The next miracle done by Jesus took place on the very next day. It is perhaps unique in that almost the precise spot where it happened is identifiable. Nain was a small place about ten miles south of Nazareth. The site makes it highly probable that the main exit was on the south side, where at some distance there are a number of limestone caves anciently used as burial places. This track is joined by another along which Jesus and his apostles and the accompanying crowd came from Capernaum. Almost certainly it was at this junction where the Lord encountered a funeral procession.

Grief and Compassion

A widow, evidently greatly esteemed in the town, if one is to judge by the multitude of sympathizing mourners, had been bereaved of her only son. “The mourning of an only son” is perhaps the most poignant expression of grief to be found in the Old Testament (Jer. 6:26; Zech. 12:10; Amos 8:10), “most bitter lamentation”.

The compassion in the soul of Jesus was immediately clamant for action. Without doubt he would have preferred to render aid away from the curious eyes of the crowds, but this was hardly possible. So first he spoke kindly to the distressed woman and bade her cease from weeping. This was no platitudinous conventional sympathy but an implicit promise that soon all would be well. Then, before she could realise what was afoot, he moved to the bier and stopped the bearers by laying a firm hand upon it. This action in itself was unexpected, for who would wish any risk of ceremonial defilement from the pallet on which the corpse lay?

Then came the word of authority complementary to what Jesus had just spoken to the widow: “Young man, unto thee I say, Arise.” Forthwith the dead man came to life. Sitting up on the bier, he looked around in astonishment, unanswered questions tumbling from his lips in quick succession. But without a moment’s delay Jesus helped him to his feet and led him to his awed, incredulous, happy mother.

There in the gate of the city Jesus gave proof that he was the promised Seed of Abraham who will one day “possess the gate of his enemies” and especially “the last enemy that shall be destroyed” (Gen. 22:17; 1 Cor. 15:26).

But, as Jesus symbolically intimated, the leprosy of sin (Mt. 8:3) and the desolation of death are only to be done away through this sharing of the defilement of them both.

And his “weep not!” anticipated the reassurance to John in Patmos when he was weeping many tears because in the hand of God was seen the Book of Life, and yet “no man was found worthy to open the Book, or to look thereon”, until there appeared “a Lamb as it had been slain” (Rev. 5:1-9).

It is because of this that “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes (did Jesus do this for the widow?), and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying” (Rev. 21:4).

This act of compassion was a lovely token of the happy reunions which are yet to take place in the day of resurrection. The widow’s experience proved that the Lord’s beatitude for mourners was, and will be, very truth.

The Widow of Zarephath

There are outstanding resemblances here to Elijah’s restoration of the son of the widow of Zarephath (1 Kgs. 17). The man of God met her in the gate of the city; there is the reassurance spoken to the stricken mother, and the arresting word: “behold!”; the only son is raised from death, and “he delivered him to his mother” (a verbatim quotation); and the reaction to the miracle is the same: “Now by this I know that thou art a man of God” -“A great prophet is risen up among us” (why did the people choose there a word appropriate to resurrection, the same as in verse 22: “the dead are raised”?).

This Zarephath resurrection leads on to a problem. When Elijah assuaged the widow’s grief, he embraced the child three times; Elisha twice with the Shunamite’s son; Paul once in the restoration of Eutychus; but Jesus merely touched the bier, and spoke the needful word. What is a progression such as this intended to teach?

Women and Resurrection

It is a remarkable fact that in almost every instance of resurrection in the Bible it was “women who had their dead raised to life” (Heb. 11:35). Besides these two widows there are the Shunamite who befriended Elisha (2 Kgs. 4:36), the widows lamenting the beloved Dorcas (Acts 9:41), Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus (Jn. 11:22, 32), and-most important of all-Mary Magdalene on the third day after the crucifixion (Jn.20:15). The raising of Jalrus’ daughter is hardly an exception (Mk. 5:40).

This consistency doubtless has its roots in Eden. The rabbis encouraged the practice of having the funeral procession led by the bereaved mother or widow, because it was through a woman that death came into the world.

In each case the one raised from the sleep of death was restored to whoever had closest affection for them. But in the resurrection that is , coming, a resurrection which leaves all merely human ties behind (because now “they neither marry nor are given in marriage”), those who are raised will be brought to the Lord, for it is he who has the greatest affection for them and with whom they should have the closest bonds.

An Acted Parable

In yet another way this miracle was a remarkable parable. The time is not far off when Israel, reduced to friendless destitution, will be as a widow without solace of any kind. If then she mourns for the Christ who was crucified “as one mourns for an only son, and is in bitterness for him, as one is in bitterness for a Firstborn” (Zech. 12:10), there will come immediate restoration of the Son and a sudden transformation to unspeakable joy, whilst the close disciples of the Lord and two multitudes of spectators look on, speechless with amazement.

Contacts with Job?

Such an approach to this brief record is encouraged by certain rather problematical resemblances to a remarkable passage in Job concerning “him that knoweth not God” (18:21). The name Nain is perhaps derived from a Hebrew word for “pleasant”, but it is also… practically identical with another rare word for “son” occurring in Job. 18:19: “He shall neither have son (nin) nor son’s son among his people, nor any remaining in his dwellings”. “The firstborn of death shall devour his strength” (v. 13). “His roots shall be dried up beneath, and above shall his branch be cut off” (v. 16) – an apt figure of the widow left all alone. “They that come after shall be astonished at his day, as they that went before were affrighted” (v. 20). One is loath to explain these resemblances as mere coincidence. But if the parabolic interpretation regarding Israel be not accepted, it is difficult to see what alternative remains.

It is rather remarkable that Luke chronicles neither the delight of the mother nor the excitement of the two multitudes, but only their fear.

There was fear after the healing of the paralytic let down through the roof, fear after the cure of the Gadarene demoniac, fear after the stilling of the storm on Galilee (Lk. 5:26; 8:37: Mk. 4:41). But why? Is this the kind of human reaction to be expected on witnessing such gracious acts of power?

The Crowd

Lastly, the reaction of the crowd has to be considered: “They glorified God, saying, A great prophet is risen up among us; and, God hath visited his people”. These are not two ways of saying the same thing. The first probably means that, since they had (quite rightly) been in the habit of comparing John the Baptist with Elijah, now they instinctively associated Jesus with Elisha-Shunem (2 Kgs. 4) is at most a mile or two from Nain!

“God hath visited his people” might mean either a visitation of wrath or of deliverance. In this instance it is, fairly obviously, the latter, for the words quote Exodus 4:31, the reaction of the people of Israel when Moses showed his signs that God was about to save them out of Egyptian bondage. And those signs were, first, sharing and curing the sin-disease; then, overcoming the serpent enemy and transforming it into a token of divine authority and redemption.

These oppressed Jews in the time of Jesus iwere not slow to draw their own conclusions , regarding the future work of Jesus. But alas, how mistaken they were, for they evidently chose to believe that he would soon be leading them to freedom from the Romans. It was the beginning of the build-up of a very difficult situation which was to have tremendous repercussions on the work of Jesus before another year was past.

Notes: Lk. 7:11-17

	The “and…and…and…” phenomenon is an outstanding feature of this narrative.
11.	He went. Why this sudden move to Nain after a very brief stay in Capernaum? Does the parallel with 1 Kgs. 17 explain?: “Arise, get thee to Zarephath…Behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee” (v. 9).
	Nain. The archeologists are confident that Nain was not a city, and had neither city wall nor gate.
13.	Weep not. Contrast the women who were told to weep; Lk. 23:28.
15.	Is the man raised by contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kgs. 13:21) an exception to the list of “women who had their dead raised”?
16.	A great prophet. Efforts have been made to read Nain as a corruption of the older name Shunem, which was in the immediate vicinity. This would then provide a link with the great prophet Elisha, and his raising of a widow’s son (2 Kgs. 4:21-37).

This discourse of Jesus, the like of which men had never heard before, ended with an appeal for honesty. No use to reckon yourselves among my disciples unless you face frankly and with clear-sighted resolution the challenge which my teaching presents. The warning was, ana always is, necessary, for there is no lack of those who want their membership of the body of Christ on easy terms, and even by deferred payments.

The unpractical idealism behind some of the principles of Christian behaviour laid down by Jesus presents a repeated temptation to argue to oneself, and even out loud, that of course the Lord did not mean just what he said, nor even what he seemed clearly to imply. The inclination to “bend” the moral principles of Christ-or, more especially, the direct personal application of these principles-is both strong and subtle. Often enough expediency says: “But of course Jesus cannot have meant his words to be taken this way. It’s just not practical. “And forthwith the admittedly exacting demands which the Sermon on the Mount makes are watered down to something so much more congenial and easy of achievement.

So, anticipating this (how he read human nature!), the Lord expostulated: “And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Why? With many the simple answer is: We like to be associated with you, Jesus, we love the graciousness of your personality, we are fascinated by the power and freshness of your teaching, we marvel at your wonderful works, and we are happy to accept you as Leader-only don’t ask us to follow where we find the going difficult or unattractive.

A Parable from Proverbs

So Jesus put the right and the wrong attitudes into a parable which, like so many he was to fascinate men with, he quarried out of the Book of Proverbs: “As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation” (10:25]. Here “the righteous one” is Jesus himself, “for other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11; Mt. 16:18). Also it is noteworthy that in Proverbs the counterpart to the man who “heareth, and doeth not” is “the wicked.” This is not the kind of antithesis one would expect, but the standard of judgment of both Old Testament and New Testament differ drastically from ordinary human estimates. In the parable of the talents the lord of the servants addresses as wicked and slothful” the servant who has done precisely nothing (25:26).

Again, “the wicked are overthrown, and are not; but the house of the righteous shall stand” (Pr. 12:7; cp. also 14:11; 1:26-33). The close resemblance to the parable of Jesus is not to be missed. This time “the righteous” is the man who builds well and truly on the foundation provided by Christ, “rooted and built up in him, and established in the truth as ye have been taught” (Col. 2:7).

Jesus has warned about two ways (Mt. 7:13, 14) and about two kinds of tree (7:16-20). And now, two men — the wise and the fool. Always there is a sharp differentiation, not a gradual shading off from the highly commendable to the hopeless reprobate, but just sheep and goats, wise and foolish virgins. But always the judgment is his. The fellow-disciple is forbidden to write off his brother as a “fool” (5:22), even though it be suspected that here is a religion of cheap imitation.

The Details

It is not always appreciated just how vivid and exact is the little drama which Jesus depicted. It is the side of a wadi, but well clear, surely, of any rising water. There on a ledge side by side these two men build their houses. It is implicit in the story that their former homes have been abandoned as unsatisfactory (there is obvious meaning in this!), and also there is the implication that they chose this new site because they must have water without which life is so difficult as to be almost impossible.

The spot chosen is a bank of earth (Lk) and sand (Mt). The wise one of the two proceeds to dig deep in order to find the solid rock as foundation. The other, considering it hardly poetical to spend all this time and labour on excavation, goes to his building without delay. And indeed he might well do this with adequate justification in his own mind for this policy. It is a well-recognized principle in building that where there is no risk from water a sandy soil makes a good building foundation. More than this, was it not true that the Tabernacle in the wilderness was built on sand? But it did have its heavy silver sockets as foundations!

The builder who did not trouble about getting down to rock would be seen to make very spectacular progress by comparison with his more thorough neighbour. And whilst weather conditions were good it would seem to everybody that he was every bit as well off as the other who had chosen to add so much apparently unnecessary labour to his task.

But at the first serious test (Lk: immediately) there came disaster for the one and vindication of his fellow. Heavy rain, fierce winds, and rising waters all combined in an onslaught of the elements. The storm brought down a sudden rush of floodwater, more heavy in character than could have been foreseen. Very speedily the unsolid foundations of the one house were eroded by the torrent. The ensuing instability was unable to withstand the blast of the storm, and the whole place fell in, “and great was the fall of it” as it buried its builder in a dramatic collapse. The water of life which made that site so desirable, and even necessary, had brought destruction.

The Lesson

The main point which Jesus sought to make here is, very simply, that the closer a man comes to Christ in the life he lives, the more secure he is in present trials and in the Day of Judgment. And the less close he is to Christ, the greater his danger. To any superficial judgement he may appear to be well equipped and safe, but the crises of life and-yet more certainly the ultimate judgment of Almighty God will differentiate between the genuine and the sham. Then, “why do ye call me Lord, Lord, and yet do not the things which I say?” The answer given by the parable is: Because of spiritual laziness and/or because of desire to put on a show of religion without the inner transformation and personal dedication to Christ which is discipleship.

The symbolism may even hint at a confident dependence on earthly descent from Abraham, whose seed are as the sand, rather than on Christ, the true foundation. Israel’s temple had this unsubstantial foundation, even though it seemed to be secure on the rock of Zion, whereas the apparently unsubstantial temple of the Lord has permanence, being made secure on “the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20), that is, on the foundation which they have helped to provide.

It was a grim note on which the Lord ended his manifesto. And the same sombre emphasis was to recur, especially in the last year of his ministry.

Matthew’s Sub-divisions

Here, in the rounding off of the Sermon on the Mount comes the first of five occurrences of the formula used by Matthew to indicate the conclusion of one of the well-defined sections of his gospel: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings…” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). The similarity with Dt. 31:24 is certainly not accidental: “And it came to pass when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book…” The five-fold repetition in Matthew was no doubt intended to remind the reader of the five books of Moses. Here was one greater than Moses/ speaking God’s words to the people-not from Sinai in the wilderness, nor from Nebo giving prospect of the Land of Promise, but from a mountain which was within his own inheritance.

Reactions to the Lord’s teaching

The teaching of Jesus provoked an amazement in the people which showed no sign of abating (Greek imperfect): “the people were astonished at his doctrine”-on this occasion especially because “he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes, ” who never dared pronounce an opinion without quoting the revered Rabbi This or That. Jesus’ abandonment of such a time-honoured practice was perhaps susceptible of the interpretation that he had not the rabbinic learning nor the detailed acquaintance with the standard Jewish authorities to be able to follow the classic methods.

The reaction of the people shows, rather, that there was such authority about the tone and demeanour of Jesus as to put him in a class by himself. And the Greek text implies that this was habitual with him. It was an authority received from his Father (Mt. 28:18; Jn. 5:27; 10:18; 17:2).

It makes an interesting survey to review the reactions of the crowd and the rulers to the teaching of Jesus at different times in his ministry. On two occasions it is said that the people marvelled at his teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum, because “his word was with power”: he was “glorified of all”. And in the synagogue at Nazareth: they “wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth”, yet only a short while later in fierce anger they sought to destroy him.

All the other available examples belong to the last six months of the minstry. At the last Feast of Tabernacles the leaders of the Jews marvelled at his teaching ability, since he was not college-trained. On the same occasion the effect on the crowd of worshippers was very marked. Many were prepared to concede that, Jesus was the promised prophet like unto Moses, or perhaps the Elijah-prophet who should prepare the way for Messiah. Others baldly and bluntly asserted their conviction that he was the Messiah. The officers of the temple guard, sent to arrest him, came back empty-handed and clearly over-awed by his authority and power: “Never man spake like this man”.

The action of Jesus in cleansing the temple a second time, together with the remarkable character of his teaching in the temple court, again left the crowds astonished, but the same things only goaded the chief priests and scribes into further plots on his life.

Last of all, his learned adversaries among the Pharisees threw at him in quick succession the most searching problems they could find as a challenge to his teaching, but this carpenter from Nazareth sent them away marvelling at the wisdom and effectiveness of his answers. If only it were possible to recapture today a brief impression of the power and effectiveness of Jesus as a teacher! But all that is left is a record of some of the things he said and a catalogue of varied summaries describing the reactions of those who heard. Amazing man!

Notes: Mt. 7:24-29

25.	The “and…and…and” sequence here is very forceful.
	Floods…founded upon a rock. Cp. the Messianic Psalm 18:2, 4, 15, 46. For “founded upon a rock” RV text of Lk. has “it had been well builded”. This is a textual reading not as well supported as AV.
26.	And doeth them not. Different verb forms in Mt. and Lk. The former: Does not normally do them; or, just possibly, stops practising them. The latter might imply: He never did do what Christ said.
27.	Great was the fall of it. Does 2 Pet. 1:10 allude to this? The key word and the idea are the same.
28.	The people were astonished. An astonishing sequence of passages records this. In order: Mk. 1:22; Lk. 4:15; Mt. 13:54; Lk. 4:20, 22, 23; Jn. 7:15, 43, 46; Lk. 19:7; Mk. 11:18; Mt. 22:22.

Either version of the Sermon on the Mount can be read comfortably in less than half an hour. Of course there was a good deal more to it than this. Luke implies as much; “he filled all his sayings in the ears of the people” (7:1), a summary which could well be a designed allusion to the prophecy about a prophet like unto Moses (Dt.18: 18, 19). Presumably Jesus

added a good deal of explanation and illustration.

And now, the first preaching tour concluded, he returned to Capernaum accompanied by the great crowd which almost always beset him at this period in his ministry.

Back home, he was approached by a deputation of elders from Capernaum’s only synagogue (Mk. 1:21). Among these, almost certainly, was Jairus, who not long after this was to become a suppliant on his own account.

Just now they came hoping to enlist the sympathy and aid of Jesus on behalf of a Roman centurion — of all people — living nearby. Every NT mention of centurions shows them in a good light (Lk. 23:47; Acts 10:1, 2; 22:25; 23:17; 27:43). This man was deeply concerned over the sickness and suffering of a valued servant struck down by some incurable disease. That he should be so distraught was an eloquent testimony to the characters of both master and man. The fact that leading Jews should bestir themselves on behalf of these two bore additional witness to their qualities. It was a most extraordinary situation.

Sympathy for Israel Unlike almost all other Romans in the country, this man enjoyed the close friendship of the Jews: “he loves our nation, and himself built us our synagogue” (Lk.). He was what the Jews called “a proselyte of the gate”-a Gentile who understood and believed the Jewish religion, but who accepted neither circumcision nor the food laws nor other religious obligations which kept the Jews a race apart.

That he should have taken his sympathies so far as to finance the building of a synagogue is a measure of his marked friendship for the Jews, and of his enthusiasm for their religion. It also indicates that he had considerable wealth.

He was now desperate with anxiety regarding his sick slave. The story of the healing of the sick son of the Capernaum nobleman must have come to his knowledge. Indeed it is not unlikely that the two men were good friends. If so, the appeal would be made to Jesus all the more confidently.

A Suffering Slave

The servant’s intense suffering is described in vivid terms — though, strangely enough, not by Luke the physician whose strong professional interest in clinical details is so often discernible, but by Matthew: “sick of the palsy, grievously tormented”. Identification of this disease is not easy. Clearly if was some form of paralysis. But those afflicted with a stroke or paraplegia do not usually suffer terrible agony continuously. So perhaps the most likely diagnosis is tetanus, which brings on acute muscular spasm and with it intense pain.

Here is the first of a remarkable sequence in the Lord’s mighty works. The centurion’s servant was “ready to die”. Jairus’s daughter had just died when Jesus came (Mt. 9:18). At Nain the widow’s son was about to be buried (Lk. 7:12). Lazarus was raised after being four days dead (Jn. 11:39).

The widow made no appeal to Jesus, save by her own lamentation and misery. On behalf of the centurion it was witnessed: “He is worthy for whom thou shouldst do this.” Jairus was urgent: “Come quickly…” Martha and Mary were despondent and perhaps mildly reproachful: “Lord, if thou hadst been here, our brother had not died.”

Contradiction?

Some have experienced difficulty with the apparent divergences in the narratives of Matthew and Luke. The former writes as though the centurion approached Jesus in person, whereas the latter is explicit that the elders of the Jews were sent on the centurion’s behalf. There is here a feature which is commonplace in the gospels, and throughout Bible narrative-the, omission of mention of the agent employed. For example, the expression: “himself built us our synagogue”, although so emphatic, would not be interpreted by anyone as meaning that the centurion did the actual building with his own two hands. Again, when the record says that “Pilate took Jesus and scourged him” (Jn. 19:1), | no one assumes that this was done by the! governor in person; nor when it declares that! “Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross”! (19:19). In Mark, James and John appear tol make their own personal plea for priority! (10:35), yet Matthew makes it clear that they did so through the advocacy of their mother (20:20).

Consideration for Jesus

The fact that the elders pressed their plea with Jesus time after time (Greek imperfect tense) suggests perhaps that they doubted whether Jesus would accede to the request or, more probably, that the Lord himself was hesitating, as well he might, for if word went round that he had visited the home of a Gentile, a Roman, most of the nation would marshal all its prejudices against him (Acts 10:28), and thus his ministry would die an early death.

This hesitance seems also to be suggested in another detail of Luke’s text (apecho; v. 6) which in LXX commonly has the meaning; “to hold off” or “abstain”.

However, not put off, Jesus agreed to their request; “I will come and heal him”. And no doubt a messenger was promptly sent off to let the centurion know that Jesus was coming. The Roman’s reaction was remarkable. He forthwith sent other friends, Gentiles this time-who met Jesus “now not far from the house”. Their message expressed concern for Jesus, not for the servant: “Lord, trouble not thyself (to come to the house)”. It was not solicitude lest Jesus fatigue himself which lay behind this. The Lord was already not far away, so the extra distance now involved would have meant nothing to him.

There is here a quite exceptional insight and thoughtfulness. The centurion was sufficiently familiar with Jewish prejudices to recognize that for Jesus to enter his Gentile home would be sure to provoke keen Jewish criticism and thus hamper his teaching work. He was not willing that Jesus should handicap himself for his sake. So, with recollection of how the nobleman’s son had been healed by a word spoken miles away, he urged: “I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof (no mean roof, either!)…but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.”

“Not worthy”! By that very phrase he proved how worthy he was.

Personal Approach

From certain details it is possible to infer that the centurion himself came out also to meet Jesus when he saw how near he was to the house: “Jesus marvelled at him” (Lk.) and “Go thy way; as thou hast believed, so shall it be done unto thee (Mt.). The words seem to require that they were spoken to the centurion himself.

Insight

This faithful man’s reasoning regarding the Lord’s power to heal has often been read rather carelessly. He did not say: “For I am a man set in authority, having under me soldiers, and I say to one, Go, and he goeth.” What he did say was: “For I also am a man set under authority.” The word “also” pointedly stresses a similarity in status between himself and Jesus. What was it? In effect, he declared: ‘My men obey every command of mine because I am under the authority of Caesar, They do my bidding because behind me is the supreme power of the Emperor. But I recognize that you, Jesus, are under the direction of One greater than Tiberius. Behind you is the authority of Almighty God. So you have only to speak the word of command, and my slave will be well again’. To complete the parallel it is perhaps possible to see an angel of heaven doing the will of the Son of God (Mt. 26:53) as the counterpart to the centurion’s underling immediately responsive to his officer’s commands.

Jesus greatly pleased

At this remarkable expression of faith by a Gentile, Jesus marvelled openly. Later he was to marvel at the inability of the people of Nazareth to believe him (Mk. 6:6 — the only other time this word is used of Jesus). The present situation was in happy contrast with that, and the delight of Jesus was not to be restrained. Turning round, he addressed the expectant crowd: “Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” Both the encomium and the implied reproach were well deserved. At this time had any other individual beside this centurion come to so clear and definite a conviction concerning Jesus?

Praised by Jesus

The list of those whom Jesus praised is instructive:

	a.	Lk. 7:9:	the centurion.
	b.	Lk. 7:44ff:	the woman in the city who anointed his feet.
	c.	Lk. 21:3:	the widow who gave two mites.
	d.	Mt. 11:7ff:	John the Baptist.
	e.	Mt. 15:28 :	the Canaanitish woman:
	f.	Mt. 26:10:	Mary of Bethany, anointing him shortly before his death.
	g.		And, by anticipation, Mt. 25:35ff: Those who are approved in the day of judgment for their righteous acts to “these my brethren”.

The list includes:

(i)	two men, four women
(ii)	two Gentiles;
(iii)	three specifically approved for their act of faith (and two others, by implication, for the same reason).

Prophetic Psalm

The gladness of Jesus expressed itself in a sweeping prophecy of the coming day when the doors of the kingdom would be thrown wide open to eager Gentiles: “And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west (cp. Lk. 13: 28, 29), and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom of heaven”.

There is an echo here of Psalm 107:3, where the redeemed of the Lord are “gathered out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south” (cp. also Gen. 28:14; Mal. 1:11). This call of faithful Gentiles is foretold also by a delightful figure of speech; “He turneth the wilderness into a standing water, and dry ground into water

springs” (v. 35). Appropriate to the present miracle, the same psalm tells how men in sickness nigh unto death “cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses. He sent his Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions (v. 19, 20).

Nor is this all. This amazing psalm also anticipates the storm on Galilee (v. 25-29), the healing and forgiveness of the paralytic let down through the roof (v. 17), and the feeding of the multitude in the wilderness (v. 2).

Then, was Psalm 107 divinely inspired to proclaim beforehand “the goodness and the wonderful works” of the Son of God? or did he frame his miracles according to that Scripture?

The saddening contrast between the centurion and the meagre response the message of the kingdom was evoking from Israel drove Jesus to add sombre words of warning to the crowd around him: “The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”. In this context it is tempting to interpret the outer darkness with reference to the dispersion and persecution of Israel, but elsewhere the phrase seems always to referto the last judgment.

The Miracle

Turning to the centurion Jesus bade him: “Go thy way; as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee”. But this man of faith had not asked anything for himself (except in so far as the healing of his servant would greatly ease his own sympathetic distress). So perhaps the words should be translated: “So be it done for thee.” The similar expression in Mt. 9:29 suggests the more familiar AV reading. If this is accepted, it must mean that Jesus looked beyond the immediate benefit-the healing of the stricken slave-to the lasting blessing of faith and its reward which would accrue to the centurion himself.

Luke’s expression: “They that were sent returned to the house…” probably implies that in spite of the Lord’s explicit “Go thy way”, the centurion remained with him, with all faith that the miracle had happened, and needed no personal verification of the fact. Thus the man’s attitude to Jesus rose to even greater heights. Although eager that his servant be restored, it was more important to him that one whom he deemed greater than Caesar be fitly honoured and thanked by a respectful presence rather than by a hasty departure which might imply disrespect.

This was the second miracle Jesus had performed at a distance without even setting eyes on the one to whom he brought such blessing (see Jn. 4:46-54). And again it was a Gentile who was healed. At least one other example of the same kind was to follow (Mt. 15:28). More and more, as the ministry of Jesus proceeded, it became evident to those who were not too blind even for the Lord to heal, that his miracles were more than miracles, they were signs.

Notes: Mt. 8:5-13

7.	Could be read as a question expressing uncertainty of decision because of the unusual character of the situation: Shall I come and heal him?
9.	Under authority. Note the bearing of this, and also the force of “marvelled” (v. 10), with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. The centurion implies this kind of parallel:
		Caesar	God
		Centurion	Jesus
		Soldiers/servants	angels
12	The children of the kingdom cast out. Could the same be true of the New Israel also?

Lk. 7:1-10

4.	For whom he should do this. The tense here (fut. indic.) implies confidence that Jesus could and would do what was asked.
5.	He hath built for us. Extraordinary!!
6.	Was. Gr. apecho. Cp the sense in LXX of Job 13:21; 28:28; Pr. 23:4, 13; ls. 29:13
8.	A man. There is humility in his choice of word here — anthropos, when aner might have been expected.

The imprisonment, and later the beheading, of John the Baptist is attributed by Josephus (Ant.18.5.2) to Herod’s fear “lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion”. This shows that Josephus knew little about John personally or he would have known how far out such an assessment of the prophet’s character was. The gospels are unquestionably much more accurate when they attribute John’s imprisonment and death to his rebuke of Herod’s evil union with an evil woman.

A very persuasive case can be made for believing that all the details about Herod, even to his plans and motives, were supplied to the gospel writers by Manaen “which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch”(Acts.!3:1; “Acts”byH.A.W.).

The tidings of the latest marvels wrought by Jesus, and carried to John the Baptist in prison, are described by Matthew as “the works of the Christ”. Thus he supplies beforehand his own emphatic answer to the uncertainties about to be raised in the next paragraph of his record.

The fact that contact with the prophet in the castle of Machaerus was possible suggests that the conditions of his imprisonment were not too rigorous.

John’s Problem

John’s reaction, after pondering the news for a while, was to entrust two of his own followers visiting him in prison with a special enquiry to Jesus: “Art thou he that should come, or look we for another?”

The view is often advanced that John did this not to set at rest doubts of his own, but for the benefit of his disciples. This explanation – a kind of half-apology for John-is set aside by the Lord’s answer: “Go your way, and tell John…”

Yet it is not difficult to understand why John was perplexed. He had proclaimed Jesus to the nation as the Lamb of God who should take away the sin of the world (Jn.1:29). Hehadalso bade them see him as the Messiah coming in

judgment on a nation in need of repentance “whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor” (Mt. 3:12). The initial cleansing of the temple had looked as though the second of these roles was to emerge with full authority.

But now more than a year had gone by, and no further sign of judgment from heaven. Nor was there even a hint that in some mysterious way Jesus might become, either directly, or in some secondary fashion as Hezekiah and Jeremiah had been, a bearer of the sins of the nation before God.

Instead, it had been a year of preaching, preaching, interspersed by many a breathtaking miracle. Jesus was on the crest of a wave of popularity-a popularity quite impossible to harmonize with the Baptist’s other Bible-founded expectations.

So John might well be puzzled: “Art thou the Coming One? or look we for another?” He knew that his own mission, as forerunner preparing the people of God for Messiah’s advent, had been ultimately a failure. The leaders of the nation remained unaffected, and so far as positive reformation went, so also did the mass of the people. There didn’t even seem to be any sign of Jesus fulfilling the role John had foretold for him of baptizing believers in Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11). Then was it because of failure that Jesus appeared to be content with a less dramatic role than that which had been expected of him?

In comparable circumstances Jeremiah had verged on bitterness: “O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived…I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me” (20:7). But with John it was puzzlement rather than despair.

Doubtless he had also a personal difficulty. Part of Messiah’s work was to be: “proclaiming liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound”. Why then did Jesus go about performing such wonderful works as to set the whole country talking, and yet leave his best friend and helper languishing in the power of an ungodly princeling? Could it be that both of them-John and Jesus-were forerunners of one yet greater than either, as the days of Elijah and Elisha had led on to the stirring days of Hezekiah who had sought to complete the reformation of the Northern Kingdom?

So John was uncertain. “Art thou he that should come, or look we for another”-one different in character from yourself?

“He that cometh”

The expression “He that cometh” or “the Coming One” was sufficient in itself to make John’s meaning clear. No further definition was needed, for this description of Messiah was familiar to every Jew. It was the highest common factor of many precious prophecies. Ezekiel foretold that sceptre and mitre should be taken away from Israel “until He come whose right it is, and I (God Himself) will give it to him” (21:26, 27). That prophecy in its turn, leaned on Jacob’s well-known prophecy concerning Judah: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah… until he come whose it is” (Gen. 49:10). The Psalms greeted Messiah with: “Hosanna! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (118:26). They spoke of his self-dedication: “Lo, I come: in the volume of the Book it is written of me: (40:7). In a highly important scripture for John the Baptist (as it turned out by and by), Isaiah acclaimed him: “Behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense”-or, just possibly: “your God will come, raised up (from the dead), even your God rewarded” (35:4). Another prophecy, specially relevant to the Baptist’s enquiry, comes in Malachi: “And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple” (3:1). Yet other Scriptures were to take on a greater fulness of meaning before long: “Behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass” (Zech. 9:9); “One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days” (Dan. 7:13).

John himself had appropriated the same terminology: “One mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose” (Lk. 3:16). And again: “After me cometh a man which is preferred before me” (Jn. 1:30). “The true light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world” (Jn. 1:9). Jesus also took up the familiar idiom: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not” (Jn. 5:43). The common people had the phrase in their familiar speech: “This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world” (Jn.6:14). Paul used it, speaking of Adam as “a figure of him that was to come” (Rom.5:14) And Hebrews is specially emphatic: “He that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (10:37).

What an answer!

It was not the Lord’s way to give a brief categorical answer to John’s plea for doubt to be set at rest. Far better to leave the ultimate answer to the judgement and faith of the one who now cried for help. So “in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.” What an hour to remember! Those two disciples of John would talk about it to their dying day. They were bidden to talk about it to their leader: “Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard”. Besides the signs which they saw, they heard also a great deal of excited talk about recent impressive miracles they had not seen-the centurion’s servant and the son of the widow of Nain.

The relating of these experiences was intended to remind John of his own commission in earlier days: “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33). Here was breath-taking evidence that the Spirit did indeed abide on Jesus. His earlier works were no flash in the pan. So all doubt could be put aside.

What a circumstantial tale these disciples would have to tell! They had seen blind men describing with astonished happiness the colour and movement and loveliness they had not known. Lame men threw away their crutches and leaped with the exuberance and agility of schoolboys. Before their incredulous gaze the foul and rotten flesh of lepers grew to the smooth firmness of robust health. They marked in the faces of those stone deaf the dramatic change from impassive woodenness to the wonder and ecstasy of suddenly experiencing a whole new world of sound. Even those in that vicinity who had died that day they now saw restored in perfect health to their families delirious with delight. Besides all this, the message John had proclaimed was now made known more persuasively than ever to a pathetic and oppressed people in desperate need of good news: “to the poor the gospel was preached”. The shape of this sentence (Lk. 7:22) requires the meaning: “To the poor wealth is given”. Here is an instruction to social reformers that the best blessings to impart to the poor are the riches of the gospel. Isaiah’s phrase is: “the poor among men rejoice in the Holy One of Israel” (29:19); (cp. Mk. 12:37). There is no higher contentment.

All these wonders, and the very phrases in which Jesus had recapitulated them, were an echo of one of Isaiah’s most gracious Messianic prophecies: “Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God.. . Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing… sorrow and sighing shall flee away” (ls.35:4-6, 10). The primary reason for the allusion to this prophecy was, of course, its exhortation to John himself; “Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees” (v. 3). Whatever else, John must keep on praying.

“Hold on to faith”

Jesus added his own personal encouragement: “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me”. When it is realised that the word “offended” means “to trip over a stumbling stone”, the allusion to another familiar element of Isaiah’s message is more evident: “Neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary, but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence… and many shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken” (8:12-15). When the background to the prophecy is understood, there are seen the alternatives of either accepting Messiah as an altar of sacrifice, or else stumbling to destruction over his claims. Thus the concluding words of the Lord’s message to John bade him prepare to see Jesus as an altar of reconciliation-this first, before ever he should be manifest with authority and power.

“Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me”. Jesus meant his word of encouragement specially for John, but also for more than John. He knew that over the years ahead the same access of doubts and problems would beset the minds of thousands of his disciples. This is human nature. And in effect the Lord’s present answer to such crises is: “Hang on, regardless”. It is a lesson for all to learn thoroughly in times when faith burns bright and clear, against the day of difficulty and discouragement when intellectual doubts or hard circumstances make loyalty to Christ a strain so that one’s first love falters. Jesus promised a special blessing to those who maintain a fighting faith in him no matter what the odds.

Doubting Thomas was to prove a shining example of how stumbling faith may receive the reward of tenacious loyalty. The moment came when all the apostles except himself were now fully convinced that their Lord was risen from the dead. In this most vital item of faith he was now completely out of step with the rest. A serious rift in fellowship between himself and the others was inevitable. Nevertheless-well done, Thomas! –he persisted in meeting with these his brethren who were his brethren no longer. And in their company he found again the faith he had lost: “My Lord and my God!”

Blessed indeed is the man whose perplexities and doubts do not prove such a stumbling block that he falls headlong into his own Aceldama.

What an amazing gospel is this when not taking offence is accounted a great blessing!

Funeral Oration

It is the way of men to praise an individual to his face and then be free with criticism behind his back. But with Jesus it was the opposite. Even whilst John’s messengers were going away Jesus addressed the multitude in a sustained encomium of the imprisoned prophet, lest they should assume any kind of rift between the two preachers or draw the mistaken conclusion that John was to be denigrated. It was, so it turned out, John’s funeral oration, for within a short while he was devilishily done to death.

First, Jesus reminded the crowd of how in earlier days they had flocked in their thousands to hear John’s preaching: “What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?” Would such multitudes follow a weakling? Was John no better than a bamboo growing by the waters of Jordan? — slender, insubstantial, blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine. They knew that was not John’s character, neither formerly nor now in prison.

“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that are gorgeously apparelled…are in kings’ courts”. The Lord’s irony intensified. All remembered the primitive simplicity of John’s way of life. They hardly needed the pointer given them by Jesus to make contrast with the Herodians. This party included in their ranks scribes who out of self-interest tried to reconcile in their own practice the study of the Scriptures with the sycophancy and self-indulgence of courtiers. Instead John had had the courage to rebuke openly the licentiousness of the king, and was now paying the price of his loyalty to the law of God.

“But what went ye out for to see?” Here the tone of Jesus changed dramatically. “A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet”. What did he mean? It was the prime function of the prophets of Israel to communicate the will of God to the people, and especially to teach concerning the promised Messiah-’the sufferings of the Christ and the glory that should follow.” In this John, the subject of prophecy as well as its vehicle, surpassed them all, for he was the personal forerunner of Christ, the one who prepared the way with an imperative message of repentance, the one who baptized him in Jordan, and who announced him to the nation. No other prophet could match John for importance. By his personal contact with Christ, John had rivalled even Moses’ outstanding role: “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee” (Mt. 3:1; cp. Ex. 23:20 LXX). There is a delightful pun here in the original: “Not malaka (soft raiment), but malaki (my messenger)”-and the Lord then quoted from Malachi.

Details to be noted in this Malachi quotation are: (1) its context: “the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple”- “Art thou he that should come?” John had asked; (2) the change of pronouns-words originally spoken with reference to “me”, Jehovah, are now applied to “thee”, His Messiah; thus indirectly Jesus reasserted what John had heard at Jordan: “This is my beloved Son”.

None Greater

The Lord’s eulogium came to its climax with the words: “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women (Job. 14:1; 15:14) there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist (cp. Lk. 1:15? Contrast Mt. 3:11): notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”.

What other servant of God has ever merited such high approval? John was no “minor character” of the Bible. The meagre appreciation accorded to his work and personality nowadays is a poor tribute to his worth compared with the warm and generous words spoken publicly by Jesus.

But who is the “lesser one in the kingdom of heaven” to whom Jesus gave even higher status? An explanation often canvassed is that here Jesus made indirect allusion to himself (the “greater” in the kingdom being the Father Himself). This interpretation is not impossible, though it has been much pooh-poohed by many commentators (because of their trinitarian prejudices?).

To say, alternatively, that any glorified disciple in the age to come will be greater than John preaching or John in prison is to turn the words of Jesus into an irrelevant platitude. Such a reading also ignores the present tense of the verb: “is greater”.

There is a better alternative. John was a forerunner. His personal contacts with Jesus were only occasional and brief. By contrast, the humble believer then in the crowd following Jesus was vastly better off-seeing his miracles, hearing his teaching, and even enjoying his companionship! It had been said concerning Moses: “With him will I speak mouth to mouth…and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold.” yet this highest experience of Moses hardly compared with the superlative privileges of a disciple in the company of the Son of God in Galilee.

“The kingdom suffereth violence”

The next saying of Jesus was, if anything, even more problematic: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” The most popular reading of these words is to take them as a picture of the unrestrained popular enthusiasm with which first John and then Jesus had been received by the multitudes.

This is hardly satisfactory. For, in the first place, as an interpretation it simply does not fit the facts. Every indication supplied by the gospels, ouside their earliest chapters, points to the conclusion that John’s mission was essentially a failure-as the ensuing words of Jesus at this time go to emphasize.

Also the Lord was to repeat the same saying (Lk. 16:16) at a time in his ministry when it was manifestly not true that the nation was demonstrating an overmastering eagerness to take hold of his teaching! In any case, to read the words in this way is to give them a highly unnatural flavour.

The key phrases imply a bad meaning. For example: At Sinai “let not the people break through to come up unto the Lord” (Ex. 19:24), forcing themselves unwarrantably into the divine presence. Peter has the same idea, but not the same word, when he warns that “they that are unlearned and unstable wrest” the epistles of Paul (2 Pet. 3:16).

Therefore, far more likely is the opposite view that Jesus was reminding his hearers of how after the early days of success the message proclaimed by both John and himself was steadily losing its power to command real loyalty. Popular enthusiasm was superficial. Repeated efforts (some of them successful) had been made by “the establishment” to erode the high idealism of their teaching. Herod and the Pharisees were now openly hostile. And the word “failure”, already appropriate to John’s mission, was soon to be equally applicable to the appeal of Jesus.

After the first flush of enthusiasm, and in a true fundamental sense, the nation had not been willing to receive the message of John. Otherwise, they would not have needed his witness to Jesus, and Herod would not have dared flout public opinion by throwing the prophet into prison. All of this the Lord now underlined with the ominous words: “If ye are willing to receive him, this is Elijah, the one who is to come”. The AV reading here: “if ye will receive it”, is clearly incorrect. It is not the people’s understanding of the Malachi prophecy which is in question at this point, but the vindication of John. Nor, in any case, was there any doubt about their willingness to believe this Scripture, as Mt. 17:10 makes very evident.

Reactions

At this point in Luke’s record there is a short section (v. 29, 30) which reads as though it is not a continuation of the words of Jesus but a parenthetic comment by Luke. Even though the words at the beginning of verse 31: “And the Lord said”, have no adequate support from the manuscripts, they evidently represent the understanding of the early church that the two preceding verses are not the words of Jesus. This seems to be right. The passage reads more naturally as part of Luke’s report than as a continuation of the Lord’s discourse.

Thus, “having heard, all the people and the publicans justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John”, corresponds to Christ’s reminder, just spoken, of their early enthusiasm: “What went ye out for to see?”. And the antithesis: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him”, has its counterpart in the words: “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence” (cp. Ps. 107:11).

The common people “justified God” in the sense that by receiving baptism they acknowledged themselves unrighteous and that God is the only righteous One, especially in His Condemnation of sin, which condemnation the rite of baptism openly declared. But more than this, that baptism also brought them a justification which was all of God’s providing.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, by their refusal of baptism as good as asserted that they had no need of it. Thus they set aside the counsel of God which came to them through their prophets and especially through John: “All flesh is grass”.

The same is true to this day. When a man thrusts aside or deviously evades the obedience of Christ in baptism he is rejecting the counsel of God – though, in that case, there will one day be another counsel of God against himself which he will in no wise be able to shrug off. Why are men such fools as to prefer the society of self-justifying Pharisees to that of obedient baptized believers?

Children in the Market Place

Jesus forthwith summed up this wilfulness in a parable straight out of life. There are some children who will not join in the fun of a good game, no matter what it is, simply because it is not their game. “We have piped unto you”, say the others, “and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not wept”. Be it weddings or funerals, these sulky ones hold aloof because instead of being assigned the leading role they are asked to follow the lead of someone else. No co-operation, no jollity, only petulant selfishness! Yet even here the mind of Jesus could not come away from the Old Testament. Michal despised the dancing of David (2 Sam. 6:16-23). And now the same attitudes regarding the Son of David. Yet weddings instead of funerals were a dominant theme of the Messianic prophecies Jesus had just alluded to (ls. 61:1, 3, 10; 62:4).

John had appeared, an unconventional but solemn figure with an austere unpalatable message, and these Pharisees, eyeing his camel-hair garment and scorning his diet of locusts and wild honey, gave the nation their opinion of him: “The man’s mad!”

Within a year there was another figure on the scene. Jesus of Nazareth was not ascetic. He mixed with every stratum of society. They saw him at weddings, in the impressive houses of despised publicans, in the humble cottages of the poor. To him it was all the same. Jesus would accept the hospitality of any man. So the Pharisees fastened on this and envenomed their criticism: “Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners” (cp. Lk. 5:30). And did not the Law of Mpses command that the rebellious son, a glutton and a drunkard, be stoned with stones, to put away such evil from Israel (Dt. 21:20, 21)? Half of this accusation was absolutely true, the rest a plausible slander cleverly evolved out of a deft perversion of the facts.

It was ever so. The finest and most innocent of men are not immune from the smear tactics of evil-minded critics set on character assassination. “And (thus)”, commented Jesus, not without a sharp-edged irony, “wisdom is justified of all her children”. Those who were true children of the wisdom of God showed it in their humble acceptance of baptism and their ready adherence to Christ. Those who preened themselves on their powers of judgement and turned away in scorn from the God-sent teachers among them, showed, for all to see, the quality of the “wisdom” that was in them. (The A B C C B A structure of Lk. 7:32-35 points to this kind of interpretation).

Notes: Mt.11:2-19

5.	The blind…the lame. who hitherto had also been excluded from the temple: 2 Sam.5:8.
	The dead. The word is plural. Yet up to this point the gospels have mentioned specifically only the son of rhe widow of Nain.
6.	Not offended in me. Others who were not: 1 Kgs. 19:10; Jer. 20:7; Lk. 24:21. Those who were: Mt. 13:57; 26:31; 24:10; Jn. 6:53; 15:6; Rom. 9:32, 33; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:14.
8.	In king’s houses; eg. 2 Sam. 1:24; 13:19.
12.	Take it by force. For the idea, see Jn. 6:15; 10:12, 28, 29. In Study 138 the same saying (Lk. 16:16) will be found to carry a very similar meaning.
13.	The prophets and the law. Why this inversion of the familiar phrase? Because emphasis here is on John the prophet?
14.	Elias is without the usual Gk. definite article, thus meaning: an Elijah prophet, one like him; cp. 17:10-13. But not Elijah in person: Jn. 1:21. “This is Elias” also carries the implication: “And therefore I am ‘He that should come’ after him”.
16.	This generation. It is sometimes argued that this introduction requires a reverse interpretation of the parable from that given in the text: John and Jesus as the complainers who refuse to conform to the wishes of the others (the Pharisees). But this does violence to the spirit of the parable.
18.	They say. Gk: they keep on saying.
	He hath a devil. Soon after this they ran a campaign of this sort against Jesus also: 12:24; Jn. 7:20; 8:48; 10:20.
19.	ls. 28:7-14 has a parallel to this situation.
	Wisdom is justified of her children. Alternative interpretations: (a) ‘You will see that John and I (Jesus) turn out to be right, and yourselves wrong’, (b) ‘You may judge John and myself by the quality of our disciples (children)’.

Lk. 7:34

18.	Note how v. 17 prepares the way for this verse.
20.	Another…another. John’s disciples soften the enquiry by switching from “a different sort” to “one of the same sort as yourself”. Does this mean they were inclined to believe that Jesus must be the Messiah?
24, 25	Reed…soft raiment. Rather remarkably these come in the context of the two Isaiah prophecies Jesus had alluded to: 35:7; 61:3, 10 (62:1 = Jn. 5:35). Was Lk. 23:11 intended as a vindictive retaliation for this irony of Jesus?
30.	Rejected the counsel of God. But in this context there is no “counsel of God” spoken against the Pharisees as yet.
	Therefore read v. 29, 30 as reference back to Mt. 3:7.

Jesus turned from instruction and reproof regarding one’s disposition towards others, now to encourage right attitudes towards God and one’s own personal needs and aspirations.

In a nutshell, what he taught here was: If it is a genuine need, and you want it hard enough, God will give it you. But there must be importunity and purposeful personal dedication to the goal in view. This is indicated by the form of the verbs which the Lord used: “Keep on asking…keep on seeking…keep on knocking.”

These precepts of persistence each find their illustration in one of the Lord’s later parables. There was the widow who knew her cause was right and who therefore would not desist from her pleading, even though the character of the judge who could help her was in itself a massive discouragement (Lk. 18:1-8). There was the merchant man “seeking goodly pearls” (Mt. 13:45, 46). Implicit in this short parable is a picture of journeys undertaken far from home, of patient enquiries and yet more patient bargaining, of disciplined sacrifice of pearls already treasured, but also of ultimate acquisition and deep satisfaction. And there is the story (Lk. 11:5-8) of the householder who, because faced with the obligations of hospitality, beat ceaselessly on his neighbour’s door in the night to plead for the help which he could get from nowhere else. Indeed, this parable has all three elements asking, seeking, knocking.

The spirit of precept and parable is the same. A man must know what he wants, and must want it so badly that all his desires and energies are focussed on this one thing until the end is achieved. Alas, the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. The purposeful spirit of men in eagerly seeking their aims or desires on a more mundane material level so rarely carries over into the field of spiritual aspiration. Yet, clearly, it is these that Jesus was talking about. Whether it be understanding concerning the fulfilment of God’s Purpose in the world (Mt. 24:3), or wisdom to direct one’s life aright, or that of the ecclesia (Jas. 1:5, 6), or aid in the exacting work of preaching the gospel (Jn. 15:7), or deeper understanding of the work of Christ (Jn. 16:23-30), or help for a brother in spiritual low water (1 Jn.5:16)-whatever the need, if it be not selfishly materialistic, the Father stands ready to give the desired aid. The Lord’s repetition, which might be judged unnecessary, emphasizes this truth: “For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

It is clear that Jesus expected unbelief of these assurances (and how justified he has been in this!). So he went on to reason his case with a devastating logic and insight into human nature which are not to be gainsaid. Would a man mock his hungry child by offering him a stone to chew? And instead of the customary dried fish as appetizer, would he hand him a serpent or scorpion to scare or sting him? Such things-the first a mockery, the second and third positively dangerous-are unthinkable. “If you, then, bad as you are (and Jesus was addressing his close disciples!) know how to give your children what is good for them, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him!” (NEB). Jesus himself exemplified this by giving his hungry disciples both bread and fish (Mt. 14:19; 15:36; Jn. 21:9)-and this without their asking. And for those who do ask for fish his response is even better (Lk. 5:6, 10).

The realism about these words shows Jesus to be no starry-eyed air-borne enthusiast. He knew from personal experience the tremendous power of the ties of family affection. But he was not blind to the innate evil of human nature (Mt. 15:19). “Bad as you are!” – the phrase stresses: ‘This is your very nature!’ If even this ingrained selfishness can be swamped by parental instinct, then with how much more confidence may not the children of a God who is all loving-kindness look to Him in every need! (Cp. the argument in Lk. 18:6, 7.)

This counsel, which God’s sons accept so readily in theory and are yet so loth to profit by in practice, is the positive counterpart to what the Lord had taught a little while earlier regarding the danger and sin of worry. Both there and here his illustrations from ordinary experience were designed to bring faith and dependence on God into everyday life as a normal reality.

Yet is it not true in practice that men do ask God to satisfy their needs, they do seek wisdom and guidance from Him, they do knock at doors which He can open? – and then they positively forget to scrutinize their experience, whether soon or late, for the divine response. The children of God are not comfortable breathing the rarified atmosphere of the life of faith, although this is their native air. So it was not for nothing that Jesus said: “Keep on asking, keep on seeking, keep on knocking.”

Indeed, it is almost as though Jesus were saying, in modern phrase: “You can’t lose!” The hungry child in God’s family, asking for something to eat (as healthy children always do) and already taught to ask when hungry (Lk. 11:3, 5), will not be fobbed off with the mockery of a piece of stone. The worst of human parents, “being evil”, would hardly indulge in such mockery. And isn’t your Father in heaven the best of all possible parents in this world? The child clamouring for a fish to add flavour to his barley bread-would you dream of offering him an unclean eel or a deadly serpent? Will a stinging scorpion show your love for your little one asking for an egg? Then with what confidence may not God’s children come to Him and experience His opening the windows of heaven to pour forth blessing-not necessarily the blessing that is asked for, but certainly the blessing that is needed.

In Luke, the promised gift is “Holy Spirit”. It is doubtful if the absence of a definite article makes any difference to the meaning here. It might mean “a holy mind or disposition”. It might mean “the powers of the Holy Spirit” to aid the work of preaching the gospel (see Study 128 on vv. 5-8). Yet apparently Jesus had already given Holy Spirit powers to the Twelve and the Seventy (Mt. 10:1; Lk. 10:1).

Next follows an altogether unexpected inference from the simple but difficult principle just taught: “Therefore (because your heavenly Father is ready to show such liberality towards you), whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

The words were not unfamiliar to the ears of his disciples, for something rather similar had been enunciated as a leading principle of one of the two main rabbinic schools. Hillel, father of the Gamaliel who trained Saul of Tarsus, a pleasant humble man, had taught his followers: “What is hateful to thyself do not to thy fellow-man; this is the whole Law, the rest is commentary.” Jesus said the same, but stated it positively, and thereby widened its scope enormously, charging it with an idealism which is positively frightening. And he introduced it with an important “Therefore”, as though implying from the context: ‘God does good to you because that is His nature. But men are naturally evil. Therefore, if you would receive good from them, should you not first show that kind of divine goodness to them?’ The Lord does not add that such an attitude will infallibly succeed. But neither does God’s lavish goodness to all His creatures evoke that response (indeed, hardly ever!), yet is He never dissuaded, never discouraged.

In this all-embracing principle-doing to others as one would be done by–there is turned to positive usefulness the ingrained selfishness which is a natural trait of every man alive. Would he know his bounden duty to his fellows in the world or in the ecclesia? Then let him mentally change places and ask himself what he would most appreciate in friendship, understanding, practical aid, sympathy, fellowship. Few things said by Jesus are more wide-ranging in the impact they can make on daily life. Perhaps it is for this reason that this principle appears to be so rarely invoked. It is just too uncomfortable.

Notes: Mt. 7:7-12

7.	Ask. Mk. 11:24; Gen. 18:23-33; ls. 62:6, 7.
8.	Every one that asketh receiveth. But is this always true? It has been very well said that the answer to every prayer is always one of three: Yes. No. Wait. Nor is the answer necessarily just what has been asked.
10.	Scorpion (in Gk.). Has been interpreted as meaning a biting retort; ls. 59:5; Ez. 2:6; Lk. 10:19.
11.	Your Father which is in heaven. Lk has the unusual variant: “from (out of) heaven”, as though picturing a Father looking down with concern out of heaven.
12.	If this verse is Christ’s counterpart to that famous precept of Hillel, then v. 13 may be read as his equivalent to the austerity of the school of Shammai.
	Another possibility about this verse is that its “therefore” makes it a final commentary on v. 1-5.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said…“ In this section of the Lord’s discourse there is the clearest possible demonstration that his commentary and protest did not relate to the Law of Moses directly but to the interpretations of it which had come to be regarded as authoritative at that time. Certainly Moses had written: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, but there is no sign in the Law of the antithesis: “thou shalt hate thine enemy.”

The nearest approach which Moses has to this unwarranted perversion of his teaching is the warning against fellowship with Ammonite or Moabite, “to their tenth generation.” “Thou sholt not seek their peace nor their prosperity for ever” (Dt. 23:3-6).

The Spirit of Moses’ Law

Indeed, both in precept and in spirit, the Law left no room for the cherishing of hatreds. The ox or ass of one’s enemy must be saved from straying. If help was needed with a beast in difficulty, it must be given, even though its owner hate you like poison (Ex. 23:4, 5). Then how much more should the man himself be helped, his bad disposition notwithstanding?

It is true that the Law has several drastic injunctions that the Canaanitish tribes be extirpated from the Land (eg. Dt. 25:17-19; 20:17; 7:16; Num. 31:16, 17), but these were divine judgments against people incurably wicked. The Canaanites were not Israel’s -enemies but God’s!

By contrast with these, there is the kindly wisdom of the Book of Proverbs, unmatched in its tone and quality in any ancient literature: “Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the Lord and he shall save thee” (20:22).

“Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him (to thee)” (24:17, 18). So even the outpouring of heaven’s wrath on an enemy is not to be viewed with unmixed satisfaction.

“If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink. For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee” (25:21, 22).

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” is by no means an isolated precept in the Law. “A finer description of true neighbourliness than this chapter (Lev. 19) would be hard to find, for it includes generosity (v. 9, 10), truthfulness, integrity and justice (v. 11-13), consideration for the afflicted (v. 14), equity in judgement (v. 15), freedom from malice or vindictiveness, and sincere effort for mutual understanding (v. 16-18)” (L.G.S. “The Teaching of the Master, ” page 143).

A Great Ideal

Jesus re-enunciated the spirit of these Mosaic commandments: “I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you (s.w. 1 Pet. 3:16), and persecute you” (Mt. 5:44). Every phrase here vetoes natural inclination. Nor is the force of the commandment diluted by the omission of two of the phrases (probably rightly) from the modern version. The omitted words are certainly authentic in Luke 6:28, whence they have crept into the text of Matthew. Indeed, Luke 6:35 appears to go even further: “Love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again.” Even those so mild of disposition as not to cherish rancour against out and out enemies would hesitate to show this degree of practical generosity. And it is noteworthy that the Lord’s instruction is to pray for them, on their behalf, and not merely about them. Here, then, is the solvent of many a problem in human relationships. Undertaken in Christian duty in the first place, prayer for those who are enemies becomes not only a salve to troubled souls but also the essential first step towards mutual understanding. It can hardly be stressed too much that there is no higher or more practical wisdom than this. But is there any commandment of Christ that goes so much by default? Its idealism so transcends practicality as to warrant classification with the impossible. So, at least, the not uncommon attitude of conscientious disciples of the Lord appears to proclaim.

It is important, then, here-as with certain other of the Lord’s teaching-that there be scrupulous honesty with regard to it. If the commandment daunts the disciple by its very idealism, then rather than dilute its meaning and intention by the kind of casuistry the Pharisees were good at, it were better to affirm outright: “Lord, forgive me, your standards are too high for me, this is more than I can do.” If the law of Christ be honoured in the breach more than the observance, at least let it be honoured!

Agape

To be sure, in the minds of many “much difficulty in understanding the command arises from the emotional association of the word which confuses loving with liking” (L.G.S.). Gore’s famous definition of Christian love, in his book, “The Philosophy of the Good Life”, has never been bettered: “The Greek word for love in the New Testament (agape) does not signify any sort of emotion, but a deliberate disposition of the will, something which is within everyone’s control if he chooses to have it so. We can put God indisputably first; and we can care impartially for the interests of those we like and those we don’t like.”

The Goodness of God

The purpose and intent of this sublime command of Christ to love our enemies is for the sake of its effect on the disciple as well as on others — “that ye may become the children of your Father which is in heaven.” Family likeness shows up in the children. That is how it must be in the family of God also. And the striking implication needs to be noted that even though professed, baptized believers are sons of God in one sense, they have need to become sons of God in a much higher sense. (And Rev. 21:7 points higher still).

The Father does not ask His children to do other than what He Himself practices: “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” It is not that the godless happen by some lucky fluke to share the blessings which God designs for His own, just because they happen to be there at the time, ana discrimination is difficult or inconvenient. As L.G.S. comments again: “God maketh the sun to rise, and sendeth the rain, on the evil and good, just and unjust; it is His deliberate action to include both in the scope of these gifts.”

This awe-inspiring goodness in the character of God was declared by Moses also: “The Lord your God is a God of gods, and Lord of lords… He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Dt. 10:17-19).

The world’s way of sharing good fellowship with those who offer it is now quietly exposed as the easy-going life of self-interest which it essentially is. “Do not even the publicans so?” And Jesus would have the righteousness of his followers exceed that of the publicans as well as that of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 5:20). So there must be the utmost good will towards all, regardless of personal character or individual predilection: “The poor (ie. the meek godly man) and the oppressor meet together: the Lord lighteneth the eyes of them both” (Pr.29:13). Those who are the Lord’s people are called to emulate this divine example: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (cp. Lev. 19:2; Dt. 18:13).

“Perfect”

In the modern sense of the term this is unreasonable. Such a degree of moral perfection is a stark impossibility. But this Greek word translated “perfect” is used in the New Testament in the sense of “mature”, “grown up”. Hebrews 5:13, 14 sets the “babe” who is “unskilful in the word of righteousness” over against “them that are of full age” (RVm: full grown). Similarly, in 1 Cor. 2:6: “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect (RVm: full grown).” “Till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4;13; and see 5:1). This passage beautifully expresses the idea of spiritual growth to maturity.

Specially interesting is Col. 3:14, 15: “And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.” This love for one’s enemies (notice the previous verse!) is the mark of spiritual grown-up-ness. In putting these words on paper, Paul was writing in Greek but thinking in Hebrew. He continues: “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts.” The words “peace” and “perfect” are almost identical in Hebrew.

The development of Christ’s thought in this part of his discourse is specially impressive. He begins by setting before his followers the ideal of being true children of a beneficent Heavenly Father (v. 45). He concludes by pointing them to a further spiritual target-that of being grown-up like their Father. Could there be any aspiration higher than this?

Notes: Mt. 5:43-48

43.	Hate thine enemy has been indignantly described as “a villainous gloss”. ‘*;
44.	Love your enemies. It is impressive to observe that God does not observe this new law of retaliation towards those who are the enemies of His friends: Gen. 12:3. Pray for them. Inspirit: Job. 31:29, 30;and in fact: Lk. 23:34.
46.	If ye love them which love you. There is a remarkable switch here from aorist to continuous tense, perhaps implying: If you decide to show love to those who are already in the habit of showing love to you…
47.	Salute is certainly the right word here, for the publicans Jesus spoke about would neither bless nor pray (v. 44).
48.	As your Father. Lev. 11:44; Dt. 18:13; Eph. 5:1.

The danger of ending up on the broad way to destruction is not so great for the earnest well-intentioned disciple as for the heedless easygoing self-centred worldling. But this danger does exist-for a different reason. A man’s eagerness to ensure that he is following the way of truth may lead him to attach himself to any dogmatic teacher who recommends himself by his own self-assurance. Such have been known to appear among the faithful with all the trappings of dedicated zeal and specialised knowledge.

“Grievous wolves”

Paul foretold the phenomenon: “Grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise. speaking perverse things to draw away disciples offer them” (Acts. 20:29, 30). The apostle learned that term “wolves” from his Master. And the word he used for “grievous” suggests men who throw their weight about.

Jesus expressed the same idea when he bade his disicples “beware of false prophets”-men who rise up claiming falsely to speak with divine authority (cp. 1 Kgs. 13:11-32). He was to round off his ministry with a similar and even more pointed warning against these self-accredited teachers (Mt. 24:23-26).

Such men come “in sheep’s clothing”, soft and white-that is, with all the outward signs of being respectable and conformable members of the flock-but “inwardly they are ravening wolves”. But “sheep’s clothing” may mean more than “a sheep’s appearance”. Enduma means “a garment which is put on”. So it could be that this false prophet is pictured as a shepherd who fleeces or slays his sheep for his own comfort and well-being. The description: “ravening wolves” now follows very suitably. The picture could hardly be more accurate. When a wolf behaves as a wolf, it is not deliberately setting out to be fierce and predatory, it is simply behaving according to its nature. In the same way the false teacher leaves a trail of damage and ruin because this is his nature — his old nature, unchanged by the influence of Christ.

The figure (used again by Jesus in his parable of the Good Shepherd; Jn. 10:12) is drawn from one of Ezekiel’s searing censures of evil men in his own generation, but (like Ezekiel’s other prophecies) with prophetic reference to later days also. Prophets, priests and princes are all bitterly condemned for “ravening the prey like wolves” (22:25-27).

Paul passed on his Lord’s warning as one urgently needed in the early church: “Grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts. 20:29.) It was one of the apostle’s characteristic understatements. They did much worse than that.

This basic characteristic of an unchanged nature is stressed yet again: “Do men gather a grape (even a single grape?) of thorns, or figs of thistles?” The fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22, 23) do not grow on the least attractive of God’s plants.

Thorns and thistles, one of the curses of the Fall in Eden (Gen. 3:18), may still make their rank presence felt in the New Creation.

Needful Repetition

The principle that a leader in the church shall be judged by his fruits seems simple and obvious. Nevertheless the Lord’s insight into human nature led him to stress this truth again and again, both positively and negatively. It is as though he were teaching little children. Looking back over the years, who can say that the warning was unnecessary? To what extent has it been heeded? Perhaps there has been some uncertainty as to what Jesus meant by “their fruits”. The easy assumption that this describes a man’s personal righteousness is not adequate. The public act put on by the Pharisees had taken in an entire nation, and it would be strange indeed if there have not been more recent revivals of so successful a stage play.

Fruits – Judging Others

Yet in one respect this criterion is sound. In Luke’s gospel the advice to judge the quality of a tree by its fruits is closely linked with the beam and the mote – the denunciation of those who, heedless of their own short-comings, judge others with gusto. Faction leaders have ever shown a marked flair for disreputable activities of this kind.

Deceitful teachers may seek to add to this deceit by a show of good fruits. But the discerning will not be taken in. “A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit”. This is an achievement beyond the power of men. Only God can achieve it, and only in Messiah’s family, as the genealogy of Messiah’s family illustrates: “Coz begat Anub” – Thorn begat Grape (1 Chr. 4:8).

The apostle James appears to have given the Lord’s words the same sort of meaning. In a chapter which used the figure of the tongue for the influence of the teacher in the ecclesia he more than implies that a teacher who is capable of both “blessing and cursing…bitter envying and strife” (3:1 RV, 10, 14) is not fit to have disciples at all: “Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine figs?”. Does not each bear “offer his kind”? Yet, unwilling to lacerate his readers too much with the sharpness of his Lord’s figure, James seems deliberately to have modified the original saying.

Fruits-Disciples

Alternatively, it could be that the “fruits” Jesus alluded to are the actual teachings of these unworthy upstarts, but if so the figure loses some of its fitness, for fruits grow and ripen slowly. Again, and more probably, it is the quality of the disciples of these men to which the Lord pointed: ‘You can assess these prophets by the; kind of followers they gather round them’. In another place where the crop was recognized by its fruits-the parable of the tares – this seems; to be the main point: “When the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also” (Mt. 13:26). The sowing of the tares corresponds to the introduction of false teaching. The ripening in the ear suggests the kind of converts made by this introduction of error.

Fruits – Attitude to Christ

The Lord himself indicated yet another application of this mini-parable, in a later encounter with the Pharisees, when his wonderful miracles were being airily attributed to an alliance with the powers of evil, he bade these baneful adversaries apply his own simple test to himself: “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit” (Mt. 12:33). But Jesus meant the test to be applied to these Pharisees also-and with what damning results?

So the Lord’s test of false prophets could have as its main point: “You are to judge these men by what they say about me”. (In Mt. the context has precisely this idea; see Study 75). All stand or fall by their attitude to Jesus Christ! This is the very test by which the apostle John proposed to sort out the true and the false among the crop of self-appointed teachers with which the early church found itself afflicted: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God”. To this day there is no better single test of truth and error.

Judgment

And if the teacher be found wanting, if the tree bear evil fruit, what then? Christ answers bluntly: “It is hewn down, and cast into the fire”. This is also the fate of the tree which bears no fruit: “Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Lk. 13:7). Even in the present day such decisions are made by “the owner of the vineyard” through the Word that He has given to His servants. And so Paul excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander for the blasphemies of their erroneous teaching (1 Tim. 1:19-20); 2 Tim. 2:17, 18). If the mouths of harmful leaders cannot be stopped (Tit. 1:11), this is the only alternative.

Notes: Mt. 7:15-20

15.	Beware of. By a neat choice of Greek preposition the Lord implies: ‘and shy away from’.
16.	Grapes of thorns. A common OT figure; Pr. 22:5; Hos. 10:8; ls. 5:4 (Heb: stinkers); Mic. 7:l, 4 (a very fine Messianic prophecy); Jer. 2:21.
18.	Cannot. A strong expression; a word often used in NT for divine action.
	Good Tree…good fruit. Different adjectives here. A sound or wholesome tree producing beautiful fruit which in turn can be judged by its appearance.
19.	Hewn down…fire. John the Baptist’s metaphor; Mt. 3:10.
20.	Wherefore. The Greek expression has a rather sardonic flavour.
	By their fruits. Dt. 18:22 supplies yet another kind of test.

Luke 6:43-45

43.

Corrupt fruits. The context here suggests that this might be the judging of others. But in Mt. 7 the reference is to false teachers. So here is another hallmark of the unworthy leader-his penchant for wholesale self-righteous censure of others. Luke’s details of the figure are different, but the idea is the same. Here is a clear example illustrating that Jesus used the same ideas in his teaching on more than one occasion.

45.

Bringeth forth. This verb comes only here and in Pr. 10:13 LXX where the reading is: “He that brings forth wisdom (good fruit) from his lips smites the fool with a rod.” i.e. his wise utterance is in itself a censure of the ill-informed.

Every man who takes his religious life seriously is in danger of taking himself too seriously. Human nature does not take kindly to the discipline of a religious life, but when in a religious environment it loves to be seen to be religious. So Jesus warns: “Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them.” The Received Text has the word “alms” here, as in the verses which follow, but (even though there is as much textual evidence for one reading as for the other) there can be no doubt that the confusion came in through failure to recognize that this introductory statement covers three of the most obvious expressions of religious duty – giving to the poor, prayer to God, and fasting. The confusion would be all the easier because the word for righteousness was so often used with the specialised meaning of “almsgiving”.

The Selfish Motive

The operative phrase is “to be seen of them” (cp. 23:5). Some, misconstruing the Lord’s instruction here have been known to hold up for condemnation any expression of Christian kindliness which has been known to others. Thus without stopping to think they censure the one they call Master and Lord, and also one of his chief apostles (Acts 20:34, 35).

But “it is the motive, and not the fact of publicity, which vitiates the action” (Plumptre). To be sure, the powers of self-deception in human nature are so subtle that it is well to err towards secrecy in activities of this sort. The whole value before God (and perhaps before man) of such good works may be cancelled out by an unworthy motive. “Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and have not love”, says Paul (1 Cor.13:3). And by contrast the self-conscious and self-approving do-gooders exclaim: “Lord, when saw we thee an hungred etc. etc… and did not minister unto thee” (Mat. 25:44). Right well such know their own worth (but not their own worthlessness).

“Otherwise”, adds Jesus, “ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven”. Did he mean no reward for this particular act of “goodness”, or no reward at all? The second of these is correct, for when Jesus said: “Do not your righteousness before men”, he used the continuous form of the verb which indicates not an isolated action but a habit of life, the posturing of a man who is always intent on having the good opinion of his fellows.

Contradiction?

But, then, how is this warning to be reconciled with the Lord’s earlier plain instruction: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works” (5:16)? There is a twofold explanation. First, there is all the difference in the world as to motive. There could be no greater contrast between “glorify your Father which is in heaven” and “to be seen of men”. Also, the kind of activity contemplated is different. The context of the one suggests the imparting of instruction to those who make up the Lord’s household. (See Study 52). The

context of the other indicates a selfish appetite for the spotlight of publicity.

Sounding a Trumpet

Christ’s words about “sounding a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets” are not to be taken as anything but vigorous caricature (with allusion, perhaps, to Num. 10:3, 4). Reference to the loud clinking of coins in the trumpet-shaped collection boxes in the temple court is ruled out by the mention of synagogues and streets. And the fantasy that Pharisees were in the habit of having a servant blow a blast on a trumpet to summon the poor to receive their dole is similarly eliminated by the word synagogue. The writers of books on Bible manners and customs have a lot of distortions to answer for!

Hypocrite

The man who practises his righteousness for the sake of its effect on those who witness it is a play-actor. This is one of the meanings of the word “hypocrite” used by Jesus. And that this was the meaning intended here is shown by his phrase “to be seen of men”, for here is the word which has given birth to the English word “theatre”. The expression is marvellously apt. The religious hypocrite is a play-actor. On stage he is one kind of person. In his private life he is someone else altogether different. And the motive is the same: “to have glory of men”. There would be few professional actors, and no amateurs at all, if there were no round of ego-satisfying applause at the end of the show.

Plummer comments very pithily that these hypocrites “were not giving but buying. They wanted the praise of men, they paid for it, and they got it.” The Lord’s present tense says this: “they are receiving (now) their reward” – it is a commercial term for full payment made and receipt given (cp. Paul’s playful use of the same term in Phil. 4:18).

But this kind of posturing is seen by God as well as by men, and He does not join in the applause, because He sees not only the playacting but the motive behind it. “Ye receive honour one of another”, Jesus accused the Jewish rulers, “and seek not the honour that cometh from God only” (Jn. 5:44).

So these Pharisees had their reward. They had it, there and then (so the word implies), in the public reputation which they sought and got. And that was the end of the transaction. If they hoped also for a reward from God hereafter, they hoped in vain. To Him they were a write-off. How these men needed, for their own good, the devastating reminders of Psalm 139, all of it!

Secret Giving

This incisive negative warning made plain, Jesus turned to positive counsel: “But thou, when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.” the pronoun is no longer plural but singular. Here is a discipline for each man to apply to his own way of life, according to the best patterns. The records have only one allusion to the almsgiving of Jesus (Jn. 13:29) and of Paul (Acts 20;34), but what lives of quiet purposeful beneficence are implied here!

In a number of places the Bible uses the right hand for approval and blessing, and the left for curse and condemnation (eg. Mt. 25:31-41; Gen. 48:14; Josh. 8:30-35; Ez. 4:4; Rev. 10:2). So here Jesus may have meant not only: “As much as possible avoid publicity in your almsgiving” but also: “Beware against preening yourself for your own goodness; the bad side of your inclinations will make capital out of this somehow; for the heart of man is deceitful above all things.”

One writer has put the issue very pithily: “To do alms in secret is to offer a double sacrifice.” This, after all, is God’s own method. None of His beneficent gifts in Nature obtrude the Giver; consequently it is possible for the silly cocksure atheist to enjoy all the blessings of God’s sun and rain and all the riches of a fair earth, and yet deny that He is even there.

David’s Example

When David dedicated the massive resources of his prosperous reign for the erection of the new temple in Jerusalem, his attitude of mind could hardly have been bettered. His vast generosity to the sanctuary of the Lord was not to be hidden, nor was this altogether desirable, since by his example he hoped to incite the nation to similar sacrifice. But his prayer of dedication shows a wonderful sense of spiritual perspective: “Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is thine;… But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee”(lChr.29:11-14).

Even more sublime is the utter unselfconsciousness in those on the Lord’s right hand in the Last Days. They are unaware that they have done any good acts of any consequence at all. ‘Lord, when did we minister unto thee?’ The sheer surprise in their protest (25:37-39) is not to be matched anywhere in Scripture.

Keeping an Eye on the Reward

In place of the reward of high public reputation for piety Jesus assures his followers of a different and better recompense: “Thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee.” Not that this should be the target of one’s striving and aspiration. No spiritual ambition which is self-centred is truly spiritual. L.G.S. has some very caustic comments on this attitude of mind: “A man would be far from meek who thought that inheritance of the earth would be the due return of his meekness. It is a tragic absurdity to think: ‘I will be meek, because that is the way to obtain the inheritance.’ In that way a man will attain nothing but an inverted pride: he will be a play-actor whose performance deceives himself: and in his unlovely self-righteousness he may not have even the Pharisees’ reward of popular applause…By just such incongruities under a thin disguise the heart deceives itself in every age. ‘Seek ye first the Kingdom’ has too often been read as a call to pursue with a joyless possessiveness the bigger returns which the next life can offer for the surrender of present pleasures.”

At the same time it would be priggish to be indifferent to the Father’s promise of a reward and a kingdom. Those, who are most aware of their own detects marring all present strivings after godliness, are the most intense in their longing for a better life in which to glorify God. Here, once again, motive is the important factor. Those who single-mindedly seek the praise and honour of God will find their best and highest reward in a future realisation of that aspiration.

“Reward thee openly”

In all three places where Jesus repeats these words about reward (v. 4, 6, 18) the modern translations omit the adverb “openly”, although the manuscript evidence for this omission is not altogether decisive. If the word is an unwarranted addition to the text, it is difficult to surmise how it came to be included. Actually the evidence in favour of its inclusion varies in the three places and is markedly the strongest in verse 6, concerning the reward for secret prayer.

But if indeed the word “openly” is to be omitted, then this leaves room for reading: “Thy Father which seeth shall reward thee in secret.”

The Law of Moses is explicit that God follows the principle of overt retribution on evil-doers: “He repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, and he will repay him to his face” (Dt. 7:10). Divine justice will be done, and will be seen to be done. And so also, one may be sure, God’s graciousness- hereafter, if not in this life. “Thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just” (Lk. 14:14).

Fasting

The Lord was equally incisive in his observations on the danger of seeking to make capital out of the religious practice of fasting. “Become not ye of a sad countenance”, he said, thus plainly implying the warning: “Don’t put it on!” He underlined this with a pun that was not light-hearted: “The hypocrites disfigure their faces, that they may figure before men as fosters.”

Jesus was not against fasting as such. Indeed, he assumes (“whenever”; v. 2, 5, 16) that it will be part of the life of the disciple. Already he had spoken about the need for spiritual self-discipline (5:29, 30). Fasting was another aspect of the same regimen – not for health reasons (which are never mentioned in the Bible in this context), but as an aid to true devotion (Acts 13:2; 1 Cor. 7:5; 9:24-27). Therefore it must be kept to oneself, and not paraded. You are to anoint and wash (and array) yourself as though going to a feast. Afflict your soul inwardly, said Jesus, but see that it does not become an occasion for display and spiritual pride. Let it be between you and your Father. He sees, He knows, and he rewards. Nothing else matters.

Notes: Mt. 6:1-4, 16-18

	If v. 7-15 are set in brackets, the rest of v. 1-18 falls into three tidy paragraphs.
2.	Alms. Basically the word means “mercy”, but it came to describe this special kind of mercy to the poor. Cp. the fate of the AV word “charity” in 1 Cor. 13.
	Glory of men. But, let it not be forgotten, the action is seen by God also, and for what it truly is.
4.	Shall reward thee. There is a definiteness and certainty about this.
16.	Sad countenance. Dan. 1:10 Gk. has the same word.

It was the Lord’s own prayer in more senses than one. In Gethsemane, in his hour of greatest need, its phrases were on his lips and its petitions fervently spoken: “Abba, Father…Thy will be done” (Mk. 14:36), and to his disciples: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation” (14:38). Only a little while earlier in his high-priestly prayer the simple meaningful phrases were echoed: “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil…sanctify them through thy Truth…Holy father, keep in thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” (Jn. 17:15, 17).

But it could never be completely his own prayer. “Forgive me my trespasses” was a petition never spoken by him. Instead: “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.”

It is almost to be expected that Jesus would derive his Prayer from the Old Testament. In fact, the problem here is why there are some phrases which are not already made familiar by the Old Testament.

Our Father	Dt. 1:31; Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1; lsa. 63:16.
Which art in heaven	1 Kgs 8 (8 times); Ps. 115:1, 3.
Hallowed be Thy Name
Thy kingdom come
Thy will be done
On earth as in heaven	Dt. 11:21; Ps. 103:20.
Daily bread	Pr. 30:8; Ex. 16:16.
Forgive us our trepasses As we forgive	1 Sam. 26:34.
Lead us not into temptation Deliver us from evil	1 Sam. 26:24; Pr. 2:12.
Thine is the kingdom etc.	1 Chr. 29:11; Dan. 4:30, 34.

Two considerations suggest that Luke’s setting of the Lord’s Prayer is the true origination of it:

1. “It came to pass that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples (who was it?) said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples” (Lk. 11:1).
2. The shape of Matthew 6, where v. 7-15 clearly forms a parenthesis interrupting the tidy structure of v. 1-18.

The Ten Commandments were also given twice.

A Prayer used by Paul

It was Paul’s prayer also. The man who prayed as he wrote could hardly help but employ these phrases already familiar in the early church. “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (Gal. 1:4, 5).

Here three, perhaps four, allusions to the Lord’s Prayer cluster together, to be followed soon offer by “Abba, Father” (4:6), the cry of God’s adopted sons. And similarly in the last thing Paul wrote: “The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (2 Tim. 4:18). It is hardly possible to believe that Paul was not adapting the familiar well-loved words when he wrote this.

In Col. 1:9-16 also Paul’s mind seems to have been running on the Lord’s Prayer: “pray…his will…the might of his glory…the Father…delivered us from the power of darkness… into the kingdom…the forgiveness of sins… in heaven and in earth.”

Abuse and Neglect

Here, then, is apostolic evidence, which early church history confirms, that from primitive times the Lord’s Prayer became an integral part of Christian devotion. The early church taught this prayer to converts who had been carefully instructed and were now ready for baptism. The contrast with more modern times when little children — and not only little children — have been taught to gabble the words in meaningless unintelligent fashion morning offer morning, could hardly be greater – unless one excepts the phenomenal neglect of the Lord’s Prayer by Christadelphian congregations. No doubt this, traditional abstention began as a sharp ‘_w reaction to the gross abuse of precious holy words, but it is a matter of question whether perhaps the reaction has itself created a problem of a different sort.

“For the sake of Jesus Christ”

“And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (Jn. 14:13). The words have often been interpreted as a requirement that every prayer uttered by a child of God must include the words “for the sake of Jesus Christ”, or their

equivalent. Indeed some go so far as to deem it necessary to include such words at the very beginning of every prayer. To such the Lord’s Prayer presents a problem. Surely it is not outmoded by the fact that, being taught to the disciples before Jesus died, it could not include allusion to his mediatorial work? Such an unconvincing view carries its own limitations on the surface.

The fact is that the routine mention of the name of Jesus in every prayer is by no means necessary. The idea has sprung from a misunderstanding of the expression “in my name”. “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you” (Jn. 15:7). These words interpret the others. It is impossible for any true disciple to pray to God other than “in the name” of Jesus, whether the actual name be employed or not. When the apostles prayed for guidance in the choice of a successor for Judas, the name of Jesus was not specifically used. And Stephen’s prayer: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” was another which only tacitly recognized the unceasing mediatorial work of Jesus.

The beginning of the Prayer- “Our Father” – itself carries with it the clear implication that this sublime relationship has been established through the unique work of Jesus. When the Jewish leaders, in controversy with Jesus, boldly asserted: “We have one Father, even God”, the Lord’s retort was: “If God were your Father, ye would love me” (Jn. 8:42). The two facts are not to be separated. Those who love Christ have God for their Father. Those who know God to be their Father know also that their adoption is only through Christ, and that apart from his sacrifice there could be no acceptance.

This thought is implicit even in the brevity of the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. The prayer: “God be propitiated to me, the sinner” (Lk. 18:13), clearly implies an understanding of the need for propitiatory sacrifice offered specifically for the one who prays. All this is wrapped up also in the words: “Our Father…forgive us our sins.”

Pattern or Example?

Did Jesus frame his prayer as an example, or is it to be used as given? The introductory phrase: “After this manner pray ye” simply means “Thus”, and might refer either to its form or to the very words. The examples cited from the epistles of Paul imply the validity of either use. Certainly Paul sometimes made use of the exact words, but he also varied the phrases and the order of them. It seems a pity that the formal recitation of the Lord’s Prayer should be shunned just because of abuse by others. “A king who draws up the petition which he allows to be presented to himself, has doubtless the fullest determination to grant the request.” Provided this comparison is not taken in too rigid a fashion, its point is a good one.

“Our Father”

The address to God as “Father” immediately implies a close relationship and a confident approach – a true mean between the formalism of early Victorian days when sons addressed their parent as “Sirl” and the sloppy familiarity of the moderns with whom “Old dad” and “Pop” are some of the more respectful soubriquets. But “Our Father which art in heaven” properly preserves the balance between a confident close relationship and a sense of awe at the majesty of God. The words are an appropriate reminder to the child of God as he prays, and also a needful acknowledgement, that “God is in heaven, and thou upon earth.” There is confidence in a God who, being in heaven, is All-Good. There is also respect because He, being in heaven, is the omnipotent Maker of all. Both are necessary.

In the Old Testament God is not infrequently spoken of as the Father of the nation or Israel (lsa. 1:2; 63:16; Mal. 1:6), but only in the sublime Psalm 103 is there any real approach to the close confident relationship Jesus taught: “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him” (v. 13).

Corresponding to that plural – “children” – there is the uniform use of the plural pronoun in the Lord’s Prayer. “Our Father” does not mean “Father of man and wife praying together” (though indeed the prayer could well be used thus), nor does it imply “Jesus and the individual disciple.” It must signify “Father of my brethren and me.” Before the throne of God especially the redeemed are a family with deep concern for one another as much as for themselves. Job prayed for his friends, and so found healing for himself (42:10). “So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Rom. 12:5).

There is necessarily a difference between the way in which disciples pray “Our Father” and the way in which Jesus prayed “Holy Father.” Time and again he spoke of “my Father”, “my heavenly Father” but never of “our Father”. It is a distinction which needs no explaining – except by Unitarians and Trinitarians. Specially pointed was his word to Mary Magdalene: “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend onto my Father, and your Father” (Jn. 20:17). Such details quietly forbid approach to God through “our elder brother”. That Jesus does stand in this wonderful personal relationship to his disciple is a fact to be recognized with unremitting thankfulness, but it is a thing for him to insist on in his priestly mediation, rather than for his brethren to assert out of their status of undeserved privilege.

Personal petitions

It would be a mistake to infer from the plural pronouns in this pattern prayer that the Lord would have his people exclude petitions on all matters of personal concern. From the very nature of things a pattern prayer for general use could hardly cover such items. But there are examples enough in Scripture of men of God taking their own personal problems and difficulties to the throne of God’s grace with confidence. Paul prayed concerning his thorn in the flesh. Even though the answer was not the one he sought, there was evidently no doubt in his mind that it should be prayed about. Abraham interceded for Lot in Sodom, David for his sick baby son, Hezekiah for himself at death’s door.

Motive

All such emergencies are right and proper subjects for heartfelt sustained petitions to the Father, provided always that the motive is right. If self- interest dictates the plea, it were better not spoken. David and Hezekiah both provide examples of the best possible attitudes. Psalm 6 reveals a David laid low with what seemed to be an incurable disease. His impassioned prayer for recovery climbs to this climax: “Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies’ sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?”

Hezekiah’s request for annulment of his death sentence has the same unimpeachable ground: “For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down unto the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day” (ls. 38:18, 19). When a man’s outlook is completely taken over by considerations such as these there is no limit to what he may ask.

Accordingly, the first three of the seven petitions in the prayer are concerned, not with self but with the glory of God. It is like that also in the Ten Commandments and in the Two Great Commandments, let the praise and love of God come first and last, so the Lord’s Prayer insists.

Here there is an impressive example of envelope form – three petitions all governed by the phrase which concludes them. Thus the meaning is:

Hallowed be thy name on earth as it is in heaven.

Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven

The words: “which art in heaven” set the tone of proper reverence. There is no implication here of a Deity resident among sun, moon and stars, for they are His creation, obeying Him fully and accurately. Nevertheless the Old Testament (eg. Ez. 1) encourages God’s servants to think of Him not as lost in a vague unknowable unattainable fourth dimension, but as having specific location, enthroned above all that He has made. Yet Ezekiel’s awestruck repetition of “appearance” and “likeness” (11 times in 3 verses) shows how completely the heavenly vision beggared his vocabulary. Such Old Testament descriptions are doubtless an accommodation to human limitation. But they evidently set out a concept that it is best for God’s servants to have in mind. We must learn from them as best we may.

The Father’s Name “holied”

But how is the Lord’s Name hallowed, that is, “holied”? Certainly the avoidance of any taking of His Name in vain is included here. But this is to be content with the most superficial meaning of the words. In scripture the name of a man is much more than the conventional label which he wears in society. It signifies his personality, character and purpose in life. There is something of this in modern usage when, for example, the police demand: “Open, in the name of the law” — that is, because I have the authority of the law of the land behind me.

So, to hallow God’s Name is to give Him the reverence and honour due to Him as Maker and Sustainer of all. More than this, it is to glorify Him by an intelligent understanding of His revealed Purpose, a Purpose which His memorial Name embodies.

This aspect of the prayer — glorifying God as the Holy One of Israel and as the God of wondrous irrefragable covenants – does not go by default amongst “the Israel of God” in these days. But, strangely enough, as L.G.S. has very incisively pointed out in “The Teaching of the Master”, the same people are capable of a practical disbelief in His very existence! The Name of God is hallowed best of all by an unceasing recognition that He is Lord of all, the One to be acknowledged in all the activities of life, big and small.

A Neglected Practice

Yet, in fact, few know “the practice of the presence of God” (as it has been called). Much the biggest part of each day goes without conscious acknowledgement of God. Not only is it true that “God is not in all their thoughts”: He is in hardly any of them. Such is the weakness of human nature. It is the most saintly of the saints of God who are most aware of this besetting sin of “atheism”. Many go blithely about their affairs day by day, content to pay to God just a tithe (or less) of time and effort in Bible reading, prayers and religious duties. Yet this prayer, properly prayed, implies not only: we will never cease to regard Thy Name as holy; but also: we will do all in our power to make it known as holy; and we will seek holiness in every aspect of our daily living.

Alas! for one who would be “a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the master’s use”, this “holy-ing” of God’s Name must remain at best a conscious ideal (ls. 8:13), a discouraging but not discouraged pursuit of “righteousness, , faith, charity, peace, with them that calf on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:21, 22). And individual consecration will make a sanctified community, “not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but…holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). A holied ecclesia means the Name of God is hallowed (Jn. 17:17, 19).

Future Fulfilment

This was David’s ideal in his day: “Let thy name be magnified for ever, saying, The Lord of hosts is the God over Israel” (2 Sam. 7:26). But, alas, in his day there was only meagre realisation of such an aspiration, and even less thereafter. Notwithstanding, the great Purpose does not falter. The ultimate fulfilment will put all in perspective: “I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the Gentiles, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the Gentiles, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the Gentiles shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes” (Ez. 36:22, 23).

So, most of all, “Hallowed be Thy Name” is a prayer for the open manifestation and vindication of the Holiness of God in a world which has written Him off.

“Thy Kingdom come”

And similarly with the next petition. Prayer for the coming of God’s kingdom may be an expression of a personal eagerness to take part in a heavenly prize-distribution, or it may have as its springboard an intense zeal for the honour of God. L.G.S. has well said concerning the former emphasis: “To desire the kingdom merely as an end for ourselves is to desire not God’s kingdom but our own.” Yet assuredly personal participation and blessing should be, can hardly help but be, a vital part of the thinking of those who truly seek God’s kingdom and God’s righteousness. Hezekiah’s prayer when the invincible Assyrians were at his gate was for personal deliverance and that or his people, but the ground for his irresistible petition was that this proud Assryian had “reproached and blasphemed…had exalted his voice and lifted up his eyes on high against the Holy One of Israel” (ls. 37:3, 23). Therefore God must assert Himself. The rabbis were right in principle, if extreme in enunciation, when they declared: “The prayer wherein there is not mention of the kingdom of God is not prayer.”

What then, exactly, is the force of this petition? Is it a prayer which in some way actually influences the time of the bringing of God’s kingdom? Or is it no more than an expression of personal involvement: “We should like the kingdom to come”?

A Prayer with Power

Those who are wedded to the view that God has put a ring round a date on His calendar, and that nothing in heaven or earth can change that decision are necessarily committed to the latter view, which reduces “Thy Kingdom come” to a petition so milk-and watery as to be hardly worth praying at all: “We would like the kingdom to come, but we know that nothing we say or pray can alter what is already settled.”

Yet the Greek aorist tense imparts a real sense of urgency to the words. And even if it did not, it is unthinkable that the steadfast importunities of countless saints of God should be as though they had never been spoken. “I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that are the Lord’s remembrances, keep not silence, and give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth ‘ (ls. 62:6, 7)

This is also the apostle Peter’s exhortation: “Looking for and hastening (by your holy way of life and your godliness; v. 11) the coming of the day of God” (2 Pet. 3:12). The A.V. reading here: “hastening unto the coming of the day of God” is possible as a translation but is meaningless in this context. But if godliness can hasten the coming of the kingdom, then so also most assuredly can fervent prayer for it.

This is surely the main point of the Lord’s parable about importunate prayer. The story of the widow and the unjust judge is the continuation of a long discourse about the coming of the kingdom; and it concludes with the solemn words: “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” The faith which is not content to wait passively for the coming kingdom but storms the citadel of heaven with prayer for the vindication of God’s righteous remnant, will be a rare commodity in the last days. It is!

“Thy will be done”

Since the next petition: “Thy will be done/ is more closely linked with “on earth as it i; in heaven” than its predecessors, it is inevitable that it should be thought of chiefly as adding emphasis to the prayer for the kingdom. This it certainly does, yet the very fact of its use by the Lord in Gethsemane should teach its value as a marvellously simple expression of a basic philosophy of life-that there is no higher achievement in this age than to be content with what God appoints as one’s lot in life. Certainly in Gethsemane this was the case. “Not my will, but thy will be done” was the ultimate spirit of complete resignation reached by Jesus, yet it was not achieved without the sweat which was as great drops of blood.

The Muslim mutters his “Kismet! it is the will of Allah”, and makes this resignation, which could be altogether admirable, into a blanket excuse for indolence, both physical and spiritual. But with Jesus, complementary to “Thy will be done” was the Scripture written concerning him: “Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God” (Ps. 40:7). Accordingly his short ministry was one ceaseless surge of godly activity, as Mark’s often-repeated “straightway” eloquently testifies. It therefore ill becomes any disciple to squat on his haunches (or, more likely, loaf in an armchair), the while murmuring: “Thy will be done (by somebody else)”. “Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven , the same is my brother and sister and mother” (Mt. 12:50).

A Prayer without Power?

There is another mistaken acceptance of the will of God which can be equally devastating in its effect on one’s prayers. This springs from a misunderstanding of the familiar words: “If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us” (1 Jn. 5:14). Very often this is taken to mean:

“If we ask according to what the omniscient foreknowledge of God has pre-determined.”

How often are the words used in this way in communal prayer-and privately also, no doubt. Yet if this really is what is meant, where is the power of prayer, what point is there in praying? The child of God is reduced to pious hopefulness that peradventure what he asks before the throne of grace may happen to coincide with what the Almighty has already made up His mind to do anyway. Either way, the prayer has achieved exactly nothing.

The error lies in a misunderstanding of the key word “will”. It does not signify “that which God has pre-determined and will inexorably carry out”. The meaning is: “that which God is willing to do.” The clear implication is that there are many things which God is willing to do. There are also many which He is not willing to do, because they would involve denying Himself or working harm to His children. (Consider the experience of Paul – 2 Cor. 12:7-10).

It stands true then, that “Thy will be done” means “my will be done”, when motive and outcome are alike according to God’s mind. This is also emphasized by the qualifying clause: “on earth as it is in heaven”.

A high ideal

Here, in the thinking of most, the tendency is to put the emphasis on the idea of fulfilment of the will of God in the lives of His children as perfectly, promptly and completely as in the service and obedience of the angels. Thus repetition of the prayer holds constantly before the mind an ideal of godliness so lofty and far-reaching as to be sadly discouraging by its very impossibility to the earnestly striving child of God.

Yet this is only half the story. The angels in heaven serve the Creator with a will, which is wholly, and entirely His. In them there is no inner conflict, no split personality, but only a happy whole-hearted devotion to the fulfilment of the Almighty’s purpose. Then how far-reaching is the plea: “Thy will be done (in me) on earth, as it is done by the angels in heaven.” It is the biggest thing a man can ask this side of the kingdom of God: “Lord, take this poor self-centred sin-cursed nature of mine, and change it even now to be wholly godly, spiritual, Christ-centred.” But the first requisite in such a prayer is faith – faith to believe that such a thing can happen.

Those who in this spirit dedicate themselves to doing the will of God are brother, sister and mother to Jesus (Mt. 12:50). Thus, to pray this prayer in all sincerity is to aspire to true kinship to the Son of God.

Daily Bread

The Prayer switches now, apparently, from the biggest things to the smallest. After ranging forward to the grand realisation of God’s great redemptive Purpose and after daring to ask for present fulfilment in one’s own pathetic present experience, there comes in the petition for daily bread. Here, if it is, is the only phrase where the Prayer comes away from wholly spiritual aspirations.

The answer to the often-canvassed issue: Does “daily bread” mean that which sustains physically or spiritually? – must surely be: Both. Philosophers and early church ascetics, alike misguided by a doctrine of innate immortality independent of the body, find no encouragement in the Bible for their despising of the marvellous body God has given them. The teaching of Christ concerns the whole man, both now and hereafter. “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you…therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19, 20). So a man has a responsibility to keep himself physically as fit as he can in order that his body may be a good efficient instrument in the service of God. And accordingly he has a right to ask his Father’s help and encouragement in such self-dedication. Hence “give us this day our daily bread.”

Physical and Spiritual Food

But let there be a due sense of perspective. Physical fitness and efficiency are relatively unimportant compared with the things of the Spirit. In nearly every place where the Bible talks about food for the body it invites further meditation on the appropriateness of its words to spiritual food. Even without the Lord’s own lengthy commentary in John 6 on the giving of manna to Israel in the wilderness, it would be evident that everything written about that wondrous providence of God has, and was intended to have, a higher spiritual meaning. The gracious words of- Isaiah when read properly, sum up this truth in matchless fashion: “Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, break (bread), and eat; yea, come, buy wine and fatness (marrow) without money and without price” (55:1). Here the water and bread which men need become wine and marrow for their greater blessing (compare 25:6). And if a man is bidden look to God for the satisfying of his material needs, how much more may he

confidently look for the providing of the food of the Spirit.

It is noteworthy that twice in the immediate context of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11 material food is used as a symbol of man’s higher need. There is the parable of the neighbour seeking to borrow three loaves (it is a parable of preaching, if ever there were one). And there is the apostrophe: “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?” leading on to: “How much more shall your heavenly Farther give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”

In John 6 the Lord’s exposition of the giving of manna leaves no room for doubt that he intended his disciples to see both that marvel and his own miracle of feeding the multitude in the wilderness as parables of God’s Providence for the satisfying of another more serious hunger.

Other words of Jesus suggest a yet wider scope to this simplest of petitions. “I have meat to eat that ye know not of…My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (Jn. 4:32, 34). The context is the Lord’s conversation with the woman of Samaria. He began that discussion tired and hungry. When the disciples returned, they found him alert and refreshed, so that they were constrained to ask: “Has anyone brought him food?” Comparable experiences are possible for any who attempt the same kind of personal evangelisation.

Problems

There remain for discussion two problems, neither of which are evident to those who read the common version. What is the exact meaning of the word translated “daily”? And why the different form of the verb “give” in Matthew and Luke (in the original text)?

A great deal of very scholarly ink has been used up on the first of these.

Until Deissman found this word in an Egyptian papyrus, Matthew 6:11 and Luke 11:3 were its only known occurrences in all Greek literature. So the grammarians and philologists had a field day, producing all manner of guesses as to its meaning. And even now Deissmann’s find does not allow of any degree of certainty.

In such circumstances the Old Testament is probably the best aid, as it nearly always is. There is the familiar prototype of the manna. Also, Proverbs 30:8, 9 is remarkably close in idea: “Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.” Here the Hebrew word is, literally: “bread of my statute”, which might mean either “the food decreed for me by God’s Providence” (cp. Dt. 8:3), or “my food, which is God’s statutes” (cp. Ps. 119:103). The unusual phrase was probably chosen to carry both ideas, as seems certainly to be the case with this petition in the Lord’s Prayer.

The switch of tenses from Greek aorist to imperfect-in crude English translation, from “Give us right now”, to “Keep on giving us” – is readily seen to be appropriate to the change of emphasis between the two versions (Mt. Lk). In the former the stress goes on immediate need: “Give us this day our daily bread.” Abraham forgot this (Gen. 12:10) and as a result faced the most humiliating experience of his life. In the later form of the petition there is also recognition that always, without intermission, there must be dependence on the lovingkindness of God: “Give us day by day our daily bread.” Each emphasis has its proper place. It is right to lean hard upon God for due provision for any immediate need. It is right also to cultivate always the attitude of mind which recognizes how inevitably God’s Providence will be needed day by day, however long life may last.

“Forgive us our Sins”

One thing especially a man is constantly in need of if he is to remain integrated in the family of God — he needs to have his sins forgiven. Nothing is more fundamental. But Jesus speaks of debts. In the later version in Luke, where the petition is: “Forgive us our sins”, the apodosis is “for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.” The word is valuable as emphasizing aspects of sin which tend to be lightly regarded. A sin of omission-failure to care for aged parents, neglect of one’s personal prayers-is as much a sin as any direct transgression of the law of God such as getting drunk or speaking spitefully of another. More than this, with all debts, even when there is no formal agreement, there is clear acknowledgement of an obligation to pay. So this word chosen by Jesus also involves frank recognition that much is owing in service to God and to one’s fellows which, sometimes with the best will in the world, goes undone.

God is a forgiving God

There is no phrase in this pattern Prayer which offers part-payment of the “debt”. Instead there is implicit in the four simple words: “Forgive us our debts”, the profound assumption that God is a forgiving God. Some of the Old Testament’s

most eloquent passages underline this grand truth. Nevertheless, their truth is realised only very slowly. “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin (every kind of wrong!)” (Ex. 34:6, 7). “Come now, and let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Is. 1:18). And there is the constant refrain of Solomon’s eloquent prayer at the dedication of the temple: “then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and when thou dearest, forgive”. That, more than anything else, was what the temple was for.

But how slow men are to believe this truth! And the more sensitized a man’s conscience is, the greater the shame of his own sin, and the harder it is to believe that God is so gracious as to forget all about it. Always there is the vague feeling that forgiveness must be earned. Yet this cannot be. In the forgiveness parable it was when the servant had no means of repayment of the massive debt that his lord

“was moved with compassion,

and released him,

and forgave him the debt” (Mt. 18.27).

Earning Forgiveness?

There are conditions attached to forgiveness, to be sure, but earning this grace of God is not one of them: If we walk in the light… the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin…If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:7, 9).

A famous Frenchman once said: “Le bon Dieu il pardonnera; c’est son metier” – “The good Lord will forgive us; that’s the thing He’s good at.” Both the French and English might have been better expressed, but the idea is right.

There is nothing a man can do to merit the forgiveness of God. Else there would have been no necessity for Christ to die. Sinners could have been left to get on with it by effort, self-denial and hard discipline. Instead, the redeeming work has been wrought for them. It is offered freely to the man of faith, who pays with all the loyalty and devotion he is capable of, not in order that his sins might be forgiven but because they have been forgiven.

This is the great lesson of the anointing of the feet of Jesus by the woman of the streets. She showed her act of great love for the Lord as an expression of inexpressible gratitude for sins forgiven. The Lord’s parable (Lk. 7:41, 42) proves

this. No wonder he said to her: “Thy faith hath saved thee.” It was faith far beyond the ordinary which could recognize and thankfully accept that, her sordid life notwithstanding, this humble preacher from Nazareth was the means of her acceptance before God. No wonder Jesus rejoiced in her discernment.

On what conditions?

This gracious forgiveness which God holds out to men is given on conditions. There are strings attached. No quid pro quo, but simply a right attitude of mind in the forgiven sinner-a right attitude of mind which shows itself by:

faith in Christ as the Saviour;

walking in the light;

confessing one’s sins;

forgiving others- “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”.

From the very nature of the transaction, it is only those who fulfil these conditions, or, rather who are in this condition who can be forgiven.

Jesus evidently regarded the forgiving of others as so vital that he made it the subject of a special comment. It is the only clause of the Prayer which he elaborated on at all and this he did both positively and negatively: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (compare also Mk. 11:25, 26).

“As we forgive”

The very obviousness of this simple principle would surely make emphasis superfluous. But Jesus knew human nature. How often there is need for pointed reminder that if a man comes to the Lord’s Table seeking forgiveness of his own sins he must rid his mind (even as he “stands praying”; Mk. 11:25) of any resentment against any. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Ps. 66:18). Yet it is not unknown for long-standing resentments to be cherished in the hearts of those who deem themselves to be members of the family of God in Christ. It constitutes not only a strange anomaly but also a shameful tragedy.

By their Law the people of Israel were bidden release all slaves and cancel all debts in the Year of Jubilee. The Lord’s words: “as we forgive our debtors”, bid his disciple live as though in an endless Year of Jubilee. As “debts” are contracted, so they are to be cancelled. The very idealism behind such an approach to the problems of human relationships often precludes its practical application. Yet there must be at least some sort of attempt to reach out towards fulfilment. To shrug off this exacting teaching of Christ as too remote from the brass tacks of ordinary daily living is to pass a vote of “No confidence” in him, as well as in one’s fellows.

Rather remarkably, Paul enunciated this forgiveness principle the other way round: “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:32). Not only must the Lord’s people forgive in hope of forgiveness, but also because of it. The conviction of the grace of God extended to oneself should beget a like graciousness towards others. Could anything be more far-reaching in its influence on all human associations, and especially in the family of God.

Temptation

It is useful at this point to note how the three main petitions have present, past, and future reference-daily bread,

forgiveness, and trials yet to come.

“Lead us not into temptation” is a petition fraught with considerable difficulty in the minds of some. It seems to carry the plain implication that God can and does designedly bring His children into situations where their integrity and survival as members of His family are in peril. The problem is pin-pointed by the excruciating experience of Abraham when bidden offer up his only-begotten son: “And it came to pass that God did tempt Abraham” (Gen. 22:1). Yet over against this is the explicit declaration of James that “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (Jas. 1:14).

It is needful to recognize that the Bible uses the word “tempt” in two closely related but distinct senses. An illustration may help here. On one occasion when I was considering buying an oldish house I took an expert to inspect it. One of the first things he did was to go into each room, jump in the air and bring his two hundred pounds heavily down on the floor. That was a fair test to apply in order to assess whether the timbers were sound. Since they were, there was no harm done, but only satisfaction from the result of the test.

Now contrast what happens when automobile manufacturers are considering a new type of latch for a car door. With one of these new latches installed a mechanisn is rigged up which opens and slams the door time after time until at last the device wears out or breaks down. This test is deliberately designed to find out what is the breaking point, the absolute limit of endurance or service.

God “tempts” or tests His children in the first sense illustrated here, but not in the second. “The Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no…he fed thee in the wilderness with manna, that he might humble thee and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end” (Dt. 8:2, 16). “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; knowing that the trying of your faith worketh patience” (Jas. 1:2, 3). And specially valuable here is Paul’s explicit assurance that “God will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

Confession of Weakness

Thus, “lead us not into temptation” is no protest against unfair treatment by God, but a humble confession of human weakness such as even Jesus would fain acknowledge in himself. In Gethsemane his exhortation to the disciples was: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mt.26:41). The words were more an expression of his own desperate conflict and need than of theirs.

Yet how difficult it is to be honest in the praying of this prayer. The fact is that there are very few who do not have their own favourite sins which they are too much in love with to want to be for ever rid of them. It is written concerning Jesus that he “loved righteousness, and hated wickedness.” For those in Christ also the first of these is true, but not the second. With ruthless honesty Augustine’s famous prayer put the problem in a nutshell: “Lord, make me chaste-but not yet!” God can save a man from his sins only when he desperately and with utter sincerity wants to be saved from them.

To illustrate the point on a relatively trivial level (though admittedly not trivial for some) -if a smoker seeks to be rid of his bondage to tobacco, is he wise to go about with a pack of his favourite cigarettes in his pocket? And is he helping God to help him if, when the craving for a smoke is on him, he loafs around indoors, alone and bored with his own company? In such circumstances would he not do better seeking activity and the society of those who can not only distract his mind from the temptation but also provide positive help with the good spiritual tone of their conversation? It is futile to pray: “Lead me not into temptation”, if there is to be the implicit addendum: “But I reserve the right to lead myself into temptation.”

“Deliver us from evil”

Perhaps this evil within is what the Lord specially meant when he added: “but deliver us from evil”. The phrase as he spoke it has the definite article: “the evil”, but it does not follow that the received translation is defective, for in Greek abstract nouns commonly carry the definite article even when it is not to be translated. The reading: “deliver us from the Evil One”, as though with reference to a superhuman Tempter may definitely be eliminated, not only because of the over-all teaching of Scripture but because of usage elsewhere in the Sermon on the mount: “whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (5:37)…“but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil” (5:39). In the second of these especially it would be palpably absurd to read: “Resist not the Evil One”.

But there is also the evidence of Paul’s use of the Lord’s Prayer: “that he might deliver us from this present evil world (or, age)” (Gal. 1:4); and, “the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work” (2 Tim. 4:18). This interpretative usage is decisive.

Evil which is not evil

Nor is it correct to interpret “the evil” only with reference to adverse circumstance, for that which men might well regard as a great evil in their experience — hard poverty, crippling disease, persecution, bereavement-may well be the Lord’s deliberate providential blessing, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from evil”, Jesus prayed concerning his disciples. Nevertheless the early chapters of Acts show them facing much hardship. God promised Jeremiah: “I am with thee to save thee and to deliver thee, and I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible (15:20, 21). But the experiences of that faithful prophet were such as would have broken many a lesser man.

So what may well appear to human judgement to be evil of the direst kind may actually be God’s blessing, potentially, if only there is the right reaction in His servant. Alas, it is all too easy, instead, to be dominated by less important considerations which happen to loom large in one’s own judgement. This happened to Paul, so it could certainly come in the experience of fellow-disciples of much smaller stature. He besought the Lord thrice that the thorn is his flesh might be taken away. Whatever it was – whether epilepsy, malaria, sexual desire, his personal adversary in Corinth (the guesses are many and varied) – Paul must have had a very high motive for seeking to be rid of it. Unhandicapped, how much better would be his work of spreading the gospel! But the Lord’s emphatic answer was: No! He could see, what was not so evident to Paul, that through the sheer magnitude of his achievements this great-hearted disciple was in grave danger of becoming a castaway. “Lest I be exalted above measure.” They are terrible words, but they tell a wonderful story of a divine deliverance from evil.

A telling example such as this, taken together with the close link in the Prayer between this petition and that which precedes, suggests that “the evil” specially covered by it is the temptation which not only tests but also destroys. (Many New Testament parallels could be cited for taking the definite article as demonstrative, “this evil”: the temptation that is more than a man can stand: see study 66). How many many times in life does a man need saving from himself. He is his own greatest evil. If in earnest repeated prayer Paul could seek as a blessing that which would have turned out to be his spiritual ruin it may be taken as certain that the same is possible a score of times over in the lives of others of lesser calibre. This, then, is not a part of the Prayer to be lightly dispensed with.

Doxology or not?

In Luke the Prayer ends at this point, and so also in Matthew, according to most modern versions. So the question needs to be faced: Is the doxology an authentic part of the Prayer as given by Jesus, or should it be regarded as a liturgical addition appended by the early church?

A careful investigation of the textual problem reveals that it was because the doxology was given a special place in the liturgy of the early church (3rd century and onwards) that it came to be omitted from a handful of manuscripts which have been accorded far more importance on this question than they deserve. But when all is said and done, the clear evidence of the writings of Paul (Gal. 1:4; 2 Tim. 4:18), in what are undeniable allusions to the Lord’s Prayer, and specially to its doxology, makes the entire textual controversy futile and unnecessary.

David’s Hymn of Praise

The close similarity to David’s wonderful hymn of praise to God (1 Chr. 29:11) makes it probable that the likeness was intended:

“Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine: thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head over all.”

It was near the end of David’s reign that the people, in a rarely equalled surge of zeal for the God of their fathers, fired by the infectious enthusiasm of their aged king, brought lavish gifts out of their God-given prosperity. All was freely given for the new temple, “exceeding magnifical”, which was to be built. How readily David acknowledged that what was now given in such generous quantity was only what had been so abundantly showered on them by God Himself: “for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee” (29:14).

Thus the doxology framed by Jesus expresses for his disciples the like recognition that all they are and know and enjoy are God-sent blessings, in acknowledgment of which there can be no re-payment but only praise and thanks.

This view of the doxology, learned from 1 Chronicles 29, goes a good way towards answering the mystifying problem: Why is it that there is no expression of thanks in the Lord’s Prayer? The answer appears to be: There is, but it comes in the form of praise and rejoicing at the surpassing goodness and glory of God. Let a man’s thanks to God take specially the form of deeper understanding of the character of God and a whole-hearted concentration of praise to His Name, and he is as near to the inner spirit of the Lord’s Prayer as he is ever likely to be.

In the context of 1 Chronicles 29 David’s prayer obviously meant: “Lord, all that I have I now gladly dedicate to Thee.” This, again, is what the believer’s doxology should mean. Here is the explanation of the mystifying present tense: “for thine is the kingdom…” In this present day of spiritual rack and ruin the words seem to be a mockery. Nevertheless they express David’s ideal. He did not see that wondrous temple in being, but he saw the site cleared for it and the people eager and earnest. His faith clothed the rest with reality. And today as the believer concludes his prayer, his faith turns into present reality the future kingdom and power and glory of the God he worships – and this “for ever”.

Paul’s fervour for the honour and majesty of God found this phrase of measureless time too inadequate for all that he would ascribe to the greatness and goodness of God. He is content with nothing less than “for ever and ever” (Gal. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:18).

The Amen

Each of the five Books of Psalms similarly concludes with an eloquent ascription of praise to God, rounded off by a mighty “Amen and Amen”-spoken, it may be, first by priest and then by the people. At first sight the fifth Book may appear to be a disappointing exception, but in reality it is not, for what Psalms 41, 72, 89, 106 say in one verse, Psalm 150 says from start to finish.

These doxologies in the Psalms also remove what might otherwise be a vague sense of mystification that the Lord’s Prayer makes no allusion to the Covenant Name of God. It is there in the words: “Thy will be done”. It is here also in the emphasis on the timelessness of God, that He is “from eternity to eternity” He is “the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

The Amen which rounds off the Prayer is not a mere formality, nor must it ever degenerate into such. The early church said an audible unanimous Amen. “How shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say the Amen?” (1 Cor. 14:16). And there is allusion to this in Paul’s words: “That is why, when we give glory to God, it is through Christ Jesus that we say ‘Amen’“ (2 Cor. 1:20 NEB.).

At the beginning of this century it was very common in the ecclesias for each individual to add his own quiet Amen, but the custom has now almost disappeared, and our corporate worship is the poorer for the omission. Indeed, the sorry state of affairs has arisen that often there is no Amen at all, for some ministering brethren have developed the habit of leaving the Amen to the congregation. Thus each leaves it to the other, to the detriment of the praise of God. It is high time the ecclesias got back to the practice of uttering a communal Amen. Some West Indian ecclesias do precisely this, and shame their brethren elsewhere.

Ideally, the Prayer should be one long Amen, each participant mentally supplying his own Amen to each item of praise and petition. But how many can muster the concentration to be altogether sincere and fervent in their personal assent to every phrase as it is spoken?

The Prayer realised

In the kingdom of God, when all is come to pass, that assent will be more real and intense. Just as the Breaking of Bread service will find a new fulness of meaning when it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, so also this Prayer. But then its petitions will have become glad and glorious affirmations, for then all will say:

Our Father

which art in heaven,

Thy Name is hallowed on earth as it is in heaven;

Thy Kingdom has come on earth as it is in heaven;

Thy will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

Thou hast given us this day and for every day our daily bread, the hidden manna.

Thou hast forgiven us our trespasses,

and we have forgiven those who trespassed against us.

Thou hast not led us into overpowering temptation, but

Thou hast finally delivered us from evil.

Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory

for ever and ever. Amen and Amen.

Notes: Mt.6:9-13

9.	After this manner. One commentator sums up the attitude of the early church: In the second century the presiding brother prayed ad lib, in his own words; in the third century the precise form of this prayer was used, as given.
	Our Father. Not the spirit of bondage, dominated by fear, but the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father (Rom. 8:15). Hallowed is a word much demeaned by the glib substitution of “separate”. The two are not the same.
11.	Give us. Here “us” rules out any spirit of selfishness. This is a sharing prayer.
	Daily bread…debts (v. 12) A.D. 26 & 33 were sabbath years when these needs might be special burdens.
	There are those who would argue that the benefits of prayer are wholly subjective. “Give us this day…” effectively rejects this very limited attitude. It is a test of the Tightness of our desires that we can earnestly pray for them.
12.	As we forgive means, of course, not in quantity but in kind.
13.	from evil. The Lord intended this to include temporary calamity also; Mt. 24:20; 8:26; Ps. 18:48
14.	If ye forgive not. Mk. 11:25 clearly looks back to this as already familiar.

Luke 11:l-4

1.	A certain place. In the O.T. the word nearly always means “a holy place, a sanctuary”. Then which? Lk. 10:38 suggests that Jesus was near to Jerusalem. But if the temple, wouldn’t Luke have said so? One of his disciples. It is a long-range guess that this was Luke himself, for his gospel gives special attention to the prayers of our Lord.
2.	Daily. This puzzling Greek word has been linked with a similar one meaning “the coming day”. In that case, if a morning prayer, it asks for today’s food; if an evening prayer, then for tomorrow’s.

Repeatedly the Law of Moses laid down the principle which was to govern wilful injury done by one man to another. Like the earlier precepts of the Law cited and re-applied by Jesus, this also was badly misconstrued by the scribes, some of them chose to read eye for eye and tooth for tooth as having a strictly literal intent. Yet applied in the letter it could produce palpably unjust decisions. If a one-eyed man was to destroy in a fit of temper an eye of his fellow, must he therefore lose his one eye and go miserably blind for the rest of his life?

A Legal Principle

But of course this was not a law of retribution but of compensation. A man was never at liberty to take vengeance according to this scale – eye for eye, tooth for tooth – on the basis of his own judgement. This was to be the principle guiding judges and magistrates. The invariable context in the Law makes this very clear: “And the judges shall make diligent inquisition, and behold, if the witness be a false witness… then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother” (Dt. 19:16-21). “And he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, etc.” (Ex. 21:22, 23).

Nor was the injunction to be applied literally. It expressed in a figure the legal principle of financial compensation for damage done. The passage just cited indicates this. If an ox gored the slave of another man, the literal Lex Talionis (law of retaliation) would require that the first man’s slave should be gored also-a palpably silly legal decision. But Exodus 21:32 lays down the rate of monetary compensation in such a case. Similarly, if one man’s ox damaged the ox of another so that it had to be destroyed, the literal application of “an eye for an eye” would require that the other’s ox be destroyed also. But Moses laid down a different solution to the problem: compensation after the sale of the unmanageable ox. This, coming in the immediate context of “an eye for an eye” etc., shows very clearly that monetary compensation, and not strict literalism, is the basis of this legal principle; cp. also Lev.24:19, 21. Yet to this day Moses’ Law of the Talon (as it is frequently miscalled) is more often misunderstood than not.

It is simply a legal principle of compensation for damage done. In fact, it is the ordinary principle which governs such cases in practically every civilised country today. There are, indeed, few Bible passages about which such ignorant rubbish has been talked as about this.

Even with the interpretation just stated, this commandment was still not at all what Jesus wanted it to be. His re-statement of it sounds at first like a caricature: Whatever the penalty or hardship your adversary brings upon you, instead of seeking the equivalent compensation, add of your own free will a further contribution equivalent to what you have already lost. And he proceeded to illustrate the spirit of this Law of Gentle Retaliation as it might apply in private relationships, in a legal action, and in political oppressions — body, property, and freedom.

The Other Cheek

“I say unto you, that ye resist not evil (or, resist not the evil man): but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” It is a vivid picture of a blow delivered on the right cheek with the back of the right hand. In other words, insult rather than physical hurt. But turning the other cheek means that that right hand comes into action again, this time administering a hard painful slap with the open palm.

Here in a phrase is the final answer to all who would dragoon the servants of Christ into fighting the world’s wars. Non-resistance and counter-attack are as near opposites as can be. Even self-defence is incompatible with offering the other cheek. And lest there be any doubt as to whether this principle is to operate only between brethren, there is Paul’s explicit renunciation of this commandment with the widest possible scope: “See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men (1 Th. 5:15). And in an epistle which often looks back to the Sermon on the Mount Peter has an obvious reminiscence of the Lord’s words: “Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing; but contrariwise blessing (ie. forgiveness); knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing (forgiveness of your own sins)” (1 Pet. 3:9).

It is evident that this commandment of Christ is not intended to be taken with strict literality any more than the original words of Moses, for, when Jesus was struck by the high priest’s officer, he did not turn the other cheek, but quietly rebuked the cowardly act: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitestthou me?” (Jn. 18:23).

Similarly, when Ananias the high priest bade his men smite Paul across the face, the apostle solemnly pronounced God’s judgment against him. This declaration after the manner of an Old Testament prophet was an inspired utterance, for Jesus had promised: “When they deliver you up (to governors and kings)…it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak” (Mt. 10:18, 19).

With examples such as these, it becomes very necessary to beware of literalism or legalism. Rather should one seek to express as fully as possible the spirit of Christ himself in all situations where others show an attitude of hostility. Certainly, no revenge! On this the Old Testament was already explicit regarding a fellow-Israelite:

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. 19:18).

“Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done tome”(Pr. 24:29).

“Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the Lord, and he shall save thee” (20:22).

Jesus has now broadened these precepts to cover all human dealings.

Coat and Cloak

A second illustration: “If a man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” The words describe shirt or tunic, and long outer robe. In the twentieth century, Jesus would probably have said jacket and overcoat. In the parallel passage in Luke 6:29, the words are reversed. It is another clear warning against being over-literal in one’s application of this teaching.

The Law stipulated that if a creditor took a poor man’s garment as security against a debt, it must be returned to him to sleep in (Ex. 22:27, 26). But Jesus bade his disciples not insist on this right when they were being subject to the rigour of the law. Instead they were to show faith in God’s care, and give both garments. The unrestrained surprise of the other at receiving more than he had even thought of claiming, may be imagined. Such an experience would almost guarantee a complete change of attitude-and; of course, this aim is what lies behind the Lord’s precept. The loss of coat or cloak is unimportant compared with the establishing of good relations with one who is a declared enemy. Paul sums up splendidly: “Rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded” (1 Cor. 6:7).

Oppression by the State

But suppose-illustration number three-it is the state which is your adversary. Even in these days government often interferes with the freedom of the individual. In those days of absolute power, fair treatment of citizens was almost the last thing given any consideration. It was a normal thing for soldiers and officials to be empowered to press into service the goods or beasts or personal services of any civilian, and this without appeal or redress! It is not difficult to imagine the resentment which exercise of these powers invariably provoked. Nevertheless Jesus counselled, and still counsels, ungrudging submission to the demands and exactions of the state, however unfair they might be. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” The only exception is when the higher law of Christ supervenes (Acts. 4:19).

The attitude counselled by Jesus was revolutionary, not in a bad political sense as by Barabbas, but in a good social sense: “Whosoever shall compel thee to go with him a mile, go with him twain”, making four extra miles altogether. And it is clear that the intended corollary to this was: ‘Do this in a good spirit. Even your parting shall not be with curses or grumbling.’

Motive

The aim and intention behind this unwonted demeanour is clearly the establishing of good personal relationships. To achieve this. Jesus counsels, a not inconsiderable sacrifice is well worth while. Not only is it a good personal discipline to have to endure an uncongenial experience of this kind, but also such a situation would be guaranteed to provide the Lord’s servant with excellent opportunities to exercise a good personal influence and a worthy witness to faith in Christ.

Both moral aspects of this situation are excellently worked out by L.G. Sargent (“The Teaching of the Master”, page 140): “The object which the Lord has in view in all these injunctions is to develop the character of the disciple into that of a citizen of the Kingdom. But this presents a peculiar difficulty. If the disciple fulfils the command with the same object-his own self-development-then the motive becomes self-regarding and defeats its own end. The man who receives a blow in silence in order that he may be the more a saint is in grave danger of becoming a prig, and prigs certainly do not belong to the class the Lord calls “blessed”. The Christ-like man suffers the blow so that perchance he may win the giver of the blow, and it maybe ‘save a soul from death’.”

Simon of Cyrene

The gospels have a most delightful illustration of how this commandment worked out unexpectedly in the experience of one who did not hear it spoken. Simon of Cyrene was pressed into service by Roman soldiers to help an exhausted Jesus with his cross. It was at most a mile to the place of crucifixion, probably a good deal less. But, having been compelled to help so far, he volunteered to serve yet further. From certain details dotted through the New Testament (Mk. 15:21; Rom. 16:13; Acts 13:1) it is possible to infer with high probability that his unwelcome experience that day meant sufficient contact with Jesus for him to determine that he must serve this “King of the Jews” for ever. This became his extra mile!

The Spirit of the Commandment

Today the principle still holds. In employment, service must not be niggardly but wholehearted, not begrudged but with faithful application and a willing spirit. This, even to a bad employer.

And how much more do these obligations operate in the service of Christ) The constraint of the gospel, willingly and even enthusiastically received at first, becomes to some a tax on personal time and effort which, judging by outward appearances, is almost begrudged. Where is the second mile, or the spirit of it? These proclaim their conviction that their Master is “an austere man” who “reaps what he does not sow”. Yet even if this assessment were truth, and not the slander which it palpably is, the commandment still stands: “Go with him twain” – and learn differently!

Practical Problems

In modern times probably the most difficult application of Christ’s inverted Lex Talionis – the heavenly hand in the human glove- is Example Four which he cited last of all: “Give to him that asketh thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” In each of the illustrations already given, there is a certain element of self-interest involved, inasmuch as there is an antagonist or oppressor to be placated. But here there is only supplication and importunity and the uncomfortable contemplation of the need of another who is, maybe, not self-recommended by personal righteousness, for does not the psalmist declare unequivocally: “I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread” (Ps. 37:25)?

Yet the Law required this open-handed generosity from the conscientious Israelite: “If there be among you a poor man of thy brethren…thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother…Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto” (Dt. 15:7, 8, 10). These are wonderful words possible of fulfilment only when there is a very real faith in the heavenly promise appended to them.

Unlike Moses, Jesus did not limit the scope of his commandment to “thy brother”. In Luke his words could not be more comprehensive: “Give to every man that asketh of thee;…do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again” (6:30, 35).

Too Idealistic?

It is here where the idealism of the teaching of Jesus seems to take leave of commonsense altogether. Even in a society where full-scale national welfare takes wide-ranging responsibility for coping with basic material needs, there is ample opportunity for observing how readily human nature presumes on the kindness of others, and battens on their often misplaced sympathy and generosity. The no-man’s land between deserving poverty and undeserved hardship on the one hand and culpable and fawning impecuniosity on the other is not a wide one, and before he knows what is become of him a man may drift from the one to the other. Christian charity can spoil as well as rescue.

Yet Jesus, knowing human nature through and through, added no qualifying clauses. Should it, then, be presumed that he intended none? Here is a practical problem of no small magnitude. If a man of means were to set himself to fulfil these instructions to the letter, it may be taken as certain that within a very short time he would be picked clean, reduced to beggary, and the characters of several of those presuming on his generosity would be ruined in the process. What is the answer?

Since it is impossible to believe that Jesus would readily see characters corrupted for the sake of an abstract principle, it could perhaps be inferred that a literal application of his teaching was not intended – just as neither he nor Paul turned the other cheek literally. The difficulty about this kind of solution is that once the scope of such a principle is left to human judgement, it somehow becomes remarkably narrow. Such is human nature. Reasons for saying: “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled”, whilst refraining from giving those things which are needful, are always ready to hand.

The Lord’s own example

Is it casuistry to stress that Jesus did not command: “To him that asks give just what he asks”? In such situations it not infrequently happens that the one who is being asked knows better than the one who importunes what is good for him. So by all means give. The Lord requires that his disciples do this, but also that their giving be directed to fulfilling the good, rather than the gratification, of the one who asks.

“Lord, bid my brother that he divide the inheritance with me”, clamoured a disciple, and instead he got a blunt warning against his spirit of covetousness (Lk. 12:13-15).

Jesus provided an even better example of this principle in action both in the letter and in the spirit, by his own miracle of the feeding of the five thousand. In this instance the multitude did not need to ask Jesus to help them in their need. He saw this for himself and had compassion on their distress. They all ate and were satisfied. But the next day, in the synagogue at Capernaum, they clamoured for a regular performance of the same miracle: “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see and believe thee? …Our fathers did eat manna in the desert”-it was an open invitation to make the miracle a daily affair for their own ease and comfort. Jesus rebuked this attitude openly: “Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled.” And for them there was no repeat of the heaven-provided meal.

Here, then, is a clear indication that when help is sought but the attitude of mind is manifestly wrong, merely to respond to such a request is to do the individual more harm than good. In such a case it becomes a duty to speak a word of reproach or even of rebuke if the one who would abuse the charity of others is to be saved from becoming a parasite on society.

Such situations are never easy to deal with. When there is a suspicion that the request for help is an unhealthy one, springing partly, if not wholly, out of a wish to impose on the good nature of others, it is tempting to turn away with an excuse (which is not a reason) rather than speak the downright refusal, and the grounds for it, which the situation may call for.

Nevertheless, when faced with difficult decisions of this sort it is better always to err on the side of generosity of the undeserving rather than risk leaving unsatisfied a genuine and urgent need.

Another useful guiding principle comes in the context in Luke: “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (6:31). Thus, when there are doubts about the wisdom of literal fulfilment of the Lord’s precept, mentally change places.

Where there is a manifest unwillingness to help oneself out of difficulties Paul’s principle governing such a situation is tersely stated: “If any will not work, neither shall he eat.” In such cases, to “give to him that asketh thee” when the request is repeated and blatant is to do more harm than good to the one who asks.

The right and proper application of these principles of Christian behaviour is no easy matter. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (Jas. 1:5). Here is both heavenly precept and heavenly example.

Notes: Mt.5:38-42

38.	An eye for on eye. Unlike Moses’ laws in Ex. 21, the laws of Khammurabi read very much as if intended to have a strictly literal application; eg. “If a man has struck a gentleman’s daughter and… if that woman has died, one shall put to death his daughter.”
39.	The phrasing of this verse is remarkably like ls. 50:6 LXX, a prophecy of the humiliation of Christ.
	Read: Resist not the evil man (and so also in v. 37).
	The RV and some other versions have done their best to suggest a personal devil.
42.	Give. Remarkably, this is a continuous imperative.
	Turn not thou away. Greek middle voice seems to imply a selfish turning away.
	Borrow. Dt. 15:8, 10 is a great passage; but how to reconcile 2 Th. 3:10 with it?