Although that sabbath had meant anything but rest, in the sense of relaxation, for Jesus, he was up next morning long before the others. Mark’s expressive phrase is: “in the morning much in the night he went out and went away.” Jesus needed solitude for thought and prayer. The previous day had presented him with a problem. His deep sympathy for sufferers almost drove him to the working of miracles. But the excitement created was proving a serious impediment to the yet more serious work of teaching which was to be the fundamental activity of his ministry. His works of healing were bringing vast multitudes of sensation-crazy people together. This was not the kind of audience he sought. Then, for the sake of ridding himself of the unspiritual crowd, must he desist from the works of grace which also could be such a powerful means of instruction to those who had eyes to see?

Prayer about a Problem

At the first glimmer of dawn Jesus was walking purposefully up into the hills that he might lay this dilemma before his Father and seek in prayer the wisest policy to follow. “Morning by morning he wakeneth (me), he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned (or, as my disciples). The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious” (ls. 50:4, 5). “I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word”. (Ps. 119:147, 148). And it was from God’s Word, if not from direct

revelation from the Father, that guidance came: “Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to (Galilee of) the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.” Nevertheless, “a bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench…” (ls. 42:1-3).

It was the second temptation once again. And again Jesus had to resolve to have no truck with sensationalism for its own sake. The message of God’s wondrous kingdom must not be cheapened by pandering to the crowd’s appetite for bread and circuses. At the same time God’s gracious gifts of healing must not be withheld from those who came to him making the piteous appeal of helpless faith.

Hunted down

The problem was barely resolved before the peace and solitude of this place of prayer was interrupted. As soon as people were astir they were clamouring for Jesus again. Not finding him in the house, they sought in every place they could think of, but without success. But Peter and the other disciples had a better idea where he might be found, and at last they “hunted him down” (Mark’s vigorous word) in his place of prayer.

When they came right up to him (Luke’s Greek perhaps implying that they picked him out first from some distance away), it was almost in tones of reproach that they said, rather obviously: “All men seek for thee” (Mk.) — as if to say: ‘You have a duty to your public, you can’t disappoint them.’ But in answer Jesus reminded them that he had a duty to others also: “Let us go elsewhere (somewhere different from this! anywhere away from Capernaum in its present mood!) into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.” The reference is not to his escape from the Capernaum multitude, but either to his mission from God, or — perhaps more probably — to his leaving Nazareth, for the parallel phrase in Luke is: “for therefore was I sent” (4:43). That “Let us go…” was significant, for it meant that Jesus was set on having these, his called disciples, with him all the time. The heavenly duty which lay on him lay on them also, if less obviously.

The People’s Eagerness

By this time the crowd also had arrived, and when they realised Jesus’ intention they showed signs of forcibly restraining him, “that he should not depart from them” (Lk). It is only when the repetitious emphasis of the gospels is given due consideration that it can be appreciated what a problem the eagerness of the multitudes constantly created for Jesus. These additional examples are all from Luke’s gospel:

“The people pressed upon him to hear the word of God” (5:1). “They could not find by what way they might bring him (the palsied man) in because of the multitude” (5:19). “The whole multitude sought to touch him” (6:19). “His mother and his brethren could not come at him for the press” (8:19). “The people gladly > received him: for they were all waiting for him”(8:40). “There were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trade one upon another” (12:1). “And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple for to hear him” (21:38).

“It is necessary”

From now on, his deprivation of peace and quiet was an incessant problem to Jesus. In this instance the motive of these sensation-hungry people was so palpably wrong that he was positively eager to be rid of them. And the call of duty required that he should. “I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also” (Lk. cp. Mt. 8:18). This “must” was a moral¹ obligation not to be evaded. It was also the imperative of Holy Scripture, the imperative of’ his Father’s will. The duty and work of the Messiah were already written in the Word of God. From the very first: “I must be about my Father’s business” (Lk. 2:49), to the last: “It. behoved the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the < dead the third day” (24:46), the life and* activity of the Suffering Servant of the Lord were I written beforehand. (See notes).

A very determined leper

The gospels proceed now to illustrate the new! policy of Jesus in the exercise of his powers of healing.

He had been busy preaching in some other; city, and was now indoors with the disciples (sot Mark’s record implies) when a man riddled with leprosy made his way in, determined to have; the help which he knew Jesus could give. Some have inferred from Luke’s graphic phrase: “full of leprosy”, that here was the very case’ described in Leviticus 13:12, 13 which the Law pronounced “clean”. This is a mistaken’ identification. The symptom when the skin is “allf turned white” indicates a relatively harmless’* skin disease which is not really leprosy at all.

This man was badly afflicted by the real thing.’ Officially he was banned not only from the house but from entering the city. It is a measure of his determination to be healed that he

penetrated to the presence of Jesus in this way. His achievement of this intention may readily be imagined. When Jesus was out of doors there would always be a crowd about him. Access was then impossible. So, always, from a distance, this poor outcast would be on the look out to learn where Jesus was going. The chance to get near him would not be easily come by. It is conceivable that hours and even days of vigilance and scheming were necessary before he was able to seize his opportunity. But now, at last, he was in the presence of the one he sought.

Health Restored

The unrestrained horror of the disciples (implied by Luke in one word) meant nothing to him. First, he stood before Jesus, displaying the hideousness of his plague. Then, still keeping his distance, he fell on his knees (Mk) and implored (Lk) Jesus to heal him. With face to the ground (Lk) he continued in an attitude of worship (Mt.), still begging Jesus to come to his aid: “Lord, if thou art willing, thou hast power to cleanse me in a moment.” Commenting on this “If thou wilt”, Plummer observes: “He has more trust in Christ’s power than in his goodness.”

Jesus paused, surveying with deep compassion the pitiful human wreck before him, and then — no doubt to the consternation of his disciples — he leaned forward and actually touched (or even grasped firmly) the importunate wretch still bowed before him: “I am willing. Be cleansed.” And in a moment the thing was done. A fit healthy man rose to his feet.

A Solemn Charge

His torrent of astonished and delighted thankfulness was cut short by Jesus whose mood seemed suddenly to have changed. With stern demeanour (Mk), and using a strong double negative (Mk), he gave him strict instructions not to talk about this wonderful recovery with which his faith had been answered. It was the first example of the new policy which Jesus sought to follow in the exercise of his miraculous powers. Heal he must. The profound human sympathy within him was not to be restrained, and indeed ought not. But as far as possible these cures must be done unsensationally. So let this leper show his gratitude by keeping quiet about it. And with that Jesus took him to the door and sent him urgently away (Mk). The mere fact of intimate contact with a leper, if it were known, could seriously impede the Lord’s public work, and could also damage the family who were then giving him hospitality. So the less said the better.

One other thing was impressed upon the man: “Go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them” (Mk). There was a double purpose here. Witness to the religious leaders concerning the powers of Jesus was important and a very different matter from open display before an excitement-loving crowd. They would now learn that here was one whose power to cope with leprosy surpassed that of Moses (Num. 12:13). Also, it was essential that the authorities should have unmistakable evidence of the fundamental soundness of the attitude of Jesus towards the Law and the Temple.

Instructions disregarded

But the healed leper was not to be restrained (Ps. 66:13-20). Whether it was out of irrepressible gratitude or because he enjoyed the limelight and excitement, he blatantly disregarded the Lord’s express instructions, and went everywhere telling and re-telling his marvellous story (Mk). It is just possible that this reading of the text (as A.V. and practically every other translation) does the man an injustice. Mark 1:45 could read: “And he (Jesus) going forth began to proclaim many things and to spread the word abroad, so that…” But apart from the appreciable problem of the man’s disobedience (on which, cp.Mk. 7:36; Mt. 9:30, 31), the received reading goes more easily. (But on this, cp. Lk. 5 :15).

If correct, it means that Jesus’ intention to continue with his miracles of healing in a quiet unobtrusive fashion was defeated.

For a long while after this he was unable to enter a town at all, perhaps because the people were horrified to learn that he had had personal contact with a leper, but more likely because crowds eager for excitement and the marvellous, made almost impossible the proclamation of the gospel.

Disappointed and despondent, Jesus withdrew to a lonely place, and gave himself to renewed prayer (Lk). What was the answer to this difficult situation? It was a problem only to be resolved ultimately by the later change from popularity to disillusionment or hostility.

Symbolism again

To what extent, one wonders, did the disciples ruminate on the inner meaning of this latest astonishing display of divine power by Jesus? There are plenty of indications that in later days they saw most if not all of these miracles of their Lord as acted parables. Here, truly, was one of special value, for it taught them that the Son of God shared the defilement which sin had brought on all human nature — shared this uncleanness and yet, marvel of marvels, remained undefiled, even though Mark’s phrase: “the leprosy departed from him” might mean that the uncleanness came from the man to Jesus. This notwithstanding, by his emphatic “Be thou clean” was not the Lord also asserting his office as a priest?

But the Law also declared that “whosoever shall touch the flesh of the Sin Offering (as this leper did when he touched Jesus) shall be holy” (Lev. 6:27). Thus the sinner cleansed of his sin through coming to Christ is under an obligation to permanent holiness! The only alternative for an “earthen vessel” is that it be smashed (v. 28).

Notes: Mark 1:35-45

35.	A solitary place. The list of passages where the Lord sought solitude is impressive: 1:35-37; 3:7, 9, 20, 21; 4:35-38; 6:31; 7:17, 18, 24; 8:10, 11, 27; 9:30; 10:32; 14:32.
	And there prayed. Other examples of prayer at night: Ps.119:62; Lam.2:19; Lk.11:5; Mt.26:39-46; Acts.16:25. Here praying doubtless about the tension already set up in his ministry between preaching and healing.
36.	Followed after him. The verb is singular, indicating that Peter was the moving spirit in this pursuit.
38.	The next towns. The word implies smaller places than Capernaum, which was a “city”.
39.	In their synagogues, not in the market-places — a strictly religious, and not political, campaign.
40.	Heal me. The Greek aorist implies: right away; hence v. 42: “immediately”.
41.	Touched him. Mt. 8:15 s.w. and its parallel in Mk. 1:31, krateo, might suggest a firm grip (as also in Jn. 20:17). Both Elijah and Elisha contracted technical defilement by contact with the dead; 1 Kgs 17:21; 2 Kgs 4:34.
43.	He straitly charged him. This very unusual Greek word describes the snort of a horse or the roar of a lion. It certainly seems to suggest indignation; 14:5; Mt. 9:30; Jn. 11:33, 38. In LXX Lam. 2:6; Dan. 11:30; and in some versions: Jer. l0:10; 15:17; Ps. 76:7.
44.	Say nothing to any man. This became the Lord’s settled policy for most of his ministry: 1:34; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26; Mt. 9:30; 17:9; 12:16 (one exception, and for good reason: Mk. 5:19). But in the last few months, a marked change: Jn. 9:3; 11:4; 7:37; Mt. 21:1-11.
	For a testimony unto them (the priests). There might be a hint of rebuke here: 6:11; 13:9. Was Jesus so urgent because he feared that the priests, hearing about the miracle before the man came might out of spite refuse to accredit it as a genuine healing?
45.	Blaze abroad the matter. Literally: spread the word. This might mean the word Jesus had spoken: “I will. Be thou clean.”
	They came to him. Greek: they kept on coming.

Luke 4:42-44

42.	When it was day. Literally: day coming on. Contrast Mk: deep in the night. Cp. the apparent contradiction in the resurrection narratives: Jn. 20:1; Mk. 16:2. No contradiction really. Lots of people set off for work in the dark and arrive there in daylight.
	Stayed him. The word implies persistent and strong attempts to keep him there.
43.	/ must. Other examples in Lk. 9:22; 17:25; 22:37; 24:7, 26, 44; Acts. 3:21; 17:3. This little Greek Word del (= it is necessary) merits attention. It is there also in ls. 50:4 LXX.
44.	He preached. The form of the word suggests a sustained campaign through the area. This verse covers a period of weeks at least.
	The synagogues of Galilee, some modern versions read “Judaea”. This is grossly misleading; even if textually correct (which is very doubtful), it must allude to the little Judah by Jordan (Josh. 19:34) which commemorated Judah’s special connection with Manasseh; 1 Chr. 2:21.

The preaching of Jesus in Judaea brought a speedy reaction from the authorities in Jerusalem. As a matter of course they were having him watched, so before long the impact which he was making was reported to headquarters — and the information that this report had been received and that action was about to be taken on the basis of it was soon afterwards conveyed to the Lord. It may be surmised with a fair degree of probability that Nicodemus was the one who sent the warning message (Jn. 4: 1).

But the work was going well. Converts were being made at a satisfying rate. Their instruction was largely in the hands of Jesus himself-necessarily so. Nevertheless, he personally baptized none of them, lest any should later take pride in the fact that the Lord himself had baptized them (cp. 1 Cor. 1: 14-16).

The message from Jerusalem brought this work to a halt. Jesus knew how the wiles of the rulers had been tried out against John the Baptist (Mt. 3: 7) and also how an attempt had been made to unsettle John’s disciples (Jn. 3: 25). John himself had just been thrown into prison. Reading between the lines, it would seem that the Baptist had been invited to the king’s court to repeat before the king the substance of his reformation message. In the utterly fearless fashion that was characteristic of him, John hammered away at the duty of personal repentance. He pointed an accusing finger of stern rebuke at the king who had callously disowned his wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, in order to acquire another wire, the notorious Herodias, by stealing her from his brother Philip.

It may be taken as fairly certain that, in spite of the vigorous directness of John’s reproof, Herod would have hesitated to do anything against him but for encouragement given by the Pharisees, and the venom of Herodias, who, as it later turned out, was not even content to have John flung into a dungeon (Jos. Ant. 18.5.2).

Now there was a danger of similar action against Jesus by the Pharisees of Judaea. So, warned about this, and being unwilling to put the loyalty of his unfledged disciples under strain, the Lord sent his Judaean disciples back to their homes, and with his handful of Galileans he left the south forthwith (Mt. 4: 12; Jn. 4: 1-3).

Because of the mutual hostility that existed between Samaritans and Jews, Galilean travellers usually avoided Samaria. Jesus could have done this by striking east to the Jordan valley and using that as his highway north. The fact that instead he went straight through Samaria argues that he deemed this route safer than the risk of being picked up by Herod’s men at the southern end of Gennesaret.

Roman Time, or Jewish?

After a long spell of walking, the little band came “at the sixth hour” to the neighbourhood of Shechem. There is much argument both as to the time and place. If this is Jewish time, then it was high noon, and Jesus would be understandably tired and hot and thirsty. But it was “the sixth hour” when Jesus was finally condemned to be crucified (Jn. 19: 14). For this to be noon sets John’s gospel in sharp contradiction with the synoptists (e.g. Mk. 15: 25). If however, John’s “sixth hour” is Roman (that is, modern) time, it was 6 a.m. when Jesus was condemned, and either 6 a.m. or 6 p.m. when he came to the well of Sychar. Of these alternatives the latter is a solution not free from difficulties, for there would then not be sufficient daylight left for the long discussion with the woman, followed by the excited trek of the multitude out of the city to see and hear him.

If, however, it was the hot season of the year (and verse 35 is no real evidence to the contrary), it is not unlikely, but indeed probable, that Jesus and his disciples chose to make a cool journey by moonlight, and now at 6 a.m. he was naturally both tired and thirsty.

Is Sychar Shechem?

There has been much argument as to whether Sychar is to be identified with Shechem or whether it was a small village distinct from Shechem, on the slopes of Mount Ebal. In favour of the former is the emphasis in the woman’s conversation on “our father Jacob” (twice) and on “our fathers (Abraham and Jacob)”, both of whom dwelt for a time in Shechem. Accordingly, Joseph and his brethren were later buried there. Also the indications of a big crowd of people coming out of the city to see Jesus suggest a place of some importance, and not a trivial hamlet. On the other hand it is not easy to see why John should avoid the very familiar name Shechem. Perhaps Sychar was a Jewish nickname for the place, for it closely resembles the Hebrew for “a lie” (the Samaritan religion), or “drunken”, or “wanton” (the woman herself; Is. 3: 16) or “wages” (v. 36). John’s symbolic mind was doubtless at work when he wrote this part of the record.

If Jesus was tired and hungry as he rested by the well, it may be taken as certain that the disciples were also. It is a measure of their eagerness to be of service to him that they all took this task on themselves of fetching food-that is, all except perhaps John, who if he stayed with Jesus would be able to report the details of what happened. It may be, too, that because they were unwelcome Jewish visitors, it was deemed rather dangerous for only one or two of them to enter the city to make the necessary purchases. So, providing safety in numbers, they all went.

A Jew and a Samaritan

Long centuries before this Jacob, travelling north, had similarly come to a well where he had met the woman who was to become his wife (Gen. 29: 10,11). Perhaps it was with his mind on this incident that John now wrote: “Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well” (as Jacob his forefather had done) — the RVm reading here: “as he was”, is inadmissible.

When a woman came to the well for water, Jesus surprised her by asking for a drink. That he should speak to her at all was altogether unexpected, “for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.” From the time of the return from captivity in Babylon there had been bad blood between the two communities. The semi-Gentile origins of the Samaritans were despised, their rejection of Psalms and Prophets from the Scriptures was resented, their choice of Mount Gerizim as a holy site in place of Mount Zion was condemned, and their easy-going standards of religiosity were reprobated.

So the woman’s surprise at Christ’s simple request was not to be contained: “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (had she recognized Christ’s Jewishness by his speech or his dress or his looks?).

Unlike his fellow-Jews and unlike many of his followers of the present day, Jesus was glad enough to avail himself of the kind help of a Gentile.

Just as Rachel did not know who the stranger was who drew water for her and her flock, although he was actually a kinsman, so now this woman of Shechem failed to appreciate that here was a stranger who could satisfy her thirst. He called himself “The gift of God” (3:16), and offered “living water”: It was a double-meaning phrase, with both literal and symbolic force-fresh running water (but there was this at the bottom of Jacob’s well – v. 6,14 switch to the word “spring, fountain”); symbolically, Jesus was offering water of life-his teaching, and the Spirit (7: 37-39).

It is usually assumed that the woman, lacking in religious perception, and all at sea with the spiritual implications of this stranger’s strange talk, tried to take him literally, and made a fool of herself in the process.

Two considerations suggest that it is the interpreters, and not the woman, who lack insight. In the first place, if indeed she were so spiritually obtuse, would the Lord have persevered in attempting to bring home to her mind religious ideas so profound that today they leave experienced men of Truth floundering? And secondly, the woman’s later contributions to the discussion show that she was not a spiritual blockhead. The words Jesus had just spoken to her required to be lifted away from literality, for if he could give to her a pitcherful of fresh water, why should he be asking her for a drink?

Her crude address: “thou, being a Jew” was promptly replaced by “Sir, Lord.” Here, she now recognized, was one with far higher spiritual powers than her own.

Continuing the figure, she objected (but not aggressively): “Thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that (not, this) living, water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well?”

She saw the well, bequeathed to all later generations by Jacob, as a symbol of the divine Promise inherited from him by his descendants. It was a Promise of a centre of worship, with an altar and a place of ready access to God, a Promise of a multitudinous seed, and of an Anointed Messiah, fallen and raised up again (Gen. 28: 12-19).

Was this Jew actually offering something better than that? That well had not only refreshed the spirits of Jacob and his sons, but had also saved the lives of his flocks and herds. (This woman knew her , Bible-she had noted, and remembered, that when Jacob, returning south, came to Shechem where he dug the well, he was blessed with numerous cattle; Gen. 33: 17). Now, falling in with the mode of speech of this friendly Jew, she asserted her faith in the Promise – for herself and her fellow Samaritans living round Jacob’s well, and for “Jacob’s cattle” (did she mean the Jews?).

The answer to her sceptical enquiry startled her: ‘Yes, indeed, I am greater than Jacob. For you and all others depending on the Promise there is only a constantly-recurring thirst until it is fulfilled. / am the one through whom the Promise is to be fulfilled. Receive me and my teaching, and you will have a lasting satisfaction nothing else can impart. I am asking you to pin your faith not to pride in your descent from the Fathers (which is dubious anyway) but to the higher truth you can learn from me. Fasten on to that, and you yourself will become a quencher of the thirst of others. It shall be in you “a well of water springing up into everlasting life”-like the spring dug by the princes of Israel when they came to the border of their promised inheritance, causing them to sing for joy: “Spring up, O well” (Num. 21: 17).

The woman responded at once with a similar play on double meanings: “Lord, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.” Thus she voiced her aspiration for the fulfilment of the Promise.

‘There can be no fulfilment’ Jesus answered, ‘except there first be love for and union with the heavenly Bridegroom. Was not that Rachel’s experience? and it led on to the birth of Joseph, now buried here at Shechem. So I say: Go, call thy husband, and come hither.’

This was his way of leading on to the need of the Samaritans for himself as the promised Messiah.

She shook her head. “I have no husband” -meaning: ‘Messiah has not yet come. Did I not tell you that just now when I asked for the real thirst- quenching water?’

‘That is what I wanted you to realise clearly’, Jesus answered. ‘You Samaritans have had five husbands – the five Books of Moses which alone you accept. And you have come away from their teaching in order to follow a false Messiah, one who is no Husband.’

It was true. About that time the Samaritans round Shechem were building up excitement over the claims of an imposter who, later on, was to claim ability to disinter from Mt. Gerizim the sacred vessels Moses (sic!) had hidden there (Jos. Ant. 18.4.1).

Now it may well be that what is usually taken for granted by most commentators is correct-that this woman had had such a variegated personal life as Jesus now described (double meaning again!). But in that case, what likelihood that she had five times found herself a widow? Or was it that, dissatisfied, she had successively left them, hoping always and idealistically for a better? The alternative is that she had been successively divorced five times. And now she was living promiscuously with another.

In that case, the obvious cover-up, for one as intelligent and quick-witted as she, was to do as she was bidden, passing off the man she lived with as her husband.

Instead, she invited immediate disbelief of her abrupt reply: “I have no husband.” Can it be that here was the first sign of a moral response to this Jew who impressed her so strangely?-as though she there and then determined to break off this illicit union.

She made no attempt as self-justification. Instead:

“Lord, I perceive that thou art a prophet”-by which she may have meant: “the Prophet like unto Moses” (Dt. 18: 15-19), for there was no Messianic Scripture the Samaritans made more of than this.

Moses had bidden conquering Israel recite the blessings and curses of the Law at Shechem, with the blessings assigned to Gerizim (Dt. 27: 12), and Joshua, a prophet like unto Moses, had carefully obeyed (Josh. 8: 33); but in all their copies of the books of Moses there was no mention at all of Jerusalem, even though their copies of the Law had all been altered to read “Gerizim” in connection with Melchizedek (Gen. 14: 18) and the offering of Isaac (Gen. 22: 2). “Then, (she asked), if you are the prophet Moses foretold, are you going to change the appointment Moses made? Then which is the temple where men should worship? — ours on Gerizim, or yours on Zion?”

The solemn answer which Jesus gave must have startled her, and would have startled any Jew even more: “Woman, believe me (here Jesus was speaking with exceptional earnestness), the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father” (cp. Mal. 1: 11). Gerizim and Zion were alike to be put out of fellowship (cp. Acts. 7: 48; 8; 12). In the Roman War, in A.D. 70, both temples were reduced to rubble. But already, in the cleansing of Jerusalem’s temple and in his word about the “raising up” of a new Temple (2:19) Jesus had pointed his hearers from a place to a Man.

Nevertheless, there was a difference in the status of the two religions. For all their pathetic formal adherence to Moses, the Samaritans wallowed in ignorance: “Ye worship ye know not what” (cp. 2 Kgs 17: 26-28,29,33,41); and the life she lived may have borne witness to the fact. But it was hardly so in Israel. She had referred Jesus back to the Genesis record (12: 6,7; 33: 18-20) of Jacob and Abraham worshipping at Shechem. In turn he had to remind her that the name of Jacob’s altar was “God is the God of Israel”, and that the promise given there to Abraham was: “Unto thy Seed will I give this Land.” So, beyond controversy, the Saviour (the Joshua-prophet like unto Moses) is to be a Jew-and therefore the salvation he brings is of the Jews (Lk. 1: 77).

But why did Jesus say: “Worship the Father” (and not “the God of Israel”)? Because he meant “my Father”. Here was an explicit claim to be the Son of God foretold in the great Messianic Promise to David. That Promise had switched from David’s ambition to build a temple “exceeding magnificat” to the building of a different kind of House-a House of men and women, all of them sons of the Father.

Jesus had now succeeded in achieving for this discussion the change of emphasis he sought. Instead of personal labour and exertion to draw literal water out of a well, he offered “living water” for the asking. And instead of a worship of outward forms glorifying not God but a man-made temple on this mountain or that, he called for worship “in spirit and in truth”. Since God is Spirit, and not located in any one place on earth, those who would be acceptable to him must avoid centring their worship on any earthly place and must rise above the types and outward forms of the Mosaic system to the truth of the inner spirit which the Law was designed to express. These, Jesus insisted, are the true worshippers (the word he used makes deliberate contrast with type and ceremony): “for also the Father seeketh such to worship Him”, even as they, actuated by their sense of need, seek Him. They have to be sought because of their fewness. The man who “trembles at God’s Word” (ls. 66: 2) is not to be found under every roof.

The words of Jesus were, by design, chosen from Joshua’s exhortation to the leaders of the twelve tribes when he gathered them together at Shechem. Here now was another Joshua repeating the same warning at the same place: “Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity (contrast Israel!) and in truth (contrast the Samaritans): and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the Euphrates (whence the Samaritans were brought), and in Egypt (whence Israel came out)” (Josh. 24: 14).

“Messiah cometh”

By this time the woman was beginning to grasp what Jesus was driving at. If there was to be a true and acceptable approach to God, it must be through a Man of God’s providing-a Seed promised to Abraham at Shechem, a Prophet like unto Moses, a Joshua settling the people in God’s Land, and leading them in a worship which knit the soul of the sincere believer to his Covenant God: “I know that Messiah cometh … when he is come, he will tell us all things.” By using the Jewish title, Messiah, she showed her ready acceptance of Christ’s essential principle: “Salvation is of the Jews.”

The Disciples’ Return

In reply, Jesus claimed point-blank to be the Messiah: “I that speak unto thee am he”, but her response was cut short by the return of the disciples. These, astonished at the conversation and its evident earnestness, were eager to satisfy their curiosity – “Why talkest thou with her?” – but were held back by diffidence. They wanted also to bombard the woman with enquiry: “What seekest thou?” but the presence of Jesus restrained them.

Without a word more the woman left her waterpot and returned to the city in haste. The disciples pressed Jesus to join them in a meal, but the stimulus of this encounter with the woman, and its unexpected promise, had taken his mind off food: “I have food to eat that ye know not of”(cp. Ps. 19: 10; 40: 8; Mk. 3: 20). His hunger was gone, and his tiredness, but the woman’s thirst had increased. “Hath any man brought him ought to eat?” the disciples asked each other, implying: ‘Not here in Samaria, surely!’ Their blundering literalism-a sharp contrast with the woman’s insight- did them little credit.

In reply Jesus came down to their level: “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.” The form of that last phrase would normally suggest the crucifixion (17: 4; 19: 30), but in this context the meaning is more likely to be the extension of the gospel to Samaritans and Gentiles (Acts. 1: 8).

“Fields white to harvest”

It is clear that this long discussion with the woman, and the evident developments which might spring out of it, had left Jesus in a very exalted and almost excited frame of mind. Wanting his followers to share his enthusiasm, he talked on, trying to communicate to them some appreciation of the big possibilities which lay before them: ‘You have a proverb: ‘Four months from sowing to harvest’ (cp. Mt. 16: 2). Don’t let that teach you an easy-going attitude of mind: ‘Plenty of time to spare before we really get to work.’ Lift up your eyes (ls. 49: 18; Prov. 20: 13b), and see that already opportunities of reaping a great harvest for God are before you.’

“The fields are white already unto harvest” is a strange expression. The allusion is perhaps to the sheen on the bearded barley as it stands in the field ready for cutting-and barley is the cheapest coarsest grain grown in Palestine, an apt figure for the rough, spiritually untutored Samaritans who were even now streaming out of the city to verify the woman’s emphatic report.

At this point in the record John includes one of the Lord’s later exhortations (v. 36-38) to his disciples urging them to greater missionary zeal and activity: “He that reapeth receiveth wages.” The present tense “receiveth” was designed to emphasize that the labour of the preacher is its own reward – “now, in this time” (Mk. 10: 30); witness the way the exhilaration of this encounter had transformed Jesus. No longer a tired hungry traveller!

And the experience of “gathering fruit (the harvest already referred to) unto life eternal” is specially satisfying, for converts to the gospel are given the most alluring of prospects. Thus in the efficient and successful consummation of the gospel’s work “he that soweth and he that reapeth rejoice together.”

They had another proverb mostly used in a bad sense: “One soweth, and another reapeth.” It could be an equivalent of: “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” Or it could express a bitter summary of the world’s unfair economics. But with reference to the Lord’s harvesting only the good sense will stand. In the apostles’ experience in Judaea and Galilee, the real work was done by John the Baptist and by Jesus — “he that soweth is the Son of man” (Mt. 13: 37) – and the twelve entered into their labours, gathering a worthwhile harvest which neither John nor Jesus saw in the days of their mortality. The same became true of Philip’s remarkable success in Samaria (Acts. 8: 5-17). Nevertheless in days to come, “he that soweth and he that reapeth will rejoice together” (cp. Pr. 11: 18).

Jews and Samaritans

What a contrast is to be seen between the Jews’ stubborn rejection of the witness of Holy Scripture, of John the Baptist, and of Jesus, Son of God, and the immediate willingness of these uncouth Samaritans to go forth, at the bidding of a woman, to greet and welcome Jesus as Messiah. The Greek text (v. 42) uses a very vigorous word, to describe her constant talk or chatter. How well it expresses her excitement! Her appeal – “Come, see” (cp. 1: 46) -was made to “the men” (v. 28). She was more at home talking to them than to her own sex, amongst whom she probably had a shady reputation. If the women responded as well, it would be because of the example set by their menfolk. Today it is more usually the other way around.

Many of these Samaritans, impressed by her conviction, believed the truth of her claims on Jesus’ behalf before they even set eyes on him. These promptly offered him hospitality, and the result of two days in that place was that “many more believed because of his own words”, expressing openly their conviction that “this is the Saviour of the world”. At this time that phrase could hardly mean to them more than Saviour of both Jews and Samaritans. In due time they would learn its wider significance.

Years later when one of the most urgent problems of the early church had crystallized out in a bleak unwillingness of Jewish believers to associate with their Gentile brethren in Christ, the apostle John was to make eloquent use of this Samaritan title bestowed on Jesus (its only other occurrence): “We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world… If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (1 Jn. 4: 14,20).

Notes: John 4:1-42

1.	The Lord. Only twice before the resurrection (4: 1; 6: 23) does John use this title for Jesus in his narrative. Why here?
9.	Askest. Normally this Greek word describes a request from an inferior to a superior! (v. 10 also).
12.	Our father Jacob, which gave us the well. An interesting little addition to O.T. history.
	Art thou greater...?The form of the question implies: Surely you are not!
14.	Springing up. In LXX this word describes the Holy Spirit springing up in Samson; Jud. 14: 6.19; 15: 14. But there seems to be allusion here to Num. 21: 17-19, when Israel was on the border of its inheritance; and thence they came to Mattaneh (the gift-of God; v.10 here), and to Nahaliel (God is my inheritance). See Pr. 10: 11a.
18.	Saidst. This form of this verb is commonly used for a divine pronouncement or inspiration. Then was Jesus saying: ‘You spoke more truth than you know?’ or was he commending the insight behind what she had said symbolically?
19.	I perceive. There could be a play on words here implying: If I am a prophet, then by God I tell you that you are the Prophet like unto Moses.
22.	We know what we worship. Why should Jesus use here a neuter pronoun with reference to the God of Israel? Salvation links with Saviour (v. 42) and with the allusions in this chapter to Joshua at Shechem.
23.	The hour cometh, and now is. Contrast v.21: “the hour cometh.”
27.	Yet no man said. The disciples were in some awe of Jesus; cp. v. 33; 12: 20-22; 13: 22-24; 16: 17-19; 21: 12; Mk. 9: 32.
28.	Left her water pot. This hardly suggests the purblind materialist she is often made out to be. Comparable examples: Mt. 4: 20; Mk. 10: 50.
29.	Told me all things that ever I did. Cp. the reaction described in 1 Cor. 14: 24,25.
	Is not this the Christ? The form of the question attempts to cloak her own enthusiasm: He can’t be, can he? This, and her “Come, see…” betrays a good “preaching technique”.
33.	Apostolic misunderstanding of their Master: 14: 5; 11: 13; Mt. 15: 15; 16: 7,22; Lk. 22: 38.
35.	Harvest. Contrast Jer. 8: 20 (and context) as a prophecy of God’s judgment on Israel (A.D.70) when they shut their minds to the gospel.
	Four months, and then cometh harvest. If literal, and not proverbial, then this sets the time as about December, four months before 5: 1. Had the disciples been commenting on high food prices in Shechem — until the next harvest should come in?
38.	/ sent you. This past tense is the chief reason for regarding v. 36-38 as a parenthesis, preserving a later intensely relevant saying of Jesus spoken after Mt. 10: 37; Lk. 10: 2. Perhaps John inserted it here (a) because of a possible play on words – Sychar may mean “wages” (v. 36); (b) because “I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour” echoes Joshua’s “sincerity and truth” exhortation, spoken to Israel on this very spot (24: 13).
39.	Believed on him. Elsewhere the phrase implies baptism.
40.	Besought him that he would tarry. Again contrast the not infrequent attitude of Jewry: Mt. 8: 34; Lk. 4: 29; 13: 31. There is also Lk. 9: 52,53.

The Lord’s Galilee ministry now got going. It is interesting to note the diversity of names by which the lake and its environs are referred to in the gospels.

Chinnereth, the Old Testament name, is usually taken to allude to the lake being shaped like a harp (chinnor). The name Sea of Tiberias derives from the city which Herod the Great named after Tiberius Caesar. Gennesaret may mean the Land, or Valley, of Nazareth, although that despised place was 15 miles from the lakeside. In earlier days that locality had been contemptuously named Cabul (muck!) by Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 9: 13). Perhaps Galilee (dung) became a substitute name when Gentiles settled there, Genneseret would thus be a more polite way of expressing scorn.

It was such an area on which Jesus decided to concentrate.

His first preaching in Capernaum was listened to by massive crowds (Lk.) The news of his doings in Jerusalem had been put round by those Galileans who had witnessed them at Passover (Jn. 4: 45). And the recent sensational instantaneous restoration to health of the nobleman’s son, and from more than twenty miles away, had either made a great impression or had stimulated a vast amount of curiosity. So as he preached there by the lakeside, expounding to them the Old Testament (Lk), Jesus found himself beset by crowds to the point of inconvenience. Lacking a suitable pulpit or rostrum, he appealed to Peter and Andrew to let him use their fishing boat (Lk. 5: 3; cp. also Mk.4: 1, a later occasion).

Poor Fishing

The two brothers and their colleagues, James and John, were just back from the most discouraging fishing expedition they had ever known. All through the previous night they had plied their nets using all their knowledge and experience of the lake and its fish, yet not a single fish rewarded their ability and diligence (5: 5). Helped to hindsight by the later miraculous haul of fishes, it is now possible to see in this complete failure yet another miracle, as necessary as the other to teach these new disciples the power and character of their new calling.

At the time when Jesus asked for this help from Peter (since he was the “skipper”) they had been despondently trying to make good their sustained failure by using the smaller cast-net in the shallows (Mk. 1: 16), and now still without success they were dismally washing their nets free from weed and slime before putting them out to dry.

It was the work of moments to run the boat up to the beach, and then, when Jesus had leapt agilely on board, to pull out a short distance so as to give him the advantage of a few yards’ separation from the eager crowd on the shore (5: 3).

Memorable Miracle

His discourse concluded, and whilst the crowd was still standing about in groups, Jesus bade Peter pull right away from the shore into deep water. There they were to lower their big dragnet, operating as they had done all night.

Peter, still miserable over the night’s frustrations, would surely have been justified in refusing. ‘You are only a carpenter. What can you tell me about my trade?’ In just this way the modern disciple often deems himself more competent than his Lord, to judge a situation. “Can he know my life or twentieth century conditions better than I?” However, Peter did as he was bidden, though not without a quiet reminder that he doubted whether it would be any use. How often a disciple is called upon to abandon his own judgement in order to obey the call of Christ: “At thy word (depending on thy word) I will let down the net.” (Later, Peter had to be told again: Jn. 21: 6; Acts. 10: 11-16.)

No sooner was the operation set going than it at once became obvious that in the net was a catch past believing. This was no ordinary shoal of fish, or Peter’s experienced eye would have earlier detected their presence.

There have, of course, been massive hauls of fish, comparable with this, before and since. But this happened just when and where Jesus willed it to happen. This is an important aspect of the miracle.

The ropes strained to a dangerous tension and the boat tilted crazily. At Peter’s curt imperative all was frantic action. These astonished eager fishermen bent and hauled and heaved as never before in their lives. They could tell that in places the net was parting under its prodigious load of fishes. With every hand at the net they still could not bring it on board. So, still grasping and heaving, with a jerk of the head they signalled to the “hired servants” (Mk. 1: 20) in the other boat to come quickly to their aid.

Soon the two boats were gunwale to gunwale. Now with more hands to the work, they were at length able to bring the net on board with its teeming multitude of fishes, sleek and wet.

Peter’s Reaction

Now there was another problem. The boats had taken on such an immense load of fish that they were both dangerously down by the stern and shipping water. Whilst the others were climbing frantically over the piles of slippery fish to get to work at the oars, Peter suddenly saw the entire amazing episode in perspective. Here he was, an avowed disciple of this astonishing prophet of Nazareth, yet when the power of God provided him with a haul of fish past his wildest dreams, all he could do was to scramble around desperately to ensure, with incurable fisherman’s instinct, that every single fish should be pulled in. So eager had he been, that he had even been prepared to risk the boat itself. Where was the sense in this greed? Was there not here a man who obviously had “dominion over the works of God’s hands”, even over “the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas” (Ps. 8: 6,8).

Thoroughly ashamed of himself, Peter fell down before Jesus as he sat there (not helping!) with the water swirling round his feet: “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Did the story of Israel’s greed in the wilderness (Num. 11: 32-34) come to his mind? Rather significantly, the Greek word for “sink” comes (by design?) in only one other place (1 Tim. 6: 9), which describes how materialism can “drown men in destruction”.

“Fear not!”

There came immediate repentance: ‘Fear not-no need to fear my displeasure-from henceforth thou shalt be a regular catcher of men’, taking them for life, not death. The words were heeded not only by Peter but also by the rest, for, like him, they were all over-awed and made fearful by the marvel they had just witnessed (5: 8-10).

The miracle had happened near enough to shore for the drama of it to be witnessed by the crowd which had listened to Jesus. So when at length the two boats were beached, the catch would be speedily disposed of; it is hard to believe that the great haul of fishes was sold. Peter had learned his lesson, and he doubtless insisted on every one of them being given away. Whilst the disciples were occupied with this activity and the bailing out of the boats, Jesus slipped away for a while until the excitement had died down.

The Decisive Call

Soon he was back again. The crowd was gone, and the fishermen were busy with their gear. Their craft must be shipshape for the next fishing. Jesus interrupted them with an authoritive imperative: “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Mt). He had given Peter this promise only a little while before (Lk.), but that disciple was surely astonished that the time for it had come so soon.

How well Crawshaw’s splendid couplet-describes Peter’s present experience: “When Christ calls, and thy nets would have thee stay, To cast them well’s to cast them quite away.”

God pulled David away from his sheep to shepherd His people (Ps. 78: 70-72). Wise men of the east, given to much study of the stars, were given a special star to guide them to the Star that was risen in Jacob. The crowd that followed Jesus for food were offered a higher spiritual food. The Samaritan woman, with an empty waterpot, drank water of life. At a wedding in Cana, the poorer wine finished, they were given some of the best that ever was. Paul the tent maker taught men to care nought for the tabernacle of this mortality (2 Cor.5:4), if only they might know the blessedness of a house from heaven.

And Peter the fisherman also.

James and John, who were already busy mending the damaged nets were also called, and they too responded with alacrity. Zebedee was in the ship with his sons, and evidently offer this day’s experience gave his sanction or even his encouragement to their abandoment of the family business. With the regular employees available (Mk.) it would be possible to keep things going.

If, as seems not unlikely, the fishing trade on Galilee was licensed by the authorities as an obvious form of taxation, this abandoning of their livelihood by Peter and Andrew was a serious matter; for there would be big doubts about their being able to take up the license again later on, should they wish to do so. “We have forsaken all, and followed thee” (Mt. 19: 27). Peter really meant what he said. And the eagerness to resume fishing after the resurrection of Jesus (Jn.21) is thus more readily accounted for.

An Acted Parable

The allegorical significance of this astonishing miracle needs little underlining (cp. Mt. 13: 47-50). But it is seen to have point of a very special kind if indeed Peter and Andrew and James and John were all in the same boat together during this incident. It is not usual to read the story in this way, but on careful perusal there is found to be nothing against it. Indeed it is most natural that whilst Jesus was talking to the crowd, these four, who had already professed discipleship, would join him in the boat. Then, too, James and John were busy afterwards mending the torn net, even though it was Peter’s boat, and not the other, which had shot the net for the catch. Luke says explicitly that “James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were partners with Simon”.

Read thus, the entire incident is seen to have special relevance to a terribly difficult situation which faced the apostles in the early church some years later. There was, initially, a marked reluctance on the part of the Twelve to “launch out into the deep” of the Gentile sea (Galilee of the Gentiles), but ultimately there came such a “haul” of converts that they were quite inadequate for the situation. So it became necessary to call others to their side that the harvest of this Gentile sea might be gathered in: “They gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (wrote Paul), that we should go unto the Gentiles” (Gal. 2: 9). The result of this mighty “catch” of men, Jesus apparently doing nothing to bring them in, was that nets were breaking and the ships in danger of sinking. The accession of the Gentiles became the most potent cause of schism in the first century, and the church came near to foundering.

Another Acted Parable

How different the symbolism of the second miraculous catch of fishes.

This time there was only one boat. It was at the dawn of a new day, and Jesus unrecognized. The fish – all of them great fishes, and a precise number-were caught “on the right side”. Amazingly, the net showed no sign of breaking. Equally amazing, Peter was able to drag them up the beach single-handed. Contrasting with his remorseful expression: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord”, Peter now showed an irrepressible eagerness to be with Jesus. The Lord also provided a meal which he had prepared. They came ashore to eat it. Their boat had been used for the last time. (See in Jn. 21).

These things are not without special significance. Nor is the fact that on signet ring or gravestone the fish became the widespread symbol of the early Christian. Thus he thankfully declared himself one of those whom the power of Christ had added to the apostles’ miraculous catch in their gospel net.

There are yet more lessons to be learned from this remarkable miracle and its associations.

Long centuries before, this acted parable was anticipated by Jacob, of all people. Blessing Joseph’s sons, he prayed that they might “grow into a multitude”-Hebrew: “swarm as fishes” (Gen. 48: 16; see AV mg). And he went on to prophesy that the younger, who should be the greater, should become “a fulness of Gentiles” (v. 19, quoted in Rom. 11: 25).

Fulfilment in Christ is foretold in Psalm 8: 6,8: “Thou modest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands”, including “whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.”

The washing of nets suggests the need to rid the gospel net from old useless accretions. There is implied also an undaunted spirit not only in the making of these preparations but also in an immediate willingness to try again.

Here also there is emphasis on the need for whole-hearted collaboration. There is no room for chauvinism or a parochial spirit in the preaching of the gospel. And to do the work really well may require that a man leave those who are his natural kith and kin and those who serve for hire.

Fishing by daylight is usually a mighty unrewarding business; yet there must be a willingness to try “in season, out of season” (2 Tim. 4: 2).

Did Paul learn the fishing parable from Luke’s gospel? When properly sorted out, 2 Tim. 2: 24-26 is a powerful passage:

“The servant of the Lord must not strive… in meekness instructing those (the Judaists) that oppose themselves… that they (these gainsayers) may return to a sober outlook (RVm) out of the snare of the devil (the organizer of Judaist hostility), who are caught alive as fish (s.w. Lk. 5: 10) by him (the servant of the Lord) unto his (the Lord’s) will”.

Notes: Luke 5: 1-11

1.	This paragraph, like several others in Luke, is clearly not in its proper place chronologically. Mt., Mk. parallels establish this. See any Harmony.
3.	The people. RV: the multitudes. The plural here probably emphasizes that there were several crowds, all different in character; e.g. Jews from Judaea as well as Galilee, Gentiles etc.
4.	Launch out. Jesus issued the instruction to Peter, as skipper, but the shooting of the net involved all on board. Accordingly, “launch out” is singular, but “let down” is plural.
5.	Peter’s respectful attitude implies an earlier close association with the power and authority of Jesus, in Jn. 2,4. Later he switches from “Master” (chief, boss) to “Kurios” (Lord).
6.	Their net was breaking (Gk.), ie. about to break. This explains Mk. 1: 19: “mending their nets”. So the net did break!
7.	Beckoned. The Gk. word signifies a jerk of the head.
8.	Simon Peter. The apostle’s old and new natures both evident in this episode.
	Depart from me, for I am a sinful man. Similar reactions when in the presence of divine glory and power: Ex. 4: 10-17; 20:18-20; ls. 6: 1-7; Jer. 1: 4-10; Ezek. 2,3; Jud. 6: 22,23; Acts 9: 3-9; Dan. 10: 7-12; Rev. 1: 13-20.
	Fear not. Cp. Jn. 6: 20; Mt. 28: 5; Lk. 24: 36.
10.	Catch. The derivation of this Gk. word suggests, as an alternative to “catch men for life”, “gather men together alive”(deriving possibly from ageiro). Contrast the context in Dt. 20: 16 s.w.

Mark 1: 16-20

19.	A little farther. This harmonizes very neatly with Lk. 5: 7. The boats were close together.
	James the son of Zebedee, and John. James appears to be the elder of the two brothers; and, judging from the epistles these two have left, was certainly the more dynamic character. John and Zebedee both mean “the gift of God”, expressed differently.

In normal circumstances the “ruler” of a Jewish synagogue had a free hand to invite whom he chose to discourse to the people. The one exception was that he could take that duty himself only by special request of the congregation. It is easy to understand Jesus being invited, on his first sabbath (Mk), to act as teacher in the only synagogue in Capernaum (Mk. 1:21: the synagogue; cp. Lk. 7:5 RV). Both his open-air teaching and his miracles in recent days had made the people eager to hear more. So synagogue preaching throughout Galilee became the Lord’s settled policy for a while to come (Lk. 4:44 Gk.).

Authority

Now that they listened to him in the more formal style of the synagogue it was forced upon their minds how drastically different was his mode of teaching from that of the scribes. These teachers, like certain of their counterparts in the twentieth century, were tied in their interpretations to the opinions and pronouncements of celebrated teachers of former days: “Rabbi Simeon-ben-Judah saith… Rabbi Judah the Holy saith…” But this Jesus of Nazareth, who, being a mere carpenter, should have been showing more than normal deference to higher authority, spoke with a self-assurance which filled them with amazement. ‘He hasn’t quoted the rabbis once!’ Either this was cocksureness and bombast far beyond normal experience, or he was in truth speaking by divine right. Could it be that here was an inspiration surpassing that of the prophets? He proceeded to produce further credentials about which there could be no argument. Astonishment at his teaching gave way to astonishment at his miracles.

Service Interrupted

There in the assembly was a man who had been afflicted with recurrent mental sickness. As a man is “in Adam” or “in Christ”, so this poor fellow was “in an unclean spirit” (Gk.) — a remarkable contrast with the usual phrase: “in whom was an unclean spirit”. Just now he was normal enough. Otherwise, of course, care would have been taken to exclude him from the synagogue. As Jesus concluded his discourse, and people marvelled at what they heard and how it was said, the man’s lunacy suddenly asserted itself once again, and he shouted out loudly: “Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34).

These words, difficult enough, have been made more difficult by the inclination of many to read them as though spoken by some personal evil spirit(s) dwelling in the man. Nor is the modern fantasy very convincing which suggests that wild incoherent cries were interpreted by Jesus as having this meaning.

A Contradiction

There is no need for wild assumptions of this sort. On carefully re-reading the words, one notices the change of pronouns from plural to singular. And at the same point there is also a complete change of tone and meaning. “The Holy One of God” and “come to destroy us” are hopelessly contradictory ideas.

It would seem, then, that in his more sane moments this poor fellow had heard thrown backwards and forwards widely differing opinions about Jesus. It is easy to understand that some, remembering the evils brought on the nation by various false Messiahs, had already decided that Jesus of Nazareth was in the same category and that his movement was bound to end in the same kind of tragedy: ‘He will get us into trouble with the Romans! And we shall receive no help or support from Jerusalem because our leaders there have already; decided against him.’ But there was also the other opinion: ‘I tell you, he is the Messiah, the, Holy One of God.’

This demonic description of Jesus as the Holy One is very difficult to reconcile with the “ common understanding that here was a man, possessed by an evil spirit. Would not a wicked spirit seek to derogate the holiness of Christ?

On the other hand, with the explanation (already suggested in Study 30) of unclean spirits as being God’s angels of evil, an incident like this assumes considerable significance.

In the cure, and in the words used to describe the cure, Jesus was asserting his authority over such an angel. Contemporary pseudo-exorcists made a great show with the repetition of impressive religious names (eg. Acts. 19:13), and especially the (invented) names of angels (HDB 1:812), as though invoking their aid in the cure. But here was Jesus, exercising control over angels, and by his own right!

It may be taken as fairly certain that the man’s lunatic cries are carefully reported in the gospels because of the important double meaning behind them. It is one of the great works of Messiah to reconcile “things in heaven” as well as things in earth. The dire work of angels of evil is to be made unnecessary. All these ministering spirits of God are to be brought into harmony with the healing, cleansing, redeeming work of God’s Holy One.

The Cure

It could help the new campaign of Jesus little to have such wild contradictions shouted out before this large assembly, so he addressed himself to the man, or rather, to his disability, or to the angel of evil responsible for his calamitous condition: “Be muzzled (s.w. 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Pet. 2:15), and come out of him.” Jesus only sought to silence the man’s testimony because it would be no help to his cause to have such witness borne by such a person in such a condition.

The effect of the Lord’s command was immediate. There, in the open space before the rostrum (cp. Lk. 4:35), a sudden convulsion shook the man violently, so that, uttering a wild yell, he was thrown to the floor before the fascinated horrified gaze of everybody. But, then, within seconds, he was on his feet again looking and behaving perfectly normally, and (may it be guessed?) apologizing to those about him for any disturbance he had caused. Luke’s phrase: “Having done him no hurt”, corrects any false inference that the man’s loud shout was a cry of pain. Indeed, it seems likely that Luke wrote with his eye on the only other place in Scripture which uses this word ‘hurt’ — in an extra verse preserved in the LXX version at Proverbs 25:20: “As a moth in a garment, and as a worm in wood, so the distress of a man hurts his heart (his mind)”. Hardship leaves its mark in a man’s thinking. But not so with this man. Here now was complete normality, with neither physical nor mental weakness as reminder of his former condition.

Now, for certain, there was only one conviction in his healthy mind: “Jesus is the Holy One of God.” The title was no recent invention, but had its origin in Daniel’s great “Seventy Weeks” prophecy: “Seventy weeks… to anoint the Most Holy One… Messiah the Prince” (9:24, 25; and in its turn Dan. 9 looks back to Ps. 89:18-20). Had not Jesus come to their district declaring that “the time is fulfilled” (Mk. 1:15)? And did not the signs he wrought make the conclusion certain?

Effect on the Crowd

This first public miracle of healing was followed by an awed silence very different from the astonished reaction to what the Lord taught (Mk. 1:27, 21). Then the buzz of conversation rarely absent from a Jewish synagogue reasserted itself. “What a word is this! What new doctrine is this! For with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out” (Mk. 1:27; Lk. 4:36). These comments can hardly have reference to the discourse Jesus had been delivering. The immediate context makes this difficult. And, after all, the amazement of the crowd and the argument that now went on clearly centred round the miracle of healing much more than the preaching. So the “new doctrine” is probably the implicit claim by Jesus to personal authority over God’s angels of evil responsible for maladies such as that afflicting the man in the synagogue. This mastery of the unseen powers of evil (Phil. 2:10) was even more fundamental and far-reaching than the royal majesty they normally associated with the Messiah.

The chatter (Lk) and argument (Mk) that went on in the synagogue showed no sign of abating. It effectively put an end to any useful instruction of the people for that day. The compassion of Jesus had defeated his other purposes and was to do so many a time again. So he rose up from the seat which he had occupied as synagogue teacher (Lk. 4:38 RV), and withdrew to take refuge from public attention in the home of Simon Peter.

The service ended in disorder, and the sensational story of what had happened in the synagogue erupted through the town and into all the surrounding countryside. Now everybody was talking about Jesus of Nazareth. The “year of popularity” had begun.

Notes: Mark 1:21-28

21.	On the sabbath day. The Greek plural here has been persuasively explained as an idiom appropriate to a special sabbath; but “taught them” (Lk. 4:31 Gk.) is decisive that this phrase covers a number of sabbaths.
22.	This verse comes in Mt. 7:28 verbatim, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount-describing a fresh astonishment? or supporting the not very popular view that Peter abbreviated “Matthew” and then told the rest to Mark sometimes in his own words and sometimes in Matthew’s?
23.	In their synagogue. Does this personal pronoun hint at a contrast with their synagogue at Nazareth?
24.	Let us alone… No doubt the man’s words are given verbatim by both Mk. and Lk. because of their further reference (already mentioned) to God’s angels of evil. Similarly, “Jesus of Nazareth” was first used contemptuously (Jn. 1:45), but later seems to have a higher meaning concerning The Branch (netzer) filled with “the Spirit of counsel and might” who would “reprove with equity for the meek of the earth” (Is. 11:1-3). The Holy One. In the NT. consider Jn. 6:69, 70 RV; 1 Jn. 2:20; Rev. 3:7. One commentator adds: “And he who thus cries out today is reckoned lunatic.”
25.	Rebuked him. The Greek is ambiguous, and may refer to the man or the “spirit”.
	Hold thy peace. In the O.T. Dt.25:4 only. Here was an “ox” damaging the “corn”, and therefore to be muzzled.
26.	Torn him. Lk: thrown him. An epileptic fit has been suggested, but the man’s utterance seems to rule this out.
27.	Amazed; v.22: astonished. And so also in 5:20; 6:51; 7:37; 10:26; but most emphatic here.
	What thing is this? Contrast 4:41: “Who then is this?”
	With authority he commandeth. The noun for “command” seems always to describe a divine command.

Luke 4:31-37

31.	Come down to Capernaum. Written by one who knew the geography. Nazareth to Capernaum is a drop of nearly 2000 feet.
33.	A spirit of an unclean devil. Genitive of apposition: a spirit, that is, an unclean demon.
36.	What a word is this! It is noteworthy that apparently no objection was raised about healing on the sabbath. As a campaign against Jesus this criticism was cooked up later.
37.	Fame, a very strong word; Heb. 12:19. 1 Cor. 13:1 and Lk.21:25 have the corresponding verb.

Jesus now moved to Capernaum. It can hardly be described as his headquarters, because his ministry necessarily involved considerable movement about the country. But this was to be the main centre of his work throughout the ensuing year. There were several reasons for this.

Matthew links this move with John’s imprisonment, which must have taken place about the time Jesus came north (Jn.4: 1,3). The word used by Matthew and Mark here is the one normally used in the gospels for betrayal (43 times), and also with the somewhat milder meaning: delivered, handed over. The implication seems to be that John was paying the penalty for being so plain-spoken in his preaching. The Pharisees did not forgive sins of that sort. It was probably by their false accusation and contrivance in the first place that John now found himself a prisoner (Mt.17: 12).

Accordingly Matthew describes this transfer of activities to Capernaum by a word which carried a hint of flight (4: 12). Later on it is described as “his own city” (Mt.9:1); and the narrative of 17:24 tells of him paying temple tribute there, thus implying that by that time he had been recognized as a citizen of Capernaum for more than a year.

If, then, at this time there was danger to Jesus also, Capernaum lay on the very edge of Herod’s territory, and in emergency it would be possible to cross the lake or the Jordan into the tetrarchy of Philip who was one of the least vicious of the Herod family.

Also, for certain, a warm welcome awaited Jesus at the home of the nobleman whose son he had healed and who was now a fully-committed disciple.

Yet another reason of importance-James and John, Peter and his family, and Andrew with them, lived at Bethsaida, the fishing quarter of Capernaum, and Jesus had plans to call them to a much more thorough-going discipleship than they had yet contemplated.

Also, it is not to be overlooked that Jesus was under orders. To him the remarkable Isaiah passage cited in Matthew 4 was a directive. Yet, left to themselves, would today’s students of Isaiah find any Messianic content whatever in those words?

A Puzzling Prophecy in Isaiah

The description of Capernaum as “in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali” is rather odd. The town could only be said to lie in both of these tribes if it was on the boundary between them, a conclusion not easy to harmonize with the details of Joshua 19. Certainly Matthew is here preparing the way for his rather enigmatic quotation from Isaiah 9, but perhaps also there is intention to suggest in order the localities of Nazareth (Zebulun) and Cana (Naphtali); Capernaum, “the way of the sea”; whilst the phrases “beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles” imply an intention to extend activity to the more Gentile side of the lake, Decapolis and the region of the Gergesenes.

As in several earlier examples Matthew’s use of Isaiah 9: 1,2 does not at once commend itself as a clear and immediately convincing prophecy of the ministry of Jesus. Nevertheless it is wise to assume that Matthew knew what he was writing about, certainly more than his twentieth century critic does. If Matthew declares this passage to be a prophecy of Christ, then it is; and it forthwith becomes the duty of the present-day reader to bring a teachable mind to this fact. This is the first and necessary equipment for progress in understanding, and even then it may be necessary to admit to only a very limited insight into the deeper meaning of such Scriptures.

It may be taken as fairly certain that this prophecy about “the people that walked in darkness” had immediate reference in Isaiah’s own day to vivid events in Galilee which are not mentioned elsewhere in Bible history or prophecy. It has been suggested by Boutflower (“Isaiah”, ch.5, 6) that Isaiah, in disfavour at the court of Ahaz because of his strong opposition to fashionable idolatries (2 Kgs. 16: 11-17, ls. 8: 9) and wrong-headed political alliances (8: 12), was hunted out of Judah and took refuge in Galilee (8: 16,17). Thither he spread abroad his prophetic message of a new era of godliness and prosperity which the new king (Hezekiah) would bring in due time.

The appropriateness of such a pattern of events to the time of Jesus will now be evident. Given scant encouragement in Jerusalem, and warned by the imprisonment of John of yet greater hostility to come, Jesus abandoned Judaea (Jn. 4: 3), and betook himself to Galilee. The word for “borders of Zebulun and Naphtali” is used also in Isaiah 9: 7 LXX: “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end…”

The Glory of the Gospel

Thus this extension of the scope of Christ’s work at this time was seen as a token fulfilment of the greater evangelization which his kingdom will bring to people who “sit (i.e. dwell or abide) in darkness … and in the region and shadow of death.”

This description of the people of Galilee is usually taken as a picture of their spiritual dereliction when Jesus appeared among them. The context suggests another possibility-that the words have reference to the gloom and sadness which lay heavily upon them because John had been cast into prison. “Such as sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death” is the Psalmist’s description for the miseries of captivity and imprisonment in “gates of brass, and bars of iron” (107: 10,16).

Isaiah’s consolation is couched in language appropriate to the Shekinah Glory: “a great Light… is sprung up”. The Hebrew here uses a word which, with perhaps two exceptions, always describes the vivid brightness of the Glory of the Lord. This was now manifest in Galilee, not as a physical shining forth, but in the matchless teaching and awe-inspiring miracles of the Son of God. In his version of these words Matthew switches to a Greek word which suggests the Messianic prophecies about The Branch of the Lord (s.w. Zech 3: 8; 6: 12; ls. 60: 1; 61: 11 etc.)

Preaching Campaigns

Mark’s version of this first appeal to Galilee (1: 14) introduces a long series of similar expressions about the Lord’s preaching. These, dotted through the first half of his gospel, are clearly designed to convey the impression of a number of “campaigns” (at least five) held in this region (1: 21,39; 3: 7,8; 4: 1; 6: 1,6,56; 7: 31). “How beautiful upon the mountains were the feet of him that brought good tidings (the gospel)” (ls. 52: 7).

Key Phrases

The message Jesus proclaimed was: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1: 15). Here are three key phrases which dominate the early chapters of the synoptic gospels – but not John’s gospel. There the first of them comes twice only, in the discussion with Nicodemus; the others are not used at all. This might afford ground for uneasiness were it not for the fact that the fourth gospel makes copious use of equivalent phrases. Instead of Jesus being proclaimed the King of the Kingdom of God, he is the Light, the Life, showing and bestowing “eternal life”. Similarly, being “born from above” is John’s equivalent of “repentance”, and for “gospel” he has that tremendously significant word “witness”. Also, binding all four gospels together is the key word “faith”, with its verb “believe”, occurring as often in John as in all the synoptics put together.

Somewhat remarkably, in the passage just cited, Mark (in the Greek text) has “believe in the gospel”, using a form of the phrase which is almost unique. It is difficult to be sure of the precise inflexion of meaning here. A possible, or even probable, meaning is “believe by means of the gospel”, the implication being: ‘hear the good news, and through it be led to a faith-full committing of your life to Christ.’

“The Kingdom at hand”

There was an urgency about the message which today is both obvious and bewildering: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand”. The first of these phrases seems to point to a specific period of time, for which the only candidate is Daniel’s “seventy weeks” prophecy (9: 24-27) about “Messiah the Prince”; and it is usually held that the last of those seventy weeks brings one to the ministry of Jesus.

But what of the kingdom being “at hand”? A wide variety of interpretations has been proposed here. For example:

1. The King of that kingdom is here in your? midst – this is usually supported by a very dubious reading of Luke 17: 21: “The royal majesty of God is in the midst of you.”
2. God’s new order, the church, is now to be inaugurated. A number of parables might perhaps be cited in support of this.
3. Your opportunity to share in the kingdom is now being brought to you. This appears to be the meaning in Luke 10: 11.
4. The words meant literally and precisely what they say; but there has come a great divine deferment of fulfilment because the message was not received.

The pros and cons of these divergent points of view call for considerable discussion. A not uncommon attitude is to find what is considered a satisfactory item of supporting evidence for one of these interpretations, and then to judge the matter settled. That is not the best way to study the gospels. Certainly a careful study of all the occurrences of the words translated “at hand” should be undertaken first, and as honest an assessment as possible made in the light of that.

Apparently Dr. Thomas leaned towards the fourth of these interpretations: “Had the nation, continued to obey the Lord’s voice and to keep the covenant, and when Christ came received him as king on the proclamation of the gospel, they would doubtless have been in Canaan until now; and he might have come ere this, and be now reigning in Jerusalem as King of the Jews and Lord of the nations” (Elpis Israel, 1924 ed. page 301). See also the Appendix in “Revelation” (H.A.W.)

Why no definition of the Kingdom?

It is to be noted that neither here nor in any other place in the Lord’s teaching is there a systematic exposition of the nature of the kingdom which Jesus proclaimed. The explanation is simple. There was no Jew, learned or illiterate, who did not know as familiarly as an English schoolboy knows about Waterloo or an American about Gettysburg, that his own nation had been called by God to be “a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” All were well acquainted with the inspiring prophecies of the reign of a Jewish Messiah in Jerusalem. All knew about the Kingdom of God. What they needed to learn was the identity of its King and the spiritual qualifications for citizenship. Hence the emphasis of the miracles and the sermon on the mount.

Notes: Matthew 4: 13-17

15.	An alternative to (or, extention of) the idea suggested in the text not only sees the familiar Is. 9: 6,7 as a prophecy, in the first instance, of the birth of Hezekiah, but also interprets v. 1-5 as a series of pictures of the blessings of his reign:
	v. 1,2: The northern tribes, ravaged earlier (“at the first”) by Assyrian invaders, are later (“afterward”) to hear Hezekiah’s gospel call to share in the blessings of worship at Jerusalem.
	v. 3-5: The destruction of Sennacherib’s army, bringing inexpressible joy to the succoured nation and also the return of the multitude of captives carried away by the Assyrians (“thou hast multiplied the nation”). The more important parallel with the work of Jesus suggests itself readily enough. It is noteworthy that Matthew does not go on to quote v.6,7 which are so obviously Messianic. He takes the fact, and the familiarity of his readers with it, for granted.
17.	Then began Jesus to preach. Cp. Acts.10: 37: “beginning from Galilee”. The implication seems to be that this was the real start of his work. Or was there an earlier “beginning” (including Jn. 2: 1-11) before the first Passover in Jerusalem?

Mark 1: 14,15

15.	The time is fulfilled. Hence the urgent tone in this gospel? Mark repeatedly says: “straightway, immediately”.
	Believe (in) the gospel. The preposition en is very frequently used in NT with the sense: “by means of”.

Getting away from the excited crowd in the synagogue, Jesus walked, along with his four fisher disciples, to Peter’s home. Peter was a married man, with children probably (Mt. 17:24, 25); Judas also (Ps.109: 9, 12) and probably others among the apostles (1 Cor.9:5). But evidently Andrew was unmarried, for he lived with Peter (Mk. 1:29).

If Peter had a settled home at this time, how could it be said of him that he “forsook all”? How, near the end of the Lord’s ministry, could he say: “We have left all and followed thee” (Mt. 19:27)?

The explanation appears to be this: The first of these two references relates to Peter’s normal work as a fisherman; the other was true soon after this, and thenceforward, when Peter and the rest left their homes in order to be with Jesus constantly.

There is some uncertainty as to the location of Peter’s home at this time. When he first met Jesus, he was “of Bethsaida” (Jn. 1:44). Yet, on this sabbath, after preaching and healing in the synagogue at Capernaum (Tell Hum, by general agreement) Jesus went immediately to Peter’s house. Two possibilities present themselves. Either Peter and Andrew had lately moved to Capernaum, or the Bethsaida where they lived was within easy distance of Capernaum. It seems almost certain that there were two Bethsaidas (= Fisher-town; cp. Port Said). The sites suggested for these are about three miles from Capernaum, in opposite directions. But this distance is well over “a sabbath day’s journey” (= about 3/5 of a mile), unless there was a special dispensation to go further for the purpose of attending a synagogue. It seems much more likely that Peter’s Bethsaida was actually a suburb of Capernaum. The geographers do not seem to have considered this possibility.

“A great fever”

No sooner was Jesus in the house than he was urgently asked for help — Peter’s mother-in-law was prostrated with “a great fever”. According to one authority this expression was used by contemporaries to describe what was, judging from the symptoms, typhus. The fever was most acute, and (Luke’s Greek seems to imply) was continuing, without showing any sign of abating.

Apparently Jesus knew nothing of this domestic emergency until he got to the house, or he would surely have come to the sufferer’s aid before this. Now the fever had been running its distressing course for most of the day (at least). Yet when a high fever shows no sign of breaking there is real ground for alarm. Then with what impatience had Peter’s wife awaited the end of the synagogue service! She had every reason for anxiety.

Immediate recovery

The request was put to Jesus only once (Lk. 4:38 Gk). No more was needed. He went at once to her bed-side (Lk) and grasping her hand (Mk), sat her up in bed (Mk). Then, he rebuked the fever (Lk) — and it was gone! She was up from her bed immediately, and proceeded right away (Lk) to help with the sabbath evening meal and especially to look offer the needs of Jesus (Mt: Gk text) as he relaxed at table. There was no sign in her of the usual hang-over of debility and lassitude. The sufferer’s recovery was instantaneous and complete.

The ways of commentators are passing strange. “It was not a great miracle”, observes one learned man. He would surely have written differently if he had had that fever himself!

Luke’s description: “he rebuked the fever”, reads as though addressed to a demon. Here, again, so it would seem, the reader is intended to envisage the poor woman’s suffering as the work of one of God’s angels of evil.

There was of course, no arrière pensée about the working of this miracle. Yet how valuable it must have been to Jesus in later days. It is no light thing to take a man from his home and wife and family and livelihood to become a peripatetic preacher. Yet this is what Jesus had demanded of Peter that day. And for the rest of his life Peter followed. “Lord, we have left all, and followed thee.” Such response is hardly possible without the full assent and cooperation of wife and family. If such enthusiastic support was not already evident, this healing of Peter’s mother-in-law guaranteed it. From this day forward Peter need never be looking over his shoulder wondering how this wandering life as disciple of Jesus of Nazareth was regarded by the folks at home.

A Mass Appeal to Jesus

If it was the afternoon service at the synagogue (the time of the evening sacrifice) when Jesus healed the demoniac, there would be just time for him to enjoy a meal before the day’s end at sun-down. Just time also for every home in Capernaum where there was illness of any kind to make feverish preparations to bring their sick folk to Peter’s house for healing as soon as the sabbath was technically ended. According to Luke their eagerness stretched a point and set this operation in motion before the sabbath was quite ended.

It must have been an astonishing sight in that twilight — many small groups of people converging on the same spot, as sick folk were led (Lk) or carried thither (Mk) and set down there (Mt) in eager expectation of aid comparable to that exercise of power witnessed in the synagogue. “The entire city was now synagogued at the door.”

This appeal to the compassion of Jesus was not to be resisted. He went out to them and healed them all individually. He laid his hands in blessing on each sick or diseased person separately (Lk). There were further examples of the mentally unbalanced crying out (Lk), like the man in the synagogue, that this Jesus was the Messiah (a sentiment their bemused wits must have taken in from much of the excited talk which went on around them), only to be immediately silenced with a word of authority (Mt), for this was a form of advertisement or acclaim that Jesus could well do without (Mk).

The wonderful work continued (Lk) probably right through the twilight until darkness fell. Between them the synoptic writers exhaust the available vocabulary in attempts to picture the wide variety of ailments and disabilities brought to Jesus in that hour (cp. also Mt. 4:24). Luke’s phrase is specially emphatic. Yet all were sent away well and happy. That night the only sick persons in the town were those who said: ‘That Jesus of Nazareth is no good.’ Never was such a healthy place as Capernaum just then.

But alas, not so spiritually (Mt. 11:20, 23, 24).

In his gospel Matthew repeatedly drives home the point that there was no human need beyond the power of Christ to cope with (12:15; 14:35, 36; 4:24). It is a lesson the present age refuses to learn. And today, as then, it is to each individual separately according to his need that the Lord’s help comes.

According to the Scriptures

Matthew again, after his manner in the early part of his gospel, links this healing work of Jesus with Old Testament prophecy regarding him: “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses”. Here instead of the familiar Septuagint text there is a more strictly literal translation. In the original text (ls. 53:4) the first word means “sickness” and the second “pain”, either physical or psychological, i.e. “grief”. But the context there clearly has reference to sin-sickness. This is without doubt the fundamental meaning. It should not be assumed that Matthew is misapplying the passage or distorting its meaning. The gospel writers must always be given credit for knowing what they are about. Here then, rather, is Matthew’s way of enunciating a principle which will be found to run right through the gospel records: The greater includes the less; these miracles are not merely wonders, they are signs, acted parables, another form of teaching, and readers of the gospels are the losers if they let this pass them by. (For example, the word describing the fever of Peter’s mother-in-law comes in only one other place: Dt. 28:22!). This aspect of the Lord’s miracles is one which the student of the gospels is constantly encountering. It is important.

Notes: Matthew 8:14-17

These verses are chronologically out of place, due to the method by which Matthew assembles his material according to subject. Chapters 8, 9 concentrate on a catalogue of miracles, so it is not inappropriate for this miracle to be included here.

14.	Peter’s house. Even if the Lord’s own family had moved to Capernaum about this time, there are hints that Jesus used Peter’s home as his real headquarters, so far as he had any; 17:24, 25.
15.	Touched her hand. Mark’s equivalent is: “grasped her hand”. This helps to modify the meaning of Jn. 20:17, and to make it more intelligible.
16.	Brought. Very cleverly (if that word may be allowed without offence) Mt. employs here a word of double meaning; it also means
	“to bring as a sacrifice to the altar.” Thus there is not only the idea of our Lord’s divine status, but also that these sick folk besides being carried to him were also dedicated to his praise.
	Possessed with devils… cast out the spirits. Lk’s equivalent:
	Sick with divers diseases, and he healed them. Note also Mt’s own parallel in v. 1 7.
	Healed all. This “all” comes from ls. 53:6. Other mass healings: 4:24; 12:15; 14:35, 36.
17.	Bore our sicknesses. The double meaning mentioned in the text comes in markedly here — at personal cost, now in the tearing of compassionate soul, possibly in draining his energies, and certainly looking forward to his bearing of sin at Golgotha.

Notes: Mark 1:29-34

29.	When they were come. This word “come”, twice repeated (Gk) might possibly imply that Peter (the “author” of this gospel) had not been to the synagogue — kept at home by the emergency?
30.	Fever. The likely alternative to typhus is malaria.
31.	Took her by the hand. “The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord … He upholdeth him with his hand” (Ps. 37:23, 24). So also Mk. 5:41; 9:27. This double miracle — (a) fever gone; (b) no continuing weakness — is matched by Lk. 5:5, 6; Jn. 9:7, 9; Mt. 8:26; Acts 3:7, 8.
	She ministered unto them. So also others who know themselves healed by Christ will be glad to express their gratitude in service.
32.	Cp. Mark’s other early pictures of growing crowds: 1:37, 45; 2:2, 13, 15; 3:7-10, 20, 32.

Luke 4:38-41

38.	He arose. The implication is that Jesus had been seated, the usual posture of a synagogue teacher. Nor had he risen from his seat to heal the demoniac.
40.	He laid his hands on every one. Such examples as Gen. 48:14; Lev. 8:22, 23; Mt. 19:13 is the idea that of transfer of blessing or personal identification with those concerned? In Lev. 1:4; 3:2; 8:14; 16:21, certainly not blessing but the burden of sin.

It is commonly assumed that the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus continued right through the first 21 verses of John 3, and that in fact after the question: “How can these things be?” (v.10), it became a monologue. There are, however, several considerations (none of them decisive, admittedly) which suggest that the discourse of Jesus, or the summary of it supplied by John, actually ends at verse 12, the rest being commentary and amplification supplied by John out of his intimate knowledge of the Lord’s teaching and its bearing on the later bitter reaction of the Jewish nation to the preaching of the gospel through the apostles.

John’s words, not the Lord’s        

1. “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (v. 13). The last clause here could hardly have been spoken by Jesus — unless one is prepared to assume that he was using “heaven” in a very unusual figurative sense.
2. “Only begotten Son” (v. 16,18) is a phrase used by John, and not by Jesus (1: 14; 1 John 4: 9).
3. The tenses of the verbs suggest a comment made at a later date: “gave his only begotten Son” has little relevance to the very beginning of the ministry of Jesus, before men had had opportunity to choose between belief and disbelief; but it is full of meaning for the time when John was writing and Jewry had already turned its back on the gospel.
4. Chapter 1: 16-18 is, very clearly, the evangelist’s expansion of John the Baptist’s declaration (v.15). Yet the many who read these verses as a continuation of the Baptist’s words could be readily forgiven their error, for there is no hint of a discontinuity at the end of v. 15. It would appear to be the same in this place also.
5. The first person pronoun is fairly common up if -to the end of v. 10, but after that it occurs only “ in the words of John (v. 27-30).

Literally from heaven?

Whether the view just advanced be accepted or not verse 13 still presents a problem of some magnitude. Since the ascension of Jesus into heaven was a literal bodily ascent, is it not necessary to take “he that came down from heaven” in the same literal fashion? The answer to that is: “Not necessarily”. But it has to be admitted that a literal meaning for both phrases is certainly desirable.

This is possible once the literal interpretation of John 20:17 be adopted. After his resurrection Jesus said to Mary Magdalene: “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.” Reasons have been given (ch. 242) for inferring from these words a personal ascension of Jesus to the Father on the morning of his resurrection after his appearing to Mary and before the walk to Emmaus.

Support for this view may perhaps be seen in the title used here: “Son of man.” The allusion (and in Jn. 12: 34 also) is to the Son of man prophecy in Dan. 7: 13, where a literal ascension to heaven and coming again in glory is the main theme of the revelation. Thus John’s words written years later, about Jesus coming down from heaven and ascending to heaven can be read literally in the light of what took place on Easter day. The comment is added here by the author of the gospel to underline the Lord’s special authority to instruct even a leader such as Nicodemus in “earthly things” and also “heavenly things.”

Theophany

A very different approach to this problem passage was suggested by John Carter. He pointed to the phrase “came down from heaven” as being a fairly common Biblical idiom for a Theophany.

Thus, “the Lord came down to see the city and the tower (of Babel)” (Gen. 11: 5). “Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire” (Ex. 19: 18; other examples: Gen. 18: 21; Ex. 3: 7,8: 19: 11,20; 34: 5; Ps. 18: 9,10; 68: 18; Dt. 30: 12; Is. 7: 11; 64: 1; Prov. 30: 4; Acts 7: 34; and compare Jn. 6: 33,38,50,51,58,62.)

Similarly, the termination of the Theophany is spoken of as “God going up”. Examples: “And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham” (Gen. 17: 22). “And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city…” (Ez. 11: 23; see also Gen. 35: 13; Ps. 47: 5; 68: 18.)

If Jn.3:l3 is another example of this Biblical idiom, then it emphasizes that Jesus was a quite unique manifestation of God among men, without the phrases necessarily requiring to be read with strict literalness (cp. 1:51) regarding a personal coming from heaven and return thither.

The Brazen Serpent

Next comes the familiar allusion to the brazen serpent: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life” (v. 14,15). The reason for mention of this is not far to seek. It reinforces with special power the declaration of Jesus: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

The eloquent details of this allegory have often been worked out. The grumbling of the people in the wilderness was a sustained rebellion against the authority of God, and they were shown in very grim fashion that “the wages of sin” is death. They did not die from the sting of the serpent immediately. The poison took a while to work in a man’s system. But all who were bitten knew that death was inevitable. When they were prayed for, the divine compassion did not immediately remove the serpents from the camp. lnstead, the sin itself, represented by metonymy in a serpent of brass, was displayed before all. The dying sinner who would be healed must look in faith to this symbol of the crucifying of sin. Hitherto the tabernacle had been the centre of all his religion and piety, but if he persisted in looking to it for redemption in this hour of need, he died. Thus the Lord’s standard or banner (same word as Exodus 17: 15) became one who was “made sin for us” (2 Cor. 5: 21), a redeemer from the curse, “being made a curse for us, as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3: 13). Through this God-provided salvation the sinner, stricken and yet saved from his sin, was enabled to cry with triumph: “O death, where is thy sting?” (1 Cor. 15: 56). No self-healing was possible. “Surely, shall one say, in the lord have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come… Unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (ls. 45: 23,24).

Divine Imperative

This sign in the wilderness became an imperative to Jesus: “even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” It is clear that this expression was used as a euphemism for “crucifixion”, for when Jesus said to the people: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto me”, John’s comment is: “This he said, signifying what death he should die.” And the people, mystified, answered: “The Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?” (Jn. 12: 32-34). A crucified Messiah, was not at all the kind of leader they looked for.

Nevertheless he must be “lifted up”. There was no other way to save the believer from perishing. The time came when Jesus was to pray: “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” It may be taken as certain that, if it were possible, such a petition asked of such a Father by such a Son would have been granted. That it was not serves to underline the awful truth that even Divine Omnipotence and Omniscience could find no other road to man’s redemption. So “it behoved the Christ to suffer” (Lk. 24: 46). The Son of man must be lifted up!

Mini-Gospel

The familiar words of John 3: 16 turn the allegory of the brazen serpent into profound reality. There is a double link: “God so loved the world” echoes “even so must the Son of man be lifted up”; there is also the valuable repetition: “that whosoever believeth may have everlasting Iife” (v. 15,16).

It is appropriate that the first occurrence in John’s writings of this characteristic word “love”: should express the love of God for men -”not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:10). The origin and spring of all agape is in God. That which men express towards God or for one another is not uncaused, as is the love of God. Any love men show for God springs from what God has first done. It is evoked by His love and nurtured by Him. But no human love can ever rise to God’s level for He gave (and did not merely send) His only begotten Son.

Modern sentimentality would clamour for a universalist redemption, yet a moment’s reflection shows that a salvation through Christ for all without exception would declare an unloving God. For a man who has no inclination or intention of acknowledging the supremacy of God everlasting life would be an eternity of misery, an endless torment.

This “gospel in miniature” includes a remarkable assembly of John’s key words and phrases. Another of these is “believe”. It is, of course, the verb form of the word “faith”. In his gospel John preaches justification by faith with just as much emphasis as Paul does in his epistles.

It may be possible to go further and to see in the phrase “believeth into him” (which is the more exact reading here and in 33 other places in this gospel) the idea of the disciple’s appropriation of the proffered “eternal life” through identification with Christ in baptism. Other qualifications over and above a self-yielding faith in Christ are not necessary. “Every one believing” (again, this is the more exact translation) may thus save himself from the serpent-sting of sin. There are no barriers of race, social status, or sex: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female.” This is the meaning of that great word “whosoever” (Rom. 10: 11,12; 1 Jn 2:2).

Alternatives

But whilst these humanly cherished distinctions are swept away in Christ, one sharp line of demarcation remains-the only alternatives are that a man rejoices in this eternal life in Christ or he perishes. Attempts have been made by believers in the immortality of the soul to make this word mean survival in misery, by contrast with the happiness of heaven; but it requires only a quick glance at a good concordance to verify that the normal meaning is “destruction, a final end”. To attempt to read into it the idea of survival in torment is to make nonsense of many a passage.

Furthermore, the Greek aorist will hardly allow of the idea of continuous punishment hereafter. It must signify a summary judgment which a man experiences once and for all.

By contrast, in the expression “have everlasting life” the verb is a continuous present. The implication is that “eternal life”, as John uses the expression, is not so much that which lasts for ever as that which is deemed fit to last for ever. In John the emphasis is qualitative rather than quantitative. This idiomatic usage occurs time after time; e.g. “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (6: 47); “he that hearefh my word and believeth him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and cometh not into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (1 John 3: 14); “he that hath the Son hath life” (1 John 5: 12); and, by contrast, “he that hateth his brother abideth in death” (even whilst alive in this mortality); and in Jn 17: 12 RV Judas has already “perished”, even though, in the next chapter, he is physically alive. At the same time there is no lack of examples of this meaning merging into future fulfillment (e.g. 4: 36; 6: 27,68; 12: 25)

Basic Doctrine in John 3: 16

It is perhaps useful to catalogue baldly the fundamental doctrines which are all explicitly stated or else implied in John 3: 16.

1. Redemption is an act of uncaused love on God’s part. The initiative is His, not the believer’s.
2. Jesus is a unique Son of God, the “only begotten”.
3. The sacrifice of Jesus is the means of human redemption.
4. This salvation is for all men, without any kind of distinction; in the true sense of the term it is “catholic”.
5. Justification is by faith in Christ, and by no other way.
6. This justifying faith also unites a man to Christ in baptism.
7. By contrast with the Law’s promise of “length of days”, it also brings present and everlasting future enjoyment of “eternal life.”
8. The only alternative for the unbelieving sinner is ultimate oblivion.
9. In 3: 13, “which is” – Gk: ho On – is the Covenant Name of God in Ex. 3: 14 LXX (cp. Phil. 2: 9).

Judgment

In the words that follow, the function of Christ as Judge of all appears to be explicitly disclaimed: “For God sent not his Son into the world to judge (and condemn) the world: but (he gave him; v. 16 – note the contrast in the verbs) that the world through him might be saved” (v. 17). Jesus repeatedly stressed this: “I came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (12: 47); “I judge no man” (8: 15); and especially: “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (12: 47). At first sight this appears to be in sharp contradiction with other sayings: “I have many things to say, and to judge of you” (8: 26); “if I judge, my judgment is true” (8: 16); “as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just” (5: 30).

These two aspects of Christ are readily reconciled by recognizing that the function and act of judging is reserved for the future, but the ground of judgment is the present. Even as he spoke Jesus was assessing the quality of the men who resisted him so perversely:

In fact, those who reject the claims of Christ are by that very act writing their own condemnation: “he that believeth not is judged (and condemned) already, because he hath not believed…”

John repeats this basic principle in other words: a man who comes face to face with Christ, the Light of the world, and then deliberately chooses to turn away, preferring the darkness, is by that choice made amenable to the judgment of God: “This is the condemnation (the ground of judgment) that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light.”

The words have often been given pointed reference to Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night. But this is hardly fair to the man, for, as Plummer has so concisely stated, “he wished to conceal, not an evil deed from good men, but a good deed from evil men.” The past tense “loved” suggests rather a reference to the nation-wide rejection of the gospel by Jewry within a generation of the crucifixion. John wrote his gospel before A.D. 70, and already it was evident that almost no more converts to the Faith could be expected from the ranks of the Chosen People. Earlier, (Study 14) it was shown that John often uses the word “world” with reference to the Jewish kosmos. It was hardly true in the fullest sense of the word that “light is come into the world”, the whole wide world, but it was already abundantly true of Israel both in Palestine and among the Dispersion. “ Their deeds (the Greek makes the pronoun emphatic) were evil.”

Special Reference to Jewry

Nearly every phrase which follows seems to have pointed reference to Israel: “Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light.” This word “evil” is not the same as in the previous verse; it means that which is trivial, futile, petty, flimsy, valueless. Turning away from the light of Christ was thoroughly evil. In the Jews it sprang out of an obession with that which was of no account — the unspiritual minutiae of rabbinic tradition and casuistry. Human pride would not allow men to come to the light lest these “works be reproved”. It would mean an open admission that hitherto lives of great religiosity had been wasted in sustained striving to achieve a God-pleasing righteousness by personal effort, in other words, justification by works.

By contrast, “he that doeth truth cometh to the light”. The phrase is a remarkable one and only becomes Intelligible when read not in contrast to that which is false but to that which is type and shadow — the inner spiritual reality, as against the outward forms of religion, the life in Christ rather than the jots and tittles of Mosaic discipline. The man who in this sense “doeth truth” comes openly to Christ, professing a bold discipleship, and “his deeds are made manifest, that they are wrought in (or, by) God”, that is, association with Christ is first of all a public confession of personal inability to achieve any worthwhile righteousness. Whatever of spiritual value accrues in his life is brought about by God working in him, and not by his own personal efforts on God’s behalf.

Appropriate to this climax of thought, John’s gospel proceeds to tell how some Jews abandoned all religious self-confidence and came to John the Baptist and to Jesus for a baptism which buried the old life and the old outlook (3:22,23). Instead they expressed their faith in the washing away of sins and in the regeneration made possible through the Lamb of God whom John had announced.

Notes: John 3: 13-21

14.	This Num.21 allusion may possibly support the view that the “cross” was an upright stake. LXX there uses John’s word “sign”. The brazen serpent would be fashioned, of course, by Bezaleel (=in the shadow of God) of Judah, and so — again, of course — it would be put on the standard of Judah.
15.	RV: may In him have eternal life. But in v. 16 the Greek is different.
16.	Only begotten. Heb. 11: 17 may allude to this verse; in which case, this gospel was written before A.D. 70.
	Perish = earthly things (v. 12);
	eternal life = heavenly things.
21.	Truth. In not a few places “truth” is used as a synonym for “righteousness”; cp. 7: 18; Ps. 51: 5,6; Rom. 2: 8; 1 Cor. 13: 6.

After the marriage at Cana in Galilee, Jesus evidently went back home to Nazareth, together with the group of disciples who had now attached themselves to him. Very shortly they all moved to Capernaum, and in this they were joined by Mary and the rest of the family. This was not the permanent change of home which is described in Matthew 4: 13. Chronologically that falls later in the ministry. This, mentioned by John, was only temporary-for “not many days”-and took place very shortly before the Passover. The purpose of this brief visit is not intimated. It is a puzzle to know why John mentions it at all. Clearly, from the way it is described, Jesus was the moving spirit behind it. Perhaps it was exploratory in character, to ascertain whether the family could advantageously migrate there. Probably Jesus already foresaw that, since a prophet has no honour in his own country (4: 44), life in Nazareth was likely to become uncomfortable for the rest of the family. This seems the most likely reason for a somewhat enigmatic arrangement.

Four Passovers

From Capernaum Jesus and his disciples went up to Jerusalem for the Passover. This was the first of four Passovers in the Lord’s ministry. Besides the Feast when he was crucified (19: 14), there was the Passover when the loaves and fishes were multiplied (6: 4). Probably also the unnamed feast of John 5: 1 was a Passover, but this uncertainty is not important because the encounter with the Pharisees concerning the disciples’ plucking of the ears of corn (Matt. 12: 1ff) requires another spring-time in the ministry separate from the others already mentioned. Thus the duration of the ministry was rather more than three years, possibly the three-and-a-half year period which is familiar enough in other parts of the Bible.

Abuses in the Temple

In the temple in Jerusalem Jesus encountered once again conditions which had long stirred his spirit deeply. Now that he was launched on his public ministry he felt moved to drastic action. The dynasty of high priests headed by Annas had found that they could make themselves wealthy at the expense of the Jewish worshippers who came from all parts of the Roman world, and from even further a field than that. Naturally, all who came wished to offer sacrifice. So it would be a great convenience to them to be able to purchase on the spot the animal they intended to offer. Only those beasts could be slain for sacrifice which were approved by the officiating priest as “without blemish and without spot”. And it only required that the priest should insist on the temple fitness-certificate being presented with each animal and there was in existence a money-making monopoly which the layman could not cavil at; he must put up with it, no matter what it might cost him.

But there was another turn of the screw. It was unthinkable that these holy offerings should be purchased with unclean Gentile money from all parts of the empire. So it was required that first the offerer convert his cash into Jewish money, possibly, into a special temple coinage “after the shekel of the sanctuary” (Ex. 30: 13). Here was another splendid opportunity for a further rake-off. Thus at every turn the devout Jew was made to pay through the nose for his piety, and the Sadducean priesthood waxed fat on the proceeds.

Drama in the Temple Court

The blatant shameless profiteering in these “Bazaars of the sons of Annas” in the courts of the Lord aroused the indignation of Jesus. Equipping himself with a whip, formed by knotting a few cords together, he loosed the tethered animals and drove them forthwith out of the temple area. Then, returning, he dealt yet more drastically with the tables of the money changers, violently overturning them. Nor did anyone interfere when he seized the cash boxes and poured out their contents. Coins rolled in all directions across the pavement.

There were also large quantities of birds. These, the poor people’s offerings, were of course in baskets and cages. Their owners were peremptorily bidden take them away. Even in his anger Jesus had thought for the poor creatures. It has been suggested (see RSV) that “he drove them all out of the temple” refers primarily to the men concerned, for the word “all” is masculine (cp. Mt.21: 12 Gk), but the grammar of the rest of the sentence makes this somewhat doubtful (see RV). “Whose fan is in his hand”, John had said (Lk.3: 17). Here was a startling token of that authority to exercise judgment.

The men cowered from before this awe-inspiring display of zealous indignation in one who even in his most relaxed moments was commanding and impressive. At Passover there were always extra detachments of the temple police on duty. Yet even these officials made no attempt to interfere with what must have been a fairly prolonged operation. Any three of them could have overpowered Jesus within a minute had they chosen to do so, but they were as overawed as the rest, and discreetly held off.

Passover Purification

As Jesus carried through this astonishing coup, witnessed no doubt by a great crowd of Passover worshippers, he vindicated his action with one brief eloquent phrase: “Make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise”. The next time, “den of thieves” was his searing caustic phrase (Mk.11: 17).

The Law of Moses commanded all Israelites that at Passover “there shall be no leaven found in your houses” (Ex.12: 19). It is an instruction which in every generation has been generalized to mean the removal of all forms of dirt and corruption. So, always, just before Passover, Jews everywhere spring- cleaned their houses. The custom continues to this day. Before the Passover celebration begins, after a formal search of the house (Zeph. 1: 12), one small heap of dust, deliberately left, is swept up and thrown out, and then the feast proceeds.

At this time, then, what the Jews were doing in their own homes Jesus proceeded to do in his Father’s house, the temple, hence the word “found” in verse 14. How many times at earlier Passovers had he witnessed these abuses, and wanted to go into action! Now his drastic interference was an open declaration, made before rulers and people alike, that he was the Son of God asserting his authority in his Father’s house.

This understanding of the cleansing of the temple lays to rest the difficulty which some have found in the repetition of this drastic action in the last week of the ministry (Mt.21: 12-17; Mk.11: 15-19; Lk.19: 45-48). It is a bad mistake to assume that all four gospels describe the same incident, and that either John or the synoptists got it chronologically out of place. If Jesus’ action was a Passover spring-cleaning of his Father’s house corresponding to that which went on in every home in the country, then it would not have been at all surprising if he had done this thing at every one of the four Passovers of his ministry. The repetition ceases to be a problem.

The Lord’s assertion of authority was declared in a Biblical way which has been misunderstood by the commentators-Jesus had a scourge in his hand. King James’ men, also missing the point, have tried to take the idea of violence out of the picture by making “cords” into “small cords”. But this scourge was meant to be purely symbolic:

The Hebrew word for “scourge” is, strangely, identical with that in Zechariah 4: 10 which describes: “the eyes of the Lord which run to and fro through the whole Land” (there is a logical link between the two meanings). In that context there are seven men (Jesus and his six disciples), men of sign including “my servant the Branch”, and they are in the house of the Lord. Thus, the scourge was a Biblical symbol of Christ’s authority to inspect and correct abuses in his Father’s house.

In his temptation, not long before, Jesus had been incited to prove to the nation that he was Son of God by a spectacular feat in the temple which would immediately make him accepted by all, both high and low. Instead he began his public ministry in the temple court, and in a truly sensational fashion, but with a vigorous gesture of censure which was bound to set the ruling clique against him. “For the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters” (Hos.9: 15). Had not Zechariah also written: “In that day there shall be no more a trafficker in the house of the Lord of hosts” (14: 21; the Hebrew for “trafficker” suggests: “a man of Annas”).

This corruption connected with the temple had long been a national scandal. Simeon, the grandson of Hillel (possibly the Simeon of Luke 2) had forced the priests to reduce the price of a pair of doves (the poor person’s offering) from one gold denarius to half a silver denarius (which in 1983=£10).

During the Lord’s ministry those abuses came back. The “house of merchandise” (v.16) became a “den of thieves” (Mk.11: 17).

“Show us a Sign”

Naturally the rulers were outraged by such a dramatic assertion of authority. Their own supremacy in the temple was challenged, and their revenues were seriously interfered with. Yet this Jesus of Nazareth clearly had the sympathies of the people with him, so they dared not summarily arrest and punish him. Instead they sought first to strengthen their own case against him: “What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?” Had they not the wit to see that the cleansing of the temple court was itself a sign to show to all except the wilfully blind who this was who was now in their midst? But of course they were not blind. The sign asked for was not needed. Already they knew what this demarche j betokened.

However Jesus acceded to the demand, and , produced his credentials, albeit indirectly: “Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.”

The men who heard this saying were not fools. They realised at once that this was no flamboyant empty challenge to destroy their’ new-built temple so that they might marvel at its re-erection single-handed. Yet it suited their purpose now (as also three years later when they had Jesus on trial) to misconstrue the meaning: “Forty and six years was this temple in building.” This was exaggeration for the sake of effect. The Lord used a word referring to the inner sanctuary, and that had taken only eighteen months to build (Jos.Ant.15.11.6).

“Wilt thou rear it up in three days?”, they countered, hoping thus to ridicule this new upstart before the people. Herod the Great had intended this architectural wonder of the ancient world as his present to the Jewish people. By it he meant to soothe the asperity of their spirit as they chafed against the savagery of his rule. But Herod was long since dead and gone, and still much building remained to be done. The edifice was actually not completed until A.D.64, in the reign of the Herod Agrippa whom Paul would fain have made into a believer in Christ. These forty-six years from the twentieth year of Herod (so Josephus) identify the date of this beginning of the public ministry of Jesus as being A.D.27- an excellent cross check against the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar mentioned by Luke (3: 1)

The Law had bidden the rulers investigate the claims and credentials of any new teacher: “If there arise among you a prophet…. and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet…. that prophet shall be put to death” (Dt.13: 1,2,5). Also: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken” (18: 22).

Since there had been no genuine prophet for centuries, the priests were right to ask for a sign, and-like so many of the Old Testament prophets-the Lord gave as sign a prophecy with short-term fulfilment. Then what an irony it was that they had to put Jesus to death before the sign could be authenticated, and by that very rejection of him they made vindication of his resurrection sign possible.

Repeatedly they came at him demanding a sign (Mt.12: 38; 16: 1; 21: 23), and each time he either repeated the same sign-resurrection on the third day-or else he sent them back to the witness of John the Baptist, another authenticated prophet whom they had rejected.

His Meaning

The disciples slow as always to get inside the meaning of their leader’s words, only saw the true force of them offer his crucifixion and resurrection. But the chief priests recognized the “three days” allusion made by Jesus and grasped its significance (hence Mt. 27: 63). When Israel were in the wilderness, “the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them three days’ journey, to search out a resting place for them. And the Cloud (the Shekinah Glory) of the Lord was upon them by day, when they set forward from the camp” (Num. 10: 33,34).

The going forward of the ark ahead of the host of Israel required also the taking down of the sanctuary and its re-erection on the third day. By using the word “unloose” (wrongly translated here “destroy”) Jesus made his allusion clearer. But this seeking out of a new resting place for Israel required that they “depart from the mount of the Lord” where the Law was given! And when the ark set forward it was to the proclamation: “Rise up, O Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered” (10: 35). The word signifies resurrection (it is the same as in “Talitha, kumi”; Mk. 5: 41). The enemies of the Lord saw the meaning of these things, and that their own scattering was inevitable. “Let them that hate thee flee before thee.” Already the headlong flight of their minions from the temple court could be seen as symbolic of the ultimate triumph of this Jesus over all that the temple stood for.

Three years later the accusation in the trial of Jesus was: “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands” (Mk.14: 58). It is highly unlikely that these additions to the record in John were invented, for they did nothing to help the case for the prosecution, and if their accuracy could be challenged the case might collapse altogether.

Jesus said, with double meaning: “(You) destroy this temple made with hands” (cp. Acts 7: 48) – and they did, by the spreading corruption which they injected into the nation, so that judgment came in A.D. 70. The different temple “made without hands”-that is, of divine origin (Dan. 2: 34; Heb. 9: 11) – is the risen glorious Lord.

The full meaning of all these things only dawned on the disciples much later, when their Lord was risen from the dead. Then “they believed the scripture”, that is, they discerned at last its inner meaning and rejoiced in it as a prophecy of Christ.

Psalm of Messiah

The full force of another Scripture also dawned on them belatedly as they looked back over these events so pregnant with meaning: “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (Ps. 69: 9). The allusion is to the fire of the altar consuming the burnt-offering. That which taught the Israelite to see a symbol of his own complete re-consecration to the service of God found its fullest possible meaning in one who now showed to the entire nation his dedication to the God whom temple and altar were designed to honour.

The next words in the psalm are marvellously apposite to these strong measures taken by Jesus: “The reproaches of them that reproache thee are fallen upon me” – that is, those things which are offensive in the sight of the Father are also offensive to the Son. And the despising of God became a despising of Jesus.

Also, John evidently meant the immediate context to suggest another impressive idea. Because Jesus was eaten up with “the zeal of thine house”, therefore “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children”, (v.8); in other words, the Lord’s own family were grievously offended by this peremptory cleansing of the temple. Their unsympathetic attitude was to come out plainly later on (Mk. 3: 21,31-35; Jn. 7: 1-8).

It is unlikely that at the time the disciples linked this dramatic action of Jesus with Psalm 69, for the entire context of the passage quoted is one of rejection and suffering-an aspect of Messiah’s work which, even up to the last week, was hardly appreciated by them. Only the resurrection of Jesus resolved these strange paradoxes. Then “they believed the scripture (Ps. 69: 9? Num. 10: 33? Mal. 3: 1-3?) and the word which Jesus had said.

“Shall suddenly come to his temple”

At this time also part of the prophecy of Malachi came to life afresh: “Behold, I send my messenger (John the Baptist), and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek (observe the irony there!), shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in (more irony!); behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth…. and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver… that they may offer unto the Lord on offering in righteousness” (Mal.3: 1-3) That word “purge” is identical with John’s word for the pouring out of the changers’ money.

But if animals for sacrifice were driven out of the temple, what righteous offering could Israel bring? The answer is in Psalm 69. From this day on, Jesus was as good as crucified. The chief priests would see to that. Already this was their settled intention.

Notes: John 2: 12-22

12.	Verses 3, 12, 13 mark the open change by Jesus from preoccupation with home and family to his own ministry; “went down” s.w. as Gen. 11:15; 18:21 LXX.
	Not many days. In Acts 1: 5 this means ten days.
13.	Money. John uses here a term of contempt.
17.	Eaten me up. The word is used also for “destroy” (Rev. 11: 5); cp. v. 19.
20.	Forty and six years. Could it be that they were following the Lord’s allusion to the Tabernacle? – 40 years in the wilderness followed by 6 years’ conquering the Land (Josh. 14: 7,10)? Or is it that John, years later, sees a further meaning in these words and therefore gladly preserves the detail?
21.	The temple of his body. The same figure is repeated in “Tabernacled among us” (1: 14) and “In him dwelleth the fulness (of the Glory) of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2: 9; Ex. 40: 35). And Is. 38: 12 also? (Hezekiah a type?). 1 Cor. 3: 16; 6: 19; 2 Cor. 6: 16 invite further interpretation of this incident with reference to animal appetites and a money-grubbing disposition in a life dedicated (sic!) to God.
22.	His disciples remembered. For slow comprehension by the disciples, see: 2: 17, 22; 4: 31-34; 6: 19; 8: 27; 11: 11-13; 12: 16; 13: 7; 14: 4-9,26; 16: 12,17; Mt. 16: 7-11; Mk. 8: 17; Lu. 22: 38; 24: 8,45. And by others: Jn. 3: 4; 4: 10-15; 6: 34,52; 7: 33-36; 8: 22,56-58; 12: 34.
	That he had said. The verb is continuous. Jesus repeated this teaching more than once.

After the discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus left Jerusalem for what must have been a sustained campaign of preaching in the country districts of Judaea (Jn. 3: 22). The fact that he chose at this time to leave Jerusalem was a clear answer to the section of the Pharisees who were proposing a working alliance with him. More important to Jesus were the humble country folk who esteemed his message for its own sake.

At first the response was enthusiastic. Drawn by the reports of miracles in Jerusalem (2: 23; 3: 2) and the cleansing of the temple (2: 15), people came in large numbers, and, held by the grace and freshness of his message, they stayed, and sealed their discipleship with baptism. “All men come to him”, John’s followers reported in some amazement, and not without a touch of envy.

Baptism – its Meaning then and now

The baptism which Jesus administered through the practical help of his first disciples was similar in character and meaning to the baptism which John’s converts received. It was, in essence, the Christian baptism which believers receive today. The only difference was this — whereas today baptism looks back to the death of Christ and receives all its meaning from his sacrifice, the baptism which converts of John and Jesus received in those early days looked forward to an acceptable sacrifice for sin whom God would provide. It is hardly likely that at that time the recipients of baptism understood quite clearly how and through whom their sins would be put away, but this lack would be rectified in due time. And in spite of these deficiencies it was, without doubt, a valid baptism.

Today, those who are beset from time to time with doubts as to the adequacy of their own knowledge or appreciation of the Truth at the time of their baptism can take comfort from considerations of this kind. The grace of God is not so meagre that it cannot take into account such human limitations.

Meantime John was equally assiduous in the work of God. The fact that Messiah had now launched his own personal appeal to the nation did not mean that there was nothing left for him to do.

Geography and Symbolism

The precise locality where John was now at work is not identifiable with any certainty. Aenon and Salim occur together in Joshua 15: 32 in a context which suggests the locality of Ziklag in the south-east of Judah. The mention of “much water there” probably identifies the “springs of water” given by Caleb to his daughter Achsah as part of her marriage dowry, thus increasing the joy of her bridegroom Othniel (Jud. 1: 15). It was now high summer, and places in the Negeb where there was water sufficient for baptisms would be remarkably few. Commentators, using Genesis 33: 18 as a pointer, favour a place in the vicinity of Shechem (Nablus), even though this was in Samaritan territory. In any case the place would hardly be identifiable by the majority of the gospel’s first century readers.

What symbolic meaning, then, did the writer of this fourth gospel see in “Aenon (fountains of water) near to Salim (peace) “where there were “many waters”? Isaiah 48:21, 22 includes these ideas in an eloquent passage about the blessing and providence of God for His redeemed: “He caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out. There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked.” The context of this passage is wonderfully descriptive of the appeal of Christ: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret… the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me… O that thou wouldest hearken to my commandments! then should thy peace be as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea “ (v. 16,18).

But the name Aenon (= Hebrew: ayin) also means “eye”. This suggests another prophecy in Isaiah: “How beautiful upon the mountains (of Judaea) are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings (the gospel), that publisheth peace (Salim)… that saith unto Zion, the King of thy God!… they shall see eye to eye (Aenon), in the return of the Lord of Zion” (52: 7,8). It is hardly possible to be certain about these shadowy allusions, but those who have spent long hours on John’s gospel will know that this book is shot through with Old Testament ideas of this sort. The repeated confession of chapter 2: 22: “his disciples remembered that it was written of him”, is more than a hint of how this gospel should be read and studied.

The Pharisees at work again

If the sending of Nicodemus was intended as an unofficial deputation which might lead to a “take-over bid” for the movement Jesus had initiated, it was evident from the start that no success could be expected in that direction.

A similar attempt, with somewhat different emphasis, was now made to wreck the work of John. There arose a discussion between a leading Jew and some of John’s disciples. No head-on encounter was sought with John himself. The leaders had already had experience of this, and were still licking their wounds (Mt. 3: 7-12). These tactics of seeking to take over the movement from within gave better promise of success. Ultimately they were to prove so successful (see Study 36) that the same strategy was later attempted more than once with the followers of Jesus.

It looks as though the argument, about “purifying”, took this shape: ‘What good is this baptismal cleansing which you have received from your leader when not far away is another like him who is also teaching and baptizing?’ It is exactly the kind of superior quibble which Romans Catholics are fond of making about the wide diversification of various Protestant sects.

The point went home. John’s disciples came to him worried by the problem: “Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan (1: 29,36), to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth and all men come to him” (3:26)—as who should say: ‘You and Jesus were working together at first. Now you are in competition, and he’s making more headway than you are. He has even taken some of your best disciples away from you’.

The Bridegroom

In reply John quietly bade them regain a sense of perspective: “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.” In different ways this principle held good both for Jesus and for himself. The new preacher was making big progress; that was as it should be, for this was God’s declared purpose and intention with him. And from the outset John’s own role was secondary in character. ‘You have remembered how I bore witness to Jesus earlier. Remember also how I repeatedly told you and all men that I am not the Messiah, I am merely a forerunner’ (see v. 28). Then came a change of figure: ‘He is the Bridegroom. Mine is a lesser role. As friend of the Bridegroom I am happy to stand by in service and helpfulness. It gives me pleasure to hear him make his marriage vows’.

It is not impossible that here John was making allusion to the Song of Songs (2: 8,10). But another passage in Isaiah (61: 10) seems to be the more likely original: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself (in a priestly garment), and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels.” The apostle John was surely thinking of this passage, for he went on to include two priestly allusions in his commentary: “God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him” is apparently an allusion to the copious pouring of anointing oil on the head of the high priest, in contrast to the limited application for other priests (Ex. 29: 7,20). And the expression: “he hath given all things into his hands” (v. 35) is an allusion to the Hebrew idiom for consecration as a priest (Ex. 29: 9 margin).

“He must increase”

The logic of John’s witness, spoken with unsurpassed humility, was that disciples like Peter and Andrew, James and John, and the others, should break off the loyalty they felt for their first leader and attach themselves instead to Jesus. “He must increase, but I must decrease”, John’s last public utterance was as plain as instruction could be, that the time was ripe for graduation to a better teacher. It may be that already John’s outspoken denunciations of Herod’s evil life were cutting short his own days of active witness. “This my joy (Lk. 1: 44) therefore is fulfilled” suggests a task completed. Probably the prophet was already worried as to the future of these men who clung to him with such mistaken faithfulness.

The Apostle’s Commentary

At this point (v. 30) there is a palpable break in the fourth gospel. The first person pronouns in the reported speech of the Baptist cease. The style and structure of the sentences change. The paragraph that follows (v. 31-36) reads more like the apostle John’s own comment on the high status of Jesus which the Baptist had been proclaiming afresh. Certainly the words are easier to understand from this point of view.

Also, the succession of phrases — so full of Johannine abstractions (as they seem to be) – immediately begins to make much more sense when it is realised that here is another of the apostle’s extended allusions to the Old Testament, characteristically put together without any specific quotation from the particular passage he has his eye on. Here the allusions all go back, as will be seen, to the grim episode of the Golden Calf. The passage thus becomes a further exemplification of the main theme of this gospel: “The Law was given through Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ” (1: 17).

The force of the allusions is best brought out by a tabulation (much as one dislikes applying railway time-table methods to such a holy book as this!):

These extended hints of Moses’ foreshadowing of the character and work of Jesus (an idea mentioned briefly by Paul also in 1 Cor. 10: 5,6) send the reader back to Exodus 32 to consider yet other aspects of this type; for instance:

1. The weakness and futility of the priesthood of Aaron.
2. His demands for their wealth in order to further a false religion (cp. the buying and selling and money-changing in the temple).
3. What was an abuse was called “a feast to the Lord”.
4. The golden calf foreshadowing the reverence of cherub figures in the temple: “these be thy Elohim, O Israel.”
5. The smashing of the Testimony.
6. Moses’ successful intercession for sinners, based on willingness to sacrifice himself.
7. The washing away of sin by the stream from the Smitten Rock (Dt. 9: 21; cp. the references to baptism; v. 22,23).

It is, however, important to observe how John is careful to include here certain pointed reminders of the marked superiority of Jesus over Moses:

1. “God giveth not the Spirit by measure” to Jesus. In one sense this was not true of Moses, for (as Exodus 34: 29,30 emphasizes) the glory in the face of Moses was a fading glory (2 Cor. 3: 13 RV).
2. “The Father loveth the Son” uses the best word of all – agapao -whereas for Moses (and only once at that) Scripture uses the lesser word philos, friend.
3. And whereas Moses had communion with the Angel of the Covenant, for Jesus there was an intimate fellowship with the Father Himself such as even those in Christ cannot hope to understand.
4. “He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God.” Thus John points out Jesus as the promised “Prophet like unto Moses” who is to supersede Moses: “I will put my words in his mouth… he shall speak in my name… unto him (and not to Moses) ye shall hearken” (Dt. 18: 18,15).
5. Moses’ self-sacrifice was not accepted (as being inadequate), but Christ’s self-sacrifice is all-sufficient.

It is perhaps useful also to observe how a clear recognition of the shape of the apostle John’s thought in this paragraph immediately evacuates the phraseology of any possible allusion to a pre-existent Jesus coming literally from heaven.

In any case there is need here, as in a number of other places, for allowance to be made for the kind of idiom in which John wrote: “He that cometh from above is above all.” Trinitarians fasten on such phrases as these with an avid but most unbecoming literalism. Yet they say no more than v. 34: “he whom God hath sent” (which language is used also of John the Baptist; 1: 6). The idiom comes out even more clearly in another antithesis: “Ye are from beneath; I am from above” (8: 23). The second phrase here can no more be taken literally than the first. The divine origin of Jesus and his higher spiritual status are the essential ideas intended. Similarly, “he that cometh from heaven is above all” (v. 31).

The Witness and its failure

Jesus was now bearing witness of “that he hath seen and heard” (the words imply a unique intimacy with God), and — so comments John not long before the overthrow of Jerusalem — ’no man receiveth his witness.” The words obviously call for some limited application, for all through the life of the apostle John the Truth of Christ made steady progress throughout the Roman Empire. Read with reference to the nation of Israel, the words were near to being literally true. The decade which witnessed the deaths of Paul and Peter saw also the steady dwindling away of effective impact of the gospel on orthodox Jewry. Indeed by that time the tide had set the other way. The main purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews was to stem the drift of Jewish Christians back to the synagogue. At such a time John might well write: “No man receiveth his witness.” What a dramatic irony there is now seen to be about the querulous words of John the Baptist’s disciples: “the same baptizeth, and all men come to him”!

Notes: John 3: 22-36

22.	Tarried. In classical Gk. the word describes time-wasting, but in N .T. time-using.
27.	Given.. The form of this word implies: “and remaining on him” 1: 33.
29.	Bride… bridegroom. This figure of marriage runs into strange inconsistencies if it is not recognized that here (and in ch. 2 and Mt. 22: 2) the reference is to betrothal; whereas Rev. 21: 9 is the marriage itself.
	The friend of the bridegroom. Edersheim (in “Jewish Social Life”) maintains that “the friend of the bridegroom” was a custom and title normal in Judaea, where John and Jesus now were, but not in Galilee. Hence the omission of the phrase in 2: 1-11.
	Rejoiceth greatly. Therefore John did not teach his disciples to fast (Mt. 9: 14,15).
34.	Giveth not the Spirit by measure, as happened with Moses’ helpers; Num.11: 17 RV. There is here also a clear reference to ls. 40: 13 RVm.
35.	Into his hand. This idiom of consecration comes in Ex. 29: 7,29, together with much oil for anointing (the Spirit not by measure). Contrast the idiom for Christ’s authority as king: “all things under his feet” (Ps. 8: 6; 1 Cor. 15: 27; Heb. 2: 8).
36.	The wrath of God. The only occurrence in this gospel. It was John’s message; Lk. 3: 7; cf. Jn. 1: 32.

The first circuit of the towns and villages of Galilee concluded, Jesus now returned to Capernaum. He had ended this preaching tour in the less populous eastern side of Galilee (Lk. 5:16), and now (Mt.) from there he came back by boat.

Almost at once people knew that he was back: “It was noised that he was in the house”

(Mk.), as indeed it always is, even to this day. If it may be assumed that the Lord’s family had all moved to Capernaum, then perhaps the modern versions are right in translating: “It was reported that he was at home”. Or, since Mark’s is really Peter’s gospel, Jesus may have been resting (most welcome guest!) at the home of Peter.

In the Synagogue

After a while (see Notes) Jesus used the opportunity to teach once again in the local synagogue. There are several hints in the narrative that it was the synagogue, and not some private house, where the crowd gathered to hear him. The English reader is easily misled by the word “house” (Mk. 2:1), forgetting that the synagogue was “the house of assembly” or “the house of prayer”. The very word translated “gathered together” (Mk) is really “synagogued”. A concourse of high dignitaries from far and near, including even rabbis from Judaea and Jerusalem (Lk), would hardly have presumed to enter a private house and appropriate seats there. Indeed, such a special assembly of scribes and Pharisees, intent on assessing the credentials and teaching of this Jesus of Nazareth, would certainly not choose the home of a private citizen as the place for such an investigation.

Other considerations identify the synagogue as the location of this encounter with the men of the Law. There is the mention of crowds (Mt), an utterly inappropriate word for a private house, no matter how packed with people. Also, the four bearers would be more ready to break open the roof of a public building than they would of someone’s home. And, if it were the synagogue, they would know exactly where to make an opening in order to be able to lower their stricken friend immediately in front of Jesus.

Not improbably Jesus was invited to take the synagogue service on this particular day specially so that the religious authorities might weigh carefully what he had to say and so make up their minds about him. The presence of these men from the headquarters of the Law, and their demeanour, is the first sign of official criticism since Jesus returned from Judaea to Galilee (See Jn. 4:1-3).

A Stricken Man

“And the power of the Lord was present to heal them” (Lk.) This statement is somewhat puzzling. Although grammatically the pronoun should apply to the “Pharisees and doctors of the law” referred to in the same sentence, probably it has general reference to the people assembled there. In that case the words may describe the forgiveness of sins, for Isaiah’s phrase: “and I should heal them” (6:10) has “and their sins should be forgiven them” as its equivalent (Mk. 4:12). This is made more probable by the strong ensuing emphasis on the Lord’s power to forgive sins (Lk. 5:20, 21, 23, 24).

None of the synoptists give any indication as to what the discourse of Jesus was about. Their main purpose and interest is in the miracle which ensued.

Eager for Help

There was in the town a young man stricken, helpless, utterly prostrated (Mt) with paralysis. Only by being carried could he come to Jesus for the help he so sorely needed. It cannot be said with certainty that the man’s disability was the direct result of an evil life, but the way in which Jesus went about curing him strongly suggests this (cp Jn. 5:14; Ps. 103:3). And locomotor ataxia, such as he apparently suffered from, might well have been brought on by syphilis in an acute form.

The reader is left wondering why he had not been brought to Jesus on the earlier occasion (Mk. 1:32) when the Lord spent an intensely busy evening healing “all that were diseased” in this very town. Was the onset of his affliction more recent than that? or had he felt too ashamed of his evil life to face this man of power and uncanny insight.

But now he was a different man. Greatly depressed and desperately repentant of his wickedness, he was convinced that Jesus could restore his health, both physically and spiritually. This is an easy inference from that later fact of sins forgiven. There is no forgiveness without faith (cp. also Lk. 7:48; 17:19; 18:42; 23:42, 43; Mk. 5:34).

Also, the man was blessed with friends who shared his faith. All that was needful was to appeal to Jesus as he taught in the synagogue. So these four loyal friends brought the man on his bed, but only to meet with vexatious discouragement — the place was full to the door, packed solid with others whom the fame of Jesus had brought together. There was even a crowd round the doorway (Mk). Others besides themselves had had to put up with disappointment and frustration. Persistently (so Luke implies) they pleaded and cajoled, but in vain. No access was to be had.

Desperate Measures

But they were not to be gainsaid. Was it the stricken man himself or one of his faithful four who hit on a desperate solution to their difficulty? One of them ran off to the beach and borrowed ropes from a fishing boat — without so much as ‘By your leave!’, judging from the character of the rest of the enterprise. Then they carried their helpless burden (with what difficulty!) up the outside stair of the synagogue on to the flat roof. Since they were familiar with the interior of the building, it was a simple matter to estimate the exact spot under which Jesus sat as he delivered his discourse. Then, whilst two of them slung ropes under the sick man’s mattress, the others set about prising up the tiles (Lk.).

Somewhere about this point the Lord’s preaching came to a sudden stop, interrupted first by the unaccustomed noises proceeding from the roof and then by a great shower of lath and plaster, as the dauntless four vigorously dug a man-sized hole through the roof. From their point of view payment for repairs afterwards was a matter of trivial concern compared with the dominating need to get the attention of Jesus who in a matter of seconds had become half smothered in dust. It was in his hair and his beard and was copiously sprinkled on his clothes — and also over the protesting venerable dignitaries who sat in the seats of prominence close by.

All eyes were now on the cause of the disturbance which had so effectively brought the service to a halt. It was a tricky business, lowering steadily and evenly that flimsy mattress with its helpless paralysed burden. With not a few disconcerting jerks, the sick man was let down, but at last the ropes went slack.

Sins Forgiven

Jesus looked into the invalid’s eyes. Then, before he was asked, he gave: “Take heart, child, your sins have been forgiven.” Only Jesus, knowing what was in man, could tell unerringly that this poor young fellow was as much distressed over the memory of his own evil living as he was on account of the physical retribution which had overtaken him.

Criticism

The words of absolution were heard by all in the synagogue, and immediately created a great sensation. Matthew’s characteristic “Behold” tells of an ominous change of atmosphere in that synagogue. The rabbis present, already well-armed with a strong critical prejudice against this Nazareth preacher who had never been to college, pounced on the implications behind this forgiveness of sins. Who had the right to forgive men their sins except Almighty God?: “To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses” (Dan. 9:9); “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions” (ls. 43:25). Whichever Scripture they had in mind, they were roundly condemned by the context, for in both instances there is exposure of the arrant apostasy of the nation and — in Isaiah — especially of the teachers (v. 27, 28), the very men who now sat before the Son of God acidly criticising him in their hearts (their minds).

There was no opportunity for them to get heads together and then publicly voice their censure. Individually, but as one man, they were formulating the same stricture: “Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God only?” In their eagerness to find fault they had surely forgotten that on each Day of Atonement the High Priest acted on God’s behalf to pronounce the forgiveness of sins not of one man only but of the entire nation.

Mark’s introductory phrase: “After some days”, may perhaps mean the end of the (religious) year (cp. Gen. 4:3 mg; 1 Sam. 1:3; 2:19 Heb.). And in that case Luke’s phrase: “on one of those days” most likely picks out the Feast of Trumpets (Lev. 23:24). If so, the Day of Atonement came on a few days later. Is this why Jesus said: “Thy sins are being forgiven”? And note: “We never saw it on this fashion” (i.e. on any Day of Atonement).

Yet their reasoning was not altogether at fault. If indeed a descendant of Aaron did have authority to forgive sins, it was only because this was specially delegated to him by God (1 Chr. 23:13; Num. 6:23; Lev. 9:22, 23; Dt. 10:8). The blunder of these scribes was their refusal to deem it possible that God might ever give that authority to another besides the high priest.

The words of Jesus implied that he was at least as close to God as the high priest was; they might even involve a claim to priesthood for himself. It seemed like barefaced effrontery. Blasphemy was not too strong a word. They knew of three ways in which a man might be guilty of blasphemy — he could ascribe to God acts or attributes unworthy of Him, he could deny God that which was His by right, or he could ascribe to some other (man or god) what certainly belonged to God. It was the last of these which crystallised out in their criticism. Yet what followed may have inclined some of them to think differently.

Rebuke

Jesus read these critics like a book. He knew completely and immediately (Mk. Lk.) what they were thinking. Another miracle! Already in their minds they were scheming (Mt.) how they could use this occasion to frame a charge against him. And Jesus knew it. His demonstration of that fact a moment later should have told them that here was no blasphemer.

“God only”, they had said. “God only” reads your hearts, Jeremiah had declared (17:10). Like Father, like Son!

And now Jesus left the paralytic to savour the warm comfort of the assurance of forgiveness whilst he turned on these men and exposed the evil of their minds: “Why think ye evil in your hearts?”. An honest answer would have revealed to these proud men the professional jealousy which effectually prevented them from judging him and his teaching without prejudice.

He proceeded to reason with them after the manner of their rabbinic schools. Which was easier to say to the helpless creature lying there on his mattress: Your sins are forgiven; or, Take up your bed and walk? Obviously, neither, so far as the actual speaking was concerned. But equally obviously the first, so far as superficial judgement goes. For when a man’s sins were pronounced forgiven, there was no open sign available by which to know whether or not this absolution was a wonderful divine truth or a grandiose meaningless verbal flourish. It could be a gesture which any mountebank might go in for. But the claim to heal an incurable malady must stand or fall by discernible physical results.

Yet in actual fact the “easier” proposition is the healing of the paralysis. For if a man claim authority to forgive the sins of others, sooner or later, he must demonstrate this divine right by holiness of character and closeness to God. And, sooner or later, he must go to Golgotha to achieve that forgiveness!

Son of Man

To reinforce his amazing claim Jesus now for the first time referred to himself as “Son of man”: “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins…” The only possible origin of this remarkable title is the ‘impressive prophecy in Daniel 7:13, 14: “Behold, one like unto the Son of man came, with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom…” The Lord’s own later authority for this identification is repeatedly clear and explicit (Mt.24:30; 26:64; Rev. 14:14; Acts 7:56).

This first use of the title in the healing of the paralytic is specially appropriate after the assurance of the forgiving of his sins. On the Day of Atonement, when the sins of the nation were expiated, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies with the blood of the sacrifice, but could do so only if shrouded in a dense cloud of incense, “that he die not” (Lev. 16:12, 13) in the presence of the Glory of the Lord. But in Daniel 7:13 the Son of man is represented as coming into the Divine Presence accompanied by the very Shekinah Glory which meant death to any other human high priest. If indeed the claim of Jesus to be this Son of man was understood by his learned audience, it could only exacerbate their accusation of blasphemy. That such a humble individual as this carpenter from Nazareth should baldly claim to be the one foretold in an august Messianic prophecy was barefaced presumption.

The Miracle

Yet the triple credentials were there before their eyes — in response to the imperatives: “Rise … take up… go…” a man known by many of them to be helpless and incurable rose from his mattress, bundled it up on his shoulder, and, with loud ejaculations of praise and thanksgiving on his lips (Lk), vigorously pushed his way out through the close-packed assembly, which half-an-hour earlier had blocked his access to Jesus.

“Go unto thy house”, Jesus bade him. This was to get the young man away from the evil overbearing influence of the critics. It was also in accordance with the policy he was seeking to follow of limiting the sensational talk about his miracles as much as possible.

And, sorely tempted as the man must have been to stay and be a centre of excited discussion, he obeyed, and went, glorifying God: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases…” (Ps. 103:2, 3; cp. Jas. 5:15). “Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted. Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat: and they draw near unto the gates of death. Then they cry unto the lord in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses. He sent his Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men” (Ps. 107:17-21).

The Effect on the Crowd

This they did in the synagogue that day: “They were all amazed, and glorified God, and were filled with fear, (Lk. 7:16, Mk. 4:41) saying, We have seen strange (paradox) things today.” Moses had pronounced against a nation of sinners: “Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful (s.w.) and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance” (Dt. 28:59). But now they witnessed the removing of these plagues and sicknesses in a way yet more wonderful. They also glorified God “for giving such authority to men”. Although the reference was clearly to the authority of Jesus both to cure and to forgive, Matthew uses a plural here — presumably to prepare the minds of his readers for an extension of such authority to his Lord’s men in later days (16:19; 18:18; Lk. 10:17).

The people were also “filled with fear” (Mt. Lk.). It is a strange phrase for such a context. Perhaps they took it as almost certain that the confrontation between Jesus and rabbis was bound to blow up into a much bigger row.

Or is it possible that it was specially the scribes who feared? for if they had made an enemy of such a man as this, might he perhaps use his amazing powers to switch that paralysis to themselves?

A Miracle, A Wonder and a Sign

Time and again three different words are used to describe the marvellous works of Christ: “miracles (powers), wonders, and signs” (e.g. Acts 2:22). This healing of the paralytic was certainly a “power”, imparting power to one who was bereft of it: “he took up the bed, and went forth before them all.” It was a “wonder”: “they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.”

But, most important of all, it was a “sign”. Here was a man suffering from the results of his

own sin in such a way that his will was left free, but yet he lacked the power to make his body respond to his will: “What I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do … to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do … O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of his death?” (Rom. 7:15-25). The deliverance, involving full forgiveness of sins and the imparting of new vigour and a God-centred life, comes from the Son of man: “I thank God (that I am delivered) through Jesus Christ my Lord.” The man went out of the synagogue triumphantly carrying away that which had been the open sign of his sin and helplessness.

The miracle proclaimed Jesus as the true High Priest pronouncing with authority the present forgiveness of sins. But to receive this blessing the impotent must come to him, even if it means the break up of the ancient Law and Traditions, or the unceremonious disintegration of Orthodoxy and Error. And even then he needs help — the matchless dependable aid of four good friends, called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Relying on these he can be set in the very presence of Christ, and receive all the blessing which he seeks.

“Son, be of good cheer!”

Notes: Mark 2:1-12

5.	When Jesus saw their faith. The pronoun certainly includes the paralysed man, for without faith in a successful outcome he would assuredly have forbidden this decidedly precarious enterprise. Note here the power of the faith and intercession of others: Mt. 8:13; 9:32; 15:28; 17:14-18; Lk. 8:50; Jn. 4:49; Josh. 6:17; Gen. 7:1; 18:32; 19:12; Acts.27:24.
	Son: “child”. But Lk has “Man”. How did Jesus address him? Here is one of the multitude of examples showing that the inspiration of the gospels covers the essential meaning, but not necessarily the exact words spoken.
7.	RV: Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth follows an inferior textual reading. These men who spoke were the blasphemers! In ch. 2, 3 Mk. gives prominence to the build-up of official opposition to Jesus: 2:7, 16, 18, 24; 3:2, 6, 22. “This” is used about Jesus in a spirit of contempt: “this fellow”; Mt. 9:3; 12:24; 13:55; 21:10; 26:61, 71; 27:47; Lk. 7:39; 15:2; 23:35: Jn. 6:52; 7:15; 11:37; Acts. 6:14.
8.	Perceived in his spirit. In his mind? or, by his Spirit? (but not by hearing what they said). For many examples of this, see Study 213, Notes.
11.	Take up thy bed, and go... So addressed, most paralytics would have said: “But I can’t!”
12.	They glorified God. But it didn’t last: Mt. 11:23.

Luke 5:17-26

17.	Judaea and Jerusalem. Here is indirect evidence of the southern ministry described in Jn. 2, 3, 4.
	To heal them. The WH reading: “him”, is unwarranted (as also is RV), and is indeed quite silly. But to heal whom? The plural covers more than the paralytic.
25.	Glorifying God. Not “glorifying Jesus”. Isn’t this remarkable?
26.	Strange things. The link with Dt. 28:59 (see text) suggests a parabolic reference of this incident to the spiritual healing of Israel still to come. The word for “paralytic, palsied” occurs also in Dt. 32:36 LXX, a prophecy about divine retribution on Israel (and also in ls. 35:3). The break-up of the synagogue roof and the vigorous departure from the synagogue were not only a sign to Jewry hearing the 1st-century gospel but also will have further fulfilment before long.

Matthew 9:2-8

4.	Their thoughts. The same word in Acts. 17:29, Heb. 4:12 suggests “their scheming (against him)”.
5.	Whether is easier? The idea behind the Greek word is “less trouble”. Note how in Jas. 5:14, 15 forgiveness and healing go together.
6.	Hath power on earth (Mk. Lk. also). In Dan. 7:13, 27, in both earth and heaven. The chapter (LXX) uses this word “power, dominion”, 5 times about the Son of man. Note how the Lord breaks off his speech in this verse.