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 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).

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.

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 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.

The careful reader of Matthew’s gospel can hardly fail to note the method by which that record has been put together. It is the compiler’s aim to bring together similar material into well-defined sections each of which reveals some aspect of the Ministry of Jesus.

A very obvious early example is chapters 5, 6, 7 — the Sermon on the Mount. These are followed by two chapters narrating a long catalogue of miracles. Chapter 10 assembles the instructions given by the Lord to his disciples, not all at the same time, regarding their own work of preaching. Next, two chapters detail encounters with Pharisees and others who rejected his claims. Chapter 13 lists a long series of parables. Then comes the great turning point of the ministry when, rejected by Pharisees and the common people alike, he foreshadows the acceptance of the Gentiles (ch.14, 15). Then through two eloquent chapters (16, 17) the shadow of the cross is cast across his path. Next, there is instruction regarding offences and forgiveness (ch.18, 19, 20). The rejection of Jerusalem follows (20, 21) together with a variety of symbolic indications that the Gentiles will receive what Israel have scorned. Chapter 22 details the long controversy with Pharisees and Sadducees in the temple court, and is followed by the great arraignment of those religious leaders (ch. 23). Then the Olivet prophecy (ch. 24, 25), and the detailed account of the Lord’s trial, arrest, and crucifixion with a brief triumphant record of the resurrection.

A Miracle among miracles

None of the other gospels has the same kind of pattern in its structure. An inevitable consequence of this method is that here and there Matthew has had to sacrifice exact chronological sequence. Indeed it is remarkable that these dislocations should be so very few.

The miracles of Chapters 8 and 9 are almost certainly not given in correct sequence, although they do all belong to the early part of the year of the Lord’s popularity.

That section has one particularly impressive feature. Embedded in it is the story of Matthew’s own call to discipleship. It is as though the apostle was saying to his readers: “Here, amongst all these other miracles, is a miracle to match any of the wonders included in this record — the Lord called me from the sordid selfishness of a tax-gatherer’s routine to be one of his chosen few.”

Publicans

The crowds assembling to hear Jesus were so great that the synagogue could not hold them, so open-air meetings were improvised by the lake side (Mk. 2:13). Not very far away was the custom house, to gather tolls from the fishing fleet and all the boats which plied in and out of the harbour there. The great east-west road entered the territory of Herod Antipas a short distance away, and the trade it carried was also a fruitful source of revenue. The tax-gatherers who did this unpopular work for the Romans and for Herod were the most hated people in the nation. They in turn shrugged their shoulders and saw to it that they were well paid for all the resentment and ostracism they had to put up with. With hardly an exception they were a villainous unscrupulous lot. It is on record that in one part of the Roman Empire several cities erected statues to one Sabinus, “the honest publican.”

The Call of Levi

One day Levi the publican, the son of Alphaeus (Mk. 2:14; 3:18; Study 42), was seen by Jesus as he sat there “at the receipt of custom”. It was no casual glance which Jesus gave him. He stood and watched (Lk. 5:27 Gk.) and probably not for the first time. Then the word of power which wrought so many miracles produced yet another marvel: “Follow me”. Without any hesitation this publican quit his ledgers and his tax-assessing to be henceforth a full-time disciple of Jesus: “he left all, rose up, and followed him” (Lk. 5:28). The language is precisely that used to describe the call of Peter and Andrew, James and John (v. 11), but with a verb added which the New Testament normally uses to describe resurrection: Matthew rose up to a new life in Christ (as did the paralytic; Lk. 5:25 s.w).

This forsaking was a big act of faith. The others whom earlier Jesus had called at the same place still had their fishing boats as an insurance policy. But this publican, who had doubtless paid handsomely for the privilege of rooking his fellow-citizens, would now never be able to ask for his civil- service job back again. He had burnt his boats.

Matthew’s gospel is the only one of the three which uses the name Matthew in this incident, his Greek phrase implying that this was an added name. The others veil the publican’s identity, calling him Levi. Similarly, in the lists of the Twelve, the first gospel is the only one which describes Matthew as “the publican”. This splendid man gloried in the fad that the Lord had rescued him from such a sordid soul-destroying way of life. Now he paid his dues to a higher Lord, and chronicled not the avarice of an evil master, but the glorious deeds and words of one who laid down his life for his friends (Matthew means ‘God gives’).

Renunciation and Witness

When Elisha said farewell to his old life to become Elijah’s disciple and minister, he did so formally, sacrificing the oxen he had been ploughing with, and sharing the peace offering with his family and friends (1 Kgs. 19:21). When Peter and Andrew left their fishing, they too gave hospitality to their new leader (Mk. 1:29). Levi did the same thing, even more formally. “He made for him (that is, for Jesus) a great feast in his house, and there was a great company of publicans and of others”(Lk.). This implies that Matthew’s house was a big one. Its owner was no underling but a man who had ‘ risen high in a lucrative profession.

Again there is what might be called an undesigned coincidence in the narrative — Mark and Luke both specify that the reception took place in his (Levi’s) house. But, naturally enough, Matthew, writing about his own home, calls it simply “the house”.

Probably an appreciable amount of time elapsed between the call of Matthew and the giving of this great feast (held most likely in the courtyard of what must have been one of the biggest houses in Capernaum). Since there were “many publicans” among the guests, it may be surmised that Matthew sent invitations to all his civil-service colleagues in that area (perhaps including Zaccheus at Jericho), and it would take time for notification and assembly of the guests. Jesus seems to have been using this conversion of Matthew as the spearhead of a campaign amongst these second-class citizens. Mark’s text is delightfully ambiguous as to whether the house and the feast were Matthew’s or Christ’s. “I came not to call (invite) the righteous…” seems to imply the latter.

Another interesting comparison between the synoptists is this. Mark’s phrase is: “many publicans and sinners… with Jesus and his disciples”; But the corresponding expression in Luke is: “a great company of publicans and others (the word means ‘others of the same sort’)”! Mark adds: “and they (the publicans) followed him.” This can only mean that one of the fruits of Levi’s splendid public witness to faith in Christ was the conversion of a considerable number of his colleagues.

The Pharisees criticize

The phrase used by Mark about the feast is exactly that which describes Abraham’s great celebration of the weaning of Isaac (Gen. 21:8 LXX). That public designation of the heir of the promises was immediately followed by mockery from the one who deemed himself to be Abraham’s true heir. On this occasion also, immediately after Matthew’s open proclamation of Jesus as Lord this true heir of the promises found himself exposed to the mockery of those who preened themselves on being the elect of God. The Pharisees, the very men who had sat criticizing Jesus as he healed the paralytic in the synagogue, were well aware of what was happening. The point is often made in books on Bible manners and customs that it was commonplace for others besides the invited guests to walk in and out whilst a feast was in progress, and that this is what the Pharisees did. Such an idea should be viewed with suspicion. Has any evidence ever been cited that this was a normal practice of the times? It is difficult to resist the impression that this notion, like a number of others dogmatically set out in such volumes, has been made up as a fairly confident inference from what is already there in the gospel story; and then, as a lovely demonstration of how to reason in a circle, these “manners and customs” are cited in support of this kind of interpretation.

The bogus character of this particular sample is readily seen when the record is read with a little more attention to detail. Is it at all likely that such men would enter the house of such a man? Also, the criticism of the Pharisees was addressed to the disciples, and not to Jesus himself–they were astute enough for that! But if this was done whilst the feast was in progress, was not Jesus bound to be immediately aware of it? The main intention was to sow uneasy doubts in the minds of the disciples without Jesus knowing what was afoot. So the criticism was almost certainly put to the followers of the Lord as they were coming away from the feast. The ellipsis is wrongly filled out in Matthew 9:11: “When the Pharisees saw it…” (note the italics in the AV). A better rendering would be: “when the Pharisees saw who the guests were.” They saw because they were on watch outside the house.

The disapproval was cleverly expressed: “How is it that he (your Teacher! Mt.) eateth — and drinketh! — with publicans and sinners?” (Mk. 2:16). Either the disciples also had taken part in the feast, but were carefully left out of the gibe of the Pharisees; or else they had not been invited, and were therefore all the more ready to listen to disparagement of this kind. The aim was to undermine confidence in their leader. The kind of answer which these devious men wished to insinuate and were ready to supply was: ‘Because he is one of the same kind. His holiness and pious talk are a facade. Here is his true-character.’

The Lord’s Response

As on every later occasion when his disciples were under fire, Jesus came to their aid at once. Did his marvellous powers of awareness of what was going on in people’s minds operate here? Or did one of his friends quickly and quietly inform him of what was happening?

The answer came promptly and pithily: “How is it…? Because they that are strong need no physician, but they that are sick”. Of course Jesus welcomed such company because these were the people most in need of help. By contrast, the Pharisees thought themselves spiritually healthy and strong. The Lord’s irony was sharp and biting. He had no time for them. Spiritually more sick than the publicans, they deemed themselves to be not only thoroughly healthy but also the physicians of others. Poor fools that they were, they had no ability to diagnose their own sickness. So Jesus bade them: “Go ye, and learn what that meaneth: I will have mercy (see Study 39), and not sacrifice” (Mt. 9:13). The words were like a blow in the face. That this untutored artisan should bid them, the educated doctors of the Law, go home and read their Bible! “Go ye, and learn…!” Were they not the teachers of the nation, honoured and revered by every one? And what were they to learn? “I will have mercy (a spirit of forgiveness for those in need of it) and not sacrifice (selfishly offered for one’s own high standing with God)” (Hos. 6:6; where note the context: 5:15; 6:2). Then was it not their duty, if indeed they were the nation’s spiritual healers (and how they liked to think that they were!), to spend all possible time and effort on the reclamation of these despised and hated publicans?

In quoting Hosea’s blunt words the Lord was not proscribing sacrifice (the time for that would come later; Mt. 21:12). He was employing a common Bible idiom for “not so much this as that”, “not only this but also that” (Pr. 8:10; Jer. 7:22, 23; Joel. 2:13; Mk. 9:37; Lk. 14:26; Jn. 3:17; 5:30; 6:27; 7:16; 9:3; 12:44, 47; 14:24; Acts 5:4; Rom. 2:13; 1 Cor. 7:10; 15:10; 1 Jn. 3:18).

The Lord continued, his words a matchless fusion of irony and tenderness: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Lk. 5:32). It was he who called sinners. They joined him, not he them! (cp. Gen. 14:13d). So he ate and drank with publicans — repentant publicans, who stirred by the self-denial of one of themselves, recognized that here was One who could help them as no Pharisee in the land was able. “And they followed him”. Jesus, gained wealthy and grateful disciples that day.

A Link with Isaiah?

The Old Testament is never very far away from the teaching and work of Jesus. Yet, in many an instance, the ideas of psalms and prophets are so subtly woven into the fabric o| the gospel record that they easily go unrecognized or unappreciated. Is the incident just considered an example of this? The following collation with Isaiah 58 is either designed and impressive or else marvellously fortuitous:

Isaiah 58

4.	Behold, ye fast for strife and debate. . .to make your voice to be heard on high.	The Pharisees’ quibble about fasting (Mt 9:14).
5.	Is it such a fast … for a man to spread sackcloth under him?	The patch on the old garment?
6.	Is this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free.	The saving of publicans and sinners (these oppressors were really the oppressed.)
7.	Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor to thy house?	Matthew’s feast.
8.	Then… thy healing (RV) shall spring forth speedily.	“They that are whole need not a healer but they that are sick.”
9.	If thou takeaway from thee . . . the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity (LXX = murmuring speech).	The pointing of criticism at Jesus.They “murmured” at him (same Gk. word)
12	Thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, the restorer of paths to dwell in.	Sinners called to repentance.

(cp. also Is. 57:17, 18: “Covetousness, see his ways (Lk. 5 :27), heal him, lead him (follow me)”.

Notes: Mark 2:13-17

14.	He saw. Consider other people Jesus “saw”: Mt. 4:18, 21;Jn. 1:48; 9:1; Lk.21:2.
	Sitting at the receipt of custom. In the time of the Egyptian Ptolemies, a publican received between 8 and 16 talents in salary, ie.£2-3 m. (1983 inflation).
	Follow me; and he rose up and followed him. Mark used the name Levi. He does not say explicitly that Levi was an apostle, but this language (1:17, 18) plainly implies it.
15.	And they followed him. The very phrase used about Matthew (v.14). So even though not peripatetic apostles, they definitely became disciples.
16.	Scribes of the Pharisees (RV), i.e. scribes dedicated to the Pharisee style of interpretation of the law.
	Said to his disciples. It was a trick they would try several times more in the next two years — trying to drive a wedge between leader and followers. Lk. has “murmured”, the much repeated word in Ex., Num. to describe faithless Israel in the wilderness.
	Sinners. These were probably people Jesus had healed and who (so people reasoned — as John’s friends did) must have suffered as they did because they had been sinners. Lk. is content to call them “others”. His word means “others of the same sort”.
17.	No need of a physician. Specially no need of physicians unable to diagnose their own sickness!
	They that are sick. And these publicans had come to the best doctor. Contrast Asa: 2 Chr. 16:12.

“I fast twice in the week”, boasted the Pharisee in the parable (Lk. 18:12), as he wrote his own testimonial for the Almighty to read. And indeed he did — every Monday and Thursday. It was evidently on one of these fast-days when Matthew’s great reception was held (Mk.). To the Pharisees this splendid feast became a welcome opportunity for criticism. To the disciples of John, who also had adopted this fasting practice, it was an offence and a source of perplexity. These, of course, knew of the witness their leader had made regarding Jesus, but the sharp contrast between John’s austerity and the social spirit shown by Jesus reinforced their natural loyalty to their teacher, and they were offended. So they came to Jesus about it: “Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft (and make formal prayers: Lk.), but thy disciples fast not? they eat and drink.” The form of the phrasing in Greek makes a subtle distinction, as though implying that these followers of Jesus were not as whole-hearted in their discipleship as they themselves we re of John.

Gentle Correction

The rebuke of Jesus could hardly have been made more gently: “Can the sons of the bride-chamber (ie. the wedding guests) fast whilst the bridegroom is with them?” It may be that before Jesus began his ministry John had taught his disciples to fast as an expression of their eagerness for Messiah’s coming (Mt. 11:18); a prophecy of the Last Days has the same idea and purpose (Joel 2:15, 16).

It is to be noted that the reproach took once again the form of a question, so that they might supply their own answer. Jesus might have treated their enquiry peremptorily by bidding them go home and read their Bible; for, when, except on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29), did Moses enjoin fasting? But the Lord avoided a head-on clash of this kind.

Since the imprisonment of their master these followers of John, left with no firm guidance, had come under the evil influence of the Pharisees and needed to be saved from the present unhappy trend of their religious ideas. Of course, they should have obeyed the lead given them by John, gladly attaching themselves to Jesus, to whom their leader had borne such emphatic witness. But it is ever thus with human nature (even today!). Men who recognize the need for reformation are willing to go so far, and then they take fright, and the shackles of conventional thinking exert their restraint on faith once again.

The reply of Jesus unmistakably quoted back at John’s disciples the words of John himself. When these disciples had come to John worried about the greater progress being made in Judaea by Jesus, he had bidden them find satisfaction in the fact: “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled” (Jn. 3 :29) — and so also ought theirs!

Thus Jesus’ rejoinder told them again that he was the heavenly bridegroom. In his presence fasting, which Scripture describes as “afflicting one’s soul” (Lev. 16:29; ls. 58:5), was utterly out of place. Since fasting is an open sign of mourning, how incompatible it was with the satisfaction and joy which John himself felt at the increasing success of Jesus! In this gentle way Jesus reminded them that their well-intentioned adoption of Pharisaic practice was really an evil thing. They had taken a big step in the wrong direction.

Even the Pharisees exempted bridal parties from the regular fasts which they practised, and that, in effect, is what this great feast at Matthew’s house was. Theft Bridegroom himself was present.

“Taken away”

He went on in more sombre fashion: “But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.” Here was yet another hint (like Jn. 2:19) in the Lord’s early teaching that his ministry must end in rejection and suffering. The words “taken away” imply violence. It has been well pointed out that there is an echo here of the familiar words of ls. 53:8 LXX: “his life is taken away from the earth”, and that in the Song of Songs the bridegroom is taken away from his beloved, so that in her dream she goes about the city seeking for him in her distress (Song 5:6).

Already, no doubt, these Scriptures were in the mind of Jesus. And the fact that he spoke prophetically in this way immediately after a clash with the Pharisees may have been intended to prepare the minds of his disciples for the unwelcome experience of seeing their Master brought to his death through conflict with these men.

To Fast or not to Fast?

It is a question not to be lightly brushed aside whether these words of Jesus are an implied instruction to his followers in every generation to practise fasting during his absence. At that hope-destroying Passover when they saw their Lord crucified, they were to need no commandment to fast.

But forty days later, when “he was parted from them and carried up into heaven, .. . they returned to Jerusalem with great joy” (Lk.24:51, 52; cf.v.17). This was the very reverse of the mourning which fasting betokens. The obvious explanation is that they did not consider the bridegroom to have been taken away from them: “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Mt.28:20). “For he hath said, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5; a valuable passage, the Greek of which has five negatives!) Thus the one who practises religious fasting proclaims not his closeness to the Lord but that he lacks a present sense of His help and comfort.

Only in times of extreme perplexity or tribulation would the believers perhaps do well to undertake fasting — afflicting their souls — as a means of reinforcing special prayers offered before God in such circumstances. It could become another powerful outward expression of their sense of need. If this is a correct understanding, then Christ’s ecclesia in the present day has something to learn.

Three Mini-Parables

By means of three pocket-sized parables Jesus now proceeded to generalise the problem which had arisen regarding fasting. They are possibly the first examples of this form of instruction in the gospels, though almost certainly not the first that he had ever employed.

The synoptists’ versions of the first of the three emphasize different details. Possibly the one in Luke represents a later version, for it is not unlikely that Jesus had occasion to teach the same lesson more than once.

The Patched Garment

In Matthew and Mark the absurdity is emphasized of using a piece of unshrunk cloth to patch an old garment. What happens? As the new cloth gradually shrinks, it pulls away some of the weaker old material, and the last state of that garment is worse than the first. Thus, in a parable, Jesus prophesied that the ill-found alliance between Pharisee (the old worn-out garment) and disciple of the Baptist (represented by the crude unfinished patch) could not possibly last. The fundamental difference in outlook was too great. The Pharisees clung to a thread-bare philosophy of dependence on a pseudo-righteousness wrought, not without some self-satisfaction, by one’s own personal efforts and discipline. John’s teaching had as its foundation: “All flesh is grass;” he insisted that only through repentance, baptism and faith in the Lamb of God can a man be acceptable before God. Where was the compatibility?

In Luke’s version of this parable, the patch is torn out of a new garment. Here it is not the raw quality of the patching material which makes the procedure unsatisfactory. Instead, there is the ruin of the new garment and the blatant fact that the new does not match the old. The incongruity is obvious.

The new garment represents, of course, the teaching of Jesus. Any attempt at alliance with the Pharisees was bound to mean ruin to this movement which Jesus had begun, because the Pharisees were interested only in absorbing for their own prestige and benefit this and any other surge of religious enthusiasm. It was their intention that in doing so they would modify it into harmony with their own ideas and practices. Jesus knew that any such confederation would bring his work to nought. The “new garment” would be utterly spoiled.

Besides this, there was the hopeless incompatibility between the Pharisees’ outlook and the teaching of Jesus. Basically, in attitude to God and man they were as different as could be. How could there be any sort of liaison between two systems of teaching so drastically different from each other? They just did not match.

The Old Testament background to this parable–often overlooked–adds considerably to its force. Before many weeks had passed, in the synagogue at Nazareth Jesus was to appropriate as an apt summary of his gospel, the satisfying sonorous words or Isaiah 61. That passage goes on: “To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes (weddings for funerals!), the oil of joy for mourning (fasting), the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness … I will greatly rejoice in the Lord … for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments… “(61:3, 10).

Messiah’s work was not a pre-appointed patching of garments, bit complete replacement with a God-provided robe of righteousness, apparel appropriate to a royal wedding, with himself in the role of the Bridegroom.

New Wine, Old Bottles

The variance between the old and the new was further underlined by the parable of new wine in old wineskins, now emphasizing a difference of inner spirit as well as of outward form. A man with the characteristic outlook of Judaism — that by religious regimen and self-discipline he can make himself worthy of God’s approval — is compared to an old wine-skin. The fermentation still busy in the new wine is more than the old skin can stand. The result–it bursts, and is thenceforth useless, and the wine runs away and is lost.

This similitude was also a prophecy. The strenuous attempts by first-century Jewry to capture Christianity as a sect of Judaism resulted in the wreck of the Mosaic system and also the loss of the Truth (see “The Jewish Plot”, Testimony, June 1974). By this figure Jesus prophesied the hopeless failure of those, whether his own disciples or John’s, who attempted to reconcile the new outlook with the venerated but unprofitable religious practices of the Pharisees. A man assimilating the new teaching must himself become a new creature and not a rather more respectable version of the old man. Put new wine in new wine-skins, and both are preserved.

New Wine and Old

At this point Luke includes a third mini-parable: “And no man having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith. The old is better (Lk. 5:39).

It may be that here Jesus was making a kind of half-apology for the attitude adopted by the disciples of John. All their lives they had been accustomed to see in the punctilious devotion of the Pharisees to the tradition of the elders, a way of life deserving admiration. Then it was not to be wondered at if, in their own new-found zeal for serving God, they tried to emulate it. Yet, implied Jesus, in fact it is the new wine of the gospel that is better; so as speedily as possible they must become accustomed to the new, especially since soon there would be none of the old left. The saying became very meaningful in later days when Jews brought to faith in Christ had to let go their innate prejudice in favour of the old Law of works. A Jewish palate would not instinctively take to the new wine of Christ’s faith-gospel right away, but salvation depends on learning a preference for the new. (cp. Mk. 4:33; Jn. 3:12; 16:12; 1 Cor. 3:12; Heb. 5:12-14).

These words of Jesus show a gracious understanding of the weaknesses of human nature. There are few people indeed whose conversion to the way of Christ is sudden and complete. With most it is a matter of gradual readjustment of outlook. Peter had to be called by Jesus three times. And there is many a man who dates his conversion from long offer his baptism into Christ. “Peter, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Jesus said that at the end of his ministry, not at the beginning.

Notes: Mark 2:18-22

18.	And the Pharisees. There is more than a hint here of collaboration. John’s disciples, who should have remembered Mt. 3:7, were being made use of.
	Used to fast. A more likely reading: “they were fasting”, ie. on that very day of Matthew’s feast. Thy disciples. But disciples take their tone from their Leader, so this was a criticism of Jesus really. The criticism also implies: “they do not practice fasting.” The Lord’s followers had been under close observation! Note how, here, the disciples are criticized to their Master; in v. 16 the Master is criticized to the disciples.
19.	The children of the bridechamber. A common Bible idiom for “those invited to the wedding.” Cp. Mt. 8:12; 23:15; Lk. 10:6; 16:8; 20:36. There are many more.
	Can they fast…? Lk: Are you able to make them fast (even once: Gk. aoristj? NT. passages about fasting which in modern times tend to be glossed over: Acts 13:2; 14:23; 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:27; also Acts 10:30; 1 Cor. 7:5; Mt. 17:21, Mk. 9:29. There is not a hint in the Bible about fasting being good for one’s health, but rather the reverse.
	The bridegroom. So many marriages in Scripture anticipate this figure – Adam’s, Isaac’s, Joseph;s, Moses’s, Boaz’s, Hosea’s, Hezekiah’s and also the Song of Songs. To these the NT. adds: Mt. 22:2; 25: 1; Eph. 5:23-32; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:2.
20.	Taken away from them. An ominous allusion to Is. 53:8. Is the Bridegroom taken away now? Consider Mt. 28:20;Heb. 13:5, 6; Jn. 14:16, 17, 21; and also Lk. 24:15, 35, 51, 52.
21.	An old garment. Is. 50:8, 9; 51:6-8 have the same impressive figure of speech, with the same clear lesson: In the spiritual world, don’t try to “make do and mend”; instead, scrap the old, and put on a new garment; Gal. 4:3, 9; Heb. 7:18.
22.	Old bottles. Both mini-parables come in Job. 13:28 LXX: “I am that which waxes old like a bottle, or like a motheaten garment” (cp. also 32:19 LXX). New wine. These men are full of new wine” (Acts 2:13). Indeed, they were!

The synoptic gospels recount a considerable number of occasions when Jesus cast out demons or unclean spirits. In addition there are further references in John’s gospel, Acts and the Epistles. As a class these incidents constitute one of the biggest problems of interpretation in the New Testament. It can hardly be said that the answers usually supplied are completely satisfying.

The common evangelical approach claims to take the gospel records strictly at their face value. Demons, that is to say, wicked disembodied spirits do exist; they caused many of the ailments which people were stricken with; Jesus recognised this fact, and by his power as Son of God he drove them away and so restored health to the afflicted.

Personal Devils?

This would be fine if it did not involve recognition of a whole world of evil beings. Belief in a personal superhuman Devil is a necessary adjunct to this viewpoint. Apart from this, there is a considerable array of minor problems and difficulties left unsolved. These crop up as soon as one studies the various accounts afresh equipped with a question mark.

But the biggest difficulty of all is the non-appearance of demons in the vast volume of Old Testament history. Here, for once, the argument from omission is really telling. In a thousand pages of Old Testament there is no mention of demons. Then a turn of the page and they become a regular feature of the record. An explanation which does not account for this strange phenomenon is no explanation. Strange, truly, that these demons should have been so active and evident in the time of Jesus, and yet so much out of the picture for long long periods both before and after.

There is also the fact that the identical diseases spoken of in the gospels as due to demonic influence are today curable by medical experts hardly any of whom believe in the existence of evil spirits.

Modern Attitude

The modernist approach is either to say that the writers of the gospels shared the beliefs of their ignorant contemporaries and for this reason couldn’t help but cast their accounts of the Lord’s miracles in this particular form; or else it is asserted that in this field of knowledge Jesus was a child of his own generation, himself thoroughly believing in the existence of demons and in his own ability to exorcise them. On this all that needs to be said is that a theory which assigns to the modern student of the gospels a higher authority and a superior judgement to that of Jesus or even of those who wrote about him condemns itself. But it is characteristic of the age we live in.

The “Accommodation” Theory

The explanation which seems to have found most favour among the readers of these studies assumes that Jesus, whilst not at all believing in or teaching the existence of unclean spirits, nevertheless fell in with the thinking of his contemporaries, tacitly adopting demonic modes of speech but without supporting or encouraging such ways of thinking.

The sheet anchor of this interpretative approach is the Baalzebub controversy: “If I by Baalzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children (i.e. your disciples) cast them out?” (Mt. 12: 27).

Here, it is suggested, Jesus adopted the standpoint of his adversaries simply for the sake of argument, solely in order to expose the illogicality of their thinking. And if he did so in this instance, may it not be safely assumed that in all his other references to demons he was following precisely the same method?

The simple answer is: It may not be so assumed! For this tacit adoption, for the sake of argument, of an erroneous point of view only crops up in discussion when seeking to confute a seriously false assumption made by one’s adversary (as in Mt. 12: 27). But in no other mention of demons was Jesus attempting to say: “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.”

On the contrary, in a score of places and more, when the Lord found himself confronted with a demoniac, he seems almost gladly to have fallen in with the idea, positively encouraging those who heard him to believe in the existence of such beings. And, equally important, the inspired gospel writers have, time after time, adopted precisely the same approach in a way which almost demands of the reader that he believe in demons.

An emphatic but quite typical example is Mark’s account (ch. 5) of the Gadarene demoniac:

• “A man with an unclean spirit” (v. 2: Mark’s ‘narrative).
• “He (Jesus) said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit” (v. 8).
• “And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine” (v.         12: Mark’s narrative).
• “And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine” (v. 13: Mark’s narrative).
• “And they come and see him that was possessed with the devil…sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind” (v. 15: Mark’s narrative).
• “He that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him” (v. 18: Mark’s narrative).

Thus, five times in this God-guided account and once in the words of Jesus the reader is being steered to a belief in the reality of demons. In this fairly lengthy passage (20 verses) there is no hint that such a belief is an error of either major or minor importance.

It would be no difficult matter to assemble thirty or forty other verses from the gospels all of which similarly make tacit assumption that unclean spirits really exist — and all of them putting this idea in the very words of Jesus or of the men who were inspired to write about him.

This is the real problem. This is the big difficulty. And the “accommodation” theory is utterly unable to cope with it. Only by shutting one’s eyes to the frequency and plainness of such passages as those just cited is it possible to say that Jesus fell in with grossly mistaken ideas just for the sake of convenience.

Let the fact be faced that in any of these exorcism episodes the Lord could have set the whole matter straight in a couple of clear incisive sentences — yet he didn’t!

Accurate New Testament Diagnosis

Another much neglected fact of considerable importance is this: In a marked majority of instances, alongside the mention of demons, the gospels also provide a plain simple matter-of-fact diagnosis of the disabilities Jesus healed.

“A dumb man possessed with a devil, (Mt. 9: 32). “One possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him” (12: 22). “(His friends said) He is beside himself. And the scribes said, He hath Baalzebub … “ (Mk. 3: 21,22). The Gadarene demoniac was found “sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind” (Mk. 5: 15). “Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is epileptic… and Jesus rebuked the devil…” (Mt. 17: 15,18 RV). “And they that were vexed with unclean spirits were healed” (Lk. 6: 18). “A woman which had a spirit of infirmity… and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself” (Lk. 13: 11). “He hath a devil, and is mad” (Jn. 10: 20; the same idea is implied in 7: 20 and 8: 48).

Let it be clearly understood, then, that in most instances the maladies from which these unfortunates suffered were clearly recognised and described. Mention of demons could be omitted without any loss of intelligibility — indeed, there might well be a gain in lucidity.

Thus the problem of demon terminology becomes more acute than ever.

Familiar Terminology

It is not certain whence these ideas about demons came into Jewish thought. Probably from Persia or Greece (Hellenized Syria). Between the Testaments the Jews came under the domination of both, and during the four hundred years before Christ it would have been impossible to resist altogether the encroachments of the conquerors’ religious ideas.

But it is difficult to be sure to what extent demon language came to be used merely as a mode of speech rather than as an expression of firm conviction.

Today many a man says “Go to hell” who hasn’t a flicker of belief in the existence of such a place. Today, “You look as though you’ve seen a ghost” hardly ever implies a belief in spooks. Today it is merely a well-understood figure of speech to say: “That politician is in league with the devil.”

Gospel evidence suggests that a somewhat similar situation existed in our Lord’s time regarding demons.

Then, once again, the question demands an answer: Why did Jesus so often go out of his way to talk about (and to) demons as though he firmly believed in their existence, when there was no real need for him to take the problem seriously?

Solution via the Old Testament

To attempt an answer to this question it is necessary to go off at a tangent, apparently, to explore the Bible’s teaching about angels of evil.

The angels — all of them — are God’s ministers. They exist to do His will. And His will very often involves what men construe as evil, although when seen from God’s point of view it is precisely what He wants to happen. “I make peace, and I create evil: I, the Lord, do all these things” (Is 45: 7). “Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Am. 3: 6).

God is the controller of everything in this world. He originates all the “evil” circumstances in it, as well as the good.

It follows, then, that whatever evil He decrees is contrived by the angels to whom this work is committed. The Bible refers to these as “evil angels” or “angels of evil”. Let it be clearly understood, these are not wicked angels. There are no wicked angels. They are God’s ministers, fulfilling His will, being responsible for bringing what men interpret as “evil” into human experience. A long list of illustrative Bible passages is available.

Examples

Psalm 78: 42-49 recalls the plagues in Egypt: “He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.” But these plagues were God’s retribution on the Egyptians.

“An evil man seeketh only rebellion (against God): therefore a cruel messenger (LXX: an angel without mercy) shall be sent against him” (Prov. 17: 11).

Exodus 12: 23 has a protecting angel and a destroying angel in the same verse: “The Lord will pass over (i.e. hover over) the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”

“And David spake unto the Lord when he saw the angel that smote the people…” (2 Sam. 24: 17).

“And immediately the angel of the lord smote Herod, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost” (Acts. 12: 23).

Specially germane to this study is 1 Sam. 16: 14: “But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him”.

There are many more passages of this character.

In the light of this teaching it is evident that the various maladies which Jesus healed were there in the afflicted people by the will of God and under the contrivance and control of His angels j of evil.

Bible and Science

If it be objected that these sicknesses, many of them, at least, were the direct result of natural law, this must be agreed. Else, why should wise medicine so often work a cure?

Yet it has to be remembered that the Bible’s view of natural law is that all such are the direct handiwork of God, maintained in operation by His angels: “He saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth” (Job 37: 6; and many more in the same book). “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Mt. 5: 45).

When stilling the storm on Galilee, Jesus “rebuked the winds and the sea” (Mt. 8: 26). But how could these mindless elements of Nature suffer rebuke^ Is not the reader intended here to look behind the natural phenomena to the angel of the Lord by whose operation these things happened?

The Bible has no use for the brainwashing inflicted by scientists on their contemporaries. There is not a word in the Scriptures about “laws of Nature”, except to pillory the idea (Ecc. 1: 13b; 3: 10,11). “Natural Law” has become a smokescreen put out by the scientists to save people from wholesomely seeing God at work in the world of Nature.

A Fairly Accurate Concept

From all this it follows that when the people spoke of their various disabilities as “being possessed with an unclean spirit” they were marvellously near to the truth of the matter. Theologically speaking they were actually much nearer the truth than the modern pagan who attributes his attack of ‘flu to a germ. The only error was the possible concept of these demons as powers or wickedness. Yet this does not appear to have been dominant in the people’s thinking. These demons are mostly referred to as “unclean spirits”, that is, evil angels, as in Ps. 78: 49. Only twice are they called “evil spirits” (Mt. 12: 45 = Lk. 11: 26; Acts. 19: 16), in circumstances which make the term specially appropriate. (See Study 76 and also “Acts” by H.A.W. ch. 84).

Here, then, is adequate reason why Jesus would appear to accommodate himself to the idea of demon possession. Provided the notion of wicked spirits be kept out of the picture, the concept is near enough to literal truth to be tolerable.

Another Difficulty Explained

Here, also, is the explanation why the Lord addressed himself directly to the “unclean spirit”, as in Mark 1: 25: “Hold thy peace, end come out of him.” As Son of God he had authority over the angel of evil who was responsible (under God) for the distress and suffering of the afflicted creature before him. The command: “Come out of him”, was an instruction to this angel to let go the sufferer from the dominance and control which had been exercised over him hitherto.

The Lord’s acquiescence in the terminology and conventional ideas of the people regarding the problem of suffering now presents less difficulty. It is no longer a patronising take-over of crude mistaken ideas, comparable to the Catholic church’s cynical appropriation of many an ancient pagan myth or custom. It is rather, the re-statement of an old and true idea in a new and better light, for the nurturing of faith in those whom the Lord blessed with his healing power. Men were being taught to see in Jesus of Nazareth a divine authority greater than the angels, greater than any in the universe save the Almighty Himself.

Seen in this light, the sharp contrast between the profusion of demonic detail in the New Testament and their non-appearance in the Old Testament ceases to perplex. Angels of evil in the Old Testament and demons in the New Testament fulfil the same essential functions. They are two ways of saying the same thing.

With such a view of a difficult problem now available, the threadbare and quite inadequate “accommodation” theory may be safely let go.

The apostle John is careful to specify both the time and place of the first miracle of Jesus. One is left wondering why there is no mention of it in Mark’s gospel, for Mark’s pen was really Peter’s and Peter was certainly present at the marriage at Cana.

It was appropriate enough that the beginning of the ministry of Jesus should be associated with a wedding (3: 29); but is it possible to imagine this joyful incident during the last year of the ministry? And Cana was in “the land of the shadow of death”(ls.9: 2), but it was there the light shined, it was there where Jesus “manifested forth his glory” (cp.also ls.40: 5).

John’s way of indicating the time is unusual – it was “the third day” from Jesus’ departure to “go forth into Galilee” (1: 43). The sequence of the days is so carefully picked out by John as to make it certain that he intends particular attention to be given to these facts;

The announcement of Messiah to the authorities	Day 1	1: 27,28
“Jesus the Lamb of God”	Day 2	1: 29
John’s disciples directed to Jesus	Day 3	1: 35
Andrew brings Simon	Day 4	1: 40,41
Jesus finds Philip	Day 5	1: 43
“The third day”, at Cana	Day 7	2: 1

The symbolic mind of John is already at work on these facts. (Was it not at the beginning of the seventh day that God gave Adam his bride; Gen. 2:2?) It soon becomes evident that the entire story of this wedding (or, more probably, betrothal? Study 7) at Cana – and indeed the entire gospel – is shot through with this interpretative attitude. Bald facts are not mentioned just for their own sake but for the meaning to be discerned in them. This becomes the more evident when there is an effort of imagination to consider also what the narrative omits.

It seems likely that Jesus was related to one of the two who were being married, for not only was he invited as a guest, and also his disciples (James and John were his cousins, let it be remembered), but also Mary, who is not mentioned by name in this gospel, “was there”, staying in the house, evidently helping beforehand with the preparations. This conclusion is made the more likely by the fact of her knowledge that the supply of wine was giving out. Her somewhat authoritative: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it”, carries the same suggestion.

A further likelihood is that the bridegroom was Nathanael. When called to Christ he was sitting under a fig-tree thinking about how Jacob left home to seek a wife, and how he returned with a new name also. Is it coincidence that Cana suggests the meaning “surname”, and that this Hebrew word comes in what may be a very relevant passage in Isaiah? “One shall say, I am the Lord’s; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob) and another shall write on his hand “The Lord’s”, and surname himself by the name of Israel … I will pour water upon him that is thirsty … I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessings upon thine offspring” (Is. 44: 5,3).

The sudden shortage of wine for the feast tells clearly enough that it was only a humble home in which resources were strained to the limit by the festive occasion. It is important to remember this fact, for otherwise certain aspects of the miracle are not easy to understand. “Cana” also resembles Hebrew words for “vineyard” (Ps.80: 15 only) and “humble”.

Mary’s part in the Miracle

Mary, aware that difficulties had arisen, and evidently used to depending on Jesus, promptly appealed to her son, although the record does not say so explicitly. It may be that already the Lord’s miraculous powers were expected by some in his more intimate circle. Certainly Mary knew that John the Baptist was filling the role of Elijah-forerunner to one greater than himself. Then of course Jesus, like Elisha, would have a double endowment of the Spirit. Already at his baptism this bestowal of divine power had been witnessed. Was there not John’s testimony to this fact? So Mary’s hopes that day were singularly correct inferences of a mind with exceptional spiritual insight. John’s record takes her appeal for granted (cp. 11: 3).

Alford has a good comment here: “There certainly seems beneath this narrative to lie some incident which is not told us. For not only is Mary not repelled by the answer just given, but she is convinced that the miracle will be wrought, and she is not without anticipation of the method of working it: for how should He require the aid of the servants, except the miracle were to take place according to the form here related?”

Could it be that at the meal-table Jesus had been talking about ls.55:l? “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, break (bread), and eat; yea, come, buy wine and fatness without money and without price” – water and bread are changed into the wine and fatness of the Messianic feast (ls.25: 6). Or, possibly, the wedding poem in the Song of Songs, where the Bridegroom greets his Bride as “a well of living waters”, yet immediately goes on to rejoice in “my wine and my fatness” (4:15; 5:1).

However, Jesus discouraged his mother’s sanguine expectation that in some remarkable fashion he would make good the shortage of wine. The record seems to imply that Jesus said something further, as: “I want to help, but can’t decide what’s the best way.” It may be that he was held back by a natural inclination to let Jerusalem witness the beginning of his signs. Hence: “Mine hour is not yet come”.

There is nothing untoward about his addressing Mary as “Woman”. He used the same mode of speech again when speaking to her from the cross (19: 26). And the general implication of “What have I to do with thee?” appears to be: “Why do you bother me? Don’t trouble me about this” (2 Sam. 16: 10; 19: 22; 1 Kgs. 17: 18). That there is a suggestion of rebuke about the words can hardly be doubted. The days of subjection to his parents (Lk. 2: 51) were now ended.

It was noted earlier that when Jesus as a boy of twelve was found in the temple among the doctors of the law, Mary was unable to restrain a certain expression of pride in the fact that this remarkable lad was her son. And now at the wedding feast, how natural it was that she should take pride, by anticipation, in his ability to help in so marvellous and gracious a fashion. So Jesus had to resist gently the pressure she brought to bear on him, the more so since to work any marvel before the crowd of guests would mean that he would be immediately plunged into a maelstrom of excited popularity which would make difficult his intentions as teacher and prophet among the people.

A Clash of Inclinations

It was the second temptation over again, to use the powers of the Holy Spirit to create some sensation which would arrest attention and present him with an eager audience of listeners. So he shrugged off the challenge: “Mine hour is not yet come.” In retrospect, with the symbolic meaning of the miracle in mind,it becomes possible to see further meaning here: it was not yet an appropriate time for him to seize the initiative and take the limelight from John the Baptist (4: 1).

Yet Jesus was by natural disposition so kind that he could neither disappoint his mother nor contemplate unmoved the mortification of the young couple at having their wedding celebration marred by lack of wine. So with a compromise he saved the situation.

The Lord had observed six large stone water jars just outside the house. They each had a capacity of at least twenty gallons. A traveller in Palestine early last century commented on seeing massive water jars of this sort lying around at Cana. Clearly they were not regarded as holy relics, but two of them, still surviving, have now achieved that dignity, and it is not utterly out of question that they deserve it. These water pots at the wedding had domestic or rabbinic (v. 6) uses (but not Mosaic).

A Miracle for His Disciples.

A careful reading of the details reveals that the water with which the large water-pots were filled up only became wine when it was carried to the table. “The servants which drew the water knew.” Thus the only persons who witnessed the change were the servants who poured out the water and carried it as wine to the guests. Apparently inconsistent with this is the emphatic declaration with which John rounds off the story: “he manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him” (2: 11). But how could they appreciate the fact of the miracle and so be confirmed in their belief in Jesus unless they witnessed it?

The Greek word for “servants” smooths out this difficulty. It is not the word normally used for “servants”. It means “helpers, ministers.” This, (together with the indications, already touched on, which suggest poor people and a humble home) points to the probability that, just as at a Christadelphian Fraternal Gathering volunteers wait on the others at fable, so also here, the six disciples of Jesus took it on themselves to wait on the rest. It would be a man’s job to handle those massive water jars. Thus, as volunteer water-pourers they knew that water was poured into the jugs and decanters carried to the table, but that it was wine which came out of them. The glory of Christ — in this case, his miraculous power — was manifested to his disciples, and to no one else, and they believed on him.

The finest last.

In more ways than one the situation was saved that day. For not only was there wine enough for all, and the very finest, too, but also the bride and bridegroom were kept from embarrassment; instead there was added jollity when the “ruler of the feast’ — the best man or one of the leading guests — threw in his facetious comments about the serious unconventionality in arranging to keep the best wine till, as he somewhat crudely put it, those at the feast “have been got drunk”. It is, as everyone knows, a well-entrenched principle of human behaviour to seek always to show the best first.

But not so with God: “He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him”(Ps.126:6); “weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning” (Ps 30: 5).

Did Jesus change into wine all the water in the stone jars? The commentators (that is, except the modernists who confidently question whether there was any miracle) almost all assume that he did. In that case what a wedding gift this was! — something like 120 gallons of wine of the finest quality. But wine can be a mocker. It is hard to believe that Jesus would put temptation in the way of any whom he sought to bless. Far more likely, and with special harmony for the spiritual principles behind this acted parable, it was only the water which was poured out as needed which became wine.

Cana in Zebulun

The place where this wonder was experienced lay in the territory of the tribe of Zebulun. Centuries before, Moses had prophesied: “Rejoice, O Zebulun, in that which cometh forth forthee” (Dt. 33: 18). And centuries earlier than that, prophetess Leah had gloried in the birth of her sixth son: “God hath dowried me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell (zabal) with me, for I have born six sons: and she called his name Zebulun” (Gen.30: 20). The word “dowry” was a strange one to use about a marriage already so long established, but there is appropriateness to Cana of Galilee, for the Hebrew word iszabad, Zebedee, whose sons were two of the six whom Jesus had gathered around him (and taken with him to Cana) at this time.

An Acted Parable

“This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee.” John never refers to the miracles of Jesus by any other word. To him they are exercises of divine power full of special meaning for those who appreciated the symbolism of ordinary detail in the way in which John himself evidently did. Thus the eight signs in John’s gospel are eight acted parables. Water especially plays a big part in the symbolism of this unique record (see Notes).

The wine that failed is apt enough as a symbol of the sacrifices under the Law of Moses which had failed to unite Israel to God as a bride to her husband. The six waterpots “filled to the brim” almost demand to be equated with the six disciples whom Jesus had with him, all of them men who had felt the influence of John the Baptist “after the manner of the purifying of the Jews.” But now it required faith in Christ and obedience in his service to change the teaching they had received into a yet more satisfying theme, convincing men that what God now provided was better than the first. The good wine kept until now” was like blood poured out, yet gladdening the heart of men with its pungent sweetness.

Various other details harmonize with an interpretative reading such as this. For instance, the “betrothal” symbolized the present union of the redeemed with Christ (as also in Mt. 22: 2). “What he saith to you, do it” now has special meaning. Those who are the Lord’s ministers must first be “filled to the brim”. And some hold more of the teaching than others. The water becomes wine only when it is wanted, and when there is ready obedience to the Lord’s instructions. The ruler of the feast (as though in the place of John the Baptist?) gives all the credit for the wine’s fine quality to the Bridegroom.

It was, truly, a manifestation of his glory (ls.40: 5). At Sinai God had promised that the glory associated with Moses (Ex.l9:9) would constrain the people to “believe thee for ever”. Now that was in abeyance, for “grace and truth were come by Jesus Christ.” Here was the beginning of his signs — from which emphatic statement the reader may learn that the garish childhood miracles described in the apocryphal gospels are utterly false.

The six disciples had believed in Jesus before they got to Cana, but now they believed more firmly than ever. This fourth gospel never uses the word “faith” (pistis), but “believe” (pisteuo)comes no less the 110 times. This is pre-eminently the gospel of faith.

Until after the resurrection of Jesus this is the first and last time that John’s record tells of a whole-hearted belief in their Leader by these men whom he had attracted to himself. In the days ahead there was to be many an occasion of doubt and questioning, many a night when the flame of faith would be but dim, guttering, smoky, well nigh useless. Yet it never went out, but survived the winds of adversity to burn with a strong clear light which no power on earth could quench.

Notes: John 2:1-11

4.	There were times when Jesus had to speak bluntly; e.g. 4: 48; Mk.3: 32-35; Mt.8: 21,22; and of course in some of his encounters with the Pharisees.
	Not yet come. Practically every occurrence of this verb implies divine action.
5.	Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. These are the last recorded words of Mary. She quoted Gen. 41: 55 — the obscure Servant now coming forward to full prominence and authority.
6.	The purifying of the Jews. This gospel is dotted with explanatory notes of this character: 1: 38,41,42; 2: 13; 4: 9; 5: 2; 6: 1,4; 9: 7; 11: 55; 20: 16. They suggest that John was writing for a readership outside Palestine.
7.	Water. In John’s gospel always important, and always symbolic: 1: 25-33; 2: 1-11; 3: 5,22; 4: 1-15; 5: 1-9; 7: 37; 9: 7; 13: 5-17; 19: 34.
9.	Water that was made wine. Moses had turned water to blood; Ex.7: 20 He also made bitter water sweet, but this was by means of The Tree (15: 23).
	Called the bridegroom. He called out as though to make sure that everybody heard him.