It is necessary to begin a consideration of the next section or the Sermon on the Mount by suggesting that its scope has been much misunderstood. There is a sequence of four figures of speech-the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a city on a hill, a lamp on a lampstand. It has been customary to interpret these metaphors as vivid representations of the function of the Christian disciple in worldly society.

Allusions to Temple Service

However, a careful scrutiny will reveal that these four illustrations are bound together by a common idea — they all have to do with the temple; and this makes all the difference to the interpretation.

Jerusalem was pre-eminently the city set on a hill. The commentators talk airily about Safed in Galilee, but there is no little doubt as to whether that hill-top town even existed in the days of Jesus. On the other hand Jerusalem was known far and wide, and in a particular sense it was the light of the world. But the literal basis for this figure was the altar fire. It burned day and night, and at night-time especially the light of it would be visible for miles round. During the day the great column of sacrificial smoke ascending up to heaven would be just as visible.

The Seven-Branched Candlestick

The lamp and lampstand (5:15) immediately suggests the familiar equipment of the Holy Place. The “bushel” was, doubtless, the measure used for filling the lamps with oil (every reference in the Law to the candlestick mentions its “vessels”). To light the lamps in the Holy Place and then to invert the vessel over each of them would promptly put the lights out again.

Salt

Salt also was a regular feature of the temple service. No sacrifice was to be offered without salt (Lev.2:13). Hence “a covenant of salt” (2 Chr. 13:5) is a covenant ratified by sacrifice (as in Gen.15). Salt was used also as an essential element of the holy incense: “Thou shalt make a perfume, a confection after the art of the apothecary, seasoned with salt, pure and holy” (Ex. 30:35 RV; there is no doubt about this being the correct translation).

The salt in the temple service has been given a wide variety of symbolic meanings and spiritual applications, but the primary reason was probably to ensure that the altar and the priest’s censer would both burn with a distinctive bright golden flame-the divine fire. “Salt” which did not give this characteristic flame was not the true commodity, and was therefore unfit for holy use. But neither was it fit for agricultural use, for salt and similar minerals only make the land sterile (see Jud. 9:45). Nor could it be thrown on to the dung heap (Lk. 14:35), for then it would spoil what would otherwise be highly useful as manure. So, instead, it was used on the temple pavement made slippery with blood from the sacrifices. To be trodden under foot of men was its only usefulness.

Once this unifying idea is recognized-association with the temple-understanding of the spiritual principles involved in the Lord’s figures of speech comes much more easily.

But first, what of the seeming universality of the expressions used: “salt of the earth”, “light of the world”? It has often been pointed out that the words “earth” and “Land (of Israel)” are both represented in the New Testament by the same Greek word. Also, there can be little question that the word kosmos (world) is used in a number of places with the more limited meaning: “Jewish kosmos” (eg. Lk. 1:70; Rom. 4:13; 5:12; Jn. 12:19; 7:4; Study 14; 221 notes).

For Jewish disciples

Applying these ideas, it now becomes evident that Jesus spoke with primary reference to his immediate disciples in their Jewish environment. There is, of course, a further wider application but-like so many other features in the Sermon on the Mount-the immediate force of the language was for the benefit of his early Jewish believers. For instance: “ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time…”, “If thou bring thy gift to the altar…”, “Thou art in danger of Gehenna fire”, “Do not even the publicans the same”? “Swear not by Jerusalem… “, “After all these things do the Gentiles seek”, and so on. The Jewish aspect of the Lord’s teaching here should be constantly borne in mind.

It is now possible to re-examine this close-packed paragraph more carefully, and see its details as coherent elements of exhortation concerning one of the primary responsibilities of the Lord’s disciples in every age.

The Lessons

In this passage the uses of salt as a preservative, as a significant part of a covenant, as a familiar means of imparting flavour, are all beside the point. The essential fundamental idea is that no sacrifice is valid or acceptable before God without salt. Mk. 9:49, 50 is surely decisive on this point: “Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness…”

Paul’s use of the figure now helps the interpretation a step further forward: “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, (that is) knowing how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6). Here “seasoned with salt” is interpreted by what follows. It means a proper understanding expressing itself in a worthy witness to the faith. As the salt in sacrifice or incense produced the unmistakable divine golden flame, so also is that divine characteristic to be plainly perceptible in the speech and manner of life of the disciple.

But if the salt have lost its savour, what then? The simple fact is that salt does not lose its saltness. It is one of the most stable commodities in the world of nature. The commentaries scratch around for known examples of salt becoming unsalty, but they do not make a convincing job of it. The effort is wasted.

Here, as in many another parable, Jesus is deliberately coming away from ordinary experience. True salt never loses its saltness; and what is not true salt has no saltness to lose. But in the world of spiritual experience that the Lord is speaking of, it is-alas!-only too true (and too often true) that what has been at one time true salt may become non-salt. Jesus did not say “lose its flavour”. His word means “made to be foolish”, which is precisely and exactly true about the disciple who loses his tangy grasp of Truth which makes the offering of his life to Christ acceptable.

In this way Jesus warns against the unhappy destiny of those who should be playing a worthwhile part in the service of the Lord’s House, but who through their own fault become unfit for their high responsibility. “Cast out, and trodden under foot of men”. It is a warning several times repeated to the early church: “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit… if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance” (Heb. 6:4-6).

It could even be that, with a keen understanding of Old Testament prophecy, Jesus was saying: ‘This is what will happen to natural Israel. They will be cast out of God’s Land, and trodden under foot of men. You, my disciples, are the New Israel, and if you allow yourselves to be turned foolish by worldly or false religious ideas, you will have strength for nothing. You too will be cast out and trodden down.’

The Altar and Lampstand

Again, as the altar fire in Jerusalem was the divine light for all Israel, so the Lord’s followers also, especially after Jesus was taken away from them. And, in a broader sense, the ecclesia, wherever it is, is a witness to the world concerning the Truth simply by virtue of its sincere consecrated service to God. The holy city of God cannot be hid. Much of its function as a witness is fulfilled simply by being there in the midst of men-different, distinct, dedicated and devoted. Nor does it want to be hid. Let men see it as a holy city, that they may be drawn to its holy light. Is it coincidence that the people of Christ’s day used the phrase ner olahm, light of the world, to describe a rabbi of outstanding powers as a teacher?

The figure of lamp and lamp-stand belongs within the Sanctuary. Always, day and night, the Holy Place had its own source or illumination to “give light over against it” (peculiar phrase!) (Ex. 25:37). By its light the Bread and Wine could be seen, the golden altar of incense, the cherubim on the veil, its own glories also, and-not least-the way into the Holy of Holies. Thus it gave light to all who did service in the House of God.

Preaching by Good Works

Here Jesus was not content for the lesson of the similitude to be drawn by his hearers for themselves. He translated its meaning with simple directness: “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

From these words the almost invariable inference has been made that Christ would have his followers make converts to the faith through the attractiveness of their own Christ-like beneficence. Jesus went about “doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil”; in this way he showed men the gospel of the kingdom, and by this means converted some of them to it. Therefore, it is argued, let his disciples do a little less text-quoting, and turn from Bible-thumping to a loving ministration to men in need-feeding the hungry, bringing fellowship to the lonely, nursing the sick, and counselling the perplexed. This will prepare the minds of those who are succoured for the good seed of the gospel; they will ask for it, and receive it as a thirsty ground receives the blessed rain of heaven. So it is said.

In practice, there are a number of questions and difficulties. The disciples hardly have resources for practical ministration as effective as their Master’s. And the response does turn out to be as expected. So many (like nine lepers) are ready enough to accept material blessings, but feel no need for the regeneration of their souls. Biggest mystery of all – if this is the way of making known the gospel of salvation, how is it that this method of proclaiming Christ was not more obviously and more persistently followed by his apostles? And why is it that this passage – Matthew 5:16 – appears to be in flat contradiction to the Lord’s later commandment: “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them?” (6:1). Indeed, the passage now under consideration is almost unique in its emphasis on conversion through good works. On the other hand the apostolic method and precept seems to have been uniformly by instruction concerning Christ from the Scriptures of Truth. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word (the spoken word: Gk.) of God…how shall they hear without a preacher?”

Yet it is unmistakably true that Peter, quoting, gives to his Lord’s words a strong “good works” emphasis: “…that whereas they speak against you as “evildoers, they may by your good works, which they behold, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:12). It needs to be observed that Peter’s quotation comes in a context of counsel concerning a time of persecution (see ch. 4, 5 especially), and in such a time a Christian’s “good works” consist almost entirely of witness for the Faith (the Greek word for “behold” implies official investigation). There is thus no discrepancy with the suggestion already made about “Let your light so shine…”

In the Ecclesia

The main scope of the Lord’s dictum about glorifying God through good works has been sadly misjudged. As the candlestick gave its light within the holy House, so also (if the figure is properly interpreted) the good works of the brethren who comprise the “lampstand” will be seen and appreciated in the Lord’s House, by the members of his ecclesia; it is they who will be constrained to glorify God for the illumination-the instruction and practical loving kindness – which they experience. This is the real scope ot Christ’s present precept. The evil sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:17), and Malachi’s corrupt priesthood (2:8) provide excellent illustrations of this principle in reverse operation.

It would be a mistake to infer that the ecclesia is not required to show its Christian charity outside the community. The rest of the Sermon on the Mount takes care of that issue with no little emphasis. But here Jesus sets first the duty of the brethren to one another: “Let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10).

Notes: Mt. 5:13-16

13.	Lost his savour. LXX has the identical word in 2 Sam. 24:10; Is. 44:25.
	Wherewith… salted. Another possible way of reading this is: Wherewith shall it (the earth) be salted? The implication would then be: If you disciples do not disseminate the divine knowledge you learn from me, how is the world to learn the truth of the gospel? — a parallel to the natural Israel being designated “a kingdom of priests and an holy nation”, and failing to rise to that responsibility.
15.	Men. This word is not in the text (see RV). The verb describes an action by an unspecified “they”. But the figure of speech makes clear that it is priests on duty in the sanctuary who are referred to.
16.	Your Father which is in heaven. 12 occurrences in Mt. and only one elsewhere: Mk. 11:25, in a context of prayer.

The last word of the Book of the Old Covenant is the word “curse”. Jesus began his appeal to Israel with the command: “Repent!” He began the formal instruction of his disciples with: “Blessed” – but then proceeded to pronounce this blessedness upon a set of excellences which the world despises. There are eight of them, not because this exhausts the life of fine spiritual qualities which he esteems (for these are only samples of the kind of virtues which he desires more than sacrifice) but because eight is the beginning of a new seven, it is the number of the New Creation.

The first blessedness, and the key to all the others, is to be “poor in spirit”. This should not be taken to mean a craven gutlessness, but a true sense of proportion towards life’s problems and towards anything achieved through one’s own abilities or endeavours. It signifies not a complete lack of confidence in self but a complete lack of satisfaction with self. And with this must necessarily go an utter dependence on God, a positive even more difficult to achieve than the negative just enunciated. Laodicea, spiritually rich and increased in the goods of godliness and in need of nothing, thou knowest not that thou art wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked-because thou knowest not how to be poor in spirit. Then spend all your fine resources to buy of Me…!

“Poor and Needy”

The two facets of this virtue are set side by side in many a place in the Book of Psalms: “I am poor and needy: yet the Lord thinketh upon me: thou art my help and my deliverer; make no tarrying, O my God” (40:17 and 70:5). “But I am poor and sorrowful: let thy salvation, O God, set me up on high” (69:29). “Bow down thine ear, O Lord, hear me: for I am poor and needy” (86:1). “Do thou for me, O God the Lord, for thy name’s sake… for I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me” (109:21, 22).

Here is the first lesson one has to learn in the school of Christ-that all which a man has by inheritance or which he has acquired by his own effort is worth little or nothing before God. Birth into a particular nation or segment of society, colour of skin, inherited brains, sweetness of disposition, capacity for hard work, superior education or technical qualifications, social status, personal elegance or charm, nimble wit or brilliant memory, high sense of duty or exceptional patience of spirit-none of these, except in so far that they have been nurtured in a man by the grace of Christ, are of any consequence whatever. Anything whatever which allows of self-esteem is fit only for the Lord’s rag-bag.

But he who learns to be truly poor in spirit has the kingdom of heaven also, and he who has the kingdom has all the rest that Christ can offer.

Examples

Abraham, seeing no way through the impasse, leaned hard on God. “My son, God will provide himself a lamb”, he said, not knowing what he said-but he learned within the hour, and also had the promise, on oath of God, of a heavenly kingdom.

Moses showed to the destitute of spirit how to be poor in spirit when he cried: “Stand still, and see the glory of God.”

Joshua, made leader of the most turbulent people in all the world, and quaking in his sandals at the responsibilities laid upon him, was bidden a dozen times over: “Fear not, be strong and of a good courage.” He had to learn the lesson for himself and teach it to the people also.

Barak, honest humble fellow, confessed his lack of bravery to a woman: “If thou wilt go with me, then I will go. But if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.” Only the providence of God could bring success in the risky project he was putting his hand to.

Gideon desperately craved the deliverance of his people, but there was no preening of himself because the angel of the Lord came to him of all people: “Oh my lord, wherewith shall / save Israel? Behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.” and this poor spirit wrought an epoch-making “day of Midian” foreshadowing Messiah’s greater victory.

“Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief”, was the piteous cry of a man out of whom bitter afflication and sorely-taxed emotions had wrung the last dregs of self-reliance.

“Sir, come down ere my child die”, was the pathetic imperative of a man of worldly consequence, now ground small by the mills of God’s gracious tribulation.

“Poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at My word”-this was what God asked for through His prophet (Is. 66:2). Here in a phrase is all that Scripture has to say on this blessedness to which no man aspires with his whole soul.

Jacob

With these examples contrast Jacob before he became Israel. He was a better man than any of his adversaries. He had more godliness than Esau, more cleverness than Laban, greater strength of character than Isaac, more cunning than Rebekah, better judgement of affairs than his sons-all these qualities, and more, were his. And he knew it, and through many years gloried in it. But then he came to Jabbok, and all this tough self-dependence, which the world prizes highly as one of the finest of fine virtues, drained out of him, and for the rest of his life he limped ungainly on, leaning thankfully on the angel of the Lord who redeemed him from all evil, and most of all from the evil in himself. It was this-and not that-which gave him title to the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus poor in spirit

Where in Jesus is this high Christian virtue? With him it was normal to speak with authority, and to face all situations in tranquil confidence, but it was not confidence in himself. “I can of mine own self do nothing.” And how he underlined this truth when on his knees in Gethsemane! Poor in spirit-utterly outpoured!

He is King of the kingdom of heaven.

The Blessing of Poverty

In Luke there is no qualifying phrase. “Blessed are the poor.” Thus in its first declaration this “Manifesto of the King” turns the world’s assessment of real good upside down. For men esteem wealth as one of the highest blessings of life. Not so, says Jesus. He does not curse the well-off, but he pities them: “Woe unto you that are rich”. You poor people, what a load of temptation you carry through life!

But you who are financially poor are really best off. Not that all poor people are necessarily blessed by being chronically hard-up-for the simple reason that nearly all who suffer poverty covet money instead of contentment. But if Jesus is to be believed (and in this respect practically everybody thinks that he didn’t know what he was talking about!), being poor means opportunities for faith and dependence on God such as the rich have to find in other ways.

In moments of real honesty even the prosperous man will acknowledge the truth of this. But there is comfort in his next thought that after all he isn’t really rich. A man has to have twice as much as he now has before he considers himself in that category. Thus, always, human nature holds at arm’s length the challenge of Christ: “The Lord is talking to the other man, not tome”.

The Reward

It is specially noteworthy that this first beatitude and also the last are unlike the rest in expressing an identical reward (if that is what it is) in the present tense: “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” All the rest say “shall”.

At different times there has been a good deal of fuss amongst believers about what has been called “belief in present possession of eternal life” — an unnecessary concern generated largely by an unwillingness to let the Bible interpret itself.

Here, palpably, “theirs is the kingdom” is almost meaningless as long as “kingdom” is restricted to the Messianic Age. Nor will it do to cope with the difficulty which that present tense offers by a glib out-of-context quoting of “calling those things which be not as though they were”, for there is then the immediate question: Why should that principle come in here and not in “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”?

It is simpler to recognize that there is a sense in which the kingdom can be seen as not wholly future. Ancient Israel was already “a kingdom of priests and an holy nation” when the covenant was made at Sinai, even though the Promised Land was not yet theirs. So a similar use of language is surely not inappropriate regarding the New Israel. Not a few of the parables use similar phrasing (e.g.

13:24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47; 20:1; 22:2; 25:1). Serious error comes in, of course, when men blithely assert that the Kingdom is here and now, and not in the future.

Notes: Matthew 5:3; Luke 6:20, 24

1. Eight the number of the New Creation. The day of the Lord’s resurrection, and of his appearing to his disciples (Jn. 20:26). Eight persons in the ark. Eight gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:28). Zacharias belonged to the eighth order of priests. The number of the Lamb is 888. But why Rev. 21:8?
2. Jacob is not the only man who learned the hard way. Abraham dissembling in Egypt (Gen. 12:13), David brilliantly playing the lunatic to save his own skin (1 Sam. 21:13; Ps. 34:6), Hezekiah preening himself on a fine political alliance and then with stark sense suddenly circling back into spiritual sanity (ls. 39)-all of these were God’s great men. There is much comfort in such examples.
3. “The kingdom of heaven” in Mt. 8:11; 11:11; 13:11 is “the kingdom of God” in gospel parallels,
4. Luke’s four Blessings and four woes (not curses!) have their counterpart in Dt. 28:3-6, 16-19 on a different level. But the word “woe” means woe.
5. “Ye have received” (Lk. 6:24). As in Mt. 6:2, 5, 16, Lk. 16:25 the past tense is very emphatic. Most of Ps.49 is on this sorry theme.

The eighth Beatitude has the same shape as the rest. “Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. But just as Jesus picked up one phrase out of his pattern Prayer (“forgive us our trespasses”) that he might explain and re-emphasize it, so also now he chose to dwell on this blessing specially, underlining its almost unbelievable paradox.

One implication behind the Lord’s word here is that persecution is not inevitable. But it comes to a great many – “by coldness, contempt, and ridicule, if not by actual ill-usage” (Plummer). In the past century the Lord’s people have been marvellously free from persecution, partly because they have had the good fortune to serve Christ in an epoch and in the midst of nations remarkable for broad-mindedness and tolerance, and partly because they have not been wondrously efficient in making their message or their personal dedication known.

Persecution a Blessing

That persecution is in itself a blessing can hardly be questioned. Not only does it distinguish sharply between the counterfeit and the true. It also has a fine astringent effect, bringing home to the believer the truth and unique value of his faith.

But it is important to observe that Jesus promised this happiness to those persecuted for righteousness’ sake, not because of self-display or through fanatical combativeness or out of the delusion (as often happened in the third and fourth centuries) that martyrdom guarantees an inheritance of life everlasting. The emphasis must be on Christ and witness for Christ, as the parallel phrase: “for my sake”, very plainly shows. The two expressions meet in that loveliest of all titles of Jesus: The Lord our Righteousness.

Different Varieties

The phrases used to describe the persecution envisaged cover a wide range of bad treatment: “they shall revile you (that is, to your face), and persecute you (physically), and shall say all manner of evil against you (behind your back).” Perhaps the worst feature of all is that these vile things are said falsely, the persecutors knowing them to be false. It is a hard trial of faith and patience to know that pernicious slanders are put round, and to have no redress. In such circumstances, to relax and leave all in God’s hands is no easy matter. Yet, beyond all question, this is the best possible attitude to adopt.

It has been suggested that this Beatitude is a fairly plain hint that the Sermon on the Mount is a compilation of discrete items out of the Lord’s teaching, for (it is asked) would Jesus talk to his disciples about persecution, using a past tense, so early in his teaching? Luke’s version also (6:22) has an explicit future tense. Certainly the best examples of this come right at the end of the ministry when it was possible to see very plainly that “if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you… If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.” And in that context (Jn. 15:18, 19) the word “world” (meaning certainly “the Jewish world”) comes six times with sickening reprobation. But the warnings are just as needful concerning this worldly twentieth-century world.

In Luke the persecution phrases are quite different, though the gist of them is the same: “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you (i.e. apply the knife of disfellowship), and reproach you (this is the “reviling” of Mt. 5:11), and cast out your name as evil.” This last expression probably refers to the invention of labels of opprobrium. And they will say it “falsely”-the Greek word means “telling lies” (and knowing that they are lies).

Such experiences are not to be lamented, but should be ground for quiet satisfaction, always provided that the operative phrases: “for righteousness’ sake”, “for the Son of man’s sake”, dominate the situation.

On a later occasion Jesus foretold explicitly the hardships which beset his preachers of the gospel: “they shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service” (Jn.l6:2). Even during the lord’s ministry the very threat of this was sufficient to scare men away from open confession of loyalty to him: “Because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue” (12:42). This experience actually befell the blind man whom Jesus healed through the waters of Siloam (9:22, 34), but lie was a tough character, and, fortified by his new Christ-endowed sight, was willing to face up to anything.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility -though it is highly unlikely-that this easy-going generation might well change suddenly to one of intense hostility to the truth of Christ. There are those interpreters who believe that they can find this foretold in Bible prophecies of the Last Days. The contingency should be considered, and minds prepared and (as far as possible) policies settled beforehand.

In the Early Church

A worse form of persecution hit the early church when the emperor Nero, spurred on by his concubine Poppaed, a convert to Judaism, turned savagely against the believers in Christ. This is the background to the first epistle of Peter, written from Rome at a time when the persecution was spreading to the provinces. What could Peter do better than fall back on these reassuring words of his Lord: “But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, blessed are ye” (3:14). “Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings: that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye” (4:13, 14) – the entire section of that chapter is worthy of study.

“Rejoice”

The idea that persecution for the faith is something to rejoice in is an attitude of mind altogether foreign to current thinking. Yet Jesus used the most extreme language to emphasize this: “Rejoice ye in that day, leap for joy” (Lk. 6:23). The word is that which describes the rich foot settling down to enjoy his comfortable retirement. It is used also of the intense happinesp at the prodigal’s return. Paul writes of persecution as a special privilege: “For unto you it is granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake” (Ph. 1:29).

It is part of the solid satisfaction which must accompany any persecution to know that by such an experience one joins a noble and glorious fellowship: “in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.” By this expression Jesus implicitly put his disciples on the same level as the prophets who by their worthy witness in Old Testament times attempted to stem the tide of apostasy. The reflection follows inevitably: if mere disciples have such high status before God, what of the One whom they serve? Thus, in an almost casual incidental fashion, Jesus claimed a greatness surpassing that of Moses, David, Elijah, Jeremiah and Daniel.

Fellow-Sufferers

But what a prospect is this, for the present-day disciple to be offered a status comparable to that accorded to the superlative characters just named! Moses, rejected by his nation when he sought to join them in their suffering and struggle, knew what it was to experience “the reproach of Christ”. David was hunted as a fugitive in the wilderness until his morale almost gave way under the strain. Elijah’s lament — how understandable!-was: “Lord, now take away my life for I am not better fin what I can achieve) than my fathers.” Jeremiah in the pit thought all hope was lost. Daniel had to contemplate being savaged by lions rather than let go his loyalty to the God or Israel. And Jesus chose to speak of his own followers in the same breath as men like these!

Nor should it be overlooked that some of them met their vile treatment at the hands of those who should have been their best supporters. It is a question with possibly humiliating answers to it when one enquires to what extent the same has been true in the past century — sincere conscientious servants of the Lord being ostracized and treated despitefully by their brethren, “when attempts at sympathetic understanding would have been more appropriate than censure.

Reward

“Filling up the sufferings of Christ” is not the only reason for enduring persecution without fear or complaining: “for behold, your reward is great in heaven.” The conjunction here makes clear that it is seemly and right to rejoice at the prospect of future reward. True, the loyal service of Christ is its own reward here and now, but if the Lord bids his disciple look to the future also with keen expectation, how can anyone say that such forward-looking joy has anything ol a mercenary spirit about it. The literal words of this Beatitude are part of the overflowing rejoicing of Christ’s saints in the new Jerusalem: “Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let us give the glory unto him” (Rev. 19:7).

“Woe unto you”

There is, however another very sombre antithesis to this rejoicing by the Lord’s people: “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you) for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Lk. 6:26). Only when there is some conformity of outlook will the world speak well of the disciple of Jesus. This kind of thing can happen only when the disciple has a message which the world approves of, or else when he has no message at all. And, either way, his discipleship is then scarcely worth the paper it is written on. In Jeremiah’s day, “the prophets prophesied falsely, and the priests bore rule by their means; and the people loved to have it so” (Jer. 5:31). The world’s approval can be a danger signal. The Lord has no more serious warning: “Woe unto you.”

Notes Mt. 5:10-12; Lk. 6:22, 23, 26.

1. Matthew’s word “persecuted” is in perfect tense, i.e. implying not only in the past but still feeling the effects of it, either physically or in the spirit.
2. “Theirs is” presents a problem. Why should this last Beatitude and the first be the only ones with a present tense?
3. “Great is your reward in heaven” clearly does not mean “you go to heaven for it”, but that it is stored up in heaven; 6:20. Here is an echo of Abraham’s experience, facing threat of persecution through offending the pride of the king of Sodom; Gen. 15:1; 14:21-54.
4. This Beatitude seems to have its roots in ls. 66:5, 10, and in turn is alluded to in Jas. 2:6, 7 (= Lk. 6:22, 24a) and in 1 Pet. 3:14; 4:14. A similar though rather less obvious chain is; Jer. 5:31 = Lk. 6:26 = Jas. 4:4.
5. Does Lk. 6:22 specify three intensifying degrees of excommunication?

More time and energy than has been warranted have gone into the questions whether the Sermon was one complete continuous discourse or is to be regarded as an assemblage of separate pieces of the Lord’s teaching spoken at different times in his ministry: and whether the words were spoken in a mountain or on a plain (Lk. 6:17): and whether they were spoken in Greek or Aramaic.

Notwithstanding Matthew’s undeniable system of bringing together similar material without regard to chronological sequence, it is evident from the beginning and end of this section (ch.5-7) that here is a complete discourse: “When he was set … his disciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth, and taught them…” (Mt 5:1, 2) “And it came to pass, when Jesus ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine” (7:28).

Yet it is not inconceivable that there were in fact two separate discourses which Matthew, for convenience and in accordance with his customary practice just mentioned, has brought together in Matthew 5, 6, 7.

Since the challenge of the religious authorities was now building up strongly, it is tempting to see Mt. 5:17 – 6:18 as a complete and detached discourse spoken to the disciples in answer to that challenge: “Ye have heard that it hath been said… But I say unto you…” And, remarkably enough, most of the rest of the Sermon bears in one way or another on the disciples’ reaction to the temptations of materialism. So perhaps there was a Sermon on the Mount and also a Sermon on the Plain, which Matthew has put together without distinction because the distinction is not important.

The distribution of material in the two versions (Mt. Lk.) is widely different: 107 verses in Matthew, and only 29 in Luke; but there are also another 36 verses dotted about in different parts of Luke which show a fairly close correspondence with sections of Mt. 5, 6, 7. There is no difficulty about this, for there are plenty of signs that our Lord not infrequently found it desirable to repeat parts of his teaching, and not necessarily in exactly the same phrasing. All busy preachers of the gospel who are not tied to a manuscript will readily understand this.

There is clear indication that the teaching was addressed to his disciples, but in the hearing of a larger crowd, many of whom doubtless were made into disciples by the prospect of this idealistic new world which Jesus opened up to them.

The question of geographical location has been unnecessarily complicated by failure to let the gospel writers use words in their own way. In these records “the mountain” (5:1 RV) does not mean one specific point of elevation but was probably local idiom for “the hills”. The same phrase: “the mountain” is used of a very different locality (e.g.Mk. 6:46; Jn. 6:3, 15).

Matthew mentions that Jesus sat to teach his disciples. This was normal Jewish procedure. In the Talmud, to sit is-to teach. It was a method well designed to put the emphasis on the substance of what was taught, rather than on the mode of its delivery. The teacher who depends on histrionics to get his point over is cut down to size by this unspectacular mode of instruction.

Another important reason for mentioning this detail is to emphasize the contrast between Moses and Christ. Deuteronomy 5:31 tells of another Sermon in the Mount. On that occasion Moses stood as Israel’s representative, to receive instruction. Yet the ultimate aim and intention was the same: “Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (v. 32).

Although the teaching was intended primarily for his close disciples, it is evident that a considerable number of others were also present: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the multitudes were astonished at his doctrine” (7:28). Thus, Luke’s version of the Beatitudes is pointedly addressed to disciples: “Ye poor” etc., whereas in Matthew the more general: “Blessed are the poor in spirit” allows of a wider audience.

Over against this early discourse to the disciples in public there is the long private talk of Jesus with them at the end of his ministry-Jn.13-16. And the eight introductory Beatitudes, which set in so winsome a fashion the tone of all that is to follow, have also a very grim counterpart in the eight Woes which Jesus finally pronounced on “scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites” (Mt. 23:13-29). The opposition of these evil men was already evident, so that it became necessary for Jesus to include in his teaching explicit warnings against their philosophy and practices. So from the very commencement the matchless positive principles of Christ are shown to be unique. There is sustained contrast with the reprehensible practices so highly esteemed among his contemporaries.

It is perhaps not inappropriate to add here a few more general observations on the Beatitudes, now to be considered individually.

That they are eight, and not seven or nine, in number seems to be indicated by the inclusion of the eighth in Luke’s version, even though he has i four in his list, with four matching “woes”. ,

There seems to be no logical order, apart from the fact that the first and the eighth both insist on a present blessing. The eighth — persecution — comes more naturally at the end, for whereas the first seven describe “differing elements of excellence”, i.e. what the true disciple is, the last is about what men do to him.

There is no conscious blessedness in these various respects. A man may know himself to be merciful or a peacemaker without being aware of any special blessing resting on him because of that. The blessing lies essentially in God’s estimate of him because he is seen by Heaven to have these characteristics.

And of course there is, or should be, room in one personality for several or all of these spiritual traits.

There is no lack of other Beatitudes in the teaching of Jesus, so the list in Matthew 5, must be taken as a collection of examples.

“Blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear (13:16) “Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me” (11:6). “Blessed is that (faithful and wise) servant whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing (giving them food in due season)” (24:46). “Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Lk. 11:28). See also Jn. 20:29; Rev. 1:3; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14; 1 Pet. 3:14; 4:14; Jas. 1:12, 25; 2:5, 7 (which alludes to the Beatitudes in the gospels).

This is the only one of the Beatitudes to imply an aspiration after something not attained. All the others describe an existing spiritual condition – blessed are they who are poor in spirit, meek, mourners, merciful, peacemakers, persecuted. Here, too, there is a present continuing hunger and thirst, but it is an eagerness for change. No man can remain content with an abiding unsatisfied longing within himself. Hence the prayer: “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.”

Strangely enough, Jesus nevertheless pronounces the existence of this spiritual hunger and thirst a present happiness. The paradox only makes sense in the light of his added assurance, “they shall be filled”. The very knowledge, received on the highest possible authority, that these eager longings will one day be fully and altogether satisfied, makes bearable the present lack.

There is only one form of selfishness which is commended in Holy Scripture. A man has a right to care for his own physical needs: “The appetite of the labouring man laboureth for him; for his mouth urgeth him thereto” (Pr. 16:26). And his own spiritual needs: “Are there few that be saved?” Jesus answered with a point-blank imperative: “Strive to enter in…” (Lk. 13:23, 24).

Yet, strangely enough, there is precious little a man can do for himself in this direction. He can set the valve of his will the right way. But the rest has to be done for him by a higher Power.

Happiness a by-product

The world’s philosophers, including even that great fool George Bernard Shaw, have been shrewd enough to recognize that when a man makes happiness his target, he invariably misses his aim; for happiness is always a by-product. Set out to “have a good time”, and somehow it doesn’t turn out to be as good a time as hoped for or expected. But let a man seek to follow the path of duty, let him concern himself about the well-being or the happiness of others, and he will not lack satisfaction in life – if only to a limited extent. This is true, even in the lives of atheists.

It is vastly more true in the spiritual life. The disciples left Jesus hungry and tired by the well of Sychar. They returned to find him alert and no longer interested in food: ‘I have meat to eat that ye know not of”(Jn. 4:32, 14).

And he commends this to his disciples. When others (in the synagogue at Capernaum) challenged him with: ‘Our fathers did eat manna in the desert. Jesus, give us food every day as Moses did’, he dared to say to them: “It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven, but my Father (who gave that) is now giving you the true bread… I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth in me shall never thirst” (Jn. 6:31, 32, 35). Here is perennial Manna and ceaseless flow of purest water from a Smitten Rock.

Jesus showed also that the greater includes the less. When eager crowds of people endured physical hunger and thirst because of their spiritual hunger and thirst he forthwith satisfied those needs too (Mt. 14:15; 15:32). “Bread shall be given him, his waters shall be sure” (ls. 33:16).

Real hunger, real thirst

The highest aspirations ever put into words are these: “As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for the living God” (Ps. 42:1, 2). “My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God” (84:2). “My soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is” (63:1).

They say – and it is more than credible – that a starving man on a raff dreams of superb gargantuan meals, that a traveller with raging thirst in a desert cannot take his mind off the thought of bubbling springs of cool water. The present happiness of the saint in Christ is that he does not have to indulge in fantasies, he knows that his desperate need will be met. That need is met here and now to a great extent, in an assurance of the forgiveness of sins and a new righteousness which is more that a mere theological status.

The prodigal son, hungry, starving, is immediately at peace as soon as his resolve is taken to return to his Father. His welcome as he approaches home sets any last doubt at rest. And after that, not only is his immediate need more that met, he has also a lasting satisfying share in every good thing which his Father’s house can provide — each one of these transformed into a yet greater blessedness by the contrasting thought of swine and husks.

Mary, thinking little of “the food which perisheth”, even though it was for the Lord and his disciples, showed the craving that obsessed her, and was not thrust away. ‘Martha, your preparations are too elaborate. A one-course meal will do – and Mary is set on having hers now!’

Saul of Tarsus hungered and thirsted after righteousness and sought the wrong kind of satisfaction. But because he did seek, at last he found. Longings after self-made righteousness

Vanished when he recognized at last that God had provided a Lamb.

Zaccheus would have been well content with a quiet undisturbed sight of Jesus as he passed by. But he found himself personally addressed by the Teacher he revered from a distance. This Jesus chose to neglect the crowd in order that he – under-sized, outcast publican – might be the centre of attention: “Zaccheus, today I must abide at thy house.” Biggest marvel of all: “This day is salvation come to this house.”

So whilst there is no immediate release from the disappointments and discouragements of this imperfect life, present blessings in Christ can be marvellously satisfying, and to these is added the realism of the Lord’s future tense in this Beatitude: “he shall be filled”. There will be “new heavens and earth wherein dwell righteousness”, an incredible transformation from the sordid godlessness of this vice-doped twentieth-century Sodom.

Woe unto you

By contrast with the promised blessing there is the Lord’s lament over those unable to assess their own acute need: “Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger.” Jesus surely put that word “full” in quote-marks, to signify the man who persuades himself that he has what makes a good life. To him, sooner or later, the truth will come home with an aching pang which will be for ever past satisfying: “Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty” (ls. 65:13).

But this “Woe to you that are full” has also present force, for it is a fulness of material things now which makes a man say: “I’m all right, Jack.” A true perception of his own lack is blinded by satisfaction with what is temporary and worthless.

To Jesus himself nothing could be more satisfying than fulfilling the work of God: “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (Jn. 4:34). And he brings his disciple to the same unsurpassed self-fulfilment by becoming for him “The Lord our Righteousness.”

Notes

1. The Old Testament roots of this Beatitude are not to be neglected; eg. Ps. 107:2-6; Jer. 31:25, 26; Ex. 24:11; and contrast Am. 8:11.
2. The Greek text is literally: “hunger and thirst righteousness” (an accusative instead of the expected genitive) as though perhaps implying that the hunger and thirst of such people is itself deemed by the Lord to be a kind of righteousness without them appreciating that fact.

Since the word “blessed” means “happy”, this beatitude presents one of the most unlikely paradoxes in all the Bible. Yet Jesus did not say that they who mourn ore happy, for this would be worse than any modern example of crazy double-speak. His beatitude gives firm assurance of comfort to come. Yet at any given moment there are thousands in the world who are delivered over to grief and who are bereft of real solace of any kind. The cruel hand of death, sudden and violent, the loss of home or health, the savage “indiscriminate” heartlessness of war, famine, plague or cataclysm-such common experiences leave a long trail of misery and mourning across the world. What comfort for such?

The answer must be: none at all, except they mourn over other things even more fundamental.

A quick review of a wide field of Old Testament passages, which must be regarded as the background to this Beatitude of Christ, shows other mourning besides personal stroke or bereavement. Here are examples:

1. There is mourning for Zion, because the purpose of God with His ancient people seems as yet to have gone awry: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea we wept, when we remembered Zion” (Ps. 137:1).
2. Akin to this is the grief of mind which looks out on a weary sin-stricken world without God. There is the sickness of heart that the vindication of God is so long delayed: “the thing was true, but the time appointed was long… In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks” (Dan. 10:1, 2). There is a problem here. Should those in Christ afflict their souls with fasting because the Bridegroom is taken away from them (Mt. 9:15), and is long returning? Or is such grief out of place because he is with them now and to the end of the world?
3. There is the fret and heaviness which laments the indifference and sin of those who bear the name of the Lord unworthily: “Ezra did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he mourned because of the transgression of them of the captivity” (Ezra 10:6), just as — the commonest of all mourning — a man laments for the dead and the dying, those he holds in affection but seems helpless to help.
4. Most devastating of all is the utter loss of spirit in those who grieve over their own sins-the “broken spirit”, the “broken and contrite heart” grieving in wretchedness past describing over the collapse of personal self-dedication to God.

All of these have their counterpart in the experience of Jesus and his New Testament saints:

1. “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: but rejoice inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings, that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy” (1 Pet. 4:12, 13). Here is comfort of a very real kind. “We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel” (Lk. 24:21). Those who set out for Emmaus mourning returned in an ecstasy of joy.
2. Simeon, waiting for the consolation of Israel, was able to rejoice at the sight of a baby: “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation” (Lk. 2:25, 29, 30).
3. Jesus wept over Jerusalem: “If thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day the things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes” (Lk. 19:41, 42). And Paul lamented the lack of a contrite spirit in the ecclesia at Corinth: “Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned” — concerning the evil way of life present in their midst (1 Cor. 5:2).
4. James bade his readers: “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (4:9, 10). If a saint like Paul could so lament his own unworthiness by exclaiming: “O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24), can there be any question that all saints in Christ should similarly castigate themselves?

This last, most of all, must have been the chief reference of the Lord’s words. When a man is bowed down with dejection at his own spiritual condition, there is hope for him. When he goes with a heavy heart because of the meagre success attending his conscientious dedicated aspirations after godliness, then the happiness Jesus has promised is within his grasp. For what has proved to be futile and hopeless because of his own powers will be done for him through the grace of Christ.

Comforted

The reassurance is positive: “they shall be comforted”. The Lord’s own message in the synagogue at Nazareth was: “to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning.” There is a charming paronomasia in the Hebrew of that phrase: “Sashes for ashes”. It is an invitation to weddings instead of funerals. It happened this way when the disciples “mourned and wept” over the loss of their Lord, and Mary Magdalene came with incredible news (Mk. 16:10)

The version of this beatitude in Luke is most striking: “Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh”.

Jesus himself wept over the hardness of Jerusalem’s golden limestone (Lk. 19:41); he wept-a strange mystery this! — at the grave-side of a dear friend whom only a few minutes later he was to restore to his mourning family (Jn. 11:35). He wept-can anyone grasp it? -at the inclination born with him to set his own will before that of his heavenly Father (Heb. 5:7). And never, in all the four gospels, is there a hint that he smiled, much less that he-this man of sorrows–laughed out of inexpressible gladness. But in these respects it was surely a different Jesus who encountered disciples on the day of resurrection. Would he not then prove to them the truth of his own Beatitude? (Ps. 30:11).

This transformation should have been the experience of the disciples when Mary Magdalene burst in on them “as they mourned and wept”. But “they, when they heard… believed not” (Mk. 16:10, 11). A strange reluctance to rejoice in good news! But before that day was out, they were different. When — and no one knows how soon — even better news comes to those who now mourn in Zion, will the reaction be the same?

Woe! Mourn and Weep!

The converse of this beatitude is stated in Luke just as forthrightly: “Woe unto you that laugh nowl for ye shall mourn and weep” (Lk. 6:25). Whether this be the mocking of the scoffer deriding the simple faith and piety of the disciple, or the empty laughter of the fool which is “as the crackling of thorns under a pot” (Ecc. 7:6), the miserable end of that mirth is the same heaviness (Pr. 14:13). A man whose life is not conditioned by a frank recognition of his own true state before God (that is, who is not “poor in spirit”), and who is not led thence to a contrite mourning because his life and his world are as they are, has no prospects at all. He can never know the genuine comfort and solace of soul which the Truth of God imparts through Jesus Christ.

Notes: Matthew 5;4; Luke 6:21, 25

1. All the elements of this beatitude are included in Jas. 4:9 – another of the copious allusions in this epistle to the Sermon on the mount? Or, an allusion to the Day of Atonement?
2. Jesus promised a Comforter to his mourning disciples. The effect of it is readily traceable in Acts. 2:41, 46; 4:24, 31, 32; 5:41; 8:39 etc.
3. In A.D. 70 the devastation of Jerusalem by the Roman armies was celebrated by a special coin issue showing a woman, representing Jewry, mourning under a palm tree. The inscription is “Judaea capta”. For “laughter” – Jewry had to wait till 1948. There is yet to be a more intense mourning and a finer gladness for modern Israel.

The discussions between Pharisees and Herodians how best to be rid of Jesus, although secret, were known to him. Again there is no indication whether it was by intuitive insight that he was aware of this, or because some secret sympathizer was in the know and sent him a word of warning.

Whichever it was, Jesus promptly put into practice the principle which he was to lay upon his disciples in later days: “When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another” (Mt.10:23). When describing how Jesus “withdrew” from thence, both Matthew and Mark use a word which implies flight (cp. Mt. 2:12, 14, 22).

Yet the intention was not to go into hiding but simply to take the edge off the animosity of his adversaries by keeping well away from them. Indeed, no hiding was possible. Word concerning him–with more emphasis on his miracles than on his teaching-had spread like a prairie fire, so that crowds of curious and excited and hopeful people came from far and near.

“To thee and to thy Seed”

Mark throws together an immensely impressive list of localities which added their quota to the crowds eager to be with Jesus. Besides “a great multitude from Galilee” there was also “a great multitude” (note the repetition in the space of two verses) from Judaea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond Jordan, Tyre and Sidon. Matthew has a similar list, covered by the comprehensive phrase: “all Syria”. The entire greater Roman province was affected by the interest and excitement regarding Jesus of Nazareth. The catalogue of names is impressive for more reasons than mere geography. Between them they cover the Land of the Promises made to Abraham. Already, in delightfully indirect fashion, the Seed of Abraham was asserting his right to his inheritance!

Pity or Preaching?

The interest was primarily in the powers of Jesus to heal the sick and afflicted. It is all too easy for the modern mind, well-accustomed to the knowledge and skill behind scientific medicine and surgery, to overlook the vast amount of suffering which existed in that medically ignorant era. So they came in their scores, “all sick people, that were in the grip of divers diseases and torments-the mentally sick, epileptics, the paralysed-and he healed them”. The powerful compassion of Christ would not let him disappoint any of these pathetic wistful sufferers.

Nevertheless, with all this eagerness and all this desperate need crying out to be satisfied out of the beneficent resources of his divine power, there was serious danger of the ministry of Jesus getting off balance. What real good was done if he merely sent people back to their homes fit and well, whilst their more deep-seated disability and need went untouched?

Embarrassing Enthusiasm

So he arranged that one of the disciples should be on hand with a dinghy. This he used as a pulpit, thus making the needful separation of a few yards between teacher and taught. This simple device is to be thought of as a method frequently put into operation during the Lord’s ministry in Galilee. It enabled him to put the emphasis where it was most necessary-on the ministry of the Word. At the same time those who brought their physical woes to him knew that at the end of his discourse the Lord must come on shore again and that his tender loving-kindness and sheer pity would not allow him to go off heedless of their afflictions.

Mark has characteristically vivid expressions to describe the difficulties of the situation Jesus was often faced with. “A great multitude thronged him”-the words (repeated; v.7, 8) imply physical pressure and constraint. “They were continually pressing upon him to touch him.” Literally, “they fell on him”, like a human avalanche. Word had gone round that the mere touch of his healing hand meant instant restoration. Consequently so many were set on personal contact with him that time after time it meant serious physical discomfort for Jesus. Yet he could not say them nay. In four successive chapters (4:40; 5:15; 6:17; 7:21) Luke has a superb repetition in describing the Lord’s ministry of healing. In 6:19 especially the Greek verbs (all impf.) give a splendid picture of sustained activity.

Unclean Spirits

“And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known” (Mk). Here, once again, is the suggestion (supported by the Greek text) that Jesus saw God’s angels of evil (Study 30) as the ultimate cause of these sicknesses and mysterious acknowledgments of his power. But Matthew’s phrasing, equally appropriate, indicates repeated warnings to the people who found themselves completely healed, that they were not to make great public fuss, publishing the name of Jesus of Nazareth as their compassionate benefactor.

“Tell no man”

The urgent charge: “No publicity!” was a further expression of the Lord’s attempt at compromise between his strong compassionate urge to bring aid to those enduring pain and hardship and his yet higher responsibility to impart the healing of the gospel to their souls. As much as lay in him he would continue to restore those who brought their woes to him, but he nevertheless hoped that their co-operation by a quiet thankfulness would save him from being altogether swamped with multitudinous appeals for help and yet more help. The ministry of the Word was his greater work. A

Singular Prophecy

Matthew sums up the relation between these different sides of the Lord’s work in an impressive Messianic quotation from Isaiah 42. There are difficulties concerning several of the Old Testament Scriptures cited in this gospel, but none presents more problems than this: “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust” (Mt. 12:18-21).

The words are not quoted from the Septuagint version. Indeed there are marked divergences from it. And if regarded as a direct translation from the Hebrew text, then it is both free and interpretative in character. In this way, phrase after phrase is shown to be anticipatory of the work of Jesus in this phase of his ministry.

The word for “Servant” is more personal and intimate than the word usually employed, and “beloved, in whom I am well-pleased” echoes the encouragement of heaven expressed at the

Lord’s baptism (Mt. 3:17). More than this, the word “well-pleased” (Heb:rafzon) implies that his ministry was being received by God as an acceptable sacrifice. Christ’s dedicated offering of himself began long before Golgotha. His matchless miracles “showing judgment (that is, the principles of God’s dealing with men) to the Gentiles” were only possible because God had “put his Spirit upon him.”

Reticence

The constant emphasis on “see that no man know it” is summed up in the phrase: “He shall not strive, nor cry, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets.” Several incidents in John’s gospel illustrate this, even though that record nowhere specifically enunciates the principle involved, as Matthew does. The changing of water into wine and the healing of the man at Bethesda could have been big sensations. Instead they were done in secret (2:9; 5:13). When men would have taken him by force to make him king, he left them, and sought the presence of his Father in prayer (6:15). He travelled to the Feast of Tabernacles incognito (7:10, 11). And so unlike normal Messianic expectations was his way of life that only a few months before he died men could say to him: “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly” (10:24; cp. also Mk. 1:25, 34.43; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:30; 9:9, 25, 30).

There was nothing of the rabble-rouser about Jesus. Matthew evidently took the words literally: “neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.” People must go out to him by seashore or on mountain side where the peace of God’s unspoiled world could help them receive his message.

And the gospel he taught, the principles he sought to inculcate, were in harmony with the environment. The Sermon on the Mount, which was now to follow, had the same quiet undemonstrative character.

The Sanctuary Lampstand

The figures of speech about “bruised reed” and “smoking flax” are closely related-and they are Biblical, not domestic. The allusion is to a seven-branched candlestick in the sanctuary of the Lord with its tubes (which should feed the oil to the lamps) blocked or damaged. With wicks also in need of trimming, the flame is smoky and useless. Here is a figure of the low spiritual condition of Israel. The restoring power of Christ brought opportunity of better things. He would “bring forth judgment unto victory (Hebrew text: unto truth}. And in his name shall the Gentiles hope.” The word “truth” frequently denotes the covenanted Promises of God. “Victory” means the realisation of these Promises. And, in accordance with several Old Testament foreshadowings, the Gentiles also would come to be associated with this Hope of Israel. The massive crowds from all parts of the Land were seen as a token of the ultimate realisation of God’s Purpose with both Jew and Gentile. These multitudes were not Jews only, as both Matthew and Mark are careful to emphasize.

But the quotation from Isaiah has one singular omission: “he shall not fail nor be discouraged” (42:4a). This, applied to Christ, is either meaningless or decidedly difficult. But, since the verbs are the same as in the previous verse, it could read: “It (smoking flax) shall not be dimmed, nor shall it (the bruised reed) be crushed, until he have set judgment in the Land.” If the suggestion of the last paragraph is correct, this would appear to mean that Israel’s fading glory would not be snuffed out until the full proclamation of the principles of God’s judgment had been declared to the nation by Jesus.

So, whilst the gracious kindliness of Christ’s work is being displayed in the gospel, the record has grave overtones. The judgment of the Chosen people was not far off.

Notes: Matthew 12:15-21

15.	Withdrew.Cp. Lk.4:30, 31; Jn. 10:40; 11:54.
	Healed them all, meaning probably Gentiles from surrounding areas; v.18, 21; Mk. 3:8. In Mt. 4:24 torments is the same word as in 1 Sam. 6:3, 4, 8, 17-and also in Rev. 20:10, torments which even Christ cannot alleviate.
18.	Chosen. Not “selected”, but “separated off” (s.w. 1 Chr.28:6;Mal.3:17LXX);cp. “withdrew himself” (v. 15).
	/ will put my Spirit upon him. A difficult expression for those who believe in a co-equal Trinity.
19.	Cry; s.w. Jn.11:43.

Mark 3:7-12

7.	To the sea, and also to the hills; v.13
9.	Wait on him. A word much used for assiduous religious service.
11.	When they saw him. the use of Gk: theoreo here is somewhat unexpected.
	Fell down before him. Before or after the healing?

Luke 6:17-19

17.	Intheplain. Cp. Dt.l:l, followed here by Blessingsand Curses (v.20-26), as in Dt.
	RV: A great multitude of his disciples, from now on a constant and important element in the narrative.
	To hear him. Note the sequence: 1.They heard about him (Mk). 2. They heard him (Lk). 3. They were healed (Lk).

The Law was a schoolmaster to lead Israel unto Christ. Yet it failed as a teacher-not because of any defect in itself, but because its pupils were unwilling to learn.

In a number of important respects, such as contact with the dead or with leprosy or with human issue, an Israelite was pronounced technically unclean. Special rites and ceremonies were provided by which such an individual might be brought back into the congregation of the Lord. All these ordinances were intended, of course, to teach Israel to recognize that all which has to do with sin and mortality estranges from God. The people were being led to ask themselves what other characteristics of their daily lives could similarly set a barrier between themselves and the awful majesty of their God. They were being bidden learn and learn again the lesson of holiness–

“holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord”(Heb.12:14).

But alas, they were well content to stop short at superficialities. It suited them fine, and especially their professional religionists, the Pharisees, to concentrate on outward technical cleanness, because it diverted the spotlight of conscience away from the least glamorous thing in all human life-one’s own inner depravity and unworthiness. It is always uncomfortable to contemplate honestly one’s own tawdry failures and ingrained perversity. Washing your hands is easier than repentance. Having a bath is vastly more pleasant than regeneration. Sprucing up for a party is a positive pleasure, but who can enjoy a contrite searching of the soul?

The Heart

So Jesus called-and still calls-his disciples from obsession with externals. He bids them

seek God’s help in a spring-cleaning of the heart. Yet, until one recognizes clearly just what it is that needs this renewal and where to turn for help in the process, there can be no worthwhile progress at all.

For centuries English language usage has figuratively associated the heart with the emotions and affections and sympathies. Consequently ever since King James’ men made their version of the Bible, inserting the word “heart” where the original texts have the Hebrew and Greek words for “heart”, most readers of Scripture have imported into many a familiar passage a seriously mistaken idea.

When an eye is cast thoughtfully over a number of representative passages like the following, the true significance of “heart”, as meaning “mind” or even “brain”, becomes evident:

“Apply thine heart to understanding” (Pr. 2:2).

“Bezaleel and Aholiab… in whose heart the Lord had put wisdom (planning ability and technical skill)” (Ex. 36:2). Solomon asked for “an understanding heart to judge thy people” (1 Kgs. 3:9). “Thy words (the Book of the Law) were found, and I did eat them: and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart” (Jer. 15:16). “What reason ye in your hearts?” (Lk. 5:22).

“If thou shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead…” (Rom. 10:9).

And especially Lk. 24:25, 32, 38: “O fools and slow of heart to believe… Did not our heart burn within us (did not our minds race?)… while he opened to us the scriptures? … Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?”

So then, to be pure in heart is to have a mind which God regards as fit for His fellowship, a mind not given to evil, defiling thoughts, a mind cleansed by the detergents of heaven.

This is the big problem, this is the soul-shattering discouragement. How is a man to make his heart a fit dwelling-place of God, “a temple meet for Thee”? Many have set about the cleaning-up process in their own resolution and enthusiasm, only to end up where they started, with resolution worn down by constant failure and enthusiasm wilted before endless discouragement. For, of course, self-regeneration (which is what it amounts to) is a task beyond the powers of any man. If it is to be

done at all, it must be through influences outside himself. When did a drowning man save himself by pulling at his own hair?

Friends of the Right Sort

One answer to this problem lies, then, in help from without, from above. It is universal experience that it is much easier to be a “good” person in the company of some people than of others. There are those who bring out the very best that is in you. In their company godliness and holiness cease to be impossibles. There are others who have a genius for evoking from you every latent devilry.

It is, then, a matter of simple prudence to choose the society of the better sort and to eschew the company of the rest. In the Bible there is Jesus, the peerless Son of God, the man in whose word or look was power enough to change a man’s personality and his whole way of life. And in that Book along with Jesus there is an immense and variegated assembly of the very finest men and women the world has ever known.

The transforming and purifying influence of such as these is past describing. To neglect the spiritual help available through them is foolishness indeed. Yet it means living with the Bible and the people in it. Merely to use them as a kind of respectable appendage to a life more worldly than godly is to get nowhere.

Purified by Faith

An illuminating phrase of Peter’s yields a further helpful emphasis: “God which knoweth the hearts… put no difference between us (Jews) and them (the Gentile believers), purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts. 15:8, 9). Here, once again, faith is the key virtue. Not just the faith which believes the Promises to the Fathers, but that which “endures as seeing him who is invisible”, the faith which sees God in action in all the diversity of life’s experiences.

Here, then, is an unexpected circle of cause and effect. The attitude of mind which is ever ready to see God at work in one’s own life is what makes a man pure in heart; and thus purified, the promise that he shall see God is more than ever his.

“Surely God is good to Israel, even to such as are pure in heart” (Ps. 73:1 RV). These are the true Israel. But they are not always as pure in heart as they might be. It was for this that Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. “He that is bathed (having sins washed away in baptism) needeth not save to wash his feet” (Jn. 13:10).And this renewal is granted, now as then, at the Breaking of Bread — but again, only by faith; there is nothing mechanical or automatic about it.

Seeing God

The blessedness held out to those who commit themselves to heavenly katharsis is told in the simplest phrase imaginable. But the implications of it are profound beyond any powers of human exposition: “they shall see God”.

The fulness of God’s blessing for the pure in heart belongs to a future day of realisation. Yet even now, in a limited but still wonderful fashion, the child of God has eyes opened to see Him in the marvels of Creation, in the purposefulness of History, in the personal experience of the Ways of God’s Providence, and more especially in the pages of Holy Scripture. Yet even there he sees “through a glass darkly”. What will it mean when “face to face”?

The Old Testament helps only so far. Isaiah lamented: “Woe is me, for I am a man of unclean lips, and mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts” (6:5). Moses, at a time when he was less worthy than Isaiah, “was afraid to look upon God” manifest in the burning bush. A better Moses, and with him seventy elders of Israel, was able to ascend mount Sinai to the presence of the Glory of God, and there “they saw God, and did eat and drink” — this only because, blood-sprinkled, they had declared: “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient” (Ex. 19:5-9). Some months later a yet finer Moses was pressing with importunity for the privilege he formerly had feared: “I beseech thee, show me thy glory”-but all that was vouchsafed was a restricted manifestation*? of the heavenly splendour (Ex. 33:18-23).

Similarly in not a few other places when men were given the privilege of “seeing God”, what they beheld was the Shekinah Glory shrouding the Unseeable: “Tis only the splendour of light hidethThee.”

When Philip, like Moses, pleaded for the same surpassing experience as he-the plain reproving answer was: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” (Jn. 14:9).

There were lots of people in Judaea and Galilee who saw Jesus, but saw no beauty in him that they should desire him. But the Twelve, believing in him and constantly with him, saw the Father in him, and became witnesses to the world. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (Jn. 1:18).

So then, even though the Beatitude is couched in a future tense, enjoyment of the vision of God is possible in limited fashion in this day of small things. “But we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn.3:2). Even such an explicit declaration as this leaves much unexplained, unappreciated. And so also does the assurance in the Apocalypse: “He will dwell with them, and they (the pure in heart) shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God” (21:3). The reality and fulness of blessing behind these words will be known in God’s good time, only then.

It is useful to sum up at this point the fundamental spiritual truths which the Beatitudes have outlined to the disciple of Christ.

The first necessary virtue is for him to recognize that he has no virtue–in this sense he is “poor in spirit”. This inner sense of worthlessness (held, be it emphasized, in sheer honesty before God, and not merely as a formal doctrine) expressed itself outwardly in a spirit of meekness towards others. Further, there is a dejection of spirit because neither in the world nor in one’s own inner life is God honoured as He should be. Especially regarding self is there a great hunger for heavenly qualities, a thirst insatiable in this life that the righteousness of Christ express itself more truly in changed character.

Two of the Beatitudes, concerning the merciful and the peacemakers, now illustrate essential aspects of this New Man of Christian Blessedness in his attitude towards others.

Definition

Concerning the former of these virtues, it is important to be clear in one’s mind as to just what this Christ “mercy” is not. If is not soft-heartedness. It is not forbearance or leniency. It is not even compassion. It is a forgiving spirit. This is the basic Old Testament idea behind the word “mercy”. Indeed all through the Bible this word is only rarely used to describe men. It is essentially a divine attribute, and the chief field of its expression is in the forgiveness of sins extended to men who have nothing to offer except their repentance.

Psalms and Prophets teem with expressions such as these:

“The Lord is slow to anger, and of great mercy” (Ps. 145:8).

“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness” (Ps. 51:1).

“In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting

kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer” (ls. 54:8).

The suggestion has been made of a distinction between mercy and grace-thatgrace expresses the divine attitude to men in their sin, and mercy His reaction to their misery. The distinction, if correct, is a fine one. Certainly the two run together inasmuch as men’s miseries stem from their sinfulness.

Mercy and Truth

It is specially to be noted that the familiar phrase “mercy and truth” is earmarked in the Old Testament to describe God’s Covenants of Promise: “Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers since the days of old” (Mic. 7:20). “Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and truth” (Gen. 24:27). “My mercy will I keep for him (the promised Son of David) for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him” (Ps. 89:28).

The reasons for the use of this expression are not difficult to sort out. The Promises are God’s “Truth” because of their certainty; they cannot fail. They are His “Mercy” because they are His unearned offer of heavenly forgiveness. This is how Peter and Paul expound the Blessing of Abraham in the greatest Promise of all (Gen. 22:18; Acts. 3;25; Gal. 3:8, 9).

Mercy in Action

The merciful man emulates this characteristic of his God. As he has experienced the forgiveness of sins so also he extends the like forgiveness to others. So necessary and vital is this that the Lord was at pains to emphasize it both positively and negatively in the only comment which he added to the pattern prayer he framed for his disciples: “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” (Mt. 6:14, 15; 18:33 RV; Jas. 2:13; Ps. 18:25, 26).

It is a simple basic divine principle which, according to personal experience, has received nothing like the emphasis it deserves. People store up criticism and cherish resentment of others in flat denial of the Lord’s simple truth that it is the merciful, the forgiving, who are happy; it is they, and no others, who obtain mercy, enjoying the assurance of sins forgiven.

The Answer to a Difficult Problem

Yet, for many who grope after the ideals of Christian discipleship, this is one of the major problems of life – how to be understanding, tolerant, forgiving, merciful towards those who themselves are small-minded, spiteful, bitter, uncharitable. “An eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth”, in spirit if not literally, seems to be the inevitable and almost proper reaction of offended human nature. How can any different attitude be possible?

The simple solution is: instead of resentment, pity! Those who behave badly and cause grievous offence to others are not to be given hatred for hatred, nor even contempt or despising, but pity. For such show all too plainly that they have failed to learn even the most elementary lesson in the school of Christ. Their lack of spiritual progress is not to be denounced from the superiority of a higher spiritual plane, but is to be pitied – with the gentleness which comes only from the man who has miserably known himself in need of a right disposition.

And why pity? Because they not only store up much unhappiness for themselves here and now, there is also a Day of Reckoning.

So the man of mercy, who can extirpate hard feelings from his mind and in all his mental attitudes think sympathetically regarding the undeserving, ensures for himself now a peace of mind and a happiness unknown to the other, and in the Day to come he will himself find mercy.

Luke’s version of this Beatitude is a straight imperative: “Be ye therefore merciful (to your enemies; v.35), as your Father also is merciful” (6:36). But in Matthew these words (with “perfect” for “merciful”) come as the spiritual climax to a chapter of impossible idealism! Is this because the man who can come near to a true imitation of his Heavenly Father in this field of forgiveness is not far from the summit of spiritual achievement?

This truth is delightfully emphasized in the designed parallel between the gracious characteristics of the Lord God, catalogued in Psalm 111, and the imitation of God by “the man that feareth the Lord” (Psalm 112). Phrase for phrase, from beginning to end, the two psalms correspond. In particular, “the Lord is gracious and full of compassion” is matched by: “he (the imitator of God) is gracious and full of compassion (the pity for the unmerciful already commented on).” The psalm continues: “and (thus) he is righteous.” Indeed, he is!

The time was now ripe for the formal selection of a band of close disciples. So first Jesus went up into a mountain to pray about it. Luke’s text can be read as meaning ‘the mountain on which was the place of prayer’ which Jesus had been glad to use on former occasions (Acts 16:13; Mk. 1:35).

The whole night was spent in prayer about those who were to be his apostles. The decisions ‘ were momentous. Jesus knew that later during his ministry and also to a much greater extent in the years to follow these men would have to shoulder big responsibilities. The well-being of the elect of God would be in their care.

Chosen, Given

Next day he called his body of followers together, again on the mountain, and as they stood in a group before him he called first one and then another, separating them off to be members of his new band of apostles. “He called unto him whom he would” (Mk). The Greek text emphasizes that the choice was his. Yet, in later years, Peter was to recall how they were “chosen before of God” (Acts 10:41). Indeed this was a truth which Jesus himself acknowledged with thankfulness: “Thine they were, and thou gavest them me… I pray for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine” (Jn. 17:6, 9, 11, 12, 24). There is, of course, no contradiction. That night of prayer explains.

The first Jesus (Joshua) had taken twelve stones out of Jordan as a token that Israel were now dedicated to the task of turning the Land of Promise into a Kingdom of God. Now a greater Joshua had chosen his twelve, the first being Peter (a stone). These twelve, who also came new-born out of a Jordan baptism, were to become the foundation stones of a New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14).

Matthew lists the twelve in pairs because Jesus later sent them out “two and two” (Mk. 6:7). He deliberately and significantly puts the call of the twelve immediately after a very moving description of the needs of the people: “When he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then said he unto his disciples. The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest” (9:36-38).

Jesus himself had done precisely this — praying that God would provide helpers, the right kind of helpers, for the herculean task which lay before him. Just as Moses had found it necessary to delegate much of the work of administration to seventy elders whom God equipped with the wisdom of His Spirit (Num. 11:25), so now Jesus sought the help of his apostles. Nevertheless one cannot help but reflect somewhat ruefully that the twelve appear in the gospels as hindrances and liabilities to their Master as much as helpers.

Apostles

From this time on the twelve were known as Apostles. Yet, perhaps conscious of their inadequacies in the early days, Matthew and Mark (that is, Peter) use the term only once-both in connection with the preaching mission on which Jesus sent them-whilst John never uses the word at all (except in Rev.21:14). Luke, who was of course outside the number of the twelve, has it six times in his gospel, but in Acts he employs the title exclusively, for by that time their apprenticeship was over.

The word “apostle” does not mean “messenger”, but rather “ambassador” or representative (s.w. Is. 18:2 Sym. version). An ambassador has powers to act on behalf of the king who sends him. The apostles were like that. The word was also used of the envoys who maintained contact between the temple and the communities of the Jewish dispersion. Perhaps this is the main point.

Mark’s record lists three important aspects of the work they were to fulfil:

•         “that they might be with him”,
•         “that he might send them forth to preach”,
•         “to have power to heal sicknesses”.

The second and third of these functions were only to be taken up after a fairly lengthy training, for they were not sent out preaching until just before the beginning of the last year of the ministry (Mk. 6:7). The first was surely more important than it may seem at first. Jesus needed their fellowship. In spite of all their variegated failures, at the end of his ministry he could still say his heartfelt “Thank you” – “Ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations” (Lk. 22:28).

The necessary signs of an apostle, as insisted on in the early church, were these: He must have received his call to office from the Lord; he must have known Jesus both in the days of his flesh and after his resurrection (Acts 1:21, 22); and he must be endowed with the miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor. 9:2). And his triple function was to be an ambassador for Christ (1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:20; Eph. 6:20), to bear witness of the Lord’s resurrection (Lk. 24:48), and to exercise powers of guidance and direction without geographical limit in the ecclesias. But all this lay well ahead in the future.

Three Fours

There are four lists of the apostles — in Matthew 10, Mark 3, Luke 6 and Acts 1. The order of names is not the same, but each list is divisible into three quaternions. In each of these groups the order varies, but the names are the same. Thus, Peter and Andrew, James and John are always together. Next come Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, whilst the last group is James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas of James, alco called Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus, and, always last, Judas Iscariot, replaced in Acts.1 by Matthias.

The first four seem to have been specially close to Jesus. Where Peter and John are concerned this is very evident in the gospel story. These two with James were privileged to witness the raising of Jairus’ daughter. They were present at the Transfiguration, and were intended to be closer to Jesus during his agony in Gethsemane. Along with Andrew they received the Lord’s exposition of his Olivet prophecy. It is difficult to discern any common factor in these very diverse occasions. Probably they are to be taken as examples of a large number of occasions when these apostles were accorded special priorities.

With perhaps one or two exceptions they were a team of remarkably young men. Jesus had a strenuous programme for them to fulfil. And, looking to the future, he must have taken into account that the church which was to be founded would need the guidance and direction of his representatives for a good many years. Also there would be a decided psychological advantage in having around him men of his own age or younger. Older men would not take so readily to the new teaching and new life to which he called them.

Family Connections

Specially interesting features of these twelve are the close family relationships which existed among them. Peter and Andrew were brothers (Jn. 1:40, 41). And, of course, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were brothers. They were also the Lord’s cousins. This, and several other interesting facts, are established by a careful comparison of the details in Matthew, Mark and John, of the group of women close to the cross of Jesus:

Matthew 27:56 Mary Magdalene Mary the mother of James and Joses The mother of the sons of Zebedee

Mark 15:40 Mary Magdalene Mary the mother of James the less and Joses Salome.

John 19:25 Mary Magdalene. Mary the wife of Clopas (Alphaeus). His mother’s sister. His mother.

This immediately establishes that the mother of the sons of Zebedee was the sister of Mary, the Lord’s mother, and that her name was Salome, which means Peace. Yet Jesus called her two boys the Sons of Thunder!

The comparison also demonstrates that Mary and Clopas were the parents of one of the apostles, James the less, so called because of his size-”wee Jamie!” His brother Joses — that is, Joseph-was also well-known in the early church, or there would be little point in mentioning him. So probably he is to be equated with the Joseph Barsabbas, called Justus, who was excluded from the apostleship when Matthias was appointed by the drawing of lots. His nicknames, “Son of the Sabbath” and “The Righteous”, are clear indications of a man who took his loyalties to the law of Moses with tremendous seriousness. In view of the Judaistic problems which beset the early church in later days his failure to be elected to apostleship can be seen as God-guided. Acts 1:23 mentions also Judas Bar-Sabbas, who was possibly a member of the same family.

More than this, if it is correct that Clopas and Alphaeus are two Graecised forms of the same Hebrew name Chalpai (=the Lord’s innovator or rebel), then since Matthew was son of Alphaeus, he too was a member of this remarkable family.

In three of the lists Matthew (Lev!) and Thomas Didymus are joined together. Didymus means Twin, and Lev! means Joined, so it is not improbable that they were twin brothers.

Nor is this all. In the AV, there is another Judas besides Iscariot: “Judas of James”. The word “brother” is not in the text. It is well-recognized that this is a normal way of saying “Judas the son of James” (cp. Jn.6:71; Acts. 1:13)-and since James the son of Zebedee is excluded, he was most probably the son of the James who was son of Alphaeus and Mary. If this conclusion is correct, the apostolic band included a father and son! And in that case Judas must have been in his late teens or early twenties, and even allowing for the early marriages normal in those days, Alphaeus and his wife Mary were middle-aged. Alphaeus himself must have been well-known in the early church, otherwise what reason for the mention of him at all?

A very early writer mentions that a certain Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the husband of Mary. This means that there were close family ties between Jesus and this truly remarkable family which supplied no less than four out of twelve of the apostles.

There is a possibility that the Cleopas who was one of the two with Jesus on the road to Emmaus is to be identified with Clopas-Alphaeus. If so, it is possible to infer that he was not accompanied by his wife (compare Lk. 24:22 with Mk. 16:1), nor by his son (Lk. 24:33). However, since the most likely assumption is that these two were man and wife, going to their own home in Emmaus, and all the apostles (except perhaps Judas) were Galileans, it seems probable that this Cleopas is not to be identified with the father of the apostolic family.

The First Group

Apart from the more familiar members of the-band of apostles, Peter, John, Judas Iscariot, remarkably little information is to be gleaned about the rest. But how eloquent is the fact that Peter is always set first, whilst Judas is always last. When it is considered that within an hour or two of each other Judas betrayed his_s Lord for money and Peter denied him over and, over again with oaths and curses, the mysteries., of the divine “election of grace” become more awe-inspiring than ever.

Peter’s being declared the first (Mt.10:2) is not, just a matter of enumeration, for he has already; been set at the head of the list. He was first in status and authority, but the first clear indication of this was when Jesus said to him: “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Lk. 22:32).

In the lists James the son of Zebedee is always given priority over his brother John–and even in martyrdom (Acts 12:2). These are indications of a more forceful character than “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

Although the idea is not popular in modern academic circles, a remarkably good case can be made out for this James being the author of the epistle which bears that name (“The Epistle of James”, H.A.W.). If this identification is accepted it needs only one reading of the epistle to recognize the author as a vigorous dynamic personality.

Several suggestions have been made regarding the name Boanerges, given by the Lord to James and John:

• “Sons of Shaking”, with allusion to a Hebrew word which in nearly every one . of its 46 occurences refers to some dramatic divine manifestation. The fact that the Greek word boe means a shout or loud cry may explain the interpetation: “sons of thunder”.
• A link with the word for “assembly” in the sense of “fellowship”-”We took sweet counsel together, and walked into the house of God in company” (Ps.55:14).
• A description of their naturally impetuous characters. But were they really like this? Are Mk.9:38; Lk.9:54 enough to go on? And it is noteworthy that in Scripture no new name perpetuates a fault of character.
• The name is said to have belonged to the high priest’s two Sanhedrin assistants, who counted votes for “Yea” and “Nay”. With this may be compared the request by James and John that they sit on the Lord’s right and left hand in his kingdom.
• The first mention of Messiah in the Old Testament is in the Song of Hannah: “Out of heaven he shall thunder upon them…he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed” (1 Sam. 2:10). Did Jesus use Boanerges with reference to this prophecy, the last two phrases describing the functions of James and John?
• There is some Talmud evidence that the RGS in Boanerges was understood to describe the Voice of God as heard at Sinai (Ex. 20:18; cp. Ps. 29) — and on the Day of Pentecost in the sound “as of a rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2).

With these diverse alternatives, it is hardly possible to be sure which is correct. Mk. 3:17 Gk. suggests that the names were given separately and not as a pair.

Andrew was not a married man like his brother, for he shared the same home in Capernaum (Mk. 1:29). All that is mentioned about him suggests a very practical individual. As soon as he was convinced about the divine authority of Jesus, he went off and brought his brother to the Lord. When Jesus was faced with the problem of feeding the great multitude in the wilderness, it was Andrew, anxious to be of service, who drew attention to the small boy with a few loaves and fishes-”but what are they among so many?” (Jn. 6:8, 9). And he was one of the small group who pressed for further explanation of the Lord’s portentous words about the destruction of the temple. That persistence evoked the invaluable Olivet prophecy (Mk. 13;3, 4).

The Second Group

Philip was another matter-of-fact, “down-to-earth” type. Does his Greek name hint at mixed parentage? It was to him that Greeks, showing by their attendance at the Passover their strong sympathy with the Jewish religion, applied for help in satisfying their desire to get to know Jesus. Was it coincidence that they should seek this help from the apostle who had said to Nathaniel in very practical fashion: “Come and see”, when seeking to persuade him about the Messiah? And again, was it coincidence that Philip should get the collaboration of Andrew who had converted his own brother by the very practical method of bringing him to Jesus (Jn. 12:20-22)?

It was Philip, also, who bluntly demanded of the Lord: “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us” (Jn.14:8). He wanted a theophany which he could see – something plain and unmistakable. According to Clement of Alexandria, Philip was the disciple who, when bidden follow Christ, replied: “Suffer me first to go and bury my father” (Mt.8;21). This may be guesswork, but it is in character.

Bartholomew is generally identified with Nathaniel (Jn.l:45). The conclusion is very likely correct (see Study 20). In that case, “an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile” is a wonderful encomium regarding his character, especially since it expresses the judgement of a Jesus who “knew what was in man”. Yet this wonderful disciple is henceforward a mere name in the gospel page. Could there be a better example to stress the brevity and selectivity of the gospel record?

Thomas, stolid, unimaginative, determined to follow only his own practical commonsense, had also a streak of pig-headedness in him. He should have been more ready than he was to give in before the sheer weight of testimony and to acknowledge belief in the resurrection of his Master. But he was a wonderfully loyal disciple. When Jesus was not to be discouraged from going to Bethany at the time of the death of Lazarus, Thomas gave the lead to the rest: “Let us also go that we may die with him” (Jn. 11:16). To his hard-headed pessimism the project was sheer suicide. Nevertheless if Jesus insisted, there was nothing for it but to accompany him. They must not let him down!

Precisely the same loyalty showed itself when Thomas stuck out stubbornly against the growing conviction of the rest that Jesus was risen. He disagreed with his brethren on the most fundamental of all principles of the Faith, yet on the following Sunday (Jn. 20:26) he was “at the meeting” with all the rest; and that tenacious loyalty, maintained against all: personal inclination, saved his life!

Matthew has already been considered at some length (Study 35). His humble spirit is to be seen in two features of these four apostolic lists. It is only in his own list that he is baldly labelled: “the publican”. In all four places he is linked with Bartholomew, b.ut his list is the only one of the four which puts Bartholomew first of the two. His new name in Christ is usually taken to mean: “Gift of God”; but it could just as easily mean: “Given to God”. Then was it he who set the example to Publican Zaccheus (Lk. 19:8a) of how to re-dedicate ill-gotten wealth?

The Third Group

Simon the Zealot was a very different type. Visionary, fanatical, sanguine, unpractical-it was men of this character who usually joined the movements for political and national freedom which constantly agitated Jewry. That Jesus could attract and hold a man of such bent was not the least of his miracles. His other cognomen-”Canaanite”-is not to betaken as indicating his origin among the remnants of the old non-Jewish people in the Land. The Greek form is not the same as that describing the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mt.15:22). It may possibly mean “man of Cana”, but it is usually interpreted by means of a Hebrew root meaning “jealous (for the honour of Israel), zealous”-an equivalent to Zealot. Thus Simon the tax-hater joined Matthew the tax-collector. And cautious Thomas joined the impetuous violent Peter.

James the son of Alphaeus-”little James”-was probably the oldest of the apostles. His presence would help to add stability to a group of widely differing personalities. His son Judas was almost certainly the youngest of the twelve. In the lists he is named also: “Lebbaeus and Thaddeus. The first of these comes from the Hebrew word for “heart” (modern equivalent: “mind”); and since “Thaddeus” probably connects with a word meaning “knowledge”, “Judas the judicious” is suggested, or maybe “brainy Judas”. He was possibly, but doubtfully, the writer of the Epistle of Jude.

Combining the probable conclusions reached here with others concerning Joseph and Mary it becomes possible to represent these remarkable family connections in a genealogical table:

Note here:

1. But for difficulties of arrangement, Mary would be shown as the older of the two sisters.
2. There is no room for the (at least) seven other children of Joseph and Mary (Mt. 13:55, 56)
3. Judas Barsabbas (Acts 15:22) should possibly be shown alongside Joseph Barsabbas.
4. Bartholomew (Nathaniel) should almost certainly be included here (See Study 21), but there is no hint to indicate where.

Judas Iscariot

It is understandable that Judas Iscariot is always set last. The refrain about betrayal comes in so often as to take on an even more sinister sound than “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin”. The words for the betrayal of Jesus come sixty times in the New Testament, and in about hair of these there is pointed association with Judas. But it was not always so. Mark 14:10 calls him “the one of the twelve”, possibly suggesting by this a prominence of a different kind before he turned traitor. Why did Jesus appoint him treasurer? Was it because of his outstanding administrative ability, or because the Lord saw the inherent weakness in the man and gave him opportunity for its correction by learning at first-hand a good stewardship of money? The suggestion that he belonged to the famous family at Bethany rests on rather slender evidence, but is not impossible.

His name Iscariot has been read in a variety of ways. If it means “man of Kerioth”, then from the very beginning Judas was odd man out, for this would make him originate in the southern part of Judaea (Josh. 15:25), whereas the rest were all Galileans (Acts 2:7). The mention of his father Simon Iscariot (Jn. 6:71) suggests a well-known family. Probably more than any of the others Judas considered that socially he had demeaned himself in becoming a disciple of the Nazarene. But how well his example shows that disastrous downfall is possible even for those nearest to Jesus.

Other possible meanings of Iscariot are: (a) a man of reward or bribe (Gen. 30:18); the same Hebrew root comes in the significant prophecy of the thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:13). (b) The name has been linked with a rare Hebrew word for “strangling”. If this is correct, it was a name given him by the early church in later days. John 6:71 RV is hard to reconcile with this, (c) “Man of great preaching”, the man who could have outdone Peter on the Day of Pentecost? (d) “Man of divorcement”. This, if valid, must be seen as a secondary meaning read into his name by the church in later days, (e) “Man with the apron (ie. the bag)” (Jn. 12:6).

They were truly a remarkable mixture, these apostles of Jesus. There can and should be no doubts as to the fitness of each one of them for the privilege and high duty laid upon him. They were given to Jesus by the Father (Jn. 17:6). They were chosen by their Leader only after a long night of prayer. Yet, as the gospels proceed to suggest, most of them came near to deserting their Master’s cause long before Judas did. However, again through the prayers of Jesus, they survived to become a team of preachers who set the world ablaze.