holy family (Lev. 6:27a).

Assuredly, it was her faith which had saved her. There were scores of people in that crowd who had pressed upon Jesus and jostled him, yet to her only was virtue gone out. And she, herself pushed here and there in the throng, was unclean and ceremonially defiling: nevertheless through this Jesus, greater than Moses, there was no contamination for any others. Whilst healing her, Jesus cleansed them all.

Poor Jairus!

All this while Jairus, who had kept hard by Jesus, was in a mounting fever of anxiety and frustration. When he left home it had seemed to him that his beloved child had scarcely an hour to live. If Jesus had been able to shake off the crowd and, with that long easy stride of his, get to the house without a minute’s delay, there might have been time to save her. But now there was the double vexation of a slow-moving undisciplined crowd and this provoking delay to interrogate and re-assure a woman who had, so to speak, jumped the queue of blessedness. By this time desperation and impatience were written in large capitals across the face of Jairus. In these circumstances what human nature could hide it?

Then came the hardest blow of all. Even before Jesus was able to resume his journey to the house, messengers struggled their way through that sea of humanity to gasp out the bad news: “Your daughter is dead”. What use now to plead further the help of the Teacher? “Why troublest thou the Master any further?” It is a hard word meaning “rend, mangle, flay”, inserted into that message by one who loved Jesus and who, knowing him to be hard pressed, would fain spare him all possible strain.

With hopes dashed, the face of Jairus went grey with wretchedness. The wonderful cure of the woman in the crowd had at least buoyed up his confidence that the like power would restore his sick child. But now it was too late.

Too late? Was it? He felt the hand of Jesus on his shoulder and heard the reassuring words: “Do not fear! Only believe, and she shall be saved” (Lk). And, helped by the experience of the past ten minutes and by the strengthening gaze of Jesus, he did believe that, somehow, even now all would yet be well. Seeing this, Jesus spoke to the crowd in a loud authoritative tone that they must stay where they were. Peter, James and John only were to go forward with him to Jairus’ home (Mk). Jesus foresaw that they would be needed there. The rest of the apostles stayed behind to restrain the eager curiosity of the crowd.

Conventional lamentation

It was no small distance to the house, and by the time they arrived, the usual funeral arrangements were well in hand. The house was full of friends and relations besides the normal complement of professional mourners. This open lamentation by “singing men and singing women” (2 Chron. 35:25) was a long-established custom: “Consider ye, and call for the mourning women, that they may come … and let them make haste, and take up a wailing for us, that our eyes may run down with tears, and our eyelids gush out with waters” (Jer. 9:17,18). Even the poorest man in Israel would lament the death of his wife with two pipers and one mourning woman.

Inside the house, Jesus stood and stared (Mk) with increasing disapproval at the simulated mourning and insincere lamentation of the hired professionals. Then he went into action. “Why do you make such tumult (Gk: riot)? Why are you weeping?” (Mk). Why, indeed? Because they were being paid for it! Then Jesus remonstrated: “The girl is not dead, she is asleep” (Mt). His words were a simple reminder of the teaching of the Scriptures, that those in the covenant of the Lord who sleep the sleep of death are quietly at rest until the day of waking up: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” (Dan. 12:2). From this day forward the early church invariably referred to the death of those in Christ as a falling asleep. Even the graveyard was given a new name-the word “cemetery” is Greek for “dormitory”. The miracles of Jesus, followed by his own resurrection, made more real the Christian confidence of rising again from the tomb.

Those to whom Jesus spoke so peremptorily, knowing that the child really was dead, responded with a burst of derisive laughter (Lk). Thus they showed that their lamentation was all put on. But at least their scoffing guaranteed the fact of the girl’s death, and so turned to the glory of God by authenticating the miracle when Jesus restored her to life.

Restored!

With a strong word of impatience (Mt) Jesus had them all out of the house in quick time, Peter, James and John making sure of prompt obedience. Then, taking the maiden’s parents and the three apostles who were with him (Mk), he went into the darkened room where she lay. There in the dim light as the rest stood back from that divan, he took her hand already colder than life, and suddenly called out briskly in the vernacular: “Talitha, kumi- My lamb, it’s time to get up” (Mk). By his action in taking her hand and, by his choice of this expression Jesus reminded those half-expectant parents of a Scripture which not only tells that “all flesh is grass” but which also brings the reassurance that “the Lord God will come with strong hand and shall gather the lambs with his arm” (ls. 40:6,10,11). That word “lamb” is the same in Hebrew: it is its only other occurrence.

The word of Jesus was effective at once. Immediately (Mk) “her spirit returned” (Lk and cp. Ecc. 12:7), that is, she was restored to life, and stood up forthwith (Lk). Then, seeing her father and mother, she walked (Mk) eagerly across to them, whilst they received her with caresses and a gladness past all power of human expression. After a little while Jesus intervened, partly for the benefit of the parents and partly for the girl’s own sake, and bade them get her some food. The reason for this is not difficult to discern. Most probably, during the last day or two of her fatal illness the child had eaten almost nothing. Now she was not only restored to life but was positively bursting with health, and her body craved food. Besides this, the simple activity of fetching food would be good for that over-wrought mother whose emotions had oscillated in less than an hour between the most violent extremes. More than this, the sight of their little girl eating with zest and enjoyment and talking happily between mouthfuls, would do more than anything else to convince those two blessed people that they had not been victims of hallucination or hasty misjudgement.

Resurrection and food

Time and again the New Testament makes the act of eating the strongest possible proof of resurrection. It was the Lord’s own most downright demonstration of his own resurrection — he ate fish and honeycomb before the incredulous gaze of his disciples (Lk.24:41-43). Lazarus, risen from the dead, is pointedly mentioned as being at the meal table (Jn. 12:1,2). The apostle Peter and also Luke in his summary at the beginning of Acts both stress that the risen Jesus ate food with his disciples (Acts 1:4 RVM; 10:41). And the saint’s hope of resurrection is couched in terms of the same matter-of-fact idiom: “I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof (of the memorial bread) until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Lk. 22:16). “If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me” (Rev.3:20). “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7). “Blessed are they that are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:9).

It is noteworthy also how often personal contact between the one being raised from death and the agent of resurrection is pointedly mentioned in the Scripture narrative. The New Testament examples of the raising of the son of the widow of Main, of Eutychus and Tabitha, all follow the pattern of the present example of Jairus’ daughter. Elijah’s restoration of the son of the widow of Zarephath, Elisha’s recovering of the Shunamite’s child, and the amazing resuscitation of the man whose corpse touched the bones of Elisha-these are comparable Old Testament examples. No wonder Jesus said: “Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye have no life in you”-the idea is the same, but now on a higher plane.

Another acted parable

The two miracles considered in this study are bound together by a very singular fact-that the little girl was twelve years old, and the woman who was healed had been suffering for precisely that period of time (Lk. 8:42,43). This suggests what experience regarding the other miracles of Jesus would already lead one to expect, that these miracles were also intended as signs.

The daughter of the ruler of the synagogue is fairly evidently a figure of Jewry. It will soon be seen that the woman’s experience of suffering and healing may be read as a type of the conversion of the Gentiles. Her permanent uncleanness and inability to get any relief from recourse to doctors is a figure of the natural state of Gentiles who, finding all man-made religions useless, recognise that they are without God, without hope in the world-strangers from the commonwealth of Israel. Her present destitution through many an expensive useless treatment can be seen as a picture of all human dereliction apart from the grace of God. The resolve to seek a cure through coming to Christ expresses the fundamental of salvation-justification by faith. Her grasping of the hem of his garment underlines dependence on the obedience of Christ to the commandments of God (see once again Num.15:38,39). Zechariah foretells how “out of all the languages of the nations some will take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you” – i.e. you are Immanuel (8:23).

The crowd, unaware of the remarkable spiritual benefits going forth from Jesus in their midst represent the heedless nations of the world for whom also these blessings are available if only they shew the same faith.

That the woman came behind Jesus to grasp the benefit of close contact with him foreshadowed the call of the Gentiles to the faith after Jesus was crucified and risen from the dead. It was specially then that virtue went out of him. As the crowd refused at first to believe that any extraordinary miracle had happened, so at present the world around is unable to credit that Christ has special blessings for his inconspicuous faithful remnant. But before long the Lord will insist on a public witness to the fact that his greatest help has been secretly bestowed on those who have believed on him in their humble obscurity, and then he will pronounce yet greater blessing which will endure for all time. As this woman was called “Daughter”, so also will Jesus recognize his Gentile believers as true seed of Abraham.

In view of this correspondence, it is perhaps not surprising that there are marked similarities between this woman’s experience and that of the Prodigal Son, for in that best-known of all parables he likewise pre-figures the Gentiles. He too spent all he had, became unclean, and past all human help. He resolved that he must go for restoration to the only one who could and would be willing to help him. He came unannounced, and yet was known at once. He made his open confession, and was publicly acclaimed as Son, even as this woman was as Daughter. Such parallels do not occur in the gospels by accident.

By contrast with all this, the little daughter of the synagogue may be seen as a type of Jewry in the last days. The child’s sickness portrays Israel’s spiritual condition which none can cure save Christ. The synagogue is helpless. But there is delay in his coming “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in”, and when he does come disaster will already have overtaken the nation-its own faithlessness will have brought all the adversities which lead to what appears to be a final end. Nevertheless in that hour of extremity there will be a faithful few, represented by Jairus (whose name means “enlightened by the Lord”). For the sake of these, Jesus will come in the hour of utter helplessness, he will rebuke those of the Dispersion who believe that there can now be no resurrection of the Hope of Israel, and will restore the stricken people. More than this, he will insist on the provision of sustaining food- he will put his law in their inward parts, and will write it in their hearts. This marvellous restoration from death will be the very climax of a triumphant ministry.

The blind and the dumb

As though to heighten yet further the cumulative impression of marvel and graciousness in this part of the ministry of Jesus, Matthew adds here to his long catalogue of miracles a brief mention of two other acts of healing.

Apparently it was as Jesus left the home of Jairus that he was followed by two blind men. It is necessary to assume that they had some helper to guide them, or how could they have followed him for even the shortest distance?

As they followed they cried out after him: “Thou son of David, have mercy upon us”. Word of the marvels just lately wrought by Jesus made them the more insistent. But there was intelligent faith in their plea also. They recognized Jesus as Son of David. This must mean not only that already Jesus was well-known as the scion of the royal family of Israel, but also that expectations were growing that he would proclaim himself the promised Messiah.

There may be further meaning behind this. Because of David’s frustrating experience over the capture of Jebus (2 Sam.5:8), in tribute to him and in token of their affection for him, Israel thenceforward excluded the blind and the lame from the sanctuary of the Lord set up in that captured citadel. So it may have been with reference to that decision that these blind men (and also those in Mt.12:23; 20:30) called him “Son of David”-as who should say: “We are not scornful enemies. We believe. Then give us our sight, so that we with you may worship in the House of the Lord”.

Perhaps it was because of this strong Messianic spirit, which they gave expression to that Jesus hesitated in granting their plea. Instead of healing them there and then, he apparently took no notice. Perhaps, as with the Canaanitish woman, he sought to test their faith (Mt. 15:26-28). It is possible that, like her, they were Gentiles (see note on v. 27), and for that reason Jesus, sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, had a certain reluctance. Or was he just trying to avoid publicity? Whatever the explanation, their eagerness was not to be gainsaid. They found the house to which he came and got their guide to lead them in to him, there to renew their importunity.

Now, away from the excitement of the crowd, Jesus was more willing to give them attention. “Believe ye that I can do this?” he asked. He knew without asking, but as with the woman whom he healed in the crowd, so also now he sought their open personal expression of faith in

himself: “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom.10:10).

In later days, with one blind man the Lord used spittle (Mk. 8:23). With another, he smeared blind eyes with mud (Jn. 9:6, 7). On this occasion, in response to their fervent assent, he now put his fingers on their eyes, with the words: “According to your faith be it unto you”, and forthwith sight was given them. Whilst they rejoiced at the wonderful new world now opened to them, Jesus laid it very emphatically on them that they must not allow this blessing given to them to create a lot of public excitement: “Ye see! Let no man know (who did this for you)”.

But his words fell on deaf ears. Lack of disciplined obedience marred the fervent faith they had shown in Christ. In their excitement they went out and told the story everywhere. It is difficult to admire their thankless self-indulgence. Even so, nearly all the Roman Catholic commentators applaud their disobedience!

As soon as Jesus and his disciples went abroad again, the crowd saw another sufferer brought to him-this time a man bereft of all power of speech, perhaps as the result of a stroke. When Jesus healed him before them all, their reaction on witnessing this further miracle found expression in a marvellous statement of faith: “He (God) was never so manifested in Israel!” If this reading is correct, it means that there were some here who saw in the wondrous works of Jesus a greater theophany than the Shekinah Glory seen in past ages by Moses and Isaiah and Ezekiel. This was the kind of response to warm the heart of Jesus. It was to this firm conviction that his miracles were designed to lead the nation. The people were being led on to see in Jesus the one who would fulfil yet more completely Isaiah’s gracious Messianic prophecy: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped” (35:5). But how few saw also in Jesus “the way of holiness” (v.8)?

On the other hand the Pharisees, ever on the watch, and alert for every opportunity of denigration, did their utmost to counteract this growing faith in Jesus with a repetition of their foul slander: “He casteth out devils through the prince of devils”.

Notes: Mt.9:l 8-34

18.	While he spake these things (about fasting). The context in Mt. is completely different from that in Mk. Lk. Is it possible that in his discourse (Mk. 5:21), Jesus had come back to this topic? – right attitudes to fasting.
	There came a certain (one) ruler. AV is correct here, and the modern versions: “there came in a ruler”, are wrong. The error arises from telescoping two Gk. words into one.
	Is even now dead. More exactly: ‘she just died’. How reconcile with Mk. 5:23, 35?
	(a) With implied ellipsis: (so we thought), (b) An inference from how she was when he left the house some distance off. (c) Mt’s much abbreviated version anticipates Mk. 5:35.
19.	Jesus arose, that is, from sitting as a teacher.
21.	She said within herself Gk: she kept on saying. This was now her one assurance, her only hope, her sheet anchor.
	His garment. Contrast hers: Jude 23.
22.	Daughter. This is the only known time Jesus addressed a woman in this way. She must have been appreciably
	younger than he, surely only in her twenties.
25.	Put forth. Gk. passive voice probably implies unwillingness to go. This is why Jesus took the three disciples with him.
27.	Blind. One 19th century traveller wrote that in Arabia he found at least one in five with serious eye disease. Note
	the Biblical symbolism:
	a. Retribution for sin in Israel: Dt. 28:29; ls. 59:10; Zeph. 1:17.
	b. Israel made like unto Gentiles: ls. 42:18-20; 43:8; Mt. 15:4.
	c. The healing of the Gentiles: ls. 29:18; Eph. 5:8.
30.	Charged them. A very strong word, full of indignation; Mk. 1:43; 14:5.
31.	In all that country (and v. 26). The phrase probably implies that when Matthew wrote, he was away from Galilee.

Mk.5:21-43

22.	One of the rulers. Some synagogues had more than one; e.g. Acts 13:15.
	Seeing him, as though not aware at first that Jesus was there. How reconcile with the implication (v. 35) that he had set out to seek the help of Jesus?
23.	Healed. Literally: saved. The word is used in this narrative for both physical and spiritual healing (v. 34).
26.	No better; s.w. Gal. 5:2.
28.	Touch but his clothes. Cp. Acts. 19:11, 12; 5:15, 16. Capable of being interpreted as superstition or insight.
29.	Plague. Literally: scourge; s.w. Acts 22:24; Heb.11:36.
31.	Who touched me? Cp, questions intended to lead to repentance, in Gen. 3:9; 4:9; 2 Kgs. 5:25.
34.	Go in peace. See also: Lk. 7:50; 17:19; 18:42.
39.	Sleepeth. The list is a long one, and impressive: Jn. 11:11; Mt. 27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 7:39; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Th. 4:13-15; 2 Pet. 3:4.

Lk.8:40-56

41.	Was a ruler. The verb might imply that Luke knew him to have been demoted later (through becoming disciple of Jesus?).
42.	Thronged. An intensification of the word in Mk. 5:13: throttle, choke violently.
	He had. A Hebraism in the Gk. text, to be expected in Mt. but here it is in Lk!
50.	Believe… made whole (saved). Doubtless intended to remind Luke’s readers of Paul’s gospel of justification by faith.
55.	RV: Give her to eat. The complete list is: Mt. 9:25; Lk. 7:14; Acts 9:41; 20:10; 1 Kgs. 17:21; 2 Kgs. 4:34; 13:21; Jn. 6:53. There are symbolic examples in Mt. 17:7; 8:15. Jn. 11:43 seems to be a rather remarkable exception. Why? 12:2?

It was the end of a long and tiring day. Darkness was setting in (Mk.), yet still there were great crowds thronging Jesus with unflagging eagerness (Mt. 8:18). So he gave orders to the twelve that they were to embark once again in the fishing boat, and seek peace and quiet at the other side of the lake.

It would seem that the disciples held back, unwilling to set sail, for Jesus was the first to go aboard and then (Matthew adds, rather strangely) “his disciples followed him”. The reason is not difficult to discern. Even the most sudden of storms does not blow up out of a clear sky. The experienced sailor, accustomed to keeping a weather eye open, can usually anticipate by an appreciable amount of time when a change of weather is impending. And several of the apostles were fishermen. So it is readily understandable that they had misgivings about the wisdom of setting sail just then. But evidently Jesus insisted, and when he went aboard there was nothing for it but to follow him. At any rate it got him away from the crowd, and this was his immediate need (Mt. 8:18).

There were no prior preparations of any kind. They took Jesus “just as he was” (Mk; 2 Kgs. 7:7 LXX) without food or any protection against the cold night air.

Other boats also set out “with him” (Mk.). The simple phrase tells plainly that they meant to keep close to Jesus, there were some in the crowd who would not be put off. Complete escape from the popular enthusiasm was difficult.

What sort of storm?

As they set sail Jesus stretched out on the steersman’s leather cushion (Mk.) in the stern, and was asleep almost at once; he went right out (Lk.).

They had not gone far on their short voyage when there blew up a terrific storm of quite unique character. The commentaries make much (too much?) of the suddenness and intensity of the storms to which this lake, no bigger than Windermere, is subject. But it seems often to be overlooked that the Galilean fishermen would know these hazards as well as any, and would design and build their boats adequately for the most testing experiences which could normally be looked for. So a storm which scared them out of their wits was no ordinary meteorological disturbance. Matthew calls it an earthquake. Mark, with fisherman Peter at his elbow, describes it as a great hurricane, using the word for God’s whirlwind when He spoke to Job (Job. 38:1 LXX). Very probably there was an actual earthquake in the vicinity, or even under Galilee itself. And since such phenomena are not infrequently accompanied by violent storms, this would explain the suddenness and violence of the cataclysm. But earthquake is an open sign of God’s displeasure (Ps. 18:7; Job 9:5,6; Mt. 27:51; Ez. 38: 18,20; Hag. 2:6). Then why at this time?

The storm “came down on the lake” (Lk.) – a graphic detail which has been explained by emphasis on the low elevation of Galilee (-700 ft. ) and the fact (?) that it is ringed round by mountains: “surrounded by steep and lofty hills…sudden, fierce winds that sweep down from the heights upon the deep-set lake…shooting out of the gorges…” (Century Bible).

These descriptions seem to argue good imaginations and little personal acquaintance, for the waters of Galilee are not much lower than the surrounding land.

In the circumstances it is permissible to consider whether Luke’s phrase “came down”, like Matthew’s “great earthquake”, is intended to suggest a special divine whirlwind like that experienced by Job and Jonah and Elijah and the army of Sennacherib.

The fury of the waves, worse to endure in darkness then in daylight, was frightening, even to these experienced men of the sea. “The ship was covered by the waves” (Mt.). They “beat into the ship” (Mk.) – the word means they were constantly falling into it-because the boat had broached, and could not be brought round. Already, in the earliest stages of the storm, the boat was filling (Mk.), and there was little they could do about it. They were in dire peril (Lk.).

Appeal for help

Yet through it all Jesus slept on (Mt.). It is the only sleep of Jesus which the gospels mention. Mark’s phrase has a distinct flavour of surprise: “he actually went on sleeping”.

Everyone else on board, including Peter and the others who got their living from the sea, became desperate to the point of panic. Attempts at bailing out were hopeless. Nor could the boat’s head be kept to the wind, so violent and changeable was the hurricane. In their terror some of them fought their way aft (Mt.) to Jesus, and woke him violently (Lk.).

The different appeals made by different apostles, and shouted against the shrieking of the wind, are variously reported, but all convey a clear impression of the terror in their hearts. One thought their end had come: “Captain, captain, we are perishing” (Lk.). “Lord, save us” (Mt.) – there spoke one who had already come to rely heavily on Jesus in all circumstances. And it was surely Peter whose none-too-respectful reproach said: “Teacher, is it nothing to you that we are all perishing?” (Mk.). They were soon to learn that “to be tossed by billows is no proof of desertion, or even of danger” (Burgon).

Rebuke

Still lying there, Jesus addressed himself first to the storm of terror in the hearts of his followers. “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?” (Ps. 121:1,4). Why, indeed! Were they not knee deep in swirling water? Were there not mighty waves crashing into the boat at that very moment? Was not the roar of the storm enough to make brave men quail? Was it not likely that they would founder at any moment? Reason enough to be fearful!

But the real reason for their panic was something else-their little faith! If they knew Jesus to be the Son of God – and they had surely had time and experience enough to learn this — then ought not the logic of faith to teach them that, when he was on board, that humble fisher-craft was unsinkable even in the direst conditions. ?

Hardly ever did Jesus have any reproach for his disciples other than this “O ye of little faith”. It is a fact his followers in this later generation might well take note of. Weathering the storm in steadfast faith is more pleasing to the Lord than frantic importunity for aid or deliverance.

“Peace! Be still!”

Only when this needful reproach had been spoken did Jesus turn to the source of their terror. “Then”, writes Matthew, “he arose, and rebuked (s. w. Ps. 106:9 LXX) the winds and the sea: and there was a great calm”. He said, very simply, but with all authority: “Peace!” This to quiet the howling of the wind. Then, addressing the mighty turbulence of waters all around: “Be still” (the word he used implied: “and stay calm”).

Immediately a double miracle took place. The wind dropped. Its frightening roar ceased. Instead, only an even more frightening silence. And in the same second the ungoverned rage of violent waters all around, which might well have taken all night to subside, sank suddenly to the untroubled placidity of a pond.

The disciples gasped out in awe at the overpowering peacefulness of the scene before them. In the dim light still available to them they peered out over waters still as glass, and found no words for their amazement.

Faith and faith

But Jesus demanded their attention. “Where is your faith?” he asked them again (Lk.). “Why are ye so fearful? Have ye not yet faith?” But they had shown some faith. Their frantic appeal to him showed this. But it was not faith of the calibre he sought, not faith appropriate to an experience such as this. Is there a single disciple of the present day who would have fared any better in that testing experience? Faith in God’s covenants of promise is all very well. Faith in the outworking of God’s inexorable purpose is very necessary. But in this incident the Lord makes his peremptory demand for faith of a very practical personal kind such as few disciples ever rise to (ls. 54:11,17a; Mt. 28:20).

As it dawned on the minds of those men in the boat just what had happened, and how, the terror of the storm gave way to fear of a different sort. None more expert than they at handling a ship on that lake, yet “they feared a great fear, and said one to another, Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (Mk.). Their proper estimate of Jesus still needed scaling upwards. Very impressively Mark’s gospel traces the disciples’ growing fear of their Lord: 4:41; 6:50; 9:6,32; 10:32; 16:8. The more they got to know him, the more they feared. And this awe settled on the souls of those in the other boats also (so Matthew indicates) when they learned later from the apostles that the uncanny change from storm to stillness was at the word of Jesus of Nazareth.

Storm in the Psalms

The seafarers among them were bound to be familiar with the witness of the Scriptures to the majesty of God in sea and storm:

“They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; these see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep. For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof. They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble. They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit’s end. Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses. He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still. Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven” (Ps. 107:23-30).

“Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them” (Ps. 89:9).

“Which stilleth the noise of the seas, the noise of their waves, and the tumult of the people” (Ps. 65:7).

“The floods have lifted up, O Lord, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their waves. The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea” (Ps. 93:3,4).

This night they had seen the powers and attributes of Almighty God unpretentiously expressed in their Captain, a humble preacher from an ordinary home, and their marvelling at his miracles of healing in the multitude, which they had now almost got used to, gave place to a new sense of wonder and worship. This is specially preserved by Matthew in his description of the miracle: “he rebuked the winds and the sea”. It is this very expression which the gospels reserve for the Lord’s rebuke of the fever in Peter’s mother-in-law (Lk. 4:39) and for his rebuke of the unclean spirit in the epileptic boy (Mk. 9:25). Also, the command to the sea: “Be still”, was precisely the same as that by which he rebuked the demoniac in the synagogue (Mk. 1:25).

There appears to be a common factor in all of these. The Scriptures teach that all the powers of this world, good and “evil”, are administered through the angels, God’s ministers. The inevitable conclusion, then, from these examples of Christ’s divine power and authority, and ‘especially from this latest instance, should be, that even though he was “made for a little while lower than the angels” in that he became “partaker of flesh and blood”, nevertheless he had even in his mortality a status higher than they. They were sons of God (Job. 38:7), but he was the Son, the only begotten. How long did it take these men who were with him to learn, even through such demonstrations, the truth of this fact?

Notes: Mt. 8:23-27

26.	What the mighty work of angels, controlling that storm, could not do (i.e. wake Jesus into action), disciples had the right to do. And he answers the disciples first, then he copes with the storm. It is the lesson of Hebrews 1.
	Awoke him; s. w. in v. 26: arose. The word is used in both its senses: rouse, rise.
27.	The men. Could these be employees in the boat with them (Mk. 1:20)? Or (see parallel in Lk.) the disciples, here not called disciples because of their present attitude. ‘Disciple’ means ‘learner’.

Lk. 8:22-25

22.	Launched forth. The word has other meanings, but in Acts, 13 times, it means “set sail”.
23.	The contacts with the Jonah narrative are unmistakable: the word for “raging” (1:4,11,12); “there came down”, cp. “the Lord sent”; asleep and wakened; “they feared a great fear” (Mk. 4:41 = 1:16).

It makes an interesting exercise in the study of the gospels to seek out all the occasions when men or women were at the feet of Jesus.

A. They sat there to learn:

1.	Mary at Bethany, whilst Martha prepared the meal (Lk. 10:39).
2.	The group whom Jesus designated “my mother and my brethren.” (Mk. 3:34).

B. They came pleading for help:

3.	The sick and maimed folk who sought to be healed (Mt. 15:30).
4.	Jairus, asking for the life of his little daughter (Mk. 5:22).
5.	The woman who touched the hem of his garment (Mk 5:29).
6.	The Syrophoenician women seeking help for her stricken daughter (Mk. 7:25).
7.	Mary, at the time of her brother’s death (Jn. 11:32).
8.	The father of the epileptic boy (Mt. 17:14).
9.	The leper: “Lord, make me clean” (Lk. 5:12).

C. They prostrated themselves in thanksgiving for mercies received:

10.	The Gaderene Demonick (Lk. 8:35).
11.	The woman in the city, a sinner, knowing her sins forgiven through Christ (Lk. 7:38).
12.	The Samaritan leper, the one out of the ten (Lk. 17:16).
13.	Mary anointing his feet in gratitude for the restoration of her brother (Jn. 19:25).

D. They were there in mourning:

14.	As he hung on the cross (Jn. 19:25).

E. They cast themselves down in adoration:

15.	The women meeting their risen Lord (Mt. 28:9).
16.	Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:4).
17.	John in Patmos (Rev. 1:17).

The eastern shore of Galilee which that battered fishing vessel approached offer the storm was much less densely populated than the Capernaum side. Here there is one stretch where the land sweeps down abruptly to the waters edge though not from a great height.

The gospels present a tangle of different textual readings of the local name-Gadara, Gergesa, Gerasa, all seeming to have fairly good evidence in their favour. The city of Gadara was six miles from Galilee. Gerasa was much further to the east, verging on the edge of me desert. But there is also identifiable another Gerasa (Khersa) on the eastern shore of Galilee, where the topographical details seem to be right also.

Here excitement now followed on excitement, and wonder on wonder.

Matthew’s doublets

In this rough unpopulated stretch of hillside was a wild ungovernable lunatic — the gospels use their usual term “demoniac”. Matthew adds to the difficulty by mentioning “two possessed with devils”. The plausible suggestion has been made that the second was actually a guard stationed to keep an eye on the poor wretch who lived there (and similarly when Matthew mentions two blind men), but this hardly takes the language at its face value. Alternatively, has Matthew brought together two separate demoniac healings? (Mk. 1:23 has been suggested, but neither is this without its difficulty).

There are several examples of such duplication in this gospel. Not only two blind men at Jericho (20:30) but also on an earlier occasion (9:27). There is mention of both ass and colt at the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (21:2). And there is the miraculous feeding of the multitude on two occasions (this is mentioned in Mark also). On the other hand, Matthew specifies only one angel at the resurrection of Jesus (28:2), whereas Luke says there were two (Lk. 24:4).

At least two of the foregoing examples suggest that Matthew’s “duplications”, certainly factually correct, are given because of their symbolic value. In a considerable number of places (see Study 171) there are signs that in his gospel Matthew was seeking to commend to his Jewish readers the acceptance of Gentiles along with Jews into the community of the Messiah.

Since Mark and Luke speak of only one demoniac, it may be assumed that one of the two specially occupied the Lord’s attention. He was so notorious as to be well-known through all Decapolis (so Mt. 8:28 implies). The story centres round him-and again for symbolic reasons, as will be seen by and by.

Violent lunacy

The vivid detail given regarding this demoniac is one of the most impressive bits of descriptive writing in the gospels. He came from the town near-by (Lk.), but lived in the hill-side caves which had formerly been used as burial places (Lk). His madness, which was intermittent (Lk. v. 29), made him so violent that all attempts at restraint had proved useless. Chains had been forced apart or snapped (Mk.). Stout ropes had been rubbed through. The man’s madness seemed to impart superhuman strength. Mark’s triple negative is specially impressive: “No man could bind him, no, not with chains”. So now jn wild animal nakedness (Lk.) he roamed the rough open country (Mk.). All who came that way were scared (Mt.) by the wild cries and howls with which, night and day, he banished peace and stillness from that lovely locality (Mk.). His lunacy was fierce, violent, and homicidal, scaring away even the strongest and bravest (Mt.). The poor wretch even bruised and battered himself in his dementia (Mk.). Here was another kind of storm to be stilled.

As the boat drew to shore the demoniac recognized Jesus (Mk.) from a long way off (in his saner moments he must have had personal contact with the Lord during one of those tours of preaching in the Decapolis), and he came charging down the hillside (Mk.) uttering wild cries as he came. The obvious thing was to change course and land further along the coast, well away from this fearsome creature. But evidently Jesus bade his disciples pull in to shore as at first intended. He feared no demoniac, and at least the poor lunatic’s presence guaranteed that no multitude would gather.

Jesus in control

As he jumped out of the boat, the demoniac rushed towards him (Mk.). Matthew’s characteristic “Behold!” comes into his record no less than three times (8:29,32,34), thus indicating the apprehension of the disciples. But, to their surprise, the man threw himself at the feet of Jesus in an attitude of worship (Mk, Lk). Would a wicked “spirit” do this?

Jesus began immediately to speak in tones of command: “Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit”. The words were being repeated (Mk, Lk —Gk.), but the demoniac interrupted, shouting out: “What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God?” Here, obviously, was sanity fighting its way through. Clearly, the man had known Jesus at a time when there was mental health to appreciate the acts and claims of the Son of God. But now any further sense was drowned in a sea of delusion: “Art thou come hither to torment us before the time? (Mt.) / adjure thee by Cod that thou torment me not” (Mk.). Strange, truly, that he should address Jesus as though he-the calm, strong healer-were the one possessed with a devil. The picture of this wild, naked, unkempt creature adjuring the Son of God in this way has a very sad irony about it.

But what did his strange language signify? There must have been some coherent idea in his bemused mind. If these words were just the meaningless ramblings and ravings of a brain gone sick, would they be preserved in all three records? “Beat me not” probably meant “as they have often done, to drive the demons out of me”. And it may be that his own mad habit of cutting (or, beating) himself with stones was the result of having this ignorant idea planted in his unbalanced mind. But “come to torment us before the time” must mean more than this.

As already suggested, this man had apparently known the Lord earlier in the days of his sanity (“Jesus, thou Son of God most high”). If the man had notions of Jesus being the Messiah who would judge the unworthy in Israel and unleash the divine wrath against Rome and its legions, his irrational fears are seen to have more than a grain of sense in them.

The repeated command of Jesus: “Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit”, was beginning to have its effect (this is yet another example of a gradual miracle), for there is insight in that question: “Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” The only usage of this word “torment” in the Old Testament Scriptures is with regard to the plague which God brought on the Philistines when the ark of God was in their midst, so that they would fain be rid of it (1 Sam. 5,6)!

The Jews expected, in their crude Messianic aspiration, that one day the kingdom of God would mean not only their own exaltation as a nation but also the torment of Gentile oppressors. So the man recognized Jesus as Messiah, but knew also that the time was not yet ripe for the assertion of his royal majesty. A few years later, with this atonishing episode in mind. James, one of the witnesses of it was to recall the surprise of it: “The devils also believe and tremble” (Jas. 2:19).

“What is thy name?”

Partly to calm the distraught creature, and partly to further his purpose with him, Jesus asked: “What is thy name?” There was more in this than a desire to know who the man was. Indeed, Luke’s phrase implies that when sane he had been a person of some importance and known to those he now met.

Long centuries before, Jacob, violent and desperate, was asked by the one he deemed to be his adversary: “What is thy name?” – and then found himself endowed with a new name meaning “God rules”. From that time on, Jacob was a new man, with a new and better outlook on life, for thenceforward he recognized (what should have been clear to him long before) that in wrestling against those he thought were his human adversaries he had really been wrestling against the control of heaven.

Now, another Jacob, with even more distorted thinking, failed to realise that his present disability came from an exercise of angelic power. In an earlier chapter (Study 30) attention was drawn to the close connection between ‘demons’ and Bible truth about angelic control of both good and ‘evil’.

But this poor creature had had one distortion added to another: “My name is Legion, for we are many”. It is easy to see how the man came to reply in this fashion. In his saner moments he must often have had foolish people din into him: ‘You are possessed with a devil – but not just one devil, an entire legion of spirits! Else why should you be so violent?’

“Come out of him”, Jesus commanded. This was no kindly falling in with the man’s-and the aposfles’?-delusion. For if you agree with a lunatic that he is Adolf Hitler, you may make him more tractable for the moment, but you certainly make the likelihood of his cure smaller than ever. No, this was an assertion by the Lord of Truth of his authority over God’s angels of evil.

“Legion” and ancient Israel

The poor crazy fellow, apparently not without a certain logic, saw himself as living afresh the experience of ancient Israel. Here he was/naked and miserable, amongst tombs, as Israel had been in Egypt, the land of graves, and he now pleaded his unworthiness to share Israel’s deliverance: “Not out of the country (Mk.), not into the wilderness, not into the deep (Lk.)”-the same word ‘abyss’ is used in Isaiah 63:13 LXX about Israel’s passage through the Red Sea. >

Instead: “Send us away into the herd of swine”-this with reference to the tremendous herd which was being tended “a great way off” (Mt.). This sensible yet insane request was pressed with most pathetic earnestness (Mk.). So Jesus assented.

Then was witnessed a sight such as Galilee had never seen before. The pigs suddenly turned and charged violently down the short hillside and, like a swarm of overgrown lemmings, followed their leader into the deep inshore waters and were drowned, for (experts say) the pig is one of the very few animals unable to swim.

Thus, as “Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore”, so also now this pathetic slave to powers beyond his control saw the symbols of his suffering destroyed.

Why the stampede of swine?

It was, of course, no accident. The stampede of swine was another miracle added to the healing of the demoniac. But why? The explanation often advanced makes this the Lord’s rebuke of Jewish tending of unclean animals (Num. 19:16).

This is hardly as satisfactory as it seems at first hearing. Besides the dubious morality of this destruction, there is the consideration that these animals may have been intended for a Gentile market (eg. the local Roman garrison). Also, this side of the lake was Galilee of the Gentiles, having been settled by ex-servicemen from the army of Alexander the Great. And Josephus says that in that . area were many hellenized Jews.

The possibility does not seem to have been taken account of that if, as has been suggested, the demoniac was a man of consequence, these swine may well have been his property. Certainly this hypothesis copes adequately enough with the moral problem, which has otherwise to be faced, of Jesus causing the destruction of other people’s property.

But what was the point of it? Could not Jesus have healed the man without this bizarre accompaniment? Of course he could. So it may safely be assumed that there was purpose and value in this decidedly grotesque addition to the miracle.

Already there have been indications in the narrative that the lunatic’s malady was intermittent. This is a common enough phenomenon. Then, although restored to sanity, he would very soon be anxiously asking himself: “How long before I am once again in the grip of this evil? Jesus has healed me-but how long will this last? Is it merely a temporary restoration such as I have known before, or is it a cure?”

Here lies the wisdom in the Lord’s assent to the crazy request: “Send us into the swine”. Whenever this man, healed of his terrible infirmity, found himself beset with doubts whether he was blessed with a lasting cure, there would always be the vivid memory of that great herd of swine stampeding uncontrollably into the sea. It was the lasting guarantee to him that the demon possession was gone for good. Never again would he experience the horror of a lapse into the irrational world of maniac fury and ferocity which he had known so often.

Popular reaction

Whilst the man rejoiced in his restored health, the pig-keepers took fright at the weird behaviour of their herd, and went off to tell their strange experience to the townsfolk near by. They had no reason for connecting the loss of the swine with the recovery of the demoniac, for they had been too far away (Mt.), but possibly as they passed Jesus and the disciples they learned that story also and added to it the extraordinary tale they had to tell (Mt.). They went not only to the near-by town but also to the country-folk (Mk.), evidently warning them to beware of this Jesus of Nazareth lest he demonize their stock also!

Inevitably a great crowd of people came out to the scene and there they found the party from the boat resting on the shore, and no doubt preparing a meal. Among them, sitting at the feet of Jesus (Lk.) was the demoniac whose uncontrollable rages they had so often feared. Now he was as sane and normal as any, clean and tidy, and decently clothed in spare garments out of the boat. They stared incredulously, heard the story once again from the disciples who had witnessed it all (Lk.), and shrank back in fear from the man of Nazareth who had such powers at his command.

Within a few hours, as the news spread and the crowd grew, there came a serious build-up of feeling against Jesus. But they dared not do anything against him. Instead he was approached by a delegation begging him to go away and leave them undisturbed, for all the people were gripped with a great dread of his presence. And at the first intimation (Mk.) Jesus meekly assented!

Plea rejected

Forthwith preparations were made to embark and return to Capernaum. As Jesus himself was about to go on board (Mk.), the man who had been healed begged and pleaded that he too might come and be thenceforward a follower of Jesus. But the Lord, mindful of the recent slander of the Pharisees that his ability to cast out devils was through alliance with the prince of the devils, foresaw the possibility of more harm than good in such a decision and quietly rejected his plea (contrast Lk. 9:59,60; 18:22).

But he gave him also a positive commission: “Go home to your own people, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and has had mercy on you”. The last phrases here are not the same. The first refers to the actual restoration to sanity. But the word ‘mercy’ means ‘forgiveness of sins’. Jesus was never content merely to bring physical or temporal blessing. So here he emphasized the greater gift which he had brought into this poor sufferer’s life.

His words carried also a further implication. Doubtless another reason why the man should want to be with Jesus was his fear of recurrence of his violent mental upheavals. But the Greek expression (a perfect tense) which Jesus used when he said: “How much the Lord 4ias done for you”, implied that restoration was permanent. There would be no need of further healing.

The man did as he was bidden. In his delight and thankfulness he proclaimed the greatness of the prophet of Nazareth (Lk.) and not only in his own place but also through Decapolis (Mk.), wherever people had known about his sorry plight. His story, and with it, no doubt the details of how Jesus had stilled both the storm and the sea, made people more aware than ever that God was at work in their midst. And they marvelled (Mk). But the gospels do not say they believed.

Answered prayer

There are two important corollaries to this unique incident. The first is its remarkable illustrations of positive and negative answers to prayer.

The deranged man besought Jesus that he would not send the demons away (Mk. 5:10), but Jesus did, because it was for the man’s good that it should be so.

Next, he asked that the demons might go into the swine. And Jesus agreed. This because it was an aid to the man’s peace of mind later

Then, when he was healed, he begged Jesus to let him accompany him, but this was refused. This for the Lord’s own sake, but also for the good of those to whom the man would witness at home (Ps. 51:10-13). After all, his family had been deprived of him for a long while (Lk. 8:27).

There was also the plea of the local inhabitants that Jesus would leave their country. *’ They feared what else he might do. And Jesus,’ did as they asked, even though it was to their detriment. Just as Israel clamoured for flesh in the wilderness and were given it, to their/ destruction (Num. 11; Ps. 78:18-33), so new, these purblind Gergesenes had proved to be the true spiritual descendants of the Girgashites,” whose name they bore. “Thou shalt make no covenant with them”, the Law commanded (Dt. 7:1,2), so Jesus answered their prayer and went away.

“Legion” and Israel

Finally, it is important to re-consider this miracle as a sign, in the way that so many of the lord’s miracles have asked for interpretation.

Already hints have been picked up suggesting a parallel between the demoniac and Israel needing Jesus to restore the nation to sanity (see pages 3 and 4). There are others:

1. Isaiah’s prophecy about light being brought to “them that dwell in the region and shadow of death” (9:1,2; Mt. 4:15,16) takes on a new significance when set alongside this story of the poor wretch who lived in tombs in Galilee of the Gentiles. Even more pointed is Isaiah’s prophecy about “a rebellious people that walketh in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts…which dwell among the graves, and lodge in the monuments” (65:2-4).
2. There is the vigorous description of the demoniac as “crying out and cutting himself with stones”; the close resemblance to Jezebel’s priests of Baal makes the figure of /srael in apostasy all the more pointed.
3. “Dwelling among the tombs” comes also in Ps. 68:6 LXX (but not in the Hebrew text) with reference to Israel. Similarly, the word “fierce” (Mt. 8:28) is applied to Israel in Is. 18:2 (LXX). There is hardly any other occurrence of it.
4. The only two other injurious acts done by Jesus-the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree-were both intended to be symbolic of judgement against rebellious Israel. This suggests that the drowning of the swine is to be interpreted in the same fashion.
5. The word “tame” comes only in Dan. 2:40, and there with reference specially to Israel; for Judaea was the only province which the Romans devastated; to all other conquered countries they gave peace, law, and order.
6. “Besought… that he would not send them away out of the country” (Mk. 5:10) suggests (Ez. 34:25: “I will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land”; and also: “I will cause the unclean spirit to pass out of the land” (Zech. 13:2).
7. Since this violent lunatic was well-known, it would seem that Jesus deliberately chose to land on the shore there. It would have been easy to land half a mile or so further north or south. But this healing of the demonized man now makes a most telling commentary on the demons parable (Mt. 12:43) which Jesus had told on the previous day shortly after the Baalzebub encounter. And that parable was about “this wicked generation” in Israel,
8. Christ’s final exhortation to the healed man was to go and tell “how great things the Lord hath done for thee” (Mk). Where else is there clear evidence that in his teaching Jesus used the Covenant Name of God?

An acted prophecy

The man presents an apt picture of Israel needing to be healed by the gospel, then, in the first century. It is an even more apt picture of Israel in later days with everyman’s hand against it, yet always re-asserting its vigour and individuality, so that the world marvels, even when there is no wish for fellowship.

Reduced to pitiable nakedness, Israel will one day acknowledge Messiah’s authority when he comes (after a night of terrible storm and a morning of incredible calm), and only then will the nation be restored to spiritual health. “The evil beasts will cease out of the Land” (Ez. 34:25), and Jewry will be found sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed with the garment of his providing, and now at last in their right mind. Nevertheless they will not be “with Jesus” in the intimate sense that the closest friends of Jesus will then rejoice in.

But they will be given a mission to the Gentiles, that mission which God committed to them at Sinai, to be “a kingdom of priests”, that is, a missionary nation. This they will now at last fulfill, to the glory of Christ.

Notes: Mk. 5:1-20

1-6	There is here a neat ABCDEEDCBA structure in the narrative.
4.	Bound, plucked asunder. The two perfect tenses here suggest well and truly bound, and just as emphatically got rid of.
7.	The most high God. Melchizedek was priest of the most high God at the time when Abraham had made the “evil beasts” to cease out of the land (Gen.14:18-22).
15.	Clothed. There is here a neat undesigned coincidence with Lk. 8:27.
17.	Depart out of their coasts. With this contrast Lk. 8:40 and its benefit. It is useful to compare other occasions when Jesus found himself unwelcome: Lk. 2:7; 4:29; 9:53; 13:31; Mt. 2:13; 8:20.

Notes: Lk. 8:26-39

26.	Opposite Galilee. This suggests that the proper reference of “Galilee” was to the western side of the lake.
30, 31.	Entered…begged. In the Greek text there is a distinction between these verbs which suggests (like Mt.) that there was more than one demoniac.