The New Daily Study Bible

The Gospel of

Matthew

Volume 11

William Barclay

© The William Barclay Estate, 1975, 2001

Originally published in 1957 as The Daily StudyBible: The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 2 bySaint Andrew Press. 121 George Street,Edinburgh EH2 4YN

Revised and updated by Saint Andrew Press,2001

Published in the United States by Westminster John Knox Press Louisville, Kentucky

All rights reserved. No part of this book may bereproduced or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying, recording, or by any informationstorage or retrieval system, without permission in

writing from the publisher. For information,address Westminster John Knox Press, 100Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396.

The Scripture quotations contained herein arefrom The New Revised Standard Version of theBible. Anglicized Edition, copyright © 1989,1995 by the division of Christian Education of theNational Council of the Churches of Christ in theUnited States of America, and are used bypermission. All rights reserved.

Cover design by McColl Productions Ltd., bycourtesy of Saint Andrew Press

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

05 06 07 08 09 10 — 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

A catalog card for this book is available at the Library of Congress.

ISBN 0-664-22492-X

SERIES FOREWORD

(by Ronnie Barclay)

My father always had a great love for the Englishlanguage and its literature. As a student at theUniversity of Glasgow, he won a prize in theEnglish class - and I have no doubt that he couldhave become a Professor of English instead ofDivinity and Biblical Criticism. In a pre-computerage, he had a mind like a computer that couldstore vast numbers of quotations, illustrations,anecdotes and allusions; and, more remarkablystill, he could retrieve them at will. The editor ofthis revision has, where necessary, corrected andattributed the vast majority of these quotationswith considerable skill and has enhanced ourpleasure as we read quotations from Plato to T. S.Eliot.

There is another very welcome improvement inthe new text. My mother was one of five sisters,and my grandmother was a commanding figure asthe Presbyterian minister's wife in a small villagein Ayrshire in Scotland. She ran that smallcommunity very efficiently, and I always felt thatmy father, surrounded by so many women, wasmore than somewhat overawed by it all! I am surethat this is the reason why his use of Englishtended to be dominated by the words 'man', 'men'and so on, with the result that it sounded verymale-orientated. Once again, the editor has veryskilfully improved my father's English and madethe text much more readable for all of us byamending the often one-sided language.

It is a well-known fact that William Barclaywrote at breakneck speed and never correctedanything once it was on paper - he took greatpride in mentioning this at every possibleopportunity! This revision, in removing repetition

and correcting the inevitable errors that hadslipped through, has produced a text free from allthe tell-tale signs of very rapid writing. It is withgreat pleasure that I commend this revision toreaders old and new in the certainty that WilliamBarclay speaks even more clearly to us all withhis wonderful appeal in this new version of hismuch-loved Daily Study Bible.

Ronnie Barclay Bedfordshire

2001

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

(by William Barclay, from the 1975edition)

The Daily Study Bible series has always had oneaim - to convey the results of scholarship to theordinary reader. A. S. Peake delighted in thesaying that he was a 'theological middle-man', andI would be happy if the same could be said of mein regard to these volumes. And yet the primaryaim of the series has never been academic. Itcould be summed up in the famous words ofRichard of Chichester's prayer - to enable menand women 'to know Jesus Christ more clearly, tolove him more dearly, and to follow him morenearly'.

It is all of twenty years since the first volume ofThe Daily Study Bible was published. The series

was the brain-child of the late Rev. AndrewMcCosh, MA, STM, the then Secretary andManager of the Committee on Publications of theChurch of Scotland, and of the late Rev. R. G.Macdonald, OBE, MA, DD, its Convener.

It is a great joy to me to know that all throughthe years The Daily Study Bible has been used athome and abroad, by minister, by missionary, bystudent and by layman, and that it has beentranslated into many different languages. Now,after so many printings, it has become necessaryto renew the printer's type and the opportunity hasbeen taken to restyle the books, to correct someerrors in the text and to remove some referenceswhich have become outdated. At the same time,the Biblical quotations within the text have beenchanged to use the Revised Standard Version, butmy own original translation of the New Testamentpassages has been retained at the beginning of

each daily section.

There is one debt which I would be sadlylacking in courtesy if I did not acknowledge. Thework of revision and correction has been doneentirely by the Rev. James Martin, MA, BD,Minister of High Carntyne Church, Glasgow. Hadit not been for him this task would never havebeen undertaken, and it is impossible for me tothank him enough for the selfless toil he has putinto the revision of these books.

It is my prayer that God may continue to useThe Daily Study Bible to enable men better tounderstand His word.

William Barclay Glasgow 1975

(Published in the 1975 edition)

GENERAL FOREWORD

(by John Drane)

I only met William Barclay once, not long afterhis retirement from the chair of Biblical Criticismat the University of Glasgow. Of course I hadknown about him long before that, not leastbecause his theological passion - the Bible - wasalso a significant formative influence in my ownlife and ministry. One of my most vivid memoriesof his influence goes back to when I was workingon my own doctoral research in the NewTestament. It was summer 1971, and I was aleader on a mission team working in the north-eastof Scotland at the same time as Barclay's BairdLectures were being broadcast on nationaltelevision. One night, a young Ph.D. scientist whowas interested in Christianity, but still unsure

about some things, came to me and announced:'I've just been watching William Barclay on TV.He's convinced me that I need to be a Christian;when can I be baptized?' That kind of thing did nothappen every day. So how could it be thatBarclay's message was so accessible to peoplewith no previous knowledge or experience of theChristian faith?

I soon realised that there was no magicingredient that enabled this apparently ordinaryprofessor to be a brilliant communicator. Hissecret lay in who he was, his own sense ofidentity and purpose, and above all his integrity inbeing true to himself and his faith. Born in the farnorth of Scotland, he was brought up inMotherwell, a steel-producing town south ofGlasgow where his family settled when he wasonly five, and this was the kind of place where hefelt most at home. Though his association with theUniversity of Glasgow provided a focus for his

life over almost fifty years, from his first day as astudent in 1925 to his retirement from the facultyin 1974, he never became an ivory-toweracademic, divorced from the realities of life in thereal world. On the contrary, it was hiscommitment to the working-class culture ofindustrial Clydeside that enabled him to makesuch a lasting contribution not only to the world ofthe university but also to the life of the Church.

He was ordained to the ministry of the Churchof Scotland at the age of twenty-six, but was oftenmisunderstood even by other Christians. I doubtthat William Barclay would ever have chosenwords such as 'missionary' or 'evangelist' todescribe his own ministry, but he accomplishedwhat few others have done, as he took thetraditional Presbyterian emphasis on spirituality-through-learning and transformed it into a mosteffective vehicle for evangelism. His ownprimary interest was in the history and language of

the New Testament, but William Barclay wasnever only a historian or literary critic. Hisconstant concern was to explore how theseancient books, and the faith of which they spoke,could continue to be relevant to people of his owntime. If the Scottish churches had known how tocapitalize on his enormous popularity in the mediaduring the 1960s and 1970s, they might easilyhave avoided much of the decline of subsequentyears.

Connecting the Bible to life has never been theway to win friends in the world of academictheology, and Barclay could undoubtedly havemade things easier for himself had he beenprepared to be a more conventional academic. Buthe was too deeply rooted in his own culture - andtoo seriously committed to the gospel - for that.He could see little purpose in a belief system thatwas so wrapped up in arcane and complicated

terminology that it was accessible only to experts.Not only did he demystify Christian theology, buthe also did it for working people, addressing thekind of things that mattered to ordinary folks intheir everyday lives. In doing so, he alsochallenged the elitism that has often been deeplyingrained in the twin worlds of academic theologyand the Church, with their shared assumption thatpopular culture is an inappropriate vehicle forserious thinking. Professor Barclay can hardlyhave been surprised when his predilection forwriting books for the masses - not to mentiontalking to them on television - was questioned byhis peers and even occasionally dismissed asbeing 'unscholarly' or insufficiently 'academic'.That was all untrue, of course, for his work wassoundly based in reliable scholarship and his ownextensive knowledge of the original languages ofthe Bible. But like One many centuries before him(and unlike most of his peers, in both Church and

academy), 'the common people heard him gladly'(Mark 12:37), which no doubt explains why hiswritings are still inspirational - and why it is aparticular pleasure for me personally to commendthem to a new readership in a new century.

John Drane University of Aberdeen

2001

EDITOR'S PREFACE

(by Linda Foster)

When the first volume of the original Daily BibleReadings, which later became The Daily StudyBible (the commentary on Acts), was published in1953, no one could have anticipated or envisagedthe revolution in the use of language which was totake place in the last quarter of the twentiethcentury. Indeed, when the first revised edition, towhich William Barclay refers in his GeneralIntroduction, was completed in 1975, such arevolution was still waiting in the wings. But atthe beginning of the twenty-first century, inclusivelanguage and the concept of political correctnessare well-established facts of life. It has thereforebeen with some trepidation that the editing of thisunique and much-loved text has been undertaken

in producing The New Daily Study Bible.Inevitably, the demands of the new language haveresulted in the loss of some of Barclay's mostsonorous phrases, perhaps best remembered in theoften-repeated words 'many a man'. Nonetheless,this revision is made in the conviction thatWilliam Barclay, the great communicator, wouldhave welcomed it. In the discussion of Matthew9:16-17 ('The Problem of the New Idea'), heaffirmed the value of language that has stood thetest of time and in which people have 'foundcomfort and put their trust', but he also spoke of'living in a changing and expanding world' andquestioned the wisdom of reading God's word totwentieth-century men and women in ElizabethanEnglish. It is the intention of this new edition toheed that warning and to bring William Barclay'smessage of God's word to readers of the twenty-first century in the language of their own time.

In the editorial process, certain decisions have

been made in order to keep a balance betweenthat new language and the familiar Barclay style.Quotations from the Bible are now taken from theNew Revised Standard Version, but WilliamBarclay's own translation of individual passageshas been retained throughout. Where the newversion differs from the text on which Barclayoriginally commented, because of the existence ofan alternative reading, the variant text is indicatedby square brackets. I have made no attempt toguess what Barclay would have said about theNRSV text; his commentary still refers to theAuthorized (King James) and Revised StandardVersions of the Bible, but I believe that theinclusive language of the NRSV considerablyassists the flow of the discussion.

For similar reasons, the dating conventions ofBC and AD - rather than the more recent andincreasingly used BCE (before the common era)and CE (common era) - have been retained.

William Barclay took great care to explain themeanings of words and phrases and scholarlypoints, but it has not seemed appropriate to selectnew terms and make such explanations on hisbehalf.

One of the most difficult problems to solve hasconcerned monetary values. Barclay had his ownsystem for translating the coinage of NewTestament times into British currency. Over theyears, these equivalent values have becomeincreasingly out of date, and often the force of thepoint being made has been lost or diminished.There is no easy way to bring these equivalents upto date in a way that will continue to make sense,particularly when readers come from both sidesof the Atlantic. I have therefore followed the onlyknown yardstick that gives any feel for the valuesconcerned, namely that a denarius was a day'swage for a working man, and I have made

alterations to the text accordingly.

One of the striking features of The Daily StudyBible is the range of quotations from literature andhymnody that are used by way of illustration.Many of these passages appeared withoutidentification or attribution, and for the newedition I have attempted wherever possible toprovide sources and authors. In the same way,details have been included about scholars andother individuals cited, by way of context andexplanation, and I am most grateful to ProfessorJohn Drane for his assistance in discoveringinformation about some of the more obscure orunfamiliar characters. It is clear that readers useThe Daily Study Bible in different ways. Somelook up particular passages while others workthrough the daily readings in a more systematicway. The descriptions and explanations aretherefore not offered every time an individual ismentioned (in order to avoid repetition that some

may find tedious), but I trust that the informationcan be discovered without too much difficulty.

Finally, the 'Further Reading' lists at the end ofeach volume have been removed. Many newcommentaries and individual studies have beenadded to those that were the basis of WilliamBarclay's work, and making a selection from thatever-increasing catalogue is an impossible task. Itis nonetheless my hope that the exploration thatbegins with these volumes of The New DailyStudy Bible will go on in the discovery of newwriters and new books.

Throughout the editorial process, manyconversations have taken place - conversationswith the British and American publishers, andwith those who love the books and find in themboth information and inspiration. RonnieBarclay's contribution to this revision of hisfather's work has been invaluable. But one

conversation has dominated the work. and that hasbeen a conversation with William Barclay himselfthrough the text. There has been a real sense oflistening to his voice in all the questioning and inthe searching for new words to convey themeaning of that text. The aim of The New DailyStudy Bible is to make clear his message, so thatthe distinctive voice, which has spoken to somany in past years, may continue to be heard forgenerations to come.

Linda Foster London 2001

INTRODUCTION

(by John Drane)

Matthew's gospel was written as an instructionmanual for new converts to the Christian faith -especially those of Jewish background who werewondering how their long spiritual heritage mightconnect with their faith in Jesus as Messiah.Consequently, it touches on many aspects ofcommunity life, explaining the beliefs andlifestyle that should characterize the followers ofJesus. It is almost sermonic in style, no doubtbecause it had all been rehearsed in meetings ofthe Christian community long before it waswritten down.

William Barclay was particularly good atexpounding this kind of material, because it gavehim a chance to comment on the Church in his own

day. Matthew is far more strident than the othergospels in condemning Jewish religious leaders,and even in his choice of titles for such passagesBarclay jumps instantly across the centuries to theChurch he knew. 'Making Religion a Burden', 'TheReligion of Ostentation', 'The Lost Sense ofProportion' and 'Disguised Decay' sum up hiscomments on the Pharisees (chapter 23), throughwhom he then lays into church leaders of his owngeneration.

Few would question Barclay's analysis of thestate of the Church in the west - especially inview of the chronic decline that has set in since hewrote - but his emphasis on contemporaryapplication does sometimes mean that he ignoresother equally valid questions. For example, didMatthew go beyond valid criticism of destructivereligious scruples and engage in a bit of anti-semitism - and if he did, how does that relate tothe Church's apparent silence at the time of the

Holocaust?

Barclay never says, perhaps because in his daythese questions were only beginning to beaddressed in society at large. Nor does he ask ifthe 'Great Commission' of 28:16-20 was given byJesus in the first place, or if it might have inspiredthe later imperialistic expansion of westernempires in the name of Christ. I mention thesethings, not to criticize Barclay - who could onlybe a person of his own time - but to highlightsome of the ways in which interpreting the Biblehas become infinitely more complex for us than itwas for him. Yet in addressing these newerquestions, we must still begin with the text, itslanguage and original meanings and intentions,and in close textual study Barclay is still as gooda guide as ever he was.

John Drane

University of Aberdeen 2001

THE SIX ACCENTS IN THEVOICE OF JESUS

Matthew 11 is a chapter in which Jesus isspeaking all the time; and, as he speaks todifferent people about different things, we hearthe accent of his voice vary and change. It will beof the greatest interest to look one by one at thesix accents in the voice of Jesus.

THE ACCENT OF CONFIDENCE

Matthew 11:1-6

And when Jesus had completed hisinstructions to the twelve disciples, heleft there to go on teaching and to go onmaking his proclamation in their towns.

When John had heard in prison aboutthe things that the Anointed One of Godwas doing, he sent to him and asked himthrough his disciples: 'Are you the onewho is come, or must we go onexpecting another?' 'Go back,' saidJesus, 'and give John the report of whatyou are hearing and seeing. The blindare having their sight restored, and thelame are walking; the lepers are beingcleansed, and the deaf are hearing; the

dead are being raised up, and the poorare receiving the good news. Andblessed is the man who does not takeoffence at me.'

The career of John had ended in disaster. It wasnot John's habit to soften the truth for anyone; andhe was incapable of seeing evil without rebukingit. He had spoken too fearlessly and too definitelyfor his own safety.

Herod Antipas of Galilee had paid a visit to hisbrother in Rome. During that visit, he seduced hisbrother's wife. He came home again, dismissedhis own wife and married the sister-in-law whomhe had lured away from her husband. Publicly andsternly, John rebuked Herod. It was never safe torebuke a despot, and Herod took his revenge; Johnwas thrown into the dungeons of the fortress ofMachaerus in the mountains near the Dead Sea.

For any human being, that would have been aterrible fate; but for John the Baptist, it was worsethan for most. He was a child of the desert; all hislife he had lived in the wide-open spaces, withthe clean wind on his face and the spacious vaultof the sky for his roof. And now he was confinedwithin the four narrow walls of an undergrounddungeon. For someone like John, who had perhapsnever lived in a house, this must have been agony.

In Carlisle Castle, there is a little cell. Once,long ago, a border chieftain was imprisoned inthat cell and left there for years. In that cell thereis one little window, which is placed too high foranyone standing on the floor to look out. On theledge of the window, there are two depressionsworn away in the stone. They are the marks of thehands of that border chieftain, the places where,day after day, he lifted himself up by his hands tolook out on the green valleys across which hewould never ride again.

John must have been like that: and there isnothing to wonder at, and still less to criticize, inthe fact that questions began to take shape inJohn's mind. He had been so sure that Jesus wasthe one who was to come. That was one of themost common titles of the Messiah for whom theJews waited with such eager expectation (Mark11:9; Luke 13:35, 19:38; Hebrews 10:37; Psalm118:26). Those who face death cannot afford tohave doubts; they must be sure; and so John senthis disciples to Jesus with the question: 'Are youhe who is to come, or shall we look for another?'There are many possible things behind thatquestion.

(1) Some people think that the question wasasked, not for John's sake at all, but for the sakeof his disciples. It may be that when John and hisdisciples talked in prison, the disciplesquestioned whether Jesus was really he who was

to come, and John's answer was: 'If you have anydoubts, go and see what Jesus is doing and yourdoubts will be at an end.' If that is the case, it wasa good answer. If anyone begins to argue with usabout Jesus, and to question his supremacy, thebest of all answers is not to counter argument withargument, but to say: 'Give your life to him; andsee what he can do with it.' The supreme argumentfor Christ is not intellectual debate, butexperience of his changing power.

(2) It may be that John's question was thequestion of impatience. His message had been amessage of doom (Matthew 3:7-12). The axe wasat the root of the tree: the winnowing process - theseparation of grain from chaff, good from bad -had begun; the divine fire of cleansing judgmenthad begun to burn. It may be that John wasthinking: 'When is Jesus going to start on action?When is he going to blast his enemies? When isthe day of God's holy destruction to begin?' It may

well be that John was impatient with Jesusbecause he was not what he expected him to be.Those who wait for savage wrath will always bedisappointed in Jesus, but those who look for lovewill never find their hopes defeated.

(3) Some have thought that this question wasnothing less than the question of dawning faithand hope. He had seen Jesus at the baptism; inprison he had thought more and more about him:and the more he thought, the more certain he wasthat Jesus was he who was to come; and now heput all his hopes to the test in this one question. Itmay be that this is not the question of a despairingand an impatient man, but the question of one inwhose eyes the light of hope shone, and whoasked for nothing but confirmation of that hope.

Then came Jesus' answer; and in his answer wehear the accent of confidence. Jesus' answer toJohn's disciples was: 'Go back, and don't tell John

what I am saying; tell him what I am doing. Don'ttell John what I am claiming; tell him what ishappening.' Jesus demanded that there should beapplied to him the most acid of tests, that ofdeeds. Jesus was the only person who could everdemand without qualification to be judged not bywhat he said but by what he did. The challenge ofJesus is still the same. He does not so much say'Listen to what I have to tell you' as 'Look what Ican do for you; see what I have done for others.'

The things that Jesus did in Galilee he stilldoes. In him, those who were blind to the truthabout themselves, about their neighbours andabout God have their eyes opened; in him, thosewhose feet were never strong enough to remain inthe right way are strengthened; in him, those whowere tainted with the disease of sin are cleansed;in him, those who were deaf to the voice ofconscience and of God begin to listen; in him,those who were dead and powerless in sin are

raised to newness and loveliness of life; in him,the poorest people inherit the riches of the love ofGod.

Finally comes the warning: 'Blessed is he whotakes no offence at me.' This was spoken to John:and it was spoken because John had only graspedhalf the truth. John preached the gospel of divineholiness with divine destruction; Jesus preachedthe gospel of divine holiness with divine love. SoJesus says to John: 'Maybe I am not doing thethings you expected me to do. But the powers ofevil are being defeated not by irresistible power,but by unanswerable love.' Sometimes people canbe offended at Jesus because Jesus cuts acrosstheir ideas of what religion should be.

THE ACCENT OF ADMIRATION

Matthew 11:7-11

When they were going away, Jesusbegan to speak to the crowds aboutJohn. 'What did you go out to the desertto see?' he said. 'Was it a reed shakenby the wind? If it was not that, what didyou go out to see? Was it to see a manclothed in luxurious clothes? Look you,the people who wear luxurious clothesare in kings' houses. If it was not that,what did you go out to see? Was it tosee a prophet? Indeed it was, I tell you,and something beyond a prophet. This ishe of whom it stands written: "Lookyou, I am sending before you mymessenger, who will prepare your way

before you." This is the truth I tell you -among those born of women no greaterfigure than John the Baptizer has everemerged in history. But the least in thekingdom of heaven is greater than he is.'

There are few to whom Jesus paid so tremendousa tribute as he did to John the Baptizer. He beginsby asking the people what they went into thedesert to see when they streamed out to John.

(1) Did they go out to see a reed shaken by thewind? That can mean one of two things, (a) Downby the banks of the Jordan, the long cane grassgrew; and the phrase a shaken reed was a kind ofproverb for the commonest of sights. When thepeople flocked to see John, were they going out tosee something as ordinary as the reeds swaying inthe wind on the Jordan's banks? (b) A shaken reedcan mean a weak waverer, one who could no

more stand firm against the winds of danger than areed by the river's bank could stand straight whenthe wind blew.

Whatever else the people flocked out to thedesert to see, they certainly did not go to see anordinary person. The very fact that they did go outin their crowds showed how extraordinary Johnwas, for no one would cross the street, let alonejourney into the desert, to see a commonplacekind of person. Whatever else they went out tosee, they did not go to see a weak or indecisiveperson. Pliable people do not end in prison asmartyrs for the truth. John was neither as ordinaryas a shaken reed, nor as spineless as the reedwhich sways with every breeze.

(2) Did they go out to see a man clothed in softand luxurious garments? Such a man would be acourtier; and, whatever else John was, he was nota courtier. He knew nothing of the courtier's art of

the flattery of kings; he followed the dangerousoccupation of telling the truth to kings. John wasthe ambassador of God, not the courtier of Herod.

(3) Did they go out to see a prophet? Prophetsare the forthtellers of the truth of God. Prophetsare those who are in God's confidence. 'Surely theLord God does nothing, without revealing hissecret to his servants the prophets' (Amos 3:7).Prophets are two things - they are people with amessage from God, and they are people with thecourage to deliver that message. Prophets arepeople with God's wisdom in their minds, God'struth on their lips and God's courage in theirhearts. And most certainly John had all thosecharacteristics.

(4) But John was something more than aprophet. The Jews had, and still have, one settledbelief. They believed that before the Messiahcame, Elijah would return to herald his coming.

To this day, when the Jews celebrate the PassoverFeast, a vacant chair is left for Elijah. 'Lo, I willsend you the prophet Elijah before the great andterrible day of the Lord comes' (Malachi 4:5).Jesus declared that John was nothing less than thedivine herald whose duty and privilege it was toannounce the coming of the Messiah. John wasnothing less than the herald of God, and no onecould have a greater task than that.

(5) Such was the tremendous tribute of Jesus toJohn, spoken with the accent of admiration. Therehad never been a greater figure in all history; andthen comes the startling sentence: 'But the least inthe kingdom of heaven is greater than he.'

Here, there is one quite general truth. WithJesus, there came into the world somethingabsolutely new. The prophets were great: theirmessage was precious; but with Jesus thereemerged something still greater, and a message

still more wonderful. The scholar C. G.Montefiore, himself a Jew and not a Christian,writes: 'Christianity does mark a new era inreligious history and in human civilization. Whatthe world owes to Jesus and to Paul is immense;things can never be, and men can never think, thesame as things were, and as men thought, beforethese two great men lived.' Even a non-Christianfreely admits that things could never be the samenow that Jesus has come.

But what was it that John lacked? What is it thatthe Christian has that John could never have? Theanswer is simple and fundamental. John hadnever seen the cross. Therefore one thing Johncould never know - the full revelation of the loveof God. The holiness of God he might know; thejustice of God he might declare; but the love ofGod in all its fullness he could never know. Wehave only to listen to the message of John and themessage of Jesus. No one could call John's

message a gospel, good news; it was basically athreat of destruction. It took Jesus and his cross toshow to men and women the length, breadth, depthand height of the love of God. It is a most amazingthing that it is possible for the humblest Christianto know more about God than the greatest of theOld Testament prophets. Those who have seen thecross have seen the heart of God in a way that noone who lived before the cross could ever see it.Indeed, the least in the kingdom of heaven isgreater than anyone who went before.

So John had the destiny which sometimes fallsto an individual; he had the task of pointing menand women to a greatness into which he himselfdid not enter. It is given to some people to be thesignposts of God. They point to a new ideal and anew greatness which others will enter into, butinto which they will not come. It is very seldomthat any great reformer is the first person to toilfor the reform with which his or her name is

connected. Many who went before glimpsed theglory, often laboured for it, and sometimes diedfor it.

Someone tells how from the windows of hishouse every evening he used to watch the lamp-lighter go along the streets lighting the lamps -and the lamp-lighter was himself a blind man.He was bringing to others the light which hehimself would never see. We should never bediscouraged in the church or in any other walk oflife, if the dreams we have dreamed and for whichwe have toiled are never worked out before theend of the day. God needed John: God needs hissignposts who can point others on the way,although they themselves cannot ever reach thegoal.

VIOLENCE AND THE KINGDOM

Matthew 11:12-15

'From the days of John the Baptist untilnow, the kingdom of heaven is taken bystorm, and the violent take it by force.For up to John all the prophets and thelaw spoke with the voice of prophecy;and, if you are willing to accept thefact, this is Elijah who was destined tocome. He who has ears to hear let himhear.'

IN verse 12, there is a very difficult saying: Thekingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and theviolent take it by force.' Luke has this saying inanother form (Luke 16:16): 'Since then the goodnews of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and

everyone tries to enter it by force.' It is clear thatat some time Jesus said something in whichviolence and the kingdom were connected,something which was a dark and a difficultsaying, which no one at the time fully understood.Certainly Luke and Matthew understood it indifferent ways.

Luke says that people storm their way into thekingdom; he means, as the New Testament scholarJames Denney said, that the 'kingdom of heaven isnot for the well-meaning but for the desperate',that no one drifts into the kingdom, that thekingdom only opens its doors to those who areprepared to make as great an effort to get into it aspeople do when they storm a city.

Matthew says that from the time of John untilnow the kingdom of heaven suffers violence andthe violent take it by force. The very form of thatexpression seems to look back over a

considerable time. It indeed sounds much morelike a comment of Matthew than a saying of Jesus.It sounds as if Matthew was saying: 'From thedays of John, who was thrown into prison, rightdown to our own times, the kingdom of heavenhas suffered violence and persecution at the handsof violent people.'

It is likely that we will get the full meaning ofthis difficult saying by putting together therecollection of Luke and Matthew. What Jesusmay well have said is: 'Always my kingdom willsuffer violence; there will always be antagonismand people will try to break up the kingdom, andsnatch it away and destroy it: and therefore onlythose who are desperately in earnest, only those inwhom the violence of devotion matches anddefeats the violence of persecution, will in theend enter into it.' It may well be that this saying ofJesus was originally at one and the same time awarning of violence to come and a challenge to

produce a devotion which would be even strongerthan the violence.

It seems strange to find in verse 13 that the lawis said to speak with the voice of prophecy; but itwas the law itself which confidently declared thatthe voice of prophecy would not die. 'The Lordyour God will raise up for you a prophet like mefrom among your own people.' 'I will raise up forthem a prophet like you from among their ownpeople; I will put my words in the mouth of theprophet' (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18). It was becausehe broke the law, as they saw it, that the orthodoxJews hated Jesus: but, if they had only had eyes tosee it, both the law and the prophets pointed tohim.

Once again, Jesus tells the people that John isthe herald and the forerunner whom they haveawaited so long - if they are willing to accept thefact. There is all the tragedy of the human

situation in that last phrase. The old proverb has itthat you can take a horse to the water, but youcannot make it drink. God can send his messengerbut men and women can refuse to recognize him,and God can send his truth but they can refuse tosee it. God's revelation is powerless without ourresponse. That is why Jesus ends with the appealthat those who have ears should use them to hear.

THE ACCENT OF SORROWFULREBUKE

Matthew 11:16-19

'To what will I compare thisgeneration? It is like children in themarket place, calling to theircompanions, and saying: "We piped toyou and you did not dance; we wailedand you did not mourn." For John cameneither eating nor drinking, and theysay: "The man is mad." The Son of Mancame eating and drinking, and they say:"Look you, a gluttonous man and awine-drinker, the friend of tax-collectors and sinners." But wisdom isshown to be right by her deeds.'

Jesus was saddened by the sheer perversity ofhuman nature. To him, men and women seemed tobe like children playing in the village square. Onegroup said to the other: 'Come on and let's play atweddings,' and the others said: 'We don't feel likebeing happy today.' Then the first group said: 'Allright; come on and let's play at funerals,' and theothers said: 'We don't feel like being sad today.'They were what the Scots call contrary. Nomatter what was suggested, they did not want todo it; and no matter what was offered, they founda fault in it.

John came, living in the desert, fasting anddespising food, isolated from the society ofothers; and they said of him: "The man is mad tocut himself off from human society and humanpleasures like that.' Jesus came, mixing with allkinds of people, sharing in their sorrows and theirjoys, keeping company with them in their times ofjoy; and they said of him: 'He is a socialite; he is

a party-goer; he is the friend of outsiders withwhom no decent person would have anything todo.' They called John's self-denial madness: andthey called Jesus' sociability laxness of morals.They could find grounds for criticism either way.

The plain fact is that when people do not wantto listen to the truth, they will easily enough findan excuse for not listening to it. They do not eventry to be consistent in their criticisms; they willcriticize the same person, and the same institution,from quite opposite grounds. If people aredetermined to make no response, they will remainstubbornly unresponsive no matter what invitationis made to them. Grown men and women can bevery like spoiled children who refuse to play nomatter what the game is.

Then comes Jesus' final sentence in thissection: 'Wisdom is shown to be right by herdeeds.' The ultimate verdict lies not with the

cantankerous and perverse critics but with events.The Jews might criticize John for his lonelyisolation, but John had moved the hearts of menand women to God as they had not been movedfor centuries; the Jews might criticize Jesus formixing too much in ordinary life and withordinary people, but in him people were finding anew life and a new goodness and a new power tolive as they ought and a new access to God.

It would be well if we were to stop judgingpeople and churches by our own prejudices andperversities, and if we were to begin to givethanks for any person and any church who canbring people nearer to God, even if their methodsare not the methods which suit us.

THE ACCENT OFHEARTBROKEN

CONDEMNATION

Matthew 11:20-4

Then he began to reproach the cities inwhich the most numerous of his deedsof power had been done, because theydid not repent. 'Alas for you Chorazin!Alas for you Bethsaida! For, if thedeeds of power which happened in youhad happened in Tyre and Sidon, theywould have repented in sackcloth andashes long ago. But I tell you, it will beeasier for Tyre and Sidon in the day ofjudgment than for you! And youCapernaum, is it not true that you havebeen lifted up to heaven? You will go

down to Hell, for, if the deeds of powerwhich happened in you had happenedamong the men of Sodom, they wouldhave survived to this day. But I tell you- it will be easier for the land of themen of Sodom in the day of judgmentthan for you.'

WHEN John came to the end of his gospel, hewrote a sentence in which he indicated howimpossible it was ever to write a completeaccount of the life of Jesus: 'But there are alsomany other things that Jesus did; if every one ofthem were written down, I suppose that the worlditself could not contain the books that would bewritten' (John 21:25). This passage of Matthew isone of the proofs of that saying.

Chorazin was probably a town an hour'sjourney north of Capernaum; Bethsaida was a

fishing village on the west bank of Jordan, just asthe river entered the northern end of the lake.Clearly the most tremendous things happened inthese towns, and yet we have no account of themwhatever. There is no record in the gospels of thework that Jesus did, and of the wonders heperformed in these places, and yet they must havebeen among his greatest. A passage like thisshows us how little we know of Jesus; it shows us- and we must always remember it - that in thegospels we have only the barest selection ofJesus' works. The things we do not know aboutJesus far outnumber the things we do know.

We must be careful to catch the accent in Jesus'voice as he said this. The Revised StandardVersion has it: 'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe toyou, Bethsaida!' The Greek word for woe whichwe have translated alas is ouai; and ouaiexpresses sorrowful pity at least as much as itdoes anger. This is not the accent of one who is in

a temper because his self-esteem has beentouched; it is not the accent of one who is blazingwith anger because he has been insulted. It is theaccent of sorrow, the accent of one who offeredmen and women the most precious thing in theworld and saw it disregarded. Jesus'condemnation of sin is holy anger, but the angercomes not from outraged pride but from a brokenheart.

What then was the sin of Chorazin, ofBethsaida, of Capernaum, the sin which wasworse than the sin of Tyre and Sidon, and ofSodom and Gomorrah? It must have been veryserious, for again and again Tyre and Sidon aredenounced for their wickedness (Isaiah 23;Jeremiah 25:22, 47:4; Ezekiel 26:3-7, 28:12-22),and Sodom and Gomorrah were and are a bywordfor iniquity.

(1) It was the sin of the people who forgot the

responsibilities of privilege. To the cities ofGalilee had been given a privilege which hadnever come to Tyre and Sidon, or to Sodom andGomorrah, for the cities of Galilee had actuallyseen and heard Jesus. We cannot condemn peoplewho never had the chance to know any better; butif those who have had every chance to know theright do the wrong, then they stand condemned.We do not condemn a child in the same way thatwe would condemn an adult; we do not expect theperson brought up in a deprived area to live thelife of a person brought up in a good andcomfortable home. The greater our privilegeshave been, the greater is our condemnation if wefail to shoulder the responsibilities and accept theobligations which these privileges bring withthem.

(2) It was the sin of indifference. These citiesdid not attack Jesus Christ; they did not drive himfrom their gates; they did not seek to crucify him;

they simply disregarded him. Neglect can kill asmuch as persecution can. An author writes a book;it is sent out for review. Some reviewers maypraise it, others may damn it; it does not matter solong as it is noticed. The one thing which will killa book stone dead is if it is never noticed at allfor either praise or blame.

An artist drew a picture of Christ standing onone of London's famous bridges. He is holding outhis hands in appeal to the crowds, and they aredrifting past without a second look; only oneperson, a nurse, gives him any response. Here wehave the modern situation in so many countriestoday. There is no hostility to Christianity; there isno desire to destroy it; there is blank indifference.Christ is relegated to the ranks of those who donot matter. Indifference, too, is a sin - and theworst of all, for indifference kills. It does not burna religion to death; it freezes it to death. It doesnot behead it: it slowly suffocates the life out of it.

(3) And so we are face to face with one greatthreatening truth - it is also a sin to do nothing.There are sins of action, sins of deed; but there isalso a sin of inaction, and of absence of deeds.The sin of Chorazin, of Bethsaida and ofCapernaum was the sin of doing nothing. Manypeople's defence is: 'But I never did anything.'That defence may be in fact their condemnation.

THE ACCENT OF AUTHORITY

Matthew 11:25-7

At that time Jesus said: 'I thank you,Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thatyou have hidden these things from thewise and the clever, and have revealedthem to babes. Even so, Father, for thusit was your will in your sight. All thingshave been delivered to me by myFather; and no one really knows the Sonexcept the Father, and no one reallyknows the Father except the Son, and heto whom the Son wishes to reveal hisknowledge.'

HERE, Jesus is speaking out of experience, theexperience that the Rabbis and the wise men

rejected him while the simple people acceptedhim. The intellectuals had no use for him; but thehumble welcomed him. We must be careful to seeclearly what Jesus meant here. He is very far fromcondemning intellectual power; what he iscondemning is intellectual pride. As the scholarA. Plummer has it: 'The heart, not the head, is thehome of the gospel.' It is not cleverness whichshuts out; it is pride. It is not stupidity whichadmits; it is humility. People may be as wise asSolomon; but if they have not the simplicity, thetrust, the innocence of the childlike heart, they shutthemselves out.

The Rabbis themselves saw the danger of thisintellectual pride; they recognized that oftensimple people were nearer God than the wisestRabbi. They had a parable like this. Once RabbiBerokah of Chuza was in the market of Lapet, andElijah appeared to him. The Rabbi asked: 'Is thereamong the people in this market place anyone who

is destined to share in the life of the world tocome?' At first, Elijah said there was none. Thenhe pointed at one man, and said that that manwould share in the life of the world to come.Rabbi Berokah went to the man and asked himwhat he did. 'I am a jailer,' said the man, 'and Ikeep men and women separate. At night I placemy bed between the men and the women so that nowrong will be committed.' Elijah pointed at twoother men, and said that they too would share inthe life to come. Rabbi Berokah asked them whatthey did. 'We are merrymakers,' they said. 'Whenwe see a man who is downcast, we cheer him up.Also when we see two people quarrelling withone another, we try to make peace between them.'People who did the simple things, jailers whokept their charges in the right way, those whobrought a smile and peace, were in the kingdom.

Again, the Rabbis had a story like this: 'Anepidemic once broke out in Sura, but in the

neighbourhood of Rab's residence [a famousRabbi] it did not appear. The people thought thatthis was due to Rab's merits, but in a dream theywere told . . . that it happened because of themerits of a man who willingly lent hoe and shovelto someone who wished to dig a grave. A fireonce broke out in Drokeret, but the neighbourhoodof Rabbi Huna was spared. The people thought itwas due to the merits of Rabbi Huna . . . but theywere told in a dream that it was due to the meritsof a certain woman, who used to heat her ovenand place it at the disposal of her neighbours.'Neither the man who lent his tools to someone inneed, nor the woman who helped her neighbourswhenever she could, had any intellectual standing;but their simple deeds of human love had wonthem the approval of God. Academic distinctionsare not necessarily distinctions in the sight ofGod. In the words of Percy Dearmer's hymn:

Still to the lowly soul He doth himself impart, And for his dwelling and his throne Chooseth the pure in heart.

This passage closes with the greatest claim thatJesus ever made, the claim which is the centre ofthe Christian faith, that he alone can reveal God tomen and women. Other men may be sons of God:he is the Son. John put this in a different way,when he tells us that Jesus said: 'Whoever hasseen me has seen the Father' (John 14:9). WhatJesus says is this: 'If you want to see what God islike, if you want to see the mind of God, the heartof God, the nature of God, if you want to seeGod's whole attitude to men and women - look atme!' It is the Christian conviction that in JesusChrist alone we see what God is like; and it isalso the Christian conviction that Jesus can give

that knowledge to anyone who is humble enoughand trustful enough to receive it.

THE ACCENT OF COMPASSION

Matthew 11:28-30

'Come to me, all you who are exhaustedand weighted down beneath yourburdens, and I will give you rest. Takemy yoke upon you, and learn of me, for Iam gentle and lowly in heart, and youwill find rest for your souls: for myyoke is easy and my burden is light.'

Jesus spoke to people desperately trying to findGod and desperately trying to be good, who werefinding the tasks impossible and who were drivento weariness and to despair.

He says: 'Come to me all you who areexhausted.' His invitation is to those who areexhausted with the search for the truth. The

Greeks had said: 'It is very difficult to find God,and, when you have found him, it is impossible totell anyone else about him.' Zophar demanded ofJob: 'Can you find out the deep things of God?'(Job 11:7). It is Jesus' claim that the weary searchfor God ends in Jesus himself. W. B. Yeats, thegreat Irish poet and mystic, wrote: 'Can one reachGod by toil? He gives himself to the pure in heart.He asks nothing but our attention.' The way toknow God is not by mental search, but by givingattention to Jesus Christ, for in him we see whatGod is like.

He says: 'Come to me all you who are weighteddown beneath your burdens.' For orthodox Jews,religion was a thing of burdens. Jesus said of thescribes and Pharisees: "They tie up heavyburdens, hard to bear, and lay them on theshoulders of others' (Matthew 23:4). To the Jews,religion was a thing of endless rules. People livedtheir lives in a forest of regulations which

dictated every action. They must listen forever toa voice which said: 'You shall not.'

Even the Rabbis saw this. There is a kind ofrueful parable put into the mouth of Korah, whichshows just how binding and constricting andburdensome and impossible the demands of thelaw could be. 'There was a poor widow in myneighbourhood who had two daughters and afield. When she began to plough, Moses [i.e. thelaw of Moses] said: "You must not plough with anox and an ass together." When she began to sow,he said: "You must not sow your field withmingled seed." When she began to reap and tomake stacks of corn, he said: "When you reapyour harvest in your field, and have forgotten asheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it"[Deuteronomy 24:19], and "you shall not reapyour field to its very border" [Leviticus 19:9].She began to thresh, and he said: "Give me theheave-offering, and the first and second tithe." She

accepted the ordinance and gave them all to him.What did the poor woman then do? She sold herfield and bought two sheep, to clothe herself fromtheir fleece and to have profit from their young.When they bore their young, Aaron [i.e. thedemands of the priesthood] came and said: "Giveme the first-born." So she accepted the decision,and gave them to him. When the shearing timecame, and she sheared them, Aaron came andsaid: "Give me the first of the fleece of the sheep"[ Deuteronomy 18:4]. Then she thought: "I cannotstand up against this man. I will slaughter thesheep and eat them." Then Aaron came and said:"Give me the shoulder and the two cheeks and thestomach" [Deuteronomy 18:3]. Then she said:"Even when I have killed them I am not safe fromyou. Behold they shall be devoted." Then Aaronsaid: "In that case they belong entirely to me"[Numbers 18:14]. He took them and went awayand left her weeping with her two daughters.' The

story is a parable of the continuous demands thatthe law made upon people in every action andactivity of life. These demands were indeed aburden.

Jesus invites us to take his yoke upon ourshoulders. The Jews used the phrase the yoke forentering into submission to. They spoke of theyoke of the law, the yoke of the commandments,the yoke of the kingdom and the yoke of God. Butit may well be that Jesus took the words of hisinvitation from something much nearer home thanthat.

He says: 'My yoke is easy.' The word easy is inGreek chrēstos, which can mean well-fitting. InPalestine, ox-yokes were made of wood; the oxwas brought, and the measurements were taken.The yoke was then roughed out, and the ox wasbrought back to have the yoke tried on. The yokewas carefully adjusted, so that it would fit well,

and not chafe the neck of the patient animal. Theyoke was tailor-made to fit the ox.

There is a legend that Jesus made the best ox-yokes in all Galilee, and that from all over thecountry people came to him to buy the best yokesthat skill could make. In those days, as now, shopshad their signs above the door: and it has beensuggested that the sign above the door of thecarpenter's shop in Nazareth may well have been:'My yokes fit well.' It may well be that Jesus ishere using a picture from the carpenter's shop inNazareth where he had worked throughout thesilent years.

Jesus says: 'My yoke fits well.' What he meansis: 'The life I give you is not a burden to cause youpain; your task is made to measure to fit you.'Whatever God sends us is made to fit our needsand our abilities exactly.

Jesus says: 'My burden is light.' As a Rabbi had

it: 'My burden is become my song.' It is not thatthe burden is easy to carry; but it is laid on us inlove; it is meant to be carried in love; and lovemakes even the heaviest burden light. When weremember the love of God, when we know thatour burden is to love God and to love one another,then the burden becomes a song. There is an oldstory which tells how a man came upon a littleboy carrying a still smaller boy, who was lame,upon his back. That's a heavy burden for you tocarry,' said the man. 'That's no' a burden,' camethe answer. 'That's my wee brother."The burdenwhich is given in love and carried in love isalways light.

CRISIS

IN Matthew 12, we read the history of a series ofcrucial events in the life of Jesus. In the lives ofevery one of us, there are decisive moments, timesand events on which the whole of our lives hinge.This chapter presents us with the story of such aperiod in the life of Jesus. In it, we see theorthodox Jewish religious leaders of the daycoming to their final decision regarding Jesus -and that was rejection. It was not only rejection inthe sense that they would have nothing to do withhim; it was rejection in the sense that they came tothe conclusion that nothing less than his completeelimination would be enough.

Here in this chapter we see the first definitesteps, the end of which could be nothing other thanthe cross. The characters are painted clearlybefore us. On the one hand, there are the scribes

and the Pharisees, the representatives of orthodoxreligion. We can see four stages in theirincreasing attitude of hostility to Jesus.

(1) In verses 1-8, the story of how the disciplesplucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, wesee growing suspicion. The scribes and Phariseesregarded with growing suspicion a teacher whowas prepared to allow his followers to disregardthe minutest details of the Sabbath law. This wasthe kind of thing which could not be allowed tospread unchecked.

(2) In verses 9-14, the story of the healing ofthe man with the paralysed hand on the Sabbathday, we see active and hostile investigation. Itwas not by chance that the scribes and Phariseeswere in the synagogue on that Sabbath. Luke saysthat they were there to watch Jesus (Luke 6:7).From that time on, Jesus would have to workalways under the hostile eye of the orthodox

leaders. They would dog his steps, like privatedetectives, seeking the evidence on which theycould level a charge against him.

(3) In verses 22-32, the story of how theorthodox leaders charged Jesus with healing bythe power of the devil, and of how he spoke tothem of the sin which has no forgiveness, we seethe story of deliberate and prejudiced blindness.From that time on, nothing Jesus could ever dowould be right in the eyes of these men. They hadso shut their eyes to God that they werecompletely incapable of ever seeing his beautyand his truth. Their prejudiced blindness hadlaunched them on a path from which they werequite incapable of ever turning back.

(4) In verse 14, we see evil determination. Theorthodox were not now content to watch andcriticize; they were preparing to act. They hadgone into council to find a way to put an end to

this disturbing Galilaean. Suspicion, investigationand blindness were on the way to open action.

In the face of all this, the answer of Jesus isclearly delineated. We can see five ways in whichhe met this growing opposition.

(1) He met it with courageous defiance. In thestory of the healing of the man with the paralysedhand (verses 9-14), we see him deliberatelydefying the scribes and Pharisees. This thing wasnot done in a corner; it was done in a crowdedsynagogue. It was not done in their absence; itwas done when they were there with deliberateintent to formulate a charge against him. Far fromevading the challenge, Jesus is about to meet ithead on.

(2) He met it with warning. In verses 22-32,we see Jesus giving the most terrible of warnings.He is warning those men that, if they persist inshutting their eyes to the truth of God, they are on

the way to a situation where, by their own actions,they will have shut themselves out from the graceof God. Here, Jesus is not so much on the defenceas on the attack. He makes it quite clear wheretheir attitude is taking them.

(3) He met it with a staggering series of claims.He is greater than the Temple (verse 6), and theTemple was the most sacred place in all theworld. He is greater than Jonah, and no preacherever produced repentance so amazingly as Jonahdid (verse 41). He is greater than Solomon, andSolomon was the wisest person who had everlived (verse 42). His claim is that there is nothingin spiritual history that is greater than he is. Thereare no apologies here: there is the statement of theclaims of Christ at their highest.

(4) He met it with the statement that histeaching is essential. The point of the strangeparable of the empty house (verses 43-5) is that

the law may negatively empty people of evil, butonly the gospel can fill them with good. The lawtherefore simply leaves within men and women anempty invitation for all evil to take up itsresidence within their hearts; the gospel so fillsthem with positive goodness that evil cannot enterin. Here is Jesus' claim that the gospel can do formen and women what the law can never do.

(5) Finally, he met it with an invitation. Verses46-50 are in essence an invitation to enter intokinship with him. These verses are not so much adisowning of Jesus' own family and friends as aninvitation to all people to enter into kinship withhim, through the acceptance of the will of God, asthat will has come to them in him. These versesare an invitation to abandon our own prejudicesand self-will and to accept Jesus Christ as Masterand Lord. If we refuse, we drift further away fromGod; if we accept, we enter into the very familyand heart of God.

BREAKING THE SABBATH LAW

Matthew 12:1-8

At that time Jesus went through the cornfields on the Sabbath day. His discipleswere hungry, and they began to pluckthe ears of corn and to eat them. Whenthe Pharisees saw this, they said to him:'Look you, your disciples are doing thatwhich it is not permitted to do on theSabbath day.' He said to them: 'Haveyou not read what David and his friendsdid, when he was hungry - how he wentinto the house of God and ate theshewbread. which it was notpermissible for him, nor for his friendsto eat, but which the priests alone mayeat? Or, have you not read in the law

that the priests profane the Sabbath, andyet remain blameless? I tell you thatsomething greater than the Temple ishere. But, if you had known the meaningof the saying, "It is mercy that I wish,and not sacrifice," you would not havecondemned those who are blameless.For the Son of Man is Lord of theSabbath.'

[The last phrase should perhaps betranslated: 'For man is master of theSabbath.']

IN Palestine in the time of Jesus, the corn fieldsand the cultivated lands were laid out in long,narrow strips, and the ground between the stripswas always a right of way. It was on one of thesestrips between the cornfields that the disciplesand Jesus were walking when this incident

happened.

There is no suggestion that the disciples werestealing. The law expressly laid it down that thehungry traveller was entitled to do just what thedisciples were doing, as long as only the handswere used to pluck the ears of corn, and not asickle: 'If you go into your neighbour's standinggrain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, butyou shall not put a sickle to your neighbour'sstanding grain' (Deuteronomy 23:25). W. M.Thomson in The Land and the Book tells how,when he was travelling in Palestine, the samecustom still existed. One of the favourite eveningdishes for the traveller is parched corn. 'Whentravelling in harvest time,' Thomson writes, 'mymuleteers [mule-drivers] have very oftenprepared parched corn in the evenings after thetent has been pitched. Nor is the gathering of thesegreen ears for parching ever regarded as stealing .. . So, also, I have seen my muleteers, as we

passed along the wheat fields, pluck off the ears,rub them in their hands, and eat the grainsunroasted, just as the apostles are said to havedone.'

In the eyes of the scribes and Pharisees, thefault of the disciples was not that they had pluckedand eaten the grains of corn, but that they had doneso on the Sabbath. The Sabbath law was verycomplicated and very detailed. The commandmentforbids work on the Sabbath day; but theinterpreters of the law were not satisfied with thatsimple prohibition. Work had to be defined. Sothirty-nine basic actions were laid down, whichwere forbidden on the Sabbath, and among themwere reaping, winnowing and threshing, andpreparing a meal. The interpreters were not evenprepared to leave the matter there. Each item inthe list of forbidden works had to be carefullydefined. For instance, it was forbidden to carry aburden. But what is a burden? A burden is

anything which weighs as much as two dried figs.Even the suggestion of work was forbidden: evenanything which might symbolically be regarded aswork was prohibited. Later the great Jewishteacher, Maimonides, was to say: 'To pluck earsis a kind of reaping.' By their conduct, thedisciples were guilty of far more than one breachof the law. By plucking the corn they were guiltyof reaping; by rubbing it in their hands they wereguilty of threshing; by separating the grain and thechaff they were guilty of winnowing; and by thewhole process they were guilty of preparing ameal on the Sabbath day, for everything whichwas to be eaten on the Sabbath had to be preparedthe day before.

The orthodox Jews took this Sabbath law withintense seriousness. Chapter 50 of The Book ofJubilee concerns the keeping of the Sabbath.Whoever lies with his wife, or plans to do

anything on the Sabbath, or plans to set out on ajourney (even the contemplation of work isforbidden), or plans to buy or sell, or drawswater, or lifts a burden, is condemned. Anyonewho does any work on the Sabbath (whether thework is in the house or in any other place), orgoes on a journey, or tills a farm, anyone wholights a fire or rides any beast, or travels by shipat sea, anyone who strikes or kills anything,anyone who catches an animal, a bird or a fish,anyone who fasts or who makes war on a Sabbath- those who do these things shall die. To keepthese commandments was to keep the law of God;to break them was to break the law of God.

There is absolutely no doubt that, from theirown point of view, the scribes and Phariseeswere entirely justified in finding fault with thedisciples for breaking the law, and with Jesus forallowing them, if not encouraging them, to do so.

THE CLAIM OF HUMAN NEED

Matthew 12:1-8 (contd)To meet the criticism of the scribes and Pharisees,Jesus put forward three arguments.

(1) He quoted the action of David (1 Samuel21:1-6) on the occasion when David and hisyoung men were so hungry that they went into thetabernacle - not the Temple, because thishappened in the days before the Temple was built- and ate the shewbread, which only the priestscould eat. The shewbread is described inLeviticus 24:5-9. It consisted of twelve loaves ofbread, which were placed every week in tworows of six in the Holy Place. No doubt they werea symbolic offering in which God was thanked forhis gift of sustaining food. These loaves werechanged every week, and the old loaves became

the 'perks' of the priests and could only be eatenby them. On this occasion, in their hunger, Davidand his young men took and ate those sacredloaves, and no blame attached to them. The claimsof human need took precedence over any ritualcustom.

(2) He quoted the Sabbath work of the Temple.The Temple ritual always involved work - thelighting of fires, the slaughter and the preparationof animals, the lifting of them on to the altar, and ahost of other things. This work was actuallydoubled on the Sabbath, for on the Sabbath theofferings were doubled (cf. e.g. Numbers 28:9).Any one of these actions would have been illegalfor any ordinary person to perform on the Sabbathday. To light a fire, to slaughter an animal or tolift it up on to the altar would have been to breakthe law, and hence to profane the Sabbath. But forthe priests it was perfectly legal to do thesethings, for the Temple worship must go on. That is

to say, worship offered to God took precedenceover all the Sabbath rules and regulations.

(3) He quoted God's word to Hosea theprophet: 'I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice'(Hosea 6:6). What God desires far more thanritual sacrifice is kindness, the spirit which knowsno law other than that it must answer the call ofhuman need.

In this incident, Jesus makes it clear that theclaim of human need must take precedence overall other claims. The claims of worship, of ritualand of liturgy are important, but prior to any ofthem is the claim of human need.

One of the modern saints of God is FatherGeorge Potter who, out of the derelict church of StChrysostom in Peckham, south-east London, madea shining light of Christian worship and Christianservice. To further the work, he founded theBrotherhood of the Order of the Holy Cross,

whose badge was the towel which Jesus Christwore when he washed his disciples' feet. Therewas no service too menial for the brothers torender; their work for the outcast and forhomeless boys with a criminal record or criminalpotential is beyond all praise. Father Potter heldthe highest possible ideas of worship; and yet,when he is explaining the work of theBrotherhood, he writes of anyone who wishes toenter into its triple vow of poverty, chastity andobedience: 'He mustn't sulk if he cannot get toVespers on the Feast of St Thermogene. He maybe sitting in a police court waiting for a "client" . .. He mustn't be the type who goes into the kitchenand sobs just because we run short of incense . . .We put prayer and sacraments first. We know wecannot do our best otherwise, but the fact is thatwe have to spend more time at the bottom of theMount of Transfiguration than at the top.' He tellsabout one candidate who arrived when he was

just about to give his boys a cup of cocoa and putthem to bed. 'So I said, "Just clean round the bath,will you, while it's wet?" He stood aghast andstuttered, "I didn't expect to clean up after dirtyboys!" Well, well! His life of devoted service tothe Blessed Master lasted about seven minutes.He did not unpack.' Florence Allshorn, the greatprincipal of a women's missionary college, tellsof the problem of the candidate who alwaysdiscovers that her time for quiet prayer has comejust when there are greasy dishes to be washed innot-very-warm water.

Jesus insisted that the greatest ritual service isthe service of human need. It is an odd thing tothink that, with the possible exception of that dayin the synagogue at Nazareth, we have noevidence that Jesus ever conducted a 'church'service in all his life on earth, but we haveabundant evidence that he fed the hungry andcomforted the sad and cared for the sick. Christian

service is not the service of any liturgy or ritual; itis the service of human need. Christian service isnot monastic retreat; it is involvement in all thetragedies and problems and demands of the humansituation. J. G. Whittier expressed it perfectly inthis hymn:

O brother man, fold to thy heart thy brother! Where pity dwells, the peace of God is there: To worship rightly is to love each other. Each smile a hymn, each kindly deed a prayer. For he whom Jesus loved hath truly spoken: The holier worship which he deigns to bless Restores the lost, and binds the spirit

broken, And feeds the widow and the fatherless. Follow with reverent steps the great example Of Him whose holy work was doing good; So shall the wide earth seem our Father's temple. Each loving life a psalm of gratitude.

That is what we mean - or ought to mean - whenwe say: 'Let us worship God!'

MASTER OF THE SABBATH

Matthew 12:1-8 (contd)There remains in this passage one difficulty whichit is not possible to solve with absolute certainty.The difficulty lies in the last phrase: 'For the Sonof Man is Lord of the Sabbath.' This phrase canhave two meanings.

(1) It may mean that Jesus is claiming to beLord of the Sabbath, in the sense that he is entitledto use the Sabbath as he thinks fit. We have seenthat the sanctity of the work of the Templesurpassed and overrode the Sabbath rules andregulations. Jesus has just claimed that somethinggreater than the Temple is here in him; thereforehe has the right to dispense with the Sabbathregulations and to do as he thinks best on theSabbath day. That may be said to be the

traditional interpretation of this sentence, but thereare real difficulties in it.

(2) On this occasion, Jesus is not defendinghimself for anything that he did on the Sabbath; heis defending his disciples; and the authority whichhe is stressing here is not so much his ownauthority as the authority of human need. And it isto be noted that when Mark tells of this incidenthe introduces another saying of Jesus as part ofthe climax of it: he says that the Sabbath wasmade for man, not man for the Sabbath (cf. Mark2:27).

To this we must add the fact that in Hebrew andAramaic the phrase son of man can have severalmeanings and is not necessarily a title at all. It cansimply be a way of saying a man. When theRabbis began a parable, they often began it: Therewas a son of man who . . .' when we wouldsimply say: There was a man who . . .'. In the

Revised Standard Version, the words of thepsalmist are: 'What is man that thou art mindful ofhim? and the son of man that thou dost care forhim?' (Psalm 8:4). Again and again in Ezekiel,God addresses the prophet as son of man. 'And hesaid to me: "Son of man, stand upon your feet andI will speak with you'" (Ezekiel 2:1; cf. 2:6, 2:8,3:1, 4, 17, 25). In all these cases, son of man,spelled without the capital letters, simply meansman.

In the (early and best) Greek manuscripts of theNew Testament, all the words were writtencompletely in capital letters. In these manuscripts(called uncials), it would not be possible to tellwhere special capitals are necessary. Therefore,in Matthew 12:8, it may well be that son of manshould be written without capital letters, and thatthe phrase refers not to Jesus but simply to man,in the sense of all humanity.

If we consider that what Jesus is pressing is theclaims of human need; if we remember that it isnot himself but his disciples that he is defending;if we remember that Mark tells us that he said thatthe Sabbath was made for the sake of men andwomen and not the other way round: then we maywell conclude that what Jesus said here is:'Human beings are not the slaves of the Sabbath;rather they have control of it, to use it for theirown good.' Jesus may well be rebuking thescribes and Pharisees for enslaving themselvesand others with a host of tyrannical regulations;and he may well be here laying down the greatprinciple of Christian freedom, which applies tothe Sabbath as it does to all other things in life.

LOVE AND LAW

Matthew 12:9-14

He left there and went into theirsynagogue. And, look you, there was aman there with a withered hand. So theyasked him: 'Is it permitted to heal on theSabbath?' They asked this question inorder that they might find an accusationagainst him. 'What man will there be ofyou', he said, 'who will have a sheep,and, if the sheep falls into a pit on theSabbath day, will not take a grip of it,and lift it out? How much morevaluable is a man than a sheep? So,then, it is permitted to do a good thingon the Sabbath day.' Then he said to theman: 'Stretch forth your hand!' He

stretched it out, and it was restored,sound as the other. So the Phariseeswent away and conferred against him,to find a way to destroy him.

THIS incident is a crucial moment in the life ofJesus. He deliberately and publicly broke theSabbath law: and the result was a conference ofthe orthodox leaders to search out a way toeliminate him.

We will not understand the attitude of theorthodox Jews unless we understand the amazingseriousness with which they took the Sabbath law.That law forbade all work on the Sabbath day,and so the orthodox Jews would literally dierather than break it.

In the time of the rising under JudasMaccabaeus, certain Jews sought refuge in thecaves in the wilderness. Antiochus sent a

detachment of men to attack them; the attack wasmade on the Sabbath day; and these insurgentJews died without even a gesture of defiance ordefence, because to fight would have been tobreak the Sabbath. First Maccabees tells how theforces of Antiochus 'quickly attacked them. Butthey did not answer them or hurl a stone at them orblock up their hiding places, for they said, "Let usall die in our innocence: heaven and earth testifyfor us, that you are killing us unjustly." So theyattacked them on the sabbath, and they died, withtheir wives and children and livestock, to thenumber of a thousand persons' (1 Maccabees2:35-8). Even in a national crisis, even to savetheir lives, even to protect their nearest anddearest, the Jews would not fight on the Sabbath.

It was because the Jews insisted on keeping theSabbath law that the Roman commander Pompeywas able to take Jerusalem. In ancient warfare, itwas the custom for the attacker to erect a huge

mound which overlooked the battlements of thebesieged city and from the height of the mound tobombard the defences. Pompey built his mound onthe Sabbath days when the Jews simply looked onand refused to lift a finger to stop him. Josephussays: 'And had it not been for the practice, fromthe days of our forefathers, to rest on the seventhday, this bank could never have been perfected,by reason of the opposition the Jews would havemade; for though our law gave us leave then todefend ourselves against those that begin to fightwith us and assault us [this was a concession], yetit does not permit us to meddle with our enemieswhile they do anything else' (Josephus,Antiquities of the Jews, 14:4:2).

Josephus recalls the amazement of the Greekhistorian Agatharchides at the way in which theEgyptian general Ptolemy Lagos was allowed tocapture Jerusalem. Agatharchides wrote: 'Thereare a people called Jews, who dwell in a city the

strongest of all cities, which the inhabitants callJerusalem, and are accustomed to rest on everyseventh day; at which time they make no use oftheir arms, nor meddle with husbandry, nor takecare of any of the affairs of life, but spread outtheir hands in their holy places, and pray tillevening time. Now it came to pass that whenPtolemy the son of Lagos came into this city withhis army, these men, in observing this mad customof theirs, instead of guarding the city, sufferedtheir country to submit itself to a bitter lord: andtheir Law was openly proved to have commandeda foolish practice. This accident taught all othermen but the Jews to disregard such dreams asthese were, and not to follow the like idlesuggestions delivered as a Law, when in suchuncertainty of human reasonings they are at a losswhat they should do' (Josephus, Against Apion,1:22). The rigorous Jewish observance of theSabbath seemed to other nations nothing short of

insanity, since it could lead to such amazingnational defeats and disasters.

It was that absolutely immovable frame of mindthat Jesus was up against. The law quite definitelyforbade healing on the Sabbath. It was true that thelaw clearly laid it down that 'every case when lifeis in danger supersedes the Sabbath law'. Thiswas particularly the case in diseases of the ear,the nose, the throat and the eyes. But even then itwas equally clearly laid down that steps could betaken to keep the sick or injured from gettingworse, but not to make them better. So a plainbandage might be put on a wound, but not amedicated bandage, and so on.

In this case, there was no question of theparalysed man's life being in danger; as far asdanger went, he would be in no worse conditionthe next day. Jesus knew the law; he knew what hewas doing; he knew that the Pharisees were

waiting and watching; and yet he healed the man.Jesus would accept no law which insisted thatpeople should suffer, even without danger to life,one moment longer than necessary. His love forhumanity far surpassed his respect for ritual law.

THE CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

Matthew 12:9-14 (contd)Jesus went into the synagogue, and in it was a manwith a paralysed hand. Our gospels tell us nothingmore about this man; but the Gospel according tothe Hebrews, which was one of the early gospelswhich did not succeed in gaining an entry to theNew Testament, tells us that he came to Jesuswith the appeal: 'I was a stone mason, seeking myliving with my hands. I pray you, Jesus, to give meback my health, so that I shall not need to beg forfood in shame.'

But the scribes and Pharisees were there, too.They were not concerned with the man with theparalysed hand: they were concerned only withthe minutest details of their rules and regulations.So they asked Jesus: 'Is it permitted to heal on the

Sabbath day?' Jesus knew the answer to thatquestion perfectly well; he knew that, as we haveseen, unless there was actual danger to life,healing was forbidden, because it was regardedas an act of work.

But Jesus was wise. If they wished to argueabout the law, he had the skill to meet them ontheir own ground. 'Tell me,' he said, 'suppose aman has a sheep, and that sheep falls into a pit onthe Sabbath day, will he not go and haul the sheepout of the pit?' That was, in fact, a case for whichthe law provided. If an animal fell into a pit on theSabbath, then it was within the law to carry foodto it, which in any other case would have been aburden, and to help it in any way possible. 'So,'said Jesus, 'it is permitted to do a good thing onthe Sabbath; and, if it is permitted to do a goodthing to a sheep, how much more must it be lawfulto do it for a man, who is of so much more valuethan any animal?'

Jesus reversed the argument. ' If, he argued, 'itis right to do good on the Sabbath, then to refuseto do good is evil.' It was Jesus' basic principlethat there is no time so sacred that it cannot beused for helping someone who is in need. We willnot be judged by the number of church serviceswe have attended, or by the number of chapters ofthe Bible we have read, or even by the number ofthe hours we have spent in prayer, but by thenumber of people we have helped, when theirneed came crying to us. To this, at the moment, thescribes and Pharisees had nothing to answer, fortheir argument had rebounded on them.

So Jesus healed this man, and in healing himgave him three things.

(1) He gave him back his health. Jesus isvitally interested in people's physical wellbeing.Paul Tournier, in his book A Doctor's Case Book,has some great things to pass on about healing and

God. Professor Courvoisier writes that thevocation of medicine is 'a service to which thoseare called, who, through their studies and thenatural gifts with which the Creator has endowedthem . . . are specially fitted to tend the sick and toheal them. Whether or not they are aware of it,whether or not they are believers, this is from theChristian point of view fundamental, that doctorsare, by their profession, fellow-workers withGod.' 'Sickness and healing', said Dr Pouyanne,'are acts of grace.' 'The doctor is an instrument ofGod's patience,' writes Pastor Alain Perrot.'Medicine is a dispensation of the grace of God,who in his goodness takes pity on men andprovides remedies for the evil consequences oftheir sin.' John Calvin described medicine as agift from God. Those who bring healing arehelping God. The cure of human bodies is just asmuch a God-given task as the cure of their souls;and doctors in general practice are just as much

servants of God as ministers in parishes.

(2) Because Jesus gave this man back hishealth, he also gave him back his work. Withoutwork to do, many people feel incomplete, becauseit is in their work that they find satisfaction anddiscover a real sense of identity. Over the years,idleness can be harder than pain to bear; and, ifthere is work to do, even sorrow loses at leastsomething of its bitterness. One of the greatestthings that any human being can do for others is togive them work to do.

(3) Because Jesus gave this man back his healthand his work, he gave him back his self-respect.We might well add a new beatitude: blessed arethose who give us back our self-respect. Wediscover our own worth again when, on our twofeet and with our own two hands, we can face lifeand, with independence, provide for our ownneeds and for the needs of those dependent on us.

We have already said that this incident was acritical moment. At the end of it, the scribes andPharisees began to plot the death of Jesus. In asense, the highest compliment you can pay peopleis to persecute them. It shows that they areregarded not only as dangerous but also aseffective. The action of the scribes and Phariseesis the measure of the power of Jesus Christ. TrueChristianity may be hated, but it can never bedisregarded.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THESERVANT OF THE LORD

Matthew 12:15-21

Because Jesus knew this, he withdrewfrom there; and many followed him andhe healed them all; and he strictlyenjoined them not to surround him withpublicity. All this happened that theremight be fulfilled the word which camethrough Isaiah and which says: 'Lookyou, my servant, whom I have chosen!My beloved one in whom my soul findsdelight! I will put my Spirit upon him,and he will tell the nations what justiceis. He will not strive, nor will he cryaloud, nor will anyone hear his voice inthe streets. He will not break the

crushed reed, and he will not quench thesmoking wick, till he sends forth hisconquering judgment, and in his nameshall the Gentiles hope.'

TWO things here about Jesus show that he neverconfused recklessness with courage. First, for thetime being, he withdrew. The time for the head-onclash had not yet come. He had work to do beforethe cross took him to its arms. Second, he forbadethose who followed him to surround him withpublicity. He knew only too well how many falseMessiahs had arisen; he knew only too well howinflammable the people were. If the idea gotaround that someone with marvellous powers hademerged, then certainly a political rebellionwould have arisen and lives would have beenneedlessly lost. He had to teach people thatMessiahship meant not crushing power butsacrificial service, not a throne but a cross, before

they could spread the word about him.

The question which Matthew uses to sum up thework of Jesus is from Isaiah 42:1-4. In a sense itis a curious quotation, because in the first instanceit referred to Cyrus, the Persian king (cf. Isaiah45:1). The original point of the quotation was this.Cyrus was sweeping onwards in his conquests;and the prophet saw those conquests as beingwithin the deliberate and definite plan of God.Although he did not know it, Cyrus, the Persian,was the instrument of God. Further, the prophetsaw Cyrus as the Gentile conqueror, as indeed hewas. But although the original words referred toCyrus, the complete fulfilment of the prophecyundoubtedly came in Jesus Christ. In his day, thePersian king mastered the eastern world; but thetrue Master of all the world is Jesus Christ. Let usthen see how wonderfully Jesus satisfied thisforecast of Isaiah.

(1) He will tell the nations what justice is.Jesus came to bring justice. The Greeks definedjustice as giving to God and to other people thatwhich is their due. Jesus showed how to live insuch a way that both God and other peoplereceive their proper place in our lives. Heshowed us how to behave both towards God andtowards one another.

(2) He will not strive, nor cry aloud, nor willanyone hear his voice in the streets. The word thatis used for to cry aloud is the word that is usedfor the barking of a dog, the croaking of a raven,the uproar of a discontented audience in a theatre.It means that Jesus would not get into anyargument. We know all about the quarrels ofconflicting parties, in which each tries to shout theother down. The hatred of theologians, the odiumtheoligicum, is one of the tragedies of theChristian Church. We know all about theoppositions of politicians and of ideologies. In

Jesus there is the quiet, strong serenity of one whoseeks to conquer by love, and not by strife ofwords.

(3) He will not break the crushed reed norquench the smoking wick. The reed may bebruised and hardly able to stand erect; the wickmay be weak and the light may be but a flicker.Our witness may be shaky and weak; the light ofour lives may be but a flicker and not a flame; butJesus came not to discourage but to encourage. Hecame to treat the weak not with contempt but withunderstanding; he came not to extinguish the weakflame but to nurse it back to a clearer and astronger light. The most precious thing about Jesusis the fact that he is not the great discourager butthe great encourager.

(4) In him, the Gentiles will hope. With Jesus,there came into the world the invitation not to anation but to all people, to share in and to accept

the love of God. In him, God was reaching out toeveryone with the offer of divine love.

SATAN'S DEFENCES AREBREACHED

Matthew 12:22-9

Then there was brought to him a manpossessed by a devil, blind and dumb:and he cured him, so that the dumb manspoke and saw. The crowds werebeside themselves with amazement.'Surely', they said, 'this cannot be theSon of David?' But, when they heard it,the Pharisees said: 'The only way inwhich this fellow casts out devils is bythe help of Beelzebul, the prince of thedevils.' When he saw what they werethinking. Jesus said to them: 'Everykingdom which has reached a state ofdivision against itself is laid waste; and

any city or region which has reached astate of division against itself will notstand. If Satan is casting out Satan, he isin a state of division against himself.How then shall his kingdom stand?Further, if I cast out devils by the powerof Beelzebul, by whose power do yoursons cast them out? They do cast themout, and therefore they convict you ofhypocrisy in the charge which you levelagainst me. But, if I cast out devils bythe Spirit of God, then the kingdom ofGod has come upon you. Or, how cananyone enter into the house of a strongman, and seize his goods, unless he firstbind the strong man? Then he will beable to seize his house.'

In the middle east, it was not only mental andpsychological illness which was ascribed to the

influence of demons and devils; all illness wasascribed to their malignant power. Exorcism wastherefore very commonly practised - and was infact frequently completely effective.

There is nothing in that to be surprised at. Whenpeople believe in demon-possession, it is easy toconvince themselves that they are so possessed;when they come under that delusion, the symptomsof demon-possession immediately arise. It iscertainly possible to think ourselves into having aheadache, or to convince ourselves that we havethe symptoms of an illness. When people undersuch delusions were confronted with an exorcistin whom they had confidence, often the delusionwas dispelled and a cure resulted. In such cases,if those people were convinced they were cured,they were cured.

In this instance, Jesus cured a man who wasdeaf and dumb and whose infirmity was attributed

to demon-possession. The people were amazed.They began to wonder if this Jesus could be theSon of David, so long promised and so longexpected, the great Saviour and liberator. Theirdoubt was due to the fact that Jesus was so unlikethe picture of the Son of David in which they hadbeen brought up to believe. Here was no gloriousprince with pomp and circumstance; here was norattle of swords nor army with banners; here wasno fiery cross calling them to war; here was asimple carpenter from Galilee, in whose wordswas wisdom gentle and serene, in whose eyeswas compassion, and in whose hands wasmysterious power.

All the time, the scribes and Pharisees werelooking grimly on. They had their own solution tothe problem. Jesus was casting out devils becausehe was in league with the prince of devils. Jesushad three unanswerable replies to that charge.

(1) If he was casting out devils by the help ofthe prince of devils, it could only mean that in thedemonic kingdom there was schism. If the princeof devils was actually lending his power to thedestruction of his own demonic agents, then therewas civil war in the kingdom of evil, and thatkingdom was doomed. Neither a house nor a citynor a district can remain strong when it is dividedagainst itself. Dissension within is the end ofpower. Even if the scribes and Pharisees wereright, Satan's days were numbered.

(2) We take Jesus' third argument second,because there is so much to be said about thesecond that we wish to take it separately. Jesussaid: 'If I am casting out devils - and that you donot, and cannot, deny - it means that I haveinvaded the territory of Satan, and that I amactually like a burglar stealing from his house.Clearly no one can get into a strong man's houseuntil the strong man is bound and rendered

helpless. Therefore the very fact that I have beenable so successfully to invade Satan's territory isproof that he is bound and powerless to resist.'The picture of the binding of the strong man istaken from Isaiah 49:24-6.

There is one question which this argumentmakes us wish to ask. When was the strong manbound? When was the prince of the devils fetteredin such a way that Jesus could make this breach inhis defences? Maybe there is no answer to thatquestion; but if there is, it is that Satan was boundduring Jesus' temptations in the wilderness.

It sometimes happens that, although an army isnot completely put out of action, it suffers such adefeat that its fighting potential is never quite thesame again. Its losses are so great, its confidenceis so shaken, that it is never again the force it was.When Jesus faced the tempter in the wildernessand conquered him, something happened. For the

first time, Satan found someone whom not all hiswiles could seduce, and whom not all his attackscould conquer. From that time, the power of Satanhas never been quite the same. He is no longer theall-conquering power of darkness; he is thedefeated power of sin. The defences arebreached; the enemy is not yet conquered; but hispower can never be the same again, and Jesus canhelp others win the victory he himself won.

THE JEWISH EXORCISTS

Matthew 12:22-9 (contd)(3) Jesus' second argument, to which we now

come, was that the Jews themselves practisedexorcism; there were Jews who expelled demonsand effected cures. If he was practising exorcismby the power of the prince of devils, then theymust be doing the same, for they were dealingwith the same diseases and they had at leastsometimes the same effect. Let us then look at thecustoms and the methods of the Jewish exorcists,for they were a remarkable contrast to themethods of Jesus.

Josephus, a perfectly reputable historian, saysthat the power to cast out demons was part of thewisdom of Solomon, and he describes a casewhich he himself saw (Josephus, Antiquities of

the Jews, 8:2:5): 'God also enabled Solomon tolearn that skill which expels demons, which is ascience useful and health-bringing to men. Hecomposed such incantations also, by whichdistempers are alleviated. And he left behind himalso the manner of using exorcisms, by which theydrive away demons so that they never return, andthis method of cure is of great force unto this day;for I have seen a certain man of my own country,whose name was Eleazar, releasing people whowere demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian,and his sons, and his captains, and the wholemultitude of his soldiers. The manner of the curewas this. He put a ring that had a root which wasone of those sorts mentioned by Solomon in thenostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew outthe demon through his nostrils; and when the manfell down immediately, he adjured the demon toreturn into him no more, making still mention ofSolomon, and reciting the incantations which he

composed. And when Eleazar would persuadeand demonstrate to the spectators that he had sucha power, he set a little way off a cup or basin fullof water, and commanded the demon, as he wentout of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let thespectators know that he had left the man; andwhen this was done, the skill and wisdom ofSolomon was shown very manifestly.' Here wasthe Jewish method: here was the wholeparaphernalia of magic. How different the sereneword of power which Jesus uttered!

Josephus has further information about how theJewish exorcists worked. A certain root wasmuch used in exorcism. Josephus tells about it: 'Inthe valley of Machaerus there is a certain rootcalled by the same name. Its colour is like to thatof flame, and towards evening it sends out acertain ray like lightning. It is not easily taken bysuch as would do so, but recedes from theirhands, nor will it yield itself to be taken quietly

until either the urine of a woman, or her menstrualblood, be poured upon it; nay, even then it iscertain death to those who touch it, unless anyonetake and hang the root itself down from his hand,and so carry it away. It may also be taken anotherway without danger, which is this: they dig atrench all round about it, till the hidden part of theroot be very small: they then tie a dog to it, andwhen the dog tries hard to follow him that tiedhim, this root is easily plucked up, but the dogdies immediately, as if it were instead of the manthat would take the plant away; nor after this needanyone be afraid of taking it into their hands. Yetafter all these pains in getting it, it is onlyvaluable on account of one virtue which itpossesses, that if it be brought to sick persons, itdrives away those called demons' (Josephus, TheJewish Wars, 7:6:3). What a difference betweenJesus' word of power and these bizarre methodswhich the Jewish exorcist used!

We may add one more illustration of Jewishexorcism. It comes from the apocryphal book ofTobit. Tobit is told by the angel that he is to marrySara, the daughter of Raguel. She is a beautifulmaiden with a great dowry, and she herself isgood. She has been in turn married to sevendifferent men, all of whom perished on theirwedding night, because Sara was loved by awicked demon, who would allow none toapproach her. Tobit is afraid, but the angel tellshim: 'When you enter the bridal chamber, takesome of the fish's liver and heart, and put them onthe embers of the incense. An odour will be givenoff; the demon will smell it and flee, and willnever be seen near her any more' (Tobit 6:16). SoTobit did, and the devil was banished forever(Tobit 8:1-4).

These were the things the Jewish exorcists did,and, as so often, they were a symbol. Peoplesought their deliverance from the evils and the

sorrows of humanity in their magic and theirincantations. Maybe even these things for a littlewhile, in the mercy of God, brought some relief;but in Jesus there came the word of God with itsserene power to bring to men and women theperfect deliverance which they had wistfully andeven desperately sought, and which, until hecame, they had never been able to find.

One of the most interesting things in the wholepassage is Jesus' saying: 'If it is by the Spirit ofGod that I cast out demons, then the kingdom ofGod has come upon you' (verse 28). It issignificant to note that the sign of the coming ofthe kingdom was not full churches and greatrevival meetings, but the defeat of pain.

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OFNEUTRALITY

Matthew 12:30

'He who is not with me is against me,and he who does not gather with mescatters abroad.'

THE picture of gathering and scattering maycome from either of two backgrounds. It maycome from harvesting; those who are not sharingin gathering the harvest are scattering the grainabroad, and are therefore losing it to the wind. Itmay come from shepherding; those who are nothelping to keep the flock safe by bringing it intothe fold are driving it out to the dangers of thehills.

In this one piercing sentence, Jesus lays down

the impossibility of neutrality. In his commentaryon Matthew, W. C. Allen writes: 'In this waragainst Satan's strongholds there are only twosides, for Christ or against him, gathering withhim or scattering with Satan.' We may take a verysimple analogy. We may apply this saying toourselves and to the Church. If our presence doesnot strengthen the Church, then our absence isweakening it. There is no half-way house. In allthings, we have to choose which side we are on;abstention from choice, suspended action, is noway out, because the refusal to give one sideassistance is in fact the giving of support to theother.

There are three things which make people seekthis impossible neutrality.

(1) There is the sheer inertia of human nature.It is true of so many people that the only thing theydesire is to be left alone. They automatically

shrink away from anything which is disturbing,and even choice is a disturbance.

(2) There is the sheer cowardice of humannature. Many refuse the way of Christ becausethey are afraid to take the stand which Christianitydemands. The basic thing that stops them is thethought of what other people will say. The voiceof their neighbours is louder in their ears than thevoice of God.

(3) There is the sheer flabbiness of humannature. Most people would rather have securitythan adventure, and the older they grow the morethat is so. A challenge always involves adventure;Christ comes to us with a challenge, and often wewould rather have the comfort of selfish inactionthan the adventure of action for Christ.

The saying of Jesus - 'Whoever is not with meis against me' - presents us with a problem, forboth Mark and Luke have a saying which is the

very reverse: 'Whoever is not against us is for us'(Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50). But they are not socontradictory as they seem. It is to be noted thatJesus spoke the second of them when his disciplescame and told him that they had sought to stop aman from casting out devils in his name, becausehe was not one of their company. So a wisesuggestion has been made. 'Whoever is not withme is against me' is a test that we ought to apply toourselves. Am I truly on the Lord's side, or am Itrying to shuffle through life in a state of cowardlyneutrality? 'Whoever is not against us is for us' isa test that we ought to apply to others. Am I givento condemning everyone who does not speak withmy theology and worship with my liturgy andshare my ideas? Am I limiting the kingdom of Godto those who think as I do?

The saying in this present passage is a test toapply to ourselves; the saying in Mark and Luke isa test to apply to others; for we must always judge

ourselves with sternness and other people withtolerance.

THE SIN BEYONDFORGIVENESS

Matthew 12:31-3

'That is why I tell you that every sin andevery blasphemy will be forgiven tomen; but blasphemy against the HolySpirit will not be forgiven. If anyonespeaks a word against the Son of Man,it will be forgiven him: but if anyonespeaks a word against the Holy Spirit, itwill not be forgiven him, either in thisworld or in the world to come. Eitherassume that the tree is good and the fruitis good, or assume that the tree is rottenand the fruit is rotten. For the tree isknown by its fruits.'

IT is startling to find words about an unforgivablesin on the lips of Jesus the Saviour of men andwomen. So startling is this that some wish to takeaway the sharp definiteness of the meaning. Theyargue that this is only another example of thatvivid way of saying things typical of this part ofthe world, as, for example, when Jesus said thatpeople must hate father and mother truly to be hisdisciples, and that it is not to be understood in allits awful literalness, but simply means that the sinagainst the Holy Spirit is supremely terrible.

In support, certain Old Testament passages arequoted. 'But whoever acts high-handedly, whethera native or an alien, affronts the Lord, and shall becut off from among the people. Because of havingdespised the word of the Lord and broken hiscommandment, such a person shall be utterly cutoff (Numbers 15:30-1). 'Therefore I swear to thehouse of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shallnot be expiated by sacrifice or offering forever' (1

Samuel 3:14). 'The Lord of hosts has revealedhimself in my ears: Surely this iniquity will not beforgiven you until you die, says the Lord God ofhosts' (Isaiah 22:14).

It is claimed that these texts say much the sameas Jesus said, and that they are only insisting onthe grave nature of the sin in question. We canonly say that these Old Testament texts do nothave the same air nor do they produce the sameimpression. There is something very much morealarming in hearing words about a sin which hasno forgiveness from the lips of him who was theincarnate love of God.

There is one section in this saying which isundoubtedly puzzling. In the Revised StandardVersion, Jesus is made to say that a sin against theSon of Man is forgivable, whereas a sin againstthe Holy Spirit is not forgivable. If that is to betaken as it stands, it is indeed a hard saying.

Matthew has already said that Jesus is thetouchstone of all truth (Matthew 10:32-3); and itis difficult to see what the difference between thetwo sins is.

But it may well be that at the back of this thereis a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. Wehave already seen (cf. notes on Matthew 12:1-8)that the Hebrew phrase a son of man meanssimply a man, in the sense of another humanbeing, and that the Jews used this phrase whenthey wanted to speak of any man. When we wouldsay 'There was a man . . .', the Jewish Rabbiwould say There was a son of man . . .'. It maywell be that what Jesus said was this: 'If anyonespeaks a word against a man, it will be forgiven;but if anyone speaks a word against the HolySpirit, it will not be forgiven.'

It is quite possible that we may misunderstand amerely human messenger from God; but we cannot

misunderstand - except deliberately - when Godspeaks to us through his own Holy Spirit. Ahuman messenger is always open tomisinterpretation; but the divine messenger speaksso plainly that he can only be wilfullymisunderstood. It certainly makes this passageeasier to understand if we regard the differencebetween the two sins as a sin against God's humanmessenger, which is serious but not unforgivable,and a sin against God's divine messenger, whichis completely wilful and which, as we shall see,can end by becoming unforgivable.

THE LOST AWARENESS

Matthew 12:31-3 (contd)Let us then try to understand what Jesus meant bythe sin against the Holy Spirit. One thing isnecessary. We must grasp the fact that Jesus wasnot speaking about the Holy Spirit in the fullChristian sense of the term. He could not havebeen, for Pentecost had to come before the HolySpirit came upon men and women in all his powerand light and fullness. This must be interpreted inthe light of the Jewish conception of the HolySpirit.

According to Jewish teaching, the Holy Spirithad two supreme functions. First, the Holy Spiritbrought God's truth to men and women; second,the Holy Spirit enabled them to recognize and tounderstand that truth when they saw it. So people,

as the Jews saw it, needed the Holy Spirit, both toreceive and to recognize God's truth. We mayexpress this in another way. There is in each oneof us a Spirit-given faculty which enables us torecognize goodness and truth when we see them.

Now we must take the next step in our attemptto understand what Jesus meant. We can lose anyfaculty if we refuse to use it. This is true in anysphere of life. It is true physically, if we cease touse certain muscles, they will waste away. It istrue mentally; many of us at school or in our youthacquired some slight knowledge of, for example,French or Latin or music; but that knowledge islong since gone because we did not exercise it. Itis true of all kinds of perception. Some peoplemay lose all appreciation of good music, if theylisten to nothing but cheap music: they may losethe ability to read a great book, if they readnothing but escapist or faddish works; they maylose the faculty of enjoying clean and healthy

pleasure, if for long enough they find theirpleasure in things which are degraded and soiled.

Therefore we can lose the ability to recognizegoodness and truth when we see them. If we shutour eyes and ears to God's way for long enough, ifwe turn our backs upon the messages which Godis sending us, if we prefer our own ideas to theideas which God is seeking to put into our minds,in the end we come to a stage when we cannotrecognize God's truth and God's beauty and God'sgoodness when we see them. We come to a stagewhen our own evil seems to us good, and whenGod's good seems to us evil.

That is the stage to which these scribes andPharisees had come. They had for so long beenblind and deaf to the guidance of God's hand andthe promptings of God's Spirit, they had insistedon their own way for so long, that they had cometo a stage when they could not recognize God's

truth and goodness when they saw them. Theywere able to look on incarnate goodness and callit incarnate evil; they were able to look on the Sonof God and call him the ally of the devil. The sinagainst the Holy Spirit is the sin of so often and soconsistently refusing God's will that in the end itcannot be recognized when it comes even fullydisplayed.

Why should that sin be unforgivable? Whatdifferentiates it so terribly from all other sins?The answer is simple. When anyone reaches thatstage, repentance is impossible. If people cannotrecognize the good when they see it, they cannotdesire it. If they do not recognize evil as evil, theycannot be sorry for it and wish to depart from it.And if they cannot, in spite of failures, love thegood and hate the evil, then they cannot repent;and if they cannot repent, they cannot be forgiven,for repentance is the only condition offorgiveness. It would save much heartbreak if

people would realize that the very people whocannot have committed the sin against the HolySpirit are those who fear that they have, for the sinagainst the Holy Spirit can be truly described asthe loss of all sense of sin.

It was to that stage the scribes and Phariseeshad come. They had for so long been deliberatelyblind and deliberately deaf to God that they hadlost the faculty of recognizing him when they wereconfronted with him. It was not God who hadbanished them beyond the pale of forgiveness;they had shut themselves out. Years of resistanceto God had made them what they were.

There is a dreadful warning here. We must soheed God all our days that our sensitivity is neverblunted, our awareness is never dimmed, ourspiritual hearing never becomes spiritualdeafness. It is a law of life that we will hear onlywhat we are listening for and only what we have

fitted ourselves to hear.

There is a story of a country man who was inthe office of a city friend, with the roar of thetraffic coming through the windows. Suddenly hesaid: 'Listen!' 'What is it?' asked the city man. 'Agrasshopper,' said the country man. Years oflistening to the country sounds had attuned his earsto the country sounds, sounds that a city man's earcould not hear at all. On the other hand, let asilver coin drop, and the chink of the silver wouldhave immediately reached the ears of the money-maker, while the country man might never haveheard it at all.

Only those experts, who have made themselvesable to hear it, will pick out the note of eachindividual bird in the chorus of the birds. Onlythose experts, who have made themselves able tohear it, will distinguish the different instruments inthe orchestra and catch a lonely wrong note from

the second violins.

It is the law of life that we hear what we havetrained ourselves to hear; day by day we mustlisten to God, so that day by day God's voice maybecome not fainter and fainter until we cannothear it at all, but clearer and clearer until itbecomes the one sound to which above all ourears are attuned.

So Jesus finishes with the challenge: 'If I havedone a good deed, you must admit that I am a goodman; if I have done a bad deed, then you may thinkme a bad man. You can only tell a tree's quality byits fruits, and a person's character by that person'sdeeds.' But what if people have become so blindto God that they cannot recognize goodness whenthey see it?

HEARTS AND WORDS

Matthew 12:34-7

'You brood of vipers, how can you whoare evil speak good things? For it isfrom the overflow of the heart that themouth speaks. The good man brings outgood things from his good treasurehouse; and the evil man brings out evilthings from his evil treasure house. I tellyou that every idle word which menshall speak, of that word shall theyrender account in the day of judgment;for by your words you will beacquitted, and by your words you willbe condemned.'

It is little wonder that Jesus chose to speak here

about the awful responsibility of words. Thescribes and Pharisees had just spoken the mostterrible words. They had looked on the Son ofGod and called him the ally of the devil. Suchwords were dreadful words indeed. So Jesus laiddown two laws.

(1) The state of our hearts can be seen throughthe words we speak. Long ago, Menander theGreek dramatist said: 'A man's character can beknown from his words.' That which is in the heartcan come to the surface only through the lips; wecan produce through our lips only what we havein our hearts. There is nothing so revealing aswords. We do not need to talk to people longbefore we discover whether they have wholesomeor dirty minds; we do not need to listen to themlong before we discover whether their minds arekind or cruel; we do not need to listen for long tosomeone who is preaching or teaching or lecturingto find out whether that person's mind is clear or

whether it is muddled. We are continuallyrevealing what we are by what we say.

(2) Jesus laid it down that people wouldspecially render account for their idle words. Theword that is used for idle is aergos; ergon is theGreek for a deed, and the prefix a- meanswithout; aergos described that which was notmeant to produce anything. It is used, forinstance, of a barren tree, of fallow land, of theSabbath day when no work could be done, of anidle person. Jesus was saying something which isprofoundly true. There are in fact two great truthshere.

(a) It is the words which we speak withoutthinking, the words which we utter when theconventional restraints are removed, which reallyshow what we are like. As A. Plummer,commenting on this passage, puts it: 'The carefullyspoken words may be a calculated hypocrisy.'

When we are consciously on our guard, we willbe careful what we say and how we say it; butwhen we are off guard, our words reveal ourcharacter. It is quite possible for a person's publicutterances to be fine and noble, and for the privateconversation of that person to be coarse andobscene. In public, words are carefully chosen; inprivate, the guard is down, and any word leavesthe gateway of that person's lips. It is so withanger: we will say in anger what we really thinkand what we have often wanted to say, but whichthe cool control of prudence has kept us fromsaying. Many people are models of charm andcourtesy in public, when they know they are beingwatched and they are deliberately careful abouttheir words; while in their own homes they aredreadful examples of irritability, sarcasm, temper,criticism and querulous complaint, because thereis no one to hear and to see. It is a humbling thing- and a warning thing - to remember that the

words which show what we are are the words wespeak when our guard is down.

(b) It is often these words which cause thegreatest damage. We may say in anger things wewould never have said if we were in control ofourselves. We may say afterwards that we nevermeant what we said; but that does not free us fromthe responsibility of having said it: and the factthat we have said it often leaves a wound thatnothing will cure, and erects a barrier that nothingwill take away. People may say in relaxedmoments a coarse and questionable thing that theywould never have said in public - and that verything may lodge in someone's memory and staythere unforgotten. Pythagoras, the Greekphilosopher, said: 'Choose rather to fling a chancestone than to speak a chance word.' Once thehurting word or the offensive word is spoken,nothing will bring it back; and it pursues a courseof damage wherever it goes.

Let us examine ourselves. Let us examine ourwords that we may discover the state of ourhearts. And let us remember that God does notjudge us by the words we speak with care anddeliberation, but by the words we speak when theconventional restraints are gone and the realfeelings of our hearts come bubbling to thesurface.

THE ONLY SIGN

Matthew 12:38-42

Then the scribes and Phariseesanswered him: Teacher,' they said, 'wewish to see a sign from you.' Heanswered: 'It is an evil and apostategeneration which seeks a sign. No signwill be given to it, except the sign ofJonah the prophet. For, as Jonah was inthe belly of the whale three days andthree nights, so the Son of Man will bein the heart of the earth for three daysand three nights. At the judgment themen of Nineveh will be witnessesagainst this generation, and they willcondemn it, because they repented at thepreaching of Jonah, and, look you,

something more than Jonah is here. TheQueen of the South will rise in judgmentwith this generation, and will condemnit, because she came from the ends ofthe earth to listen to the wisdom ofSolomon and, look you, something morethan Solomon is here!'

'JEWS', said Paul, 'demand signs' (1 Corinthians1:22). It was characteristic of the Jews that theyasked for signs and wonders from those whoclaimed to be the messengers of God. It was as ifthey said: 'Prove your claims by doing somethingextraordinary.' The nineteenth-century Austrianbiblical scholar, Alfred Edersheim, quotes apassage from the Rabbinic stories to illustrate thekind of thing that popular opinion expected fromthe Messiah: 'When a certain Rabbi was asked byhis disciples about the time of the Messiah'scoming, he said, "I am afraid you will also ask me

for a sign." When they promised that they wouldnot do so, he told them that the gate of Romewould fall and be rebuilt, and fall again, whenthere would not be time to restore it before theSon of David came. On this they pressed him inspite of his remonstrance for a sign. A sign wasgiven them, that the waters which issued from thecave of Banias were turned into blood. Again,when the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer waschallenged, he appealed to certain signs. First, alocust bean tree moved at his bidding, 100, oraccording to some, 400 cubits. Next the channelsof water were made to flow backwards. Thewalls of the academy leaned forward, and wereonly arrested at the bidding of another Rabbi.Lastly Eliezer exclaimed: "If the Law is as Iteach, let it be proved from heaven." A voicecame from the sky saying: "What have you to dowith Rabbi Eliezer, for the instruction is as heteaches?"'

That is the kind of sign that the Jews desired.They did so because they were guilty of onefundamental mistake. They desired to see God inthe abnormal; they forgot that we are never nearerGod, and God never shows himself to us so muchand so continually, as in ordinary everyday things.

Jesus calls them an evil and adulterousgeneration. The word adulterous is not to betaken literally; it means apostate or faithless.Behind it, there is a favourite Old Testamentprophetic picture. The relationship between Israeland God was conceived of as a marriage bondwith God the husband and Israel the bride. Whentherefore Israel was unfaithful and gave her loveto other gods, the nation was said to be adulterousand to go whoring after strange gods. Jeremiah3:6-11 is a typical passage. There the nation issaid to have gone up into every high mountain, andunder every green tree, and to have played theprostitute. Even when Israel had been put away

for infidelity by God, Judah did not take thewarning and still played the prostitute. Herprostitution defiled the land, and she committedadultery with stone and tree. The word describessomething worse than physical adultery; itdescribes that infidelity to God from which allsin, physical and spiritual, springs.

Jesus says that the only sign which will begiven to this nation is the sign of Jonah theprophet. Here we have a problem. Matthew saysthat the sign is that, as Jonah was in the belly ofthe whale three days and three nights, the Son ofMan will be in the heart of the earth for three daysand three nights. It is to be noted that these are notthe words of Jesus, but the explanation ofMatthew. When Luke reports this incident (Luke11:29-32), he makes no mention at all of Jonahbeing in the belly of the whale. He simply saysthat Jesus said: 'For just as Jonah became a sign to

the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will beto this generation' (Luke 11:30).

The fact is that Matthew understood wronglythe point of what Jesus said; and in so doing hemade a strange mistake, for Jesus was not in theheart of the earth for three nights, but only for two.He was laid in the earth on the night of the firstGood Friday and rose on the morning of the firstEaster Sunday. The point is that to the NinevitesJonah himself was God's sign, and Jonah's wordswere God's message.

Jesus is saying: 'You are asking for a sign - Iam God's sign. You have failed to recognize me.The Ninevites recognized God's warning inJonah: the Queen of Sheba recognized God'swisdom in Solomon. In me there has come to youa greater wisdom than Solomon ever had, and agreater message than Jonah ever brought - but youare so blind that you cannot see the truth and so

deaf that you cannot hear the warning. And for thatvery reason the day will come when these peopleof the past who recognized God when they sawhim will be witnesses against you, who had somuch better a chance, and failed to recognize Godbecause you refused to do so.'

Here is a tremendous truth - Jesus is God'ssign, just as Jonah was God's message to theNinevites and Solomon God's wisdom to theQueen of Sheba. The one real question in life is:'What is our reaction when we are confrontedwith God in Jesus Christ?' Is that reaction bleakhostility, as it was in the case of the scribes andPharisees? Or is it humble acceptance of God'swarning and God's truth as it was in the case ofthe people of Nineveh, and of the Queen ofSheba? The all-important question is: 'What doyou think of Christ?'

THE PERIL OF THE EMPTYHEART

Matthew 12:43-5

'When an unclean spirit goes out of aman, it goes through waterless places,seeking for rest, and does not find it.Then it says: "I will go back to myhouse, from which I came out," andwhen it comes, it finds it empty, sweptand in perfect order. Then it goes andbrings with it seven other spirits moreevil than itself, and they go in and takeup their residence there. So the laststate of that man becomes worse thanthe first; so it will be with this evilgeneration.'

There is a whole world of the most practical truthin this compact and eerie little parable about thehaunted house.

(1) The evil spirit is banished from the man, notdestroyed. That is to say that, in this present age,evil can be conquered, driven away - but it cannotbe destroyed. It is always looking for theopportunity to counter-attack and regain theground that is lost. Evil is a force which may be atbay but is never eliminated.

(2) That is bound to mean that a negativereligion can never be enough. A religion whichconsists in you shall nots will end in failure. Thetrouble about such a religion is that it may be ableto cleanse people by prohibiting all their evilactions, but it cannot keep them cleansed.

Let us think of this in actual practice. Peoplewho drink to excess may be reformed; they maydecide that they will no longer spend their time in

bars; but they must find something else to do: theymust find something to fill up their now emptytime, or they will simply slip back into their evilways. People whose constant pursuit has beenpleasure may decide that they must stop; but theymust find something else to do to fill up their time,or they will simply, through the very emptiness oftheir lives, drift back to their old pursuits. Thelives of these people must not only be sterilizedfrom evil; they must be nurtured to becomeproductive and fruitful. It will always remain truethat 'Satan finds some mischief still for idle handsto do.' And if one kind of action is banished fromlife, another kind must be substituted for it, for lifecannot remain empty.

(3) It therefore follows that the only permanentcure for evil action is Christian action. Anyteaching which stops at telling people what theymust not do is bound to be a failure: it must go onto tell them what they must do. The one fatal

disease is idleness; even a sterilized idleness willsoon be infected. The easiest way to conquer theweeds in a garden is to fill the garden with usefulthings. The easiest way to keep a life from sin isto fill it with healthy action.

To put it quite simply, the Church will mosteasily keep its converts when it gives themChristian work to do. Our aim is not the merenegative absence of evil action; it is the positivepresence of work for Christ. If we are finding thetemptations of evil very threatening, one of thebest ways to conquer them is to plunge intoactivity for God and for our neighbours.

TRUE KINSHIP

Matthew 12:46-50

While he was still speaking to thecrowds, look you, his mother and hisbrothers stood outside, for they wereseeking an opportunity to speak to him.Someone said to him: 'Look you, yourmother and your brothers are standingoutside, seeking an opportunity to speakto you.' He answered the man who hadspoken to him: 'Who is my mother? Andwho are my brothers?' And he stretchedout his hand towards his disciples.'See,' he said, 'my mother and mybrothers! Whoever does the will of myFather in heaven is my brother andsister and mother.'

It was one of the great human tragedies of Jesus'life that, during his lifetime, his nearest anddearest never understood him. 'For not even hisbrothers', says John, 'believed in him' (John 7:5).Mark tells us that when Jesus set out on his publicmission, his friends tried to restrain him, for theysaid that he was mad (Mark 3:21). He seemed tothem to be busily engaged in throwing his lifeaway in a kind of insanity.

It has often been the case that, when men andwomen embarked on the way of Jesus Christ, theirnearest and dearest could not understand them,and were even hostile to them. 'A Christian's onlyrelatives', said one of the early martyrs, 'are thesaints.' Many of the early Quakers had this bitterexperience. When in the seventeenth centuryEdward Burrough was moved to the new way, 'hisparents resenting his "fanatical spirit" drove himforth from his home'. He pleaded humbly with hisfather: 'Let me stay and be your servant. I will do

the work of the hired lad for you. Let me stay!'But, as his biographer says: 'His father wasadamant, and much as the boy loved his home andits familiar surroundings, he was to know it nomore.'

True friendship and true love are founded oncertain things without which they cannot exist.

(1) Friendship is founded on a common ideal.People who are very different in theirbackground, their mental capacity and even theirmethods, can be firm friends if they have acommon ideal for which they work and towardswhich they press.

(2) Friendship is founded on a commonexperience, and on the memories which comefrom it. It is when two people have togetherpassed through some great experience and whenthey can together look back on it that realfriendship begins.

(3) True love is founded on obedience. 'Youare my friends', said Jesus, 'if you do what Icommand you' (John 15:14). There is no way ofshowing the reality of love unless by the spirit ofobedience.

For all these reasons, true kinship is not alwaysa matter of a flesh-and-blood relationship. Itremains true that blood is a tie that nothing canbreak and that many people find their delight andtheir peace in the circle of their family. But it isalso true that sometimes our nearest and dearestare the people who understand us least, and thatwe find our true fellowship with those who workfor a common ideal and who share a commonexperience. This certainly is true - even ifChristians find that those who should be closest tothem are those who are most out of sympathy withthem, there remains for them the fellowship ofJesus Christ and the friendship of all who love theLord.

MANY THINGS IN PARABLES

MATTHEW 13 is a very important chapter in thepattern of the gospel.

(1) It shows a definite turning point in theministry of Jesus. At the beginning of his ministry,we find him teaching in the synagogues; but nowwe find him teaching on the seashore. The changeis very significant. It was not that the door of thesynagogue was as yet finally shut to him, but itwas closing. In the synagogue, he would still finda welcome from the ordinary people; but theofficial leaders of Jewish orthodoxy were now inopen opposition to him. When he entered asynagogue now, it would not be to find only aneager crowd of listeners; it would be also to finda bleak-eyed company of scribes and Phariseesand elders weighing and sifting every word tofind a charge against him, and watching every

action to turn it into an accusation.

It is one of the supreme tragedies that Jesus wasbanished from the 'church' of his day; but thatcould not stop him from bringing his invitation tomen and women; for when the doors of thesynagogue were closed against him, he took to thetemple of the open air, and taught in the villagestreets, and on the roads, and by the lakeside, andin people's own homes. Anyone who has a realmessage to deliver, and a real desire to deliver it,will always find a way of passing it on.

(2) The great interest of this chapter is that herewe see Jesus beginning to use to the full hischaracteristic method of teaching in parables.Even before this, he had used a way of teachingwhich had the germ of the parable in it. The simileof the salt and the light (5:13-16), the picture ofthe birds and the lilies (6:26-30), the story of thewise and the foolish builder (7:24-7), the

illustration of the garments and the wine skins(9:16-17), the picture of the children playing inthe market place (11:16-17) are all embryoparables. They are truth in pictures.

But it is in this chapter that we find Jesus' wayof using parables fully developed and at its mostvivid. As someone has said, 'Whatever else istrue of Jesus, it is certainly true that he was one ofthe world's supreme masters of the short story.'Before we begin to study these parables in detail,let us ask why Jesus used this method and whatare the great teaching advantages which it offers.

(a) The parable always makes truth concrete.There are very few people who can grasp andunderstand abstract ideas; most people think inpictures. We could spend a long time trying to putinto words what beauty is, and at the end of it noone would be very much the wiser; but if we canpoint at someone and say: 'That is a beautiful

person', no more description is needed. We mightspend a long time trying to define goodness and inthe end leave no clear idea of goodness inpeople's minds: but we all recognize a goodperson and good deed when we see them. In orderto be understood, every great word must becomeflesh, every great idea must take form and shapein a person; and the first great quality of a parableis that it makes truth into a picture which everyonecan see and understand.

(b) It has been said that all great teachingbegins from the here and now in order to get tothe there and then. If we want to teach peopleabout things which they do not understand, wemust begin from things which they do understand.The parable begins with material which everyoneunderstands because it is within everyone'sexperience, and from that it leads on to thingswhich those listening do not understand, andopens their eyes to things which they have failed

to see. The parable opens people's minds andeyes by beginning from where they are andleading them on to where they ought to be.

(c) The great teaching virtue of the parable isthat it compels interest. The surest way to interestpeople is to tell them stories. The parable putstruth in the form of a story; the simplest definitionof a parable is in fact that it is 'an earthly storywith a heavenly meaning'. People will not listen,and their attention cannot be retained, unless theyare interested; with most people, it is storieswhich awaken and maintain interest, and theparable is a story.

(d) The parable has the great virtue that itenables and compels us to discover truth forourselves. It does not do our thinking for us; itsays: 'Here is a story. What is the truth in it? Whatdoes it mean for you? Think it out for yourself.'

There are some things which we cannot be told;

we must discover them for ourselves. Thenineteenth-century critic and essayist Walter Pateronce said that you cannot tell people the truth; youcan only put them into a position in which they candiscover it for themselves. Unless we discovertruth for ourselves, it remains a second-hand andexternal thing; and further, unless we discovertruth for ourselves, we will almost certainlyforget it quickly. The parable, by compellingpeople to draw their own conclusions and to dotheir own thinking, at one and the same timemakes truth real to them and fixes it in thememory.

(e) The other side of that is that the parableconceals truth from those who are either toolazy to think or too blinded by prejudice to see.It puts the responsibility fairly and squarely on theindividual. It reveals truth to those who desiretruth: it conceals truth from those who do not wishto see the truth.

(f) One final thing must be remembered. Theparable, as Jesus used it, was spoken; it was notread. Its impact had to be immediate, not the resultof long study with commentaries and dictionaries.It made truth flash upon the listeners as thelightning suddenly illuminates a pitch-dark night.In our study of the parables, that means two thingsfor us.

First, it means that we must amass everypossible detail about the background of life inPalestine, so that the parable will strike us as itdid those who heard it for the first time. We mustthink and study and imagine ourselves back intothe minds of those who were listening to Jesus.

Second, it means that, generally speaking, aparable will have only one point. A parable is notan allegory; an allegory is a story in which everypossible detail has an inner meaning; but anallegory has to be read and studied, while a

parable is heard. We must be very careful not tomake allegories of the parables and to rememberthat they were designed to make one stabbing truthflash out at people the moment they heard it.

THE SOWER WENT OUT TO SOW

Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23

On that day, when he had gone out fromthe house, Jesus sat on the seashore; andsuch great crowds gathered to hear himthat he went into a boat, and sat there;and the whole crowd took their stand onthe seashore; and he spoke many thingsin parables to them. 'Look!' he said, 'thesower went out to sow; and, as hesowed, some seed fell by the wayside:and the birds came and devoured it. Butsome seed fell upon stony ground,where it had not much earth; and,because it had no depth of earth, itsprang up immediately; but when thesun rose it was scorched, and it

withered away because it had no root.Other seed fell upon thorns, and thethorns came up, and choked the life outof it. But others fell on good ground,and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold,some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Whohas ears, let him hear.' . . .

'Listen then to the meaning of theparable of the sower. When anyonehears the word of the kingdom, anddoes not understand it, the evil onecomes, and snatches away that whichwas sown in his heart. This isrepresented by the picture of the seedwhich was sown by the wayside. Thepicture of the seed which was sown onthe stony ground represents the manwho hears the word, and immediatelyreceives it with joy. But he has no root

in himself, and is at the mercy of themoment, and so, when affliction andpersecution come, because of the word,he at once stumbles. The picture of theseed which is sown among the thornsrepresents the man who hears the word,but the cares of this world and theseduction of riches choke the word, andit bears no crop. The picture of the seedwhich was sown on the good groundrepresents the man who hears the wordand understands it. He indeed bearsfruit and produces some a hundredfold,some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.'

HERE is a picture which anyone in Palestinewould understand. Here we actually see Jesususing the here and now to get to the there and then.There is a point which the Revised StandardVersion obscures. The Revised Standard Version

has: 'A sower went out to sow.' The Greek is nota sower, but: 'The sower went out to sow.'

What in all likelihood happened was that, asJesus was using the boat by the lakeside as apulpit, in one of the fields near the shore a sowerwas actually sowing, and Jesus took the sower,whom they could all see, as a text, and began:'Look at the sower there sowing his seed in thatfield!' Jesus began from something which at themoment they could actually see to open theirminds to truth which as yet they had never seen.

In Palestine, there were two ways of sowingseed. It could be sown by the sower scattering itbroadcast as he walked up and down the field. Ofcourse, if the wind was blowing, some of the seedwould be caught by the wind and blown into allkinds of places, and sometimes out of the fieldaltogether. The second way was a lazy way, butwas not uncommonly used. It was to put a sack of

seed on the back of a donkey, to tear or cut a holein the corner of the sack, and then to walk theanimal up and down the field while the seed ranout. In such a case, some of the seed might welldribble out while the animal was crossing thepathway and before it reached the field at all.

In Palestine, the fields were in long narrowstrips; and the ground between the strips wasalways a right of way. It was used as a commonpath; and therefore it was beaten as hard as apavement by the feet of countless passers-by. Thatis what Jesus means by the wayside. If seed fellthere - and some was bound to fall there inwhatever way it was sown - there was no morechance of its penetrating into the earth than if ithad fallen on the road.

The stony ground was not ground filled withstones; it was what was common in Palestine, athin skin of earth on top of an underlying shelf of

limestone rock. The earth might be only a veryfew inches deep before the rock was reached. Onsuch ground, the seed would certainly germinate;and it would germinate quickly, because theground grew speedily warm with the heat of thesun. But there was no depth of earth; and, when itsent down its roots in search of nourishment andmoisture, it would meet only the rock, and wouldbe starved to death and quite unable to withstandthe heat of the sun.

The thorny ground was deceptive. When thesower was sowing, the ground would look cleanenough. It is easy to make a garden look clean bysimply turning it over; but in the ground still laythe fibrous roots of the couch grass and the groundelder and all the perennial pests, ready to springto life again. Every gardener knows that theweeds grow with a speed and a strength that fewgood seeds can equal. The result was that thegood seed and the dormant weeds grew together;

but the weeds were so strong that they throttledthe life out of the seed.

The good ground was deep and clean and soft;the seed could gain an entry; it could findnourishment; it could grow unchecked; and in thegood ground it brought forth an abundant harvest.

THE WORD AND THE HEARER

Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23 (contd)This parable is really aimed at two sets of people.

(a) It is aimed at the hearers of the word. It isfairly frequently held by scholars that theinterpretation of the parable in verses 18-23 is notthe interpretation of Jesus himself but theinterpretation of the preachers of the early Church,and that it is not in fact correct. It is said that ittransgresses the law that a parable is not anallegory, and that it is too detailed to be graspedby listeners at first hearing. If Jesus was reallypointing at an actual sower sowing seed, that doesnot seem a valid objection; and, in any event, theinterpretation which identifies the different kindsof soil with different kinds of hearers has alwaysheld its place in the Church's thought, and must

surely have come from some authoritative source.If so, why not from Jesus himself?

If we take the parable as a warning to hearers,it means that there are different ways of acceptingthe word of God, and the fruit which it producesdepends on the hearts of those who accept it. Thefate of any spoken word depends on the hearers.As it has been said, 'A jest's prosperity lies not inthe tongue of him who tells it, but in the ear of himwho hears it.' A joke will succeed when it is toldto someone who has a sense of humour and isprepared to smile. A joke will fail when it is toldto a humourless person or to someone who isgrimly determined not to be amused. Who then arethe hearers described and warned in this parable?

(1) There are the hearers with shut minds.There are people into whose minds the word hasno more chance of gaining entry than the seed hasof settling into the ground that has been beaten

hard by many feet. There are many things whichcan shut people's minds. Prejudice can make themblind to everything they do not wish to see. Theunteachable spirit can erect a barrier whichcannot easily be broken down. The unteachablespirit can result from one of two things. It can bethe result of pride which does not know that itneeds to know; and it can be the result of the fearof new truth and the refusal to adventure on theways of thought. Sometimes an immoral characterand a particular way of life can shut the mind.There may be truth which condemns the things thatan individual loves and which accuses the thingsthat he or she does; and many refuse to listen to orto recognize the truth which condemns them, forthere are none so blind as those who deliberatelywill not see.

(2) There are the hearers with minds like theshallow ground. These are people who fail tothink things out and think them through.

Some people are at the mercy of every newcraze. They take a thing up quickly and just asquickly drop it. They must always be in fashion.They begin some new hobby or begin to acquiresome new accomplishment with enthusiasm, butthe thing becomes difficult and they abandon it, orthe enthusiasm wanes and they lay it aside. Somepeople's lives are littered with things they beganand never finished. It is possible to be like thatwith the word. When people hear it, they may beswept off their feet with an emotional reaction;but no one can live on an emotion. We all haveminds, and it is a moral obligation to have anintelligent faith. Christianity has its demands, andthese demands must be faced before it can beaccepted. The Christian offer is not only aprivilege, it is also a responsibility. A suddenenthusiasm can always so quickly become a dyingfire.

(3) There are the hearers who have so many

interests in life that often the most importantthings get crowded out. It is characteristic ofmodern life that it becomes increasingly crowdedand increasingly fast. We become too busy topray: we become so preoccupied with manythings that we forget to study the word of God; wecan become so involved in committees and goodworks and charitable services that we leaveourselves no time for him from whom all love andservice come. Our work can take such a hold thatwe are too tired to think of anything else. It is notthe things which are obviously bad which aredangerous. It is the things which are good, for the'second best is always the worst enemy of thebest'. It is not even that we deliberately banishprayer and the Bible and the Church from ourlives: it can be that we often think of them andintend to make time for them, but somehow in ourcrowded lives never get round to it. We must becareful to see that Christ is not pushed into the

sidelines of life.

(4) There are people who are like the goodground. In their reception of the word, there arefour stages. Like the good ground, their minds areopen. They are at all times willing to learn. Theyare prepared to hear. They are never either tooproud or too busy to listen. Many of us wouldhave been saved all kinds of heartbreak if we hadsimply stopped to listen to the voice of a wisefriend or to the voice of God. Such peopleunderstand. They have thought the thing out andknow what this means for them, and are preparedto accept it. They translate their hearing intoaction. They produce the good fruit of the goodseed. The real hearers are those who listen, whounderstand and who obey.

NO DESPAIR

Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23 (contd)(b) We said this parable had a double impact.

We have looked at the impact it was designed tohave on those who hear the word. But it wasequally designed to have an impact on those whopreach the word. Not only was it meant to saysomething to the listening crowds; it was alsomeant to say something to the inner circle of thedisciples.

It is not difficult to see that in the hearts of thedisciples there must sometimes have been acertain discouragement. To them, Jesus waseverything, the wisest and the most wonderful ofall. But, humanly speaking, he had very littlesuccess. The doors of the synagogue were shuttingagainst him. The leaders of orthodox religion

were his bitterest critics and were obviously outto destroy him. True, the crowds came to hearhim; but there were so few who were reallychanged, and so many who came to reap thebenefit of his healing power, and, who, when theyhad received it, went away and forgot. Therewere so many who came to Jesus only for whatthey could get. The disciples were faced with asituation in which Jesus seemed to rouse nothingbut hostility in the religious leaders, and nothingbut a very short-lived response in the crowd. It isin no way surprising if in the hearts of thedisciples there was sometimes deepdisappointment. What then does the parable say tothe preacher who is discouraged?

Its lesson is clear - the harvest is sure. Fordiscouraged preachers of the word, the lesson isin the climax of the parable, in the picture of theseed which brought forth abundant fruit. Someseed may fall by the wayside and be snatched

away by the birds; some seed may fall on theshallow ground and never come to maturity; someseed may fall among the thorns and be choked todeath; but in spite of all that the harvest doescome. No farmer expects every single seed that issown to germinate and bring forth fruit. Farmersknow quite well that some will be blown away bythe wind, and some will fall in places where itcannot grow; but that does not stop them sowing.Nor does it make them give up hope of theharvest. They sow in the confidence that, even ifsome of the seed is wasted, nonetheless theharvest will certainly come.

So, this is a parable of encouragement to thosewho sow the seed of the word.

(1) When we sow the seed of the word, we donot know what we are doing or what effect theseed is having. The folklorist and short-storywriter H. L. Gee tells this story. In the church

where he worshipped, there was a lonely oldman, old Thomas. He had outlived all his friends,and hardly anyone knew him. When Thomas died,Gee had the feeling that there would be no one togo to the funeral, so he decided to go, so that theremight be someone to follow the old man to his lastresting place.

There was no one else, and it was a wild, wetday. The funeral reached the cemetery; and at thegate there was a soldier waiting. He was anofficer, but on his raincoat there were no rankbadges. The soldier came to the graveside for theceremony; when it was over, he stepped forwardand before the open grave swept his handupwards in the manner of a royal salute. H. L. Geewalked away with this soldier, and as theywalked, the wind blew the soldier's raincoat opento reveal the shoulder badges of a brigadier.

The brigadier said to Gee: 'You will perhaps

be wondering what I am doing here. Years ago,Thomas was my Sunday School teacher; I was awild lad and a sore trial to him. He never knewwhat he did for me, but I owe everything I am orwill be to old Thomas, and today I had to come tosalute him at the end.' Thomas did not know whathe was doing. No preacher or teacher ever does.It is our task to sow the seed, and to leave the restto God.

(2) When we sow the seed, we must not lookfor quick results. There is never any haste innature's growth. It takes a long, long time beforean acorn becomes an oak; and it may take a long,long time before the seed germinates in the heartof an individual. But often a word dropped intosomeone's heart in childhood lies dormant untilsome day it awakens and its memory bringsresistance to some great temptation or evenpreserves that person's soul from death. We livein an age which looks for quick results; but in the

sowing of the seed we must sow in patience andin hope, and sometimes must leave the harvest tothe years.

THE TRUTH AND THE LISTENER

Matthew 13:10-17, 34-5

The disciples came and said to him:'Why do you speak to them in parables?''To you', he answered them, 'it has beengiven to know the secrets of thekingdom, which only a disciple canunderstand, but to them it has not beenso given. For it will be given to himwho already has, and he will have anoverflowing knowledge. But what hehas will be taken away from him whohas not. It is for that reason that I speakto them in parables, for although theycan see, they do not see; and althoughthey can hear, they do not hear orunderstand. There is being fulfilled in

them Isaiah's prophecy which says:"You will certainly hear, but you willnot understand; and you will certainlylook, but you will not see; for the heartof this people has grown fat, and theyhear dully with their ears, and their eyesare smeared, lest at any time theyshould see with their eyes, and hearwith their ears, and understand withtheir heart, and turn, and I will healthem. But blessed are your eyes for theysee, and your ears because they hear."This is the truth I tell you - manyprophets and righteous men longed tosee things that you are seeing, and didnot see them, and to hear the things thatyou are hearing, and did not hear them.'. . .

Jesus spoke all these things to the

crowds in parables, and it was not hiscustom to speak to them without aparable. He did this that that which wasspoken through the prophet might befulfilled: 'I will open my mouth inparables: I will utter things which havebeen hidden since the foundation of theworld.'

This is a passage full of difficult things; and wemust take time to try to seek out its meaning. Firstof all, there are two general things at thebeginning which, if we understand them, will gofar to light up the whole passage.

The Greek word in verse 11, which I havetranslated secrets (as the Revised StandardVersion also does), is musteria. This meansliterally mysteries, which is, in fact, how theAuthorized Version renders it. In New Testament

times, this word mystery was used in a specialand a technical way. To us, a mystery meanssimply something dark and difficult andimpossible to understand, something mysterious.But in New Testament times, it was the technicalname for something which was unintelligible tothe outsider but crystal clear to anyone who hadbeen initiated.

In the time of Jesus, in both Greece and Romethe most intense and real religion was found inwhat were known as the mystery religions. Thesereligions all had a common character. They werein essence passion plays in which was told indrama the story of some god or goddess who hadlived and suffered and died and who had risenagain to blessedness. The initiate was given along course of instruction in which the innermeaning of the drama was explained; that courseof instruction extended over months and evenyears. Before being allowed finally to see the

drama, the initiate had to undergo a period offasting and abstinence. Everything was done tocreate a state of emotion and of expectation. Theinitiate was then taken to see the play; theatmosphere was carefully constructed; there wascunning lighting; there were incenses andperfumes; there was sensuous music; there was inmany cases a noble liturgy. The drama was thenplayed out; and it was intended to produce in theworshipper a complete identification with the godwhose story was told on the stage. Theworshipper was intended literally to share in thedivinity's life and sufferings and death andresurrection, and therefore shared in hisimmortality. The cry of the worshipper in the endwas: 'I am Thou, and Thou art I.'

We take an actual example. One of the mostfamous of all the mysteries was the mystery ofIsis. Osiris was a wise and good king. Seth, hiswicked brother, hated him, and with seventy-two

conspirators persuaded him to come to a banquet.There he persuaded him to enter a cunningly madecoffin which exactly fitted him. When Osiris wasin the coffin, the lid was snapped down and thecoffin was flung into the Nile. After a long andweary search, Isis, the faithful wife of Osiris,found the coffin and brought it home in mourning.But when she was absent from home, the wickedSeth came again, stole the body of Osiris, cut itinto fourteen pieces and scattered it throughout allEgypt. Once again, Isis set out on her weary andsorrowful quest. After a long search she found allthe pieces; by a wondrous power the pieces werefitted together and Osiris rose from the dead; andhe became forever afterwards the immortal kingof the living and the dead.

It is easy to see how that story could be madevery moving to one who had undergone a longinstruction, to one who saw it in the most

carefully calculated setting. There is the story ofthe good king; there is the attack of sin; there is thesorrowing search of love; there is the triumphantfinding of love: there is the raising to a life whichhas conquered death. It was with that experiencethat the worshipper was meant to identify, and toemerge from it, in the famous phrase of themystery religions, 'reborn for eternity'.

That is a mystery; something meaningless to theoutsider, but supremely precious to the initiate. Inpoint of fact, the Lord's Supper is like that. To onewho has never seen such a thing before, it willlook like a company of men and women eatinglittle pieces of bread and drinking little sips ofwine, and it might even appear ridiculous. But tothe men and women who know what they aredoing, to those who are initiated into its meaning,it is the most precious and the most moving act ofworship in the Church.

So Jesus says to his disciples: 'Outsiderscannot understand what I say; but you know me;you are my disciples; you can understand.'Christianity can be understood only from theinside. It is only after personal encounter withJesus Christ that people can understand. Tocriticize from outside is to criticize in ignorance.It is only those who are prepared to becomedisciples who can enter into the most preciousthings of the Christian faith.

LIFE'S STERN LAW

Matthew 13:10-17, 34-5 (contd)The second general thing is the saying in verse 12that still more will be given to those who have,and even what they have will be taken away fromthose who have not. At first sight, this seemsnothing less than cruel; but so far from beingcruel, it simply states a truth which is aninescapable law of life.

In every sphere of life, more is given to peoplewho have, and what they have is taken away fromthose who have not. In the world of scholarship,the students who labour to amass knowledge arecapable of acquiring more knowledge. It is tothese students that the research, the advancedcourses and the deeper things are given; and thatis so because by their diligence and faithful study

they have made themselves fit to receive them. Onthe other hand, the students who are lazy andrefuse to work inevitably lose even the knowledgewhich they have.

Many of us in childhood and schooldays had asmattering of Latin or of French or of some otherlanguage, and in later life lost every word,because we never made any attempt to develop oruse them. Many people had some skill in a craft orgame and lost it, because they neglected it. Thosewho are diligent and hard-working are in aposition to be given more and more; lazy peoplemay well lose even what they have. Any gift canbe developed; and, since nothing in life standsstill, if a gift is not developed, it is lost.

It is so with goodness. Every temptation weconquer makes us more able to conquer the next,and every temptation to which we fall makes usless able to withstand the next attack. Every good

thing we do, every act of self-discipline and ofservice, makes us better able for the next; andevery time we fail to use such an opportunity, wemake ourselves less able to seize the next when itcomes.

Life is always a process of gaining more orlosing more. Jesus laid down the truth that thenearer men and women live to him, the nearer tothe Christian ideal they will grow. And the morethey drift away from Christ, the less they are ableto aspire to goodness; for weakness, like strength,is an increasing thing.

HUMAN BLINDNESS AND GOD'SPURPOSE

Matthew 13:10-17, 34-5 (contd)Verses 13-17 of this passage are among the mostdifficult verses in the whole gospel narrative. Andthe fact that they appear differently in the differentgospels shows how much that difficulty was feltin the early Church. Being the earliest gospel, wewould expect Mark to be the nearest to the actualwords of Jesus. It (4:11-12) has:

To you has been given the secret of thekingdom of God, but for those outside,everything comes in parables; in orderthat 'they may indeed look, but notperceive, and may indeed listen, but notunderstand; so that they may not turn

again and be forgiven'.

If these verses are taken at their superficial valuewith no attempt to understand their real meaning,they make the extraordinary statement that Jesusspoke to the people in parables in order that theymight not understand, and in order to prevent themturning to God and finding forgiveness.

Matthew (13:13) is later than Mark and makesone significant change:

The reason I speak to them in parablesis that 'seeing they do not perceive, andhearing they do not listen, nor do theyunderstand'.

As Matthew has it, Jesus spoke in parablesbecause people were too blind and deaf toglimpse the truth in any other way.

It is to be noted that this saying of Jesus leadsinto a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10. That wasanother passage which caused a great deal ofheart-searching. In the Revised Standard Version,which is a literal translation of the Hebrew, itruns:

Go, and say to this people: 'Hear andhear, but do not understand: see andsee, but do not perceive.' Make theheart of this people fat, and their earsheavy, and shut their eyes; lest they seewith their eyes, and hear with their ears,and understand with their hearts, andturn and be healed.

Again, it sounds as if God had deliberatelyblinded the eyes and deafened the ears andhardened the hearts of the people, so that they

would be unable to understand. The nation's lackof understanding is made to seem a deliberate actof God.

Just as Matthew toned down Mark, so theSeptuagint, the Greek translation of the HebrewScriptures, and the version which most Jews usedin the time of Jesus, toned down the originalHebrew:

Go, say to this people: 'Ye shall hearindeed, but ye shall not understand; andseeing ye shall see and not perceive.'For the heart of this people has becomegross, and with their ears they hearheavily, and their eyes they haveclosed, lest at any time they should seewith their eyes, and hear with their ears,and understand with their heart, andshould be converted, and I should heal

them.

The Septuagint, so to speak, removes theresponsibility from God and lays it fairly andsquarely upon the people.

What is the explanation of all this? We may becertain of one thing - whatever else this passagemeans, it cannot mean that Jesus deliberatelydelivered his message in such a way that peoplewould fail to understand it. Jesus did not come tohide the truth from men and women; he came toreveal it. And beyond a doubt there were timeswhen they grasped that truth.

When the orthodox Jewish leaders heard thethreat of the parable of the wicked tenants, theyunderstood all right, and recoiled in horror fromits message to say: 'Heaven forbid!' (Luke 20:16).And in verses 34 and 35 of this present passage,Jesus quotes a saying of the psalmist:

Give ear, O my people, to my teaching;incline your cars to the words of mymouth. I will open my mouth in aparable; I will utter dark sayings fromof old, things that we have heard andknown, that our ancestors have told us.

That is a quotation from Psalm 78:1-3, and in itthe psalmist knows that what he is saying will beunderstood, and that he is recalling men andwomen to truth that both they and their ancestorshave known.

The truth is that the words of Isaiah, and the usethat Jesus made of them, must be read with insightand with an attempt to put ourselves in theposition both of Isaiah and of Jesus. These wordstell of three things.

(1) They tell of a prophet's bewilderment. Theprophet brought a message to people which to him

was crystal clear; and he was bewildered thatthey could not understand it. That is repeatedly theexperience of both the preacher and the teacher.Often when we preach or teach or discuss thingswith people, we try to tell them something whichto us is relevant, vivid, of absorbing interest andof paramount importance, and they hear it with acomplete lack of interest, understanding orurgency. And we are amazed and bewildered thatwhat means so much to us apparently meansnothing at all to them, that what fires us withenthusiasm leaves them cold, that what thrills andmoves our hearts leaves them icily indifferent.That is the experience of every teacher andpreacher and evangelist.

(2) They tell of a prophet's despair. It wasIsaiah's feeling that his preaching was actuallydoing more harm than good, that he might as wellspeak to a brick wall, that there was no way intothe minds and the hearts of this deaf and blind

people, that, as far as any effects went, theyseemed to be getting worse instead of better.Again, that is the experience of every teacher andpreacher. There are times when those whom weseek to win seem, in spite of all our efforts, to begetting further away from, instead of nearer to, theChristian way. Our words go whistling down thewind; our message meets the impenetrable barrierof human indifference; the result of all our workseems less than nothing, for at the end of it peopleseem further away from God than they were at thebeginning.

(3) But these words tell of something more thana prophet's bewilderment and a prophet's despair;they also tell of a prophet's ultimate faith. Here,we find ourselves face to face with a Jewishconviction apart from which much of what theprophet, and of what Jesus, and of what the earlyChurch said is not fully intelligible.

To put it simply, it was a primary article ofJewish belief that nothing in this world happensoutside the will of God; and when they saidnothing they meant literally nothing. It was justas much God's will when people did not listen aswhen they did: it was just as much God's willwhen people refused to understand the truth aswhen they welcomed it. The Jews clung fast to thebelief that everything had its place in the purposeof God and that somehow God was weavingtogether success and failure, good and evil in aweb of his designing.

The ultimate purpose of everything was good.The apparent evil is gathered up in a larger good,for all is within the plan of God.

That is what Isaiah was feeling. At first, he wasbewildered and in despair; then the light came andin effect he said: 'I cannot understand the conductof this people; but I know that all this failure is

somehow in the ultimate purpose of God, and hewill use it for his own ultimate glory and for theultimate good of men and women.' Jesus tookthese words of Isaiah and used them to encouragehis disciples; he said in effect: 'I know that thislooks disappointing; I know how you are feelingwhen in their minds and hearts people refuse toreceive the truth and when their eyes refuse torecognize it: but in this, too, there is purpose - andsome day you will see it.'

Here is our own great encouragement.Sometimes we see our harvest and we are glad;sometimes there seems to be nothing but barrenground, nothing but total lack of response, nothingbut failure. That may be so to human eyes andhuman minds, but at the back of it there is a Godwho is fitting even that failure into the divine planof his omniscient mind and his omnipotent power.There are no failures and there are no loose endsin the ultimate plan of God.

THE ACT OF AN ENEMY

Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

Jesus put forward another parable. 'Thekingdom of heaven', he said to them, 'islike what happened when a man sowedgood seed in his field. When men slept,his enemy came and sowed darnel in themiddle of the corn, and went away.When the green grain grew, and when itbegan to produce its crop, then thedarnel appeared. The servants of themaster of the house came to him andsaid: "Sir, did we not sow good seed inyour field? From where, then, did it getthe darnel?" "An enemy has done this,"he said to them. The servants said tohim: "Do you wish us to go and collect

the darnel?" But he said: "No; for if yougather the darnel the danger is that youmay root up the corn at the same time.Let them both grow together until theharvest time; and at the time of theharvest I will say to the reapers: "Firstgather the darnel and bind them intobundles for burning. But gather the corninto my storehouse."' . . .

When he had sent the crowds away,he went into the house. His disciplescame to him. 'Explain to us', they said,'the parable of the darnel in the field,'He answered: 'He who sows the goodseed is the Son of Man. The field is theworld. The good seed stands for thesons of the kingdom; the darnel is thesons of the evil one. The enemy whosowed it is the devil. The harvest is the

end of this age: the reapers are theangels. Just as the darnel is gatheredand burned with fire, so it will be at theend of this age. The Son of Man willsend his angels, and they will gather allthe stumbling-blocks, and all those whoact lawlessly, out of the kingdom, andwill cast them into the furnace of fire;and weeping and gnashing of teeth willbe there. Then the righteous will shineas the sun in the kingdom of theirFather. Who has ears let him hear.'

THE pictures in this parable would be clear andfamiliar to a Palestinian audience. Tares were oneof the curses against which a farmer had to labour.They were a weed called bearded darnel (loliumtemulentum). In their early stages, the tares soclosely resembled the wheat that it wasimpossible to distinguish the one from the other.

When both had produced seed heads it was easyto distinguish them; but by that time their rootswere so intertwined that the tares could not beweeded out without tearing the wheat out withthem.

W. M. Thomson in The Land and the Booktells how he saw the tares in the Wadi Hamam:'The grain is just in the proper stage ofdevelopment to illustrate the parable. In thoseparts where the grain has headed out [producedseed heads], the tares have done the same, andthere a child cannot mistake them for wheat orbarley; but when both are less developed, theclosest scrutiny will often fail to detect them. Icannot do it at all with any confidence. Even thefarmers, who in this country generally weed theirfields, do not attempt to separate the one from theother. They would not only mistake good grain forthem, but very commonly the roots of the two areso intertwined that it is impossible to separate

them without plucking up both. Both, therefore,must be left to grow together until the time ofharvest.'

The tares and the wheat are so like each otherthat the Jews called the tares bastard wheat. TheHebrew for tares is zunim, whence comes theGreek zizanion; zunim is said to be connectedwith the word zanah, which means to commitfornication; and the popular story is that the tarestook their origin in the time of wickedness whichpreceded the flood, for at that time the wholecreation, human beings, animals and plants, allwent astray, and committed fornication andbrought forth contrary to nature. In their earlystages, the wheat and the tares so closelyresembled each other that the popular idea wasthat the tares were a kind of wheat which hadgone wrong.

The wheat and tares could not be safely

separated when both were growing, but in the endthey had to be separated, because the grain of thebearded darnel is slightly poisonous. It causesdizziness and sickness and is narcotic in itseffects, and even a small amount has a bitter andunpleasant taste. In the end, it was usuallyseparated by hand. The scholar N. Levisondescribes the process: 'Women have to be hired topick the darnel grain out of the seed which is to bemilled . . . As a rule the separation of the darnelfrom the wheat is done after the threshing. Byspreading the grain out on a large tray which is setbefore the women, they are able to pick out thedarnel, which is a seed similar in shape and sizeto wheat, but slate-grey in colour.'

So, the darnel in its early stages wasindistinguishable from the wheat, but in the end ithad to be laboriously separated from it, or theconsequences were serious.

The picture of a man deliberately sowingdarnel in someone else's field is by no means onlyimagination. That was actually sometimes done.To this day in India, one of the direst threatswhich someone can make to an enemy is: 'I willsow bad seed in your field.' And in codifiedRoman law, this crime is forbidden and itspunishment laid down.

The whole series of pictures within thisparable was familiar to the people of Galilee whoheard it for the first time.

THE TIME FOR JUDGMENT

Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 (contd)It may well be said that in its lessons this is one ofthe most practical parables that Jesus ever told.

(1) It teaches us that there is always a hostilepower in the world, seeking and waiting todestroy the good seed. Our experience is that bothkinds of influence act upon our lives - theinfluence which helps the seed of the word toflourish and to grow, and the influence whichseeks to destroy the good seed before it canproduce fruit at all. The lesson is that we must beforever on our guard.

(2) It teaches us how hard it is to distinguishbetween those who are in the kingdom and thosewho are not. Some people may appear to be goodand may in fact be bad; and others may appear to

be bad and may yet be good. We are much tooquick to classify people and label them good orbad without knowing all the facts.

(3) It teaches us not to be so quick with ourjudgments. If the reapers had had their way, theywould have tried to tear out the darnel and theywould have torn out the wheat as well. Judgmenthad to wait until the harvest came. In the end, wewill be judged, not by any single act or stage inour lives, but by our whole lives. Judgment cannotcome until the end. It is possible to make a greatmistake, and then redeem ourselves and, by thegrace of God, atone for it by making the rest oflife a lovely thing. It is also possible to live anhonourable life and then in the end wreck it all bya sudden collapse into sin. No one who sees onlypart of a thing can judge the whole; and no onewho knows only part of an individual's life canjudge the whole person.

(4) It teaches us that judgment does come in theend. Judgment is not hasty, but judgment comes. Itmay be that, humanly speaking, in this life thesinner seems to escape the consequences - butthere is a life to come. It may be that, humanlyspeaking, goodness never seems to enter into itsreward - but there is a new world to redress thebalance of the old.

(5) It teaches us that the only person with theright to judge is God. It is God alone who candiscern the good and the bad; it is God alone whosees all of an individual and all of a person's life.It is God alone who can judge.

So, ultimately this parable is two things - it is awarning not to judge people at all, and it is awarning that in the end there comes the judgmentof God.

THE SMALL BEGINNING

Matthew 13:31-2

Jesus put forward another parable tothem: 'The kingdom of heaven is like agrain of mustard seed, which a man tookand sowed in his field. It is the smallestof all seeds, and. when it has grown, itis the greatest of herbs, and it becomesa tree, so that the birds of the air comeand lodge in its branches.'

The mustard plant of Palestine was very differentfrom the mustard plant which we know in thiscountry. To be strictly accurate, the mustard seedis not the smallest of seeds; the seed of thecypress tree, for instance, is still smaller; but inthe middle east it was proverbial for smallness.

For example, the Jews talked of a drop of bloodas small as a mustard seed; or, if they weretalking of some tiny breach of the ceremonial law,they would speak of a defilement as small as amustard seed; and Jesus himself used the phrase inthis way when he spoke of faith as a grain ofmustard seed (Matthew 17:20).

In Palestine, this little grain of mustard seed didgrow into something very like a tree. W. M.Thomson in The Land and the Book writes: 'Ihave seen this plant on the rich plain of Akkar astall as the horse and his rider.' He says: 'With thehelp of my guide, I uprooted a veritable mustard-tree which was more than twelve feet high.' In thisparable, there is no exaggeration at all. Further, itwas a common sight to see such mustard bushes ortrees surrounded with a cloud of birds, for thebirds love the little black seeds of the tree, andsettle on the tree to eat them.

Jesus said that his kingdom was like themustard seed and its growth into a tree. The pointis crystal clear. The kingdom of heaven startsfrom the smallest beginnings, but no one knowswhere it will end. In middle eastern language andin the Old Testament itself, one of the commonestpictures of a great empire is the picture of a greattree, with the subject nations depicted as birdsfinding rest and shelter within its branches(Ezekiel 31:6). This parable tells us that thekingdom of heaven begins very small but that inthe end many nations will be gathered within it.

It is the fact of history that the greatest thingsmust always begin with the smallest beginnings.

(1) An idea which may well change civilizationbegins with one person. In the British Empire, itwas William Wilberforce who was responsiblefor the freeing of the slaves. The idea of thatliberation came to him when he read an exposure

of the slave trade by Thomas Clarkson. He was aclose friend of William Pitt, the then PrimeMinister, and one day he was sitting with him andGeorge Grenville in Pitt's garden at Holwood. Itwas a scene of beauty, with the Vale of Kestonopening out before them; but the thoughts ofWilberforce were not on that but on the blots ofthe world. Suddenly Pitt turned to him:'Wilberforce,' he said, 'why don't you give anotice of a motion on the slave trade?' An ideawas sown in the mind of one man, and that ideachanged life for hundreds of thousands of people.An idea must find an individual willing to bepossessed by it: but when it finds such a person anunstoppable tide begins to flow.

(2) A witness must begin with a single person.There is a story about a group of young peoplefrom many nations who were discussing how theChristian gospel might be spread. They talked ofpropaganda, of literature, of all the ways of

disseminating the gospel in the twentieth century.Then the girl from Africa spoke. 'When we wantto take Christianity to one of our villages,' shesaid, 'we don't send them books. We take aChristian family and send them to live in thevillage, and they make the village Christian byliving there.' In a group or society, or school orfactory, or shop or office, again and again it is thewitness of one individual which brings inChristianity. The one man or woman set on firefor Christ is the person who lights that fire inothers.

(3) A reformation begins with one person. Oneof the great stories of the Christian Church is thestory of Telemachus. He was a hermit of thedesert, but something told him - the call of God -that he must go to Rome. He went. Rome wasnominally Christian, but even in Christian Romethe gladiatorial games went on, in which menfought with each other, and crowds roared with

the lust for blood. Telemachus found his way tothe games, where people were there to spectate.He was horrified. Were these men slaughteringeach other not also children of God? He leapedfrom his seat, right into the arena, and stoodbetween the gladiators. He was tossed aside. Hecame back. The crowd were angry; they began tostone him. Still he struggled back between thegladiators. The prefect's command rang out; asword flashed in the sunlight, and Telemachuswas dead. Suddenly there was a hush: suddenlythe crowd realized what had happened; a holyman lay dead. Something happened that day toRome, for there were never again any gladiatorialgames. By his death, one man had let loosesomething that cleansed an empire. Someone mustbegin a reformation; it need not begin in a nation;it may begin in a home or a place of work. If oncethat individual has started it, no one knows whereit will end.

(4) But this was one of the most personalparables Jesus ever spoke. Sometimes hisdisciples must have despaired. Their little bandwas so small and the world was so wide. Howcould they ever win and change it? Yet, withJesus, an invincible force entered the world. HughMartin quotes the writer H. G. Wells as saying:'His is easily the dominant figure in history . . . Ahistorian without any theological bias whatevershould find that he simply cannot portray theprogress of humanity honestly without giving aforemost place to a penniless teacher fromNazareth." In this parable, Jesus is saying to hisdisciples, and to his followers today, that theremust be no discouragement, that they must serveand witness in their own situations, that each onemust be the small beginning from which thekingdom grows until the kingdoms of the earthfinally become the kingdom of God.

THE TRANSFORMING POWEROF CHRIST

Matthew 13:33

He spoke another parable to them: 'Thekingdom of heaven is like leaven, whicha woman took and hid in three measuresof meal, until the whole was leavened.'

IN this chapter, there is nothing more significantthan the sources from which Jesus drew hisparables. In every case, he drew them from thescenes and activities of everyday life. He beganwith things which were entirely familiar to hishearers in order to lead them to things which hadnever yet entered their minds. He took the parableof the sower from the farmer's field and theparable of the mustard seed from the cultivator's

plot; he took the parable of the wheat and the taresfrom the perennial problem which confronted thefarmer in his struggle with the weeds, and theparable of the dragnet from the seashore of theSea of Galilee. He took the parable of the hiddentreasure from the everyday task of digging in afield, and the parable of the pearl of great pricefrom the world of commerce and trade. But in thisparable of the leaven, Jesus came nearer homethan in any other, because he took it from thekitchen of an ordinary house.

In Palestine, bread was baked at home: threemeasures of meal was, as the scholar N. Levisonpoints out, just the average amount which wouldbe needed for a baking for a fairly large family,like the family at Nazareth. Jesus took his parableof the kingdom from something that he had oftenseen his mother, Mary, do. Leaven was a littlepiece of dough kept over from a previous baking,which had fermented in the keeping.

In Jewish language and thought, leaven isalmost always connected with an evil influence;the Jews connected fermentation withputrefaction, and leaven stood for that which isevil (cf. Matthew 16:6; 1 Corinthians 5:6-8;Galatians 5:9). One of the ceremonies ofpreparation for the Passover Feast was that everyscrap of leaven had to be sought out from thehouse and burned. It may well be that Jesus chosethis illustration of the kingdom deliberately. Therewould be a certain shock in hearing the kingdomof God compared to leaven; and the shock wouldarouse interest and rivet attention, as anillustration from an unusual and unexpectedsource always does.

The whole point of the parable lies in one thing- the transforming power of the leaven. Leavenchanged the character of a whole baking.Unleavened bread is like a water biscuit, hard,dry, unappetizing and uninteresting; bread baked

with leaven is soft and porous and spongy, tastyand good to eat. The introduction of the leavencauses a transformation in the dough; and thecoming of the kingdom causes a transformation inlife.

Let us gather together the characteristics of thistransformation.

(1) Christianity transformed life for theindividual. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul gatherstogether a list of the most terrible and disgustingkinds of sinners; and then, in the next verse, therecomes the tremendous statement: 'And such weresome of you.' As the scholar James Denney had it,we must never forget that the function and thepower of Christ is to make bad people good. Thetransformation of Christianity begins in theindividual life, for through Christ the victim oftemptation can become the victor over it.

(2) There are four great social directions in

which Christianity transformed life. Christianitytransformed life for women. The Jew in hismorning prayer thanked God that he had not madehim a Gentile, a slave or a woman. In Greekcivilization, women lived lives of utter seclusion,with nothing to do beyond the household tasks. Inhis book, Schools of Hellas, K. J. Freeman writesof the life of the Greek child or young man even inthe great days of Athens: 'When he came home,there was no home life. His father was hardlyever in the house. His mother was a nonentity,living in the women's apartments; he probablysaw little of her.' In the lands of the middle east, itwas often possible to see a family on a journey.The father would be mounted on a donkey; themother would be walking, and probably bentbeneath a burden. One demonstrable historicaltruth is that Christianity transformed life forwomen.

(3) Christianity transformed life for the weak

and the ill. In pagan life, the weak and the illwere considered a nuisance. In Sparta, children,when they were born, were submitted to theexaminers; if they were fit, they were allowed tolive; if they were weakly or deformed, they wereexposed to death on the mountainside. Theprofessor of medicine Dr A. Rendle Short pointsout that the first blind asylum was founded byThalasius, a Christian monk: the first freedispensary was founded by Apollonius, aChristian merchant; the first hospital of whichthere is any record was founded by Fabiola, aChristian lady. Christianity was the first faith tobe interested in the broken things of life.

(4) Christianity transformed life for the elderly.Like the weak, the elderly were a nuisance. Cato,the Roman writer on agriculture, gives advice toanyone who is taking over a farm: 'Look over thelivestock and hold a sale. Sell your oil, if theprice is satisfactory, and sell the surplus of your

wine and grain. Sell worn-out oxen, blemishedcattle, blemished sheep, wool, hides, an oldwagon, old tools, an old slave, a sickly slave, andwhatever else is superfluous.' The old, whoseday's work was done, were fit for nothing elsethan to be discarded on the rubbish heaps of life.Christianity was the first faith to regard men andwomen as persons and not instruments capable ofdoing so much work.

(5) Christianity transformed life for the child.In the immediate background of Christianity, themarriage relationship had broken down, and thehome was in peril. Divorce was so common that itwas neither unusual nor particularly blameworthyfor a woman to have a new husband every year. Insuch circumstances, children were a disaster; andthe custom of simply exposing children to deathwas tragically common. There is a well-knownletter from a man Hilarion, who had gone off to

Alexandria, to his wife Alis, whom he had left athome. He writes to her: 'If - good luck to you -you bear a child, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is agirl, throw it out.' In modern civilization, life isalmost built round the child: in ancientcivilization, children had a very good chance ofdying before they had begun to live.

Those who ask the question 'What hasChristianity done for the world?' have deliveredthemselves into a Christian debater's hands. Thereis nothing in history so unanswerablydemonstrable as the transforming power ofChristianity and of Christ on the individual lifeand on the life of society.

THE WORKING OF THE LEAVEN

Matthew 13:33 (contd)There remains only one question in regard to thisparable of the leaven. Almost all scholars wouldagree that it speaks of the transforming power ofChrist and of his kingdom in the life of theindividual and of the world: but there is adifference of opinion as to how that transformingpower works.

(1) It is sometimes said that the lesson of thisparable is that the kingdom works unseen. Wecannot see the leaven working in the dough, anymore than we can see a flower growing; but thework of the leaven is always going on. Just so. itis said, we cannot see the work of the kingdom,but always the kingdom is working and drawingindividuals and the world nearer and nearer to

God.

This, then, would be a message ofencouragement. It would mean that at all times wemust take the long view, that we must not comparethings of the present day with last week or lastmonth, or even last year, but that we must lookback down the centuries, and then we will see thesteady progress of the kingdom. As the nineteenth-century poet A. H. Clough had it:

Say not, The struggle nought availeth; The labour and the wounds are vain; The enemy faints not nor faileth, And as things have been they remain.'

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars; It may be, in yon smoke concealed, Your comrades chase even now the fliers,

And, but for you, possess the field.

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking, Seem here no painful inch to gain, Far back, through creeks and inlets making, Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

And, not by eastern windows only, When daylight comes, comes in the light; In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly! But westward, look! the land is bright.

On this view, the parable teaches that with JesusChrist and his gospel a new force has been letloose in the world, and that, silently but

inevitably, that force is working for righteousnessin the world and God indeed is working hispurpose out as year succeeds to year.

(2) But it has sometimes been said, as forinstance by the New Testament scholar C. H.Dodd, that the lesson of the parable is the veryopposite of this, and that, so far from beingunseen, the working of the kingdom can be plainlyseen. The working of the leaven is plain for all tosee. Put the leaven into the dough, and the leavenchanges the dough from a passive lump into aseething, bubbling, heaving mass. Just so, theworking of the kingdom is a violent and disturbingforce plain for all to see. When Christianity cameto Thessalonica, the cry was: 'These people whohave been turning the world upside down havecome here also' (Acts 17:6). The action ofChristianity is disruptive, disturbing and violentin its effect.

There is undeniable truth there. It is true thatJesus Christ was crucified because he disturbedpeople's orthodox habits and conventions; againand again, it has been true that Christianity hasbeen persecuted because it desired to take bothindividuals and society and remake them. It isabundantly true that there is nothing in this worldso disturbing as Christianity; that is, in fact, thereason why so many people resent it and refuse it,and wish to eliminate it.

When we come to think of it, we do not need tochoose between these two views of the parable,because they are both true. There is a sense inwhich the kingdom, the power of Christ, the Spiritof God, is always working, whether or not we seethat work; and there is a sense in which it is plainto see. Many individuals' lives are manifestly andviolently changed by Christ; and at the same timethere is the silent operation of the purposes ofGod in the long road of history.

We may put it in a picture like this. Thekingdom, the power of Christ, the Spirit of God, islike a great river, which for much of its courseglides on beneath the ground unseen, but whichagain and again comes to the surface in all itsgreatness, plain for all to see. This parableteaches both that the kingdom is always thereworking unseen, and that there are times in everyindividual life and in history when the work of thekingdom is so obvious, and so manifestlypowerful, that all can see it.

ALL IN THE DAY'S WORK

Matthew 13:44

'The kingdom of heaven is like atreasure which lay hidden in a field. Aman found it, and hid it; and, as a resultof his joy, away he goes, and sellseverything that he has, and buys thefield.'

Although this parable sounds strange to us, itwould sound perfectly natural to people inPalestine in the days of Jesus, and even to this dayit paints a picture which people in that part of theworld would know well.

In the ancient world there were banks, but notbanks such as ordinary people could use.Ordinary people used the ground as the safest

place to keep their most cherished belongings. Inthe parable of the talents, the worthless servanthid his talent in the ground, lest he should lose it(Matthew 25:25). There was a Rabbinic sayingthat there was only one safe repository for money- the earth.

This was still more the case in a land whereanyone's garden might at any time become abattlefield. Palestine was probably the mostfought-over country in the world; and, when thetide of war threatened to flow over them, it wascommon practice for people to hide theirvaluables in the ground, before they took to flight,in the hope that the day would come when theycould return and regain them. Josephus speaks of'the gold and the silver and the rest of that mostprecious furniture which the Jews had, and whichthe owners treasured up underground against theuncertain fortunes of war'.

W. M. Thomson in The Land and the Book,which was first published in 1876, tells of a caseof treasure discovery which he himself came uponin Sidon. There was in that city a famous avenueof acacia trees. Certain workmen, digging in agarden on that avenue, uncovered several copperpots full of gold coins. They had every intentionof keeping the find to themselves: but there wereso many of them, and they were so wild withexcitement, that their treasure trove wasdiscovered and claimed by the local government.The coins were all coins of Alexander the Greatand his father Philip. Thomson suggests that whenAlexander unexpectedly died in Babylon, newscame through to Sidon, and some Macedonianofficer or government official buried these coinswith the intention of appropriating them in thechaos which was bound to follow Alexander'sdeath. Thomson goes on to tell how there are evenpeople who make it their life's business to search

for hidden treasure, and that they get into such astate of excitement that they have been known tofaint at the discovery of one single coin. WhenJesus told this story, he told the kind of story thatanyone would recognize in Palestine and in themiddle east generally.

It may be thought that in this parable Jesusglorifies a man who was guilty of very sharppractice in that he hid the treasure and then tooksteps to possess himself of it. There are twothings to be said about that. First, althoughPalestine in the time of Jesus was under theRomans and under Roman law, in the ordinary,small, day-to-day things it was traditional Jewishlaw which was used; and in regard to hiddentreasure, Jewish Rabbinic law was quite clear:'What finds belong to the finder, and what findsmust one cause to be proclaimed? These findsbelong to the finder - if a man finds scattered fruit,scattered money . . . these belong to the finder.' In

point of fact, this man had a prior right to what hehad found.

Second, even apart from that, when we aredealing with any parable, the details are nevermeant to be stressed; the parable has one mainpoint, and to that point everything else issubservient. In this parable, the great point is thejoy of the discovery that made the man willing togive up everything to make sure beyond questionthat the treasure became his own. Nothing else inthe parable really matters.

(1) The lesson of this parable is, first, that theman found the precious thing, not so much bychance, as in his day's work. It is true to say thathe stumbled unexpectedly upon it, but he did sowhen he was going about his daily business. Andit is legitimate to infer that he must have beengoing about his daily business with diligence andefficiency, because he must have been digging

deep, and not merely scraping the surface, inorder to strike against the treasure. It would be asad thing if it were only in churches, in so-calledholy places and on so-called religious occasionsthat we found God and felt close to him.

There is an unwritten saying of Jesus whichnever found its way into any of the gospels, butwhich rings true: 'Raise the stone and you willfind me; cleave the wood and I am there.' Whenthe mason is working on the stone, when thecarpenter is working with the wood, Jesus Christis there. True happiness, true satisfaction, thesense of God and the presence of Christ are all tobe found in the day's work, when that day's workis honestly and conscientiously done. BrotherLawrence, the great seventeenth-century saint andmystic, spent much of his working life in themonastery kitchen among the dirty dishes, and hecould say: 'I felt Jesus Christ as close to me in thekitchen as ever I did at the blessed sacrament.'

(2) The lesson of this parable is, second, that itis worth any sacrifice to enter the kingdom. Whatdoes it mean to enter the kingdom? When we werestudying the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:10), wefound that we could say that the kingdom of Godis a state of society upon earth where God's willis as perfectly done as it is in heaven. Thereforeto enter the kingdom is to accept and to do God'swill. So, it is worth anything to do God's will.Suddenly, as the man discovered the treasure,there may flash upon us, in some moment ofillumination, the conviction of what God's will isfor us. To accept it may be to give up certain aimsand ambitions which are very dear, to abandoncertain habits and ways of life which are verydifficult to lay down, to take on a discipline andself-denial which are by no means easy - in aword, to take up our cross and follow after Jesus.But there is no other way to peace of mind andheart in this life and to glory in the life to come. It

is indeed worth giving up everything to accept andto do the will of God.

THE PRECIOUS PEARL

Matthew 13:45-6

'Again, the kingdom of heaven is like amerchant who was seeking goodlypearls. When he had found a veryvaluable pearl, he went away and soldeverything he had, and bought it.'

In the ancient world, pearls had a very specialplace in people's hearts. They desired to possessa lovely pearl, not only for its money value, butalso for its beauty. They found a pleasure insimply handling it and contemplating it. Theyfound an aesthetic joy simply in possessing andlooking at a pearl. The main sources of pearls inthose days were the shores of the Red Sea andfar-off Britain itself: but a merchant would scour

the markets of the world to find a pearl which wasof surpassing beauty. There are certain mostsuggestive truths hidden in this parable.

(1) It is suggestive to find the kingdom ofheaven compared to a pearl. To the ancientpeoples, as we have just seen, a pearl was theloveliest of all possessions; that means that thekingdom of heaven is the loveliest thing in theworld. Let us remember what the kingdom is. Tobe in the kingdom is to accept and to do the willof God. That is to say, to do the will of God is nogrim, grey, agonizing thing; it is a lovely thing.Beyond the discipline, beyond the sacrifice,beyond the self-denial, beyond the cross, therelies the supreme loveliness which is nowhereelse. There is only one way to bring peace to theheart, joy to the mind, beauty to the life, and that isto accept and to do the will of God.

(2) It is suggestive to find that there are other

pearls but only one pearl of great price. That is tosay, there are many fine things in this world andmany things in which we can find loveliness. Wecan find loveliness in knowledge and in thereaches of the human mind, in art and music andliterature and all the triumphs of the human spirit;we can find loveliness in serving our neighbours,even if that service springs from humanitarianrather than from purely Christian motives; we canfind loveliness in human relationships. These areall lovely, but they are all lesser loveliness. Thesupreme beauty lies in the acceptance of the willof God. This is not to belittle the other things; theytoo are pearls; but the supreme pearl is the willingobedience which makes us friends of God.

(3) We find in this parable the same point as inthe previous one - but with a difference. The manwho was digging the field was not searching fortreasure: he came upon it quite by chance. Theman who was searching for pearls was spending

his life in the search.

But no matter whether the discovery was madein a moment or was the result of a lifetime'ssearch, the reaction was the same - everything hadto be sold and sacrificed to gain the preciousthing. Once again we are left with the same truth -that, however people discover the will of God forthemselves, whether it is in the lightning flash of amoment's illumination or at the end of a long andconscious search, it is worth anything to accept itunhesitatingly.

THE CATCH AND THESEPARATION

Matthew 13:47-50

'Again, the kingdom of heaven is like anet which was cast into the sea, andwhich gathered all kinds of things.When it was full, they hauled it up on tothe shore, and sat down, and collectedthe good contents into containers, butthrew the useless contents away. So itwill be at the end of the age. The angelswill come, and they will separate theevil from the righteous, and they willcast them into the furnace of fire. Therewill be weeping and gnashing of teeththere.'

It was the most natural thing in the world thatJesus should use illustrations from fishing whenhe was speaking to fishermen. It was as if he saidto them: 'Look how your daily work speaks to youof the things of heaven.'

In Palestine, there were two main ways offishing. One was with the casting-net, theamphiblēstron. It was a hand-net which was castfrom the shore. W. M. Thomson describes theprocess: 'The net is in shape like the top of a belltent, with a long cord fastened to the apex. This istied to the arm, and the net so folded that, when itis thrown, it expands to its utmost circumference,around which are strung beads of lead to make itdrop suddenly to the bottom. Now, see the actor;half bent, and more than half naked, he keenlywatches the playful surf, and there he spies hisgame tumbling in carelessly toward him. Forwardhe leaps to meet it. Away goes the net, expandingas it flies, and its leaded circumference strikes the

bottom ere the silly fish is aware that its mesheshave closed around him. By the aid of the cord thefisherman leisurely draws up the net and the fishwith it. This requires a keen eye, an active frame,and great skill in throwing the net. He, too, mustbe patient, watchful, wide awake, and prompt toseize the exact moment to throw.'

The second way of fishing was with thedragnet, the sagēnē, what we would call theseine-net or the trawl. This is the way referred toin this parable. The seine-net was a great squarenet with cords at each corner, and weighted sothat, at rest, it hung, as it were, upright in thewater. When the boat began to move, the net wasdrawn into the shape of a great cone and into thecone all kinds of fish were swept.

The net was then drawn to land, and the catchwas separated. The useless material was flungaway, and the good was put into containers. It is

interesting to note that sometimes the fish were putalive into containers filled with water. There wasno other way to transport them in freshness overany time or any distance.

There are two great lessons in this parable.

(1) It is in the nature of the dragnet that it doesnot, and cannot, discriminate. It is bound to drawin all kinds of things in its course through thewater. Its contents are bound to be a mixture. Ifwe apply that to the Church, which is theinstrument of God's kingdom upon earth, it meansthat the Church cannot be discriminative but isbound to be a mixture of all kinds of people, goodand bad, useless and useful.

There have always been two views of theChurch - the exclusive and the inclusive. Theexclusive view holds that the Church is for peoplewho are good, people who are really and fullycommitted, people who are quite different from

the world. There is an attraction in that view, butit is not the New Testament view, because, apartfrom anything else, who is to do the judging,when we are told that we must not judge(Matthew 7: 1)? It is not the place of any one of usto say who is committed to Christ and who is not.The inclusive view feels instinctively that theChurch must be open to all, and that, like thedragnet, as long as it is a human institution it isbound to be a mixture. That is exactly what thisparable teaches.

(2) But equally, this parable teaches that thetime of separation will come when the good andthe bad are sent to their respective destinations.That separation, however, certain as it is, is notour work but God's. Therefore it is our duty togather in all who will come, and not to judge orseparate, but to leave the final judgment to God.

OLD GIFTS USED IN A NEW WAY

Matthew 13:51-2

Jesus said: 'Have you understood allthese things?' They said to him: 'Yes.'He said to them: That is why everyscribe, who has been instructed in thekingdom of heaven, is like ahouseholder who brings out of histreasure house things new and old.'

When Jesus had finished speaking about thekingdom, he asked his disciples if they hadunderstood. And they had understood, at least inpart. Then Jesus goes on to speak about the scribe,instructed in the kingdom of heaven, bringing outof his treasure house things old and new. WhatJesus is in effect saying is this: 'You are able to

understand, because you came to me with a fineheritage. You came with all the teaching of thelaw and the prophets. A scribe comes to me witha lifetime of study of the law and of all itscommandments. That background helps you tounderstand. But after you have been instructed byme, you have the knowledge, not only of the thingsyou used to know, but of things you never knewbefore, and even the knowledge which you hadbefore is illuminated by what I have told to you.'

There is something very suggestive here. For itmeans that Jesus never desired or intended thatpeople should forget all they knew when theycame to him: but that they should see thatknowledge in a new light and use it in a newservice. When people do that, what they knewbefore becomes a greater treasure than ever itwas.

Everyone comes to Jesus Christ with some gift

and with some ability. Jesus does not ask that weshould give up our gifts. So many people think thatwhen they declare for Christ they must give thingsup and concentrate upon the so-called religiousthings. But a scholar does not give up scholarshipon becoming a Christian; rather, that scholarshipis used for Christ. Those in business need not giveup that business; rather, they should run it asChristians would. Those who can sing, or dance,or act, or paint need not give up their art, but mustuse that art as Christians would. Those who aregifted at sport need not give up their sport, butmust participate as Christians would. Jesus camenot to empty life but to fill it, not to impoverishlife but to enrich it. Here we see Jesus telling menand women not to abandon their gifts but to usethem even more wonderfully in the light of theknowledge which he has given them.

THE BARRIER OF UNBELIEF

Matthew 13:53-8

When Jesus had concluded theseparables, he left there. He went into hisnative place and he taught them in theirsynagogue. His teaching was such thatthey were astonished and said: 'Wheredid this man get this wisdom and thesepowers? Is not this the son of thecarpenter? Is not his mother calledMary? And are James and Joseph andSimon and Judas not his brothers?Where did he get all these things?' Andthey were offended at him. Jesus said tothem: 'A prophet is not without honourexcept in his own native place and inhis own family.' And he did not do

many deeds of power there because oftheir unbelief.

It was natural that at some time Jesus should pay avisit to Nazareth where he had been brought up.And yet it was a brave thing to do. The hardestplace for a preacher to preach is the church wherehe or she grew up; the hardest place for any of usto develop our skills and to work is the placewhere people knew us when we were young.

But to Nazareth Jesus went. In the synagogue,there was no definite person to give the address.Any distinguished stranger present might be askedby the ruler of the synagogue to speak, or anyonewho had a message might venture to give it. Therewas no danger that Jesus would not be given theopportunity to speak. But when he did speak, allthat he encountered was hostility and incredulity.They would not listen to him because they knew

his father and his mother and his brothers and hissisters. They could not conceive that anyone whohad lived among them had any right to speak asJesus was speaking. The prophet, as so oftenhappens, had no honour in his own country; andtheir attitude to him raised a barrier which made itimpossible for Jesus to have any effect upon them.

There is a great lesson here. In any churchservice the congregation preaches more than halfthe sermon. The congregation brings anatmosphere with it. That atmosphere is either abarrier through which the preacher's word cannotpenetrate; or else it is such an expectancy thateven the poorest sermon becomes a living flame.

Again, we should not judge people by theirbackground and their family connections, but bywhat they are. Many a message has been killedstone dead, not because there was anything wrongwith it, but because the minds of the hearers were

so prejudiced against the messenger that it neverhad a chance.

When we meet together to listen to the word ofGod, we must come with eager expectancy andmust think not of the one who speaks but of theSpirit who speaks through that individual.

THE TRAGIC DRAMA OF JOHNTHE BAPTIST

Matthew 14:1-12

At that time Herod the tetrarch heard thereport about Jesus, and said to hisservants: 'This is John the Baptizer. Hehas been raised from the dead, andbecause of this, these deeds of powerwork in him.' For Herod had seizedJohn the Baptizer, and had bound himand put him in prison, because ofHerodias, his brother Philip's wife, forJohn insisted to him: 'It is not right foryou to have her.' So he wished to killhim, but he was afraid of the crowd, forthey regarded him as a prophet. On theoccasion of Herod's birthday

celebrations the daughter of Herodiasdanced in public and delighted Herod.Hence he affirmed with an oath that hewould give her whatsoever she mightask. Urged on by her mother, she said:'Give me here and now the head of Johnthe Baptizer on a dish.' The king wasdistressed, but, because of his oath, andbecause of those who sat at table withhim, he ordered the request to begranted. So he sent and had Johnbeheaded in the prison. And his headwas brought on a dish and given to themaiden; and she brought it to hermother. His disciples came and tookaway the body and buried him. And theycame and told Jesus about it.

IN this tragic drama of the death of John theBaptist, the main characters stand clearly

delineated and vividly displayed.

(1) There is John himself. As far as Herod wasconcerned, John had two faults. (a) He was toopopular with the people. Josephus also tells thestory of the death of John, and it is from this pointof view that he tells it. Josephus writes(Antiquities of the Jews, 18:5:2): 'Now whenmany others came in crowds about him, for theywere greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod,who feared lest the great influence John had overthe people might put it into his power andinclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemedready to do anything he should advise), thought itbest, by putting him to death, to prevent anymischief he might cause, and not bring himselfinto difficulties by sparing a man who might makehim repent of it when it was too late. Accordinglyhe was sent a prisoner out of Herod's suspicioustemper to Machaerus . . . and was there put todeath.' As Josephus read the facts, it was Herod's

suspicious jealousy of John which made him killJohn. Herod, like every weak and suspicious andfrightened tyrant, could think of no way of dealingwith a possible rival other than killing him.

(b) But the gospel writers see the story from adifferent point of view. As they see it, Herodkilled John because he was a man who told thetruth. It is always dangerous to rebuke a tyrant,and that is precisely what John did.

The facts were quite simple. Herod Antipaswas married to a daughter of the king of theNabataean Arabs. He had a brother in Rome alsocalled Herod. The gospel writers call this RomanHerod 'Philip'; his full name may have beenHerod Philip, or they may simply have got mixedup in the complicated marriage relationships ofthe Herods. This Herod who stayed in Rome wasa wealthy private individual who had no kingdomof his own. On a visit to Rome, Herod Antipas

seduced his brother's wife and persuaded her toleave his brother and to marry him. In order to doso, he had to put away his own wife with, as weshall see, disastrous consequences to himself. Indoing this, apart altogether from the moral aspectof the question, Herod broke two laws. Hedivorced his own wife without cause, and hemarried his sister-in-law, which was a marriage,under Jewish law, within the prohibitedrelationships. Without hesitation, John rebukedhim.

It is always dangerous to rebuke a despot, andby his rebuke John signed his own death warrant.He was a man who fearlessly rebuked evilwherever he saw it. When the Scottish reformerJohn Knox was standing for his principles againstQueen Mary, she demanded whether he thought itright that the authority of rulers should be resisted.His answer was: 'If princes exceed their bounds,madam, they may be resisted and even deposed.'

The world owes much to the great men andwomen who took their lives in their hands and hadthe courage to tell even kings and queens thatthere is a moral law which they break at theirperil.

(2) There is Herodias. As we shall see, shewas the ruination of Herod in every possiblesense, although she was a woman not without asense of greatness. At the moment, we simply notethat she was stained by a triple guilt. She was awoman of loose morals and of infidelity. She wasa vindictive woman who nursed her wrath to keepit warm, and who was out for revenge, even whenshe was justly condemned. And - perhaps worstof all - she was a woman who did not hesitate touse even her own daughter to achieve her ownvindictive ends. It would have been bad enough ifshe herself had sought ways of taking vengeanceon the man of God who confronted her with hershame. It was infinitely worse that she used her

daughter for her evil purposes and made her asgreat a sinner as herself. There is little to be saidfor a parent who stains a child with guilt in orderto achieve some evil personal purpose.

(3) There is Herodias' daughter, Salome.Salome must have been young, perhaps sixteen orseventeen years of age. Whatever she may laterhave become, in this instance she is surely moresinned against than sinning. There must have beenin her an element of shamelessness. Here was aroyal princess who acted as a dancing girl. Thedances which these girls danced were suggestiveand immoral. For a royal princess to dance inpublic at all was an amazing thing. Herodiasthought nothing of outraging modesty anddemeaning her daughter, if only she could gain herrevenge on a man who had justly rebuked her.

THE FALL OF HEROD

Matthew 14:1-12 (contd)(4) There is Herod himself. He is called the

tetrarch. Tetrarch literally means the ruler of afourth part; but it came to be used quite generally,as here, of any subordinate ruler of a section of acountry. Herod the Great had many sons. When hedied, he divided his territory into three, and, withthe consent of the Romans, willed it to three ofthem. To Archelaus he left Judaea and Samaria; toPhilip he left the northern territory of Trachonitisand Ituraea; to Herod Antipas - the Herod of thisstory - he left Galilee and Peraea. Herod Antipaswas by no means an exceptionally bad king; buthere he began on the road that led to his completeruin. We may note three things about him.

(a) He was a man with a guilty conscience.

When Jesus became prominent. Herodimmediately leaped to the conclusion that this wasJohn come back to life again. The third-centuryChristian writer Origen has a most interestingsuggestion about this. He points out that Mary, themother of Jesus, and Elizabeth, the mother ofJohn, were closely related (Luke 1:36). That is tosay, Jesus and John were blood relatives. AndOrigen speaks of a tradition which says that Jesusand John closely resembled each other inappearance. If that was the case, then Herod'sguilty conscience might appear to him to haveeven more grounds for its fears. He is the greatproof that we cannot rid ourselves of a sin bygetting rid of anyone who confronts us with it.There is such a thing as conscience, and, even ifthe human accuser is eliminated, the divineaccuser is still not silenced.

(b) Herod's action was typical of a weak man.He kept a foolish oath and broke a great law. He

had promised Salome to give her anything shemight ask, little thinking what she would request.He knew well that to grant her request, in order tokeep his oath, was to break a far greater law; andyet he chose to do it because he was too weak toadmit his error. He was more frightened of awoman's tantrums than of the moral law. He wasmore frightened of the criticism, and perhaps theamusement, of his guests than of the voice ofconscience. Herod was a man who could take afirm stand on the wrong things, even when heknew what was right; and such a stand is the signnot of strength but of weakness.

(c) We have already said that Herod's action inthis case was the beginning of his ruin - and so itwas. The result of his seduction of Herodias andhis divorce of his own wife was that (verynaturally) Aretas, the father of his wife, and theruler of the Nabataeans, bitterly resented the insultperpetrated against his daughter. He made war

against Herod, and heavily defeated him. Thecomment of Josephus is: 'Some of the Jewsthought that the destruction of Herod's army camefrom God, and that very justly, as a punishment forwhat he did against John, who was called theBaptist' (Antiquities of the Jews, 18:5:2). Herodwas in fact only rescued by calling in the powerof the Romans to clear things up.

From the very beginning, Herod's illegal andimmoral alliance with Herodias brought himnothing but trouble. But the influence of Herodiaswas not to stop there. The years went by, andCaligula came to the Roman throne. The Philipwho had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Ituraeadied, and Caligula gave the province to another ofthe Herod family named Agrippa; and with theprovince he gave him the title of king. The factthat Agrippa was called king moved Herodias tobitter envy. Josephus says: 'She was not able to

conceal how miserable she was, by reason of theenvy she had towards him' (Antiquities of theJews, 18:7:1). The consequence of her envy wasthat she incited Herod to go to Rome and to askCaligula that he too should be granted the title ofking, for Herodias was determined to be a queen.'Let us go to Rome,' she said, 'and let us spare nopains or expenses, either of silver or gold, sincethey cannot be kept for any better use than for theobtaining of a kingdom.'

Herod was very unwilling to take action; hewas naturally lazy, and he also foresaw serioustrouble. But this persistent woman had her way.Herod prepared to set out to Rome; but Agrippasent messengers to forestall him with accusationsthat Herod was preparing treacherously to rebelagainst Rome. The result was that Caligulabelieved Agrippa's accusations, took Herod'sprovince from him, with all his money, and gave itto Agrippa, and banished Herod to far-off Gaul to

languish there in exile until he died.

So in the end it was through Herodias thatHerod lost his fortune and his kingdom, anddragged out a weary existence in the farawayplaces of Gaul. It is just here that Herodiasshowed her one flash of greatness and ofmagnanimity. She was in fact Agrippa's sister, andCaligula told her that he did not intend to take herprivate fortune from her and that for Agrippa'ssake she need not accompany her husband intoexile. Herodias answered: Thou indeed, OEmperor, actest after a magnificent manner, and asbecomes thyself, in what thou offerest me; but thelove which I have for my husband hinders mefrom partaking of the favour of thy gift; for it is notjust that I, who have been a partner in hisprosperity, should forsake him in his misfortune'(Antiquities of the Jews, 18:7:2). And soHerodias accompanied Herod to his exile.

If ever there was proof that sin brings its ownpunishment, that proof lies in the story of Herod. Itwas an ill day when Herod first seducedHerodias. From that act of infidelity came themurder of John, and in the end disaster, in whichhe lost all, except the woman who loved him andruined him.

COMPASSION AND POWER

Matthew 14:13-21

When Jesus heard the news [of thedeath of John], he withdrew from therein a boat, into a deserted place alone.When the crowds heard of it, theyfollowed him on foot from the towns.When he had disembarked, he saw agreat crowd, and he was moved withcompassion for them to the depths of hisbeing, and healed their sick. When ithad become late, his disciples came tohim: The place is deserted,' they said,'and the hour for the evening meal hasalready passed. Send the crowds away,in order that they may go into thevillages, and buy themselves food.' But

Jesus said to them: 'Give them food toeat yourselves.' They said to him: 'Wehave nothing except five loaves and twofishes.' He said: 'Bring them here tome.' So he ordered the crowds to sitdown on the green grass. He took thefive loaves and the two fishes, andlooked up to heaven, and said ablessing, and broke the loaves and gavethem to the disciples, and the disciplesgave them to the crowds: and they allate and were satisfied. They took upwhat was left over, twelve baskets fullof the fragments. The number of thosewho ate was about 5,000 men, apartfrom women and children.

Galilee must have been a place where it was verydifficult to be alone. Galilee was a small country,only fifty miles from north to south and twenty-

five miles from east to west, and Josephus tells usthat in his time within that small area there were204 towns and villages, none with a population ofless than 15,000 people. In such a thicklypopulated area, it was not easy to get away frompeople for any length of time. But it was quiet onthe other side of the lake, and at its widest thelake was only eight miles wide. Jesus' friendswere fishermen; and it was not difficult to embarkon one of their boats and seek rest and quiet on theeast side of the lake. That is what Jesus did whenhe heard of the death of John.

There were three perfectly simple and naturalreasons why Jesus should seek to be alone. Hewas human and he needed rest. He neverrecklessly ran into danger, and it was best towithdraw and avoid the possibility of sharingJohn's fate too soon. And, most of all, with thecross coming nearer and nearer, Jesus knew thathe must meet with God before he met with men

and women. He was seeking rest for his body andstrength for his soul in the lonely places.

But he was not to get it. It would be easy to seethe boat set sail and to deduce where it was going;and the crowds flocked round the top of the lakeand were waiting for him at the other side whenhe arrived. So Jesus healed them and, when theevening came, he fed them before they took thelong road home. Few of Jesus' miracles are sorevealing as this.

(1) It tells us of the compassion of Jesus. Whenhe saw the crowds, he was moved withcompassion to the depths of his being. That is avery wonderful thing. Jesus had come to findpeace and quiet and loneliness; instead, he founda vast crowd eagerly demanding what he couldgive. He might so easily have resented them. Whatright had they to invade his privacy with theircontinual demands? Was he to have no rest and

quiet, no time to himself at all?

But Jesus was not like that. So far from findingthem a nuisance, he was moved with compassionfor them. Premanand, the great Christian who wasonce a wealthy high-caste Indian, says in hisautobiography: 'As in the days of old, so now ourmessage to the non-Christian world has to be thesame, that God cares.' If that is so, we must neverbe too busy for people, and we must never evenseem to find them a trouble and a nuisance.Premanand also says: 'My own experience hasbeen that when I or any other missionary or Indianpriest showed signs of restlessness or impatiencetowards any educated and thoughtful Christian ornon-Christian visitors, and gave them tounderstand that we were hard-pressed for time, orthat it was our lunch- or tea-time and that wecould not wait, then at once such inquirers werelost, and never returned again.' We must neverdeal with people with one eye on the clock, as if

we were anxious to be rid of them as soon as wedecently can.

Premanand goes on to relate an incident which,it is not too much to say, may have changed thewhole course of the spread of Christianity inBengal. There is an account somewhere of howthe first Metropolitan Bishop of India failed tomeet the late Pandit Iswar Chandar Vidyasagar ofBengal through official formality. The Pandit hadbeen sent as spokesman of the Hindu communityin Calcutta, to establish friendly relations with theBishop and with the Church. Vidyasagar, whowas the founder of a Hindu College in Calcuttaand a social reformer, author and educationalist ofrepute, returned disappointed without aninterview, and formed a strong party of educatedand wealthy citizens of Calcutta to oppose theChurch and the Bishop, and to guard against thespread of Christianity . . . The formality observedby one known to be an official of the Christian

Church turned a friend into a foe.' What anopportunity for Christ was lost because someone'sprivacy could not be invaded except throughofficial channels. Jesus never found anyone anuisance, even when his whole being was cryingout for rest and quiet - and neither must hisfollowers.

(2) In this story, we see Jesus witnessing thatall gifts are from God. He took the food and hesaid a blessing. The Jewish grace before mealswas very simple: 'Blessed art thou, Yahweh ourGod, King of the universe, who bringest forthbread from the earth.' That would be the gracewhich Jesus said, for that was the grace whichevery Jewish family used. Here we see Jesusshowing that it is God's gifts which he brings tomen and women. The grace of gratitude is rareenough towards others; it is rarer still towardsGod.

THE PLACE OF THE DISCIPLEIN THE WORK OF CHRIST

Matthew 14:13-21 (contd)(3) This miracle informs us very clearly of the

place of the disciple in the work of Christ. Thestory tells that Jesus gave to the disciples and thedisciples gave to the crowd. Jesus workedthrough the hands of his disciples that day, and hestill does.

Again and again, we come face to face with thistruth which is at the heart of the Church. It is truethat disciples are helpless without their Lord, butit is also true that the Lord is helpless without hisdisciples. If Jesus wants something done, if hewants a child taught or a person helped, he has toget someone to do it. He needs people throughwhom he can act and through whom he can speak.

Very early in the days of his inquiring aboutChristianity, Premanand came into contact withBishop Whitley at Ranchi. He writes: 'The Bishopread the Bible with me daily, and sometimes Iread Bengali with him, and we talked together inBengali. The longer I lived with the Bishop thecloser I came to him, and found that his liferevealed Christ to me, and his deeds and wordsmade it easier for me to understand the mind andteaching of Christ about which I read daily in theBible. I had a new vision of Christ, when Iactually saw Christ's life of love, sacrifice andself-denial in the everyday life of the Bishop. Hebecame actually the epistle of Christ to me.'

Jesus Christ needs disciples through whom hecan work and through whom his truth and his lovecan enter into the lives of others. He needs menand women to whom he can give, in order thatthey may give to others. Without such men andwomen, he cannot get things done, and it is our

task to be the people he needs.

It would be easy to be daunted and discouragedby a task of such magnitude. But there is anotherthing in this story that may lift up our hearts. WhenJesus told the disciples to feed the crowd, theytold him that all they had was five loaves and twofishes; and yet with what they brought to him,Jesus achieved his miracle. Jesus sets every oneof us the tremendous task of communicatinghimself to others; but he does not demand from ussplendours and magnificences that we do notpossess. He says to us: 'Come to me as you are,however ill-equipped; bring to me what you have,however little, and I will use it greatly in myservice.' Little is always much in the hands ofChrist.

(4) At the end of the miracle, there is thatstrange little touch that the fragments weregathered up. Even when a miracle could feed

people sumptuously, there was no waste. There issomething to note here. God gives to us withmunificence, but a wasteful extravagance is neverright. God's generous giving and our wise usingmust go hand in hand.

THE MAKING OF A MIRACLE

Matthew 14:13-21 (contd)There are some people who read the miracles ofJesus and feel no need to understand. Let themremain forever undisturbed in the sweet simplicityof their faith. There are others who read and theirminds question and they feel they must understand.Let them take no shame of it, for God comes farmore than half-way to meet the questing mind. Butin whatever way we approach the miracles ofJesus, one thing is certain. We must never becontent to regard them as something whichhappened; we must always regard them assomething which happens. They are not isolatedevents in history; they are demonstrations of thealways and forever operative power of JesusChrist. There are three ways in which we canlook at this miracle.

(1) We may look at it as a simple multiplicationof loaves and fishes. That would be very difficultto understand, and would be something whichhappened once and never repeated itself. If weregard it that way, let us be content; but let us notbe critical and condemnatory of those who feelthat they must find another way.

(2) Many people see in this miracle asacrament. They have felt that those who werepresent received only the smallest morsel of food,and yet with that were strengthened for theirjourney and were content. They have felt that thiswas not a meal where people satisfied theirphysical appetite, but a meal where they ate thespiritual food of Christ. If that is so, this is amiracle which is re-enacted every time we sit atthe table of our Lord; for there comes to us thespiritual food which sends us out to walk withfirmer feet and greater strength the way of lifewhich leads to God.

(3) There are those who see in this miraclesomething which in a sense is perfectly natural,and yet which in another sense is a real miracle,and which in any sense is very precious. Picturethe scene. There is the crowd; it is late; and theyare hungry. But was it really likely that the vastmajority of that crowd would set out around thelake without any food at all? Would they not takesomething with them, however little? Now it wasevening and they were hungry. But they were alsoselfish. And they would not produce what theyhad, in case they had to share it and leftthemselves without enough. Then Jesus took thelead. Such as he and his disciples had, he began toshare with a blessing and an invitation and asmile. And thereupon all began to share, andbefore they knew what was happening, there wasenough and more than enough for all.

If this is what happened, it was not the miracle

of the multiplication of loaves and fishes; it wasthe miracle of the changing of selfish people intogenerous people at the touch of Christ. It was themiracle of the birth of love in grudging hearts. Itwas the miracle of changed men and women withsomething of Christ in them to banish theirselfishness. If that is so, then in the realest senseChrist fed them with himself and sent his Spirit todwell within their hearts.

It does not matter how we understand thismiracle. One thing is sure - when Christ is there,the weary find rest and the hungry soul is fed.

IN THE HOUR OF TROUBLE

Matthew 14:22-7

Immediately he compelled his disciplesto embark in the boat and to go on aheadto the other side, until he should sendaway the crowds. When he had sentaway the crowds, he went up into amountain by himself to pray. When itwas late, he was there alone. The boatwas by this time in the middle of thesea, battered by the waves, for the windwas contrary. About 3 am, he came tothem walking on the sea. When thedisciples saw him walking on the seathey were alarmed. This is anapparition,' they said, and they cried outfrom fear. Immediately Jesus spoke to

them. 'Courage!' he said. 'It is I. Do notbe afraid.'

THE lesson of this passage is abundantly clear, butwhat actually happened is not. First of all, let usset the scene.

After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus sent hisdisciples away. Matthew says that he compelledthem to embark on the boat and go on ahead. Atfirst sight, the word compelled sounds strange; butif we turn to John's account of the incident, wewill most likely find the explanation. John tells usthat after the feeding of the multitude, the crowdwished to come and to make him a king by force(John 6:15). There was a surge of popularacclamation, and in the excited state of Palestine arevolution might well have begun there and then.It was a dangerous situation, and the disciplesmight well have complicated it, for they, too,

were still thinking of Jesus in terms of earthlypower. Jesus sent away his disciples because asituation had arisen with which he could best dealalone, and in which he did not wish them tobecome involved.

When he was alone, he went up into a mountainto pray; and by this time the night had come. Thedisciples had set out back across the lake. One ofthe sudden storms, for which the lake wasnotorious, had come down, and they werestruggling against the winds and the waves, andmaking little progress. As the night wore on, Jesusbegan to walk round the head of the lake to reachthe other side. Matthew has already told us thatwhen Jesus fed the crowds, he made them sitdown on the green grass. By that we know it musthave been the springtime. Very likely it was nearthe Passover time, which was in the middle ofApril. If that is so, the moon would be full. Inancient times, the night was divided into four

watches - 6 pm to 9 pm, 9 pm to 12 midnight, 12midnight to 3 am, and 3 am to 6 am. So at 3 am,Jesus, walking on the high ground at the north ofthe lake, clearly saw the boat fighting with thewaves, and came down to the shore to help.

It is then that there is a real difficulty inknowing what happened. In verses 25 and 26, weread twice about Jesus walking on the sea, andthe curious thing is that the two phrases in theGreek for on the sea are different. In verse 25 itis epi tēn thalassan, which can equally mean overthe sea and towards the sea. In verse 26 it is epitēs thalassēs, which can mean on the sea, andwhich is actually the very same phrase which isused in John 21:1 for at the sea, that is by theseashore, of Tiberias. Still further, the wordwhich is used for walking in both verses 25 and26 is peripatein, which means to walk about.

The truth is that there are two perfectly

possible interpretations of this passage, so far asthe actual Greek goes. It may describe a miraclein which Jesus actually walked on the water. Or,it may equally mean that the disciples' boat wasdriven by the wind to the northern shore of thelake, that Jesus came down from the mountain tohelp them when he saw them struggling in themoonlight, and that he came walking through thesurf and the waves towards the boat, and came sosuddenly upon them that they were terrified whenthey saw him. Both of these interpretations areequally valid. Some will prefer one, and some theother.

But, whatever interpretation of the Greek wechoose, the significance is perfectly clear. In thehour of the disciples' need, Jesus came to them.When the wind was contrary and life was astruggle, Jesus was there to help. No sooner had aneed arisen than Jesus was there to help and tosave.

In life, the wind is often contrary. There aretimes when we are up against it and life is adesperate struggle with ourselves, with ourcircumstances, with our temptations, with oursorrows and with our decisions. At such a time,no one need struggle alone, for Jesus comes to usacross the storms of life, with hand stretched outto save, and with his calm, clear voice bidding ustake heart and have no fear.

It does not really matter how we take thisincident; it is in any event far more than the storyof what Jesus once did in a storm in far-offPalestine; it is the sign and the symbol of what healways does for his people, when the wind iscontrary and we are in danger of beingoverwhelmed by the storms of life.

COLLAPSE AND RECOVERY

Matthew 14:28-33

And Peter answered him: 'Lord, if it isyou, bid me come to you on the water.'He said: 'Come.' Peter got down fromthe boat and walked on the water tocome to Jesus. But, when he saw thewind, he was afraid: and, when hebegan to sink below the water, he criedout: 'Lord, save me!' Immediately Jesusstretched out his hand and grasped him.'O man of little faith!' he said. 'Why didyou begin to have doubts?' And whenthey got into the boat, the wind sank.And those in the boat knelt in reverencebefore him, saying: "Truly you are theSon of God.'

There is no passage in the New Testament inwhich Peter's character is more fully revealedthan this. It tells us three things about him.

(1) Peter was given to acting upon impulse andwithout thinking of what he was doing. It was hismistake that again and again he acted without fullyfacing the situation and without counting the cost.He was to do exactly the same when he affirmedundying and unshakable loyalty to Jesus (Matthew26:33-5), and then denied his Lord's name. Andyet there are worse sins than that, because Peter'swhole trouble was that he was ruled by his heart;and, however he might sometimes tail, his heartwas always in the right place and the instinct ofhis heart was always love.

(2) Because Peter acted on impulse, he oftenfailed and came to grief. It was always Jesus'insistence that people should look at a situation inall its bleak grimness before they acted (Luke

9:57-8; Matthew 16:24-5). Jesus was completelyhonest with people; he always urged them to seehow difficult it was to follow him before they setout upon the Christian way. A great deal ofChristian failure is due to acting upon anemotional moment without counting the cost.

(3) But Peter never finally failed, for always inthe moment of his failure he clutched at Christ.The wonderful thing about him is that every timehe fell, he rose again; and that it must have beentrue that even his failures brought him closer andcloser to Jesus Christ. As has been well said, asaint is not someone who never fails; a saint issomeone who after a fall gets up and goes onagain every time. Peter's failures only made himlove Jesus Christ the more.

These verses finish with another great andpermanent truth. When Jesus got into the boat, thewind sank. The great truth is that, wherever Jesus

Christ is, the wildest storm becomes a calm.Olive Wyon, in her book Consider Him, quotesfrom the letters of the seventeenth-century Bishopof Geneva, St Francis of Sales, who had noticed acustom of the country districts in which he lived.He had often noticed a farm servant going acrossa farmyard to draw water at the well; he alsonoticed that, before she lifted the brimming pail,the girl always put a piece of wood into it. Oneday he went out to the girl and asked her: 'Why doyou do that?' She looked surprised and answered,as if it were a matter of course: 'Why? to keep thewater from spilling . . . to keep it steady!' Writingto a friend later on, the bishop told this story andadded: 'So when your heart is distressed andagitated, put the Cross into its centre to keep itsteady!' In every time of storm and stress, thepresence of Jesus and the love which flows fromthe cross bring peace and serenity and calm.

THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST

Matthew 14:34-6

When they had crossed over, they cameto land at Gennesaret. When the men ofthat place recognized him, they sent thenews that he had come to the wholesurrounding countryside, and theybrought to him all those who were ill,and besought him to be allowed only totouch the fringe of his robe; and all whotouched him were restored to health.

This is just one of Matthew's almost colourlesslittle connecting passages. It is a sentence or twoof the gospel story that the eye might easily passover as quite unimportant; and yet it is veryrevealing of Jesus.

(1) There is beauty in it. No sooner did Jesusappear anywhere than people were crowding andclamouring for his help; and he never refused it.He healed them all. There is no word here that hepreached or taught at any length; there is simplythe record that he healed. The most tremendousthing about Jesus was that he taught men andwomen what God was like by showing them whatGod was like. He did not tell them that Godcared; he showed them that God cared. There islittle use in preaching the love of God in wordswithout showing the love of God in action.

(2) But there is also pathos here. No one canread this passage without seeing in it the grim factthat there were hundreds and thousands of peoplewho desired Jesus only for what they could getout of him. Once they had received the healingwhich they sought, they were not really preparedto go any further. It has always been the case thatpeople have wanted the privilege of Christianity

without its responsibilities. It has always been thecase that so many of us remember God only whenwe need him. Ingratitude towards God andtowards Jesus Christ is the ugliest of all sins; andthere is no sin of which we are more often andmore consistently guilty.

CLEAN AND UNCLEAN

Matthew 15:1-9

Then the Pharisees and scribes fromJerusalem approached Jesus. 'Why',they said, 'do your disciples transgressthe tradition of the elders? They do sotransgress, because they do not washtheir hands before they eat bread.' Jesusanswered them: 'Why do you tootransgress God's commandment,because of your tradition? For Godsaid: "Honour your father and yourmother," and: "He who curses his fatherand mother, let him die"; but, as for you,you say: "Whoever says to his father orhis mother: 'That by which you mighthave been helped by me is a dedicated

gift,' will certainly not honour his fatherand his mother, and is yet guiltless."You have annulled the commandment ofGod through your tradition. Hypocrites,Isaiah in his prophecy described youwell: "This people honours me withtheir lips, but their heart is far from me.It is in vain that they reverence me; forit is man-made commandments that theyteach as their teaching."'

IT is not too much to say that, however difficultand obscure this passage may seem to us, it is oneof the most important passages in the wholegospel story. It represents a head-on clashbetween Jesus and the leaders of orthodox Jewishreligion. Its opening sentence makes it clear thatthe scribes and Pharisees had come all the wayfrom Jerusalem to Galilee to put their questions toJesus. On this occasion, it need not be thought that

the questions are malicious. The scribes andPharisees are not ill-naturedly seeking to entangleJesus. They are genuinely bewildered; and in avery short time they are going to be genuinelyoutraged and shocked; for the basic importance ofthis passage is that it is not so much a clashbetween Jesus and the Pharisees in a personalway; it is something far more - it is the collisionof two views of religion and two views of thedemands of God.

Nor was there any possibility of a compromise,or even a working agreement, between these twoviews of religion. Inevitably, the one had todestroy the other. Here, then, embedded in thispassage, is one of the supreme religious contestsin history. To understand it, we must try tounderstand the background of Jewish Pharisaicand scribal religion.

In this passage, there meets us the whole

conception of clean and unclean. We must bequite clear that this idea of cleanness anduncleanness has nothing to do with physicalcleanness, or, except distantly, with hygiene. It isentirely a ceremonial matter. For the people to beclean was for them to be in a state where theymight worship and approach God; for them to beunclean was for them to be in a state where such aworship and such an approach were impossible.

This uncleanness was contracted by contactwith certain persons or things. For instance, awoman was unclean if she had a haemorrhage,even if that haemorrhage was her normal monthlyperiod; she was unclean for a stated time after shehad had a child; every dead body was unclean,and to touch it was to become unclean: everyGentile was unclean.

This uncleanness was transferable; it was, so tospeak, infectious. For instance, if a mouse touched

an earthenware vessel, that vessel was uncleanand unless it was ritually washed and cleansed,everything put into it was unclean. Theconsequence was that anyone who touched thatvessel, or who ate or drank from its contents,became unclean; and in turn anyone who touchedthe person who had so become unclean alsobecame unclean.

This is not only a Jewish idea; it occurs inother religions. To high-caste Indians, anyone notbelonging to their own caste is unclean; ifsomeone becomes a Christian, that person is stillmore seriously unclean. Premanand tells us whathappened to himself. He became a Christian; hisfamily ejected him. Sometimes he used to comeback to see his mother, who was broken-heartedat what she considered the betrayal of hisreligion, but still loved him dearly. Premanandsays: 'As soon as my father came to know that Iwas visiting my mother in the daytime while he

was away at the office, he ordered thedoorkeeper, a stalwart up-country man, Ram Rup .. . not to allow me to enter the house.' Ram Rupwas persuaded to slacken his vigilance. 'At lastmy mother won over Ram Rup, the doorkeeper,and I was allowed to enter her presence. Theprejudice was so great that even the menial Hinduservants of the house would not wash the plateson which I was fed by my mother. Sometimes myaunt would purify the place and the seat on whichI had sat by sprinkling Ganges water, or watermixed with cow dung.' Premanand was unclean,and everything he touched became unclean.

We must note that there was nothing moralabout this. The touching of certain things produceduncleanness; and this uncleanness was a bar to thesociety of others and the presence of God. It wasas if some special infection hung like an auraabout certain persons and things. We mayunderstand this a little better if we remember that

even in western civilization this idea is notcompletely dead, although it works here mainly inreverse. There are still those who find in a four-leafed clover, or in some metal or wooden charm,or in a black cat, something which brings goodfortune.

So, here is an idea which sees in religionsomething which consists in avoiding contact withcertain things and people because they areunclean; and, then, if that contact should have beenmade, in taking the necessary ritual cleansingmeasures to rid oneself of the contracteduncleanness. But we must pursue this a littlefurther.

THE FOODS WHICH CANNOT BEEATEN

Matthew 15:1-9 (contd)The laws of cleanness and uncleanness had afurther wide area of application. They laid downwhat people might eat and what they might not eat.Broadly speaking, all fruit and vegetables wereclean. But, in regard to living creatures, the lawswere strict. These laws are in Leviticus 11.

We may briefly summarize them. Of animals,only those can be eaten which part the hoof andchew the cud. That is why Jews cannot eat theflesh of the pig, the rabbit or the hare. In no casemay the flesh of an animal which has died anatural death be eaten (Deuteronomy 14:21). In allcases, the blood must be drained from the carcass;orthodox Jews still buy their meat from a kosher

butcher, who sells only meat so treated. Ordinaryfat upon the flesh might be eaten, but the fat on thekidneys and on the entrails of the abdomen, whichwe call suet, might not be eaten. In regard to seafood, only sea creatures which have both fins andscales may be eaten. This means that shellfish,such as lobsters, are unclean. All insects areunclean, with one exception - locusts. In the caseof animals and fish, there is a standard test, as wehave seen, of what might be eaten and what mightnot be eaten. In the case of birds, there is no suchtest; and the list of unclean and forbidden birds isin Leviticus 11:13-21.

There were certain identifiable reasons for allthis.

(1) The refusal to touch dead bodies, or to eatthe flesh of an animal which had died from naturalcauses, may well have had something to do withthe belief in evil spirits. It would be easy to think

of a demon as taking up residence in such a body,and so gaining entry into the body of the eater.

(2) Certain animals were sacred in otherreligions; for instance, the cat and the crocodilewere sacred to the Egyptians; and it would bevery natural for the Jews to regard as unclean anyanimal which another nation worshipped. Theanimal would then be reckoned a kind of idol andtherefore dangerously unclean.

(3) As the professor of medicine Dr RendleShort points out in his most helpful book, TheBible and Modern Medicine, certain of theregulations were in fact wise from the point ofview of health and hygiene. Dr Short writes: True,we eat the pig, the rabbit and the hare, but theseanimals are liable to parasitic infections and aresafe only if the food is well-cooked. The pig is anunclean feeder, and harbours two worms, trichinaand a tape worm, which may be passed on to man.

The danger is minimal under present conditions inthis country, but it would have been far otherwisein Palestine of old, and such food was betteravoided.' The prohibition of eating anything withblood in it comes from the fact that in Jewishthought the blood is the life. This is a naturalthought, for, as blood flows away, life ebbs away.And the life belongs to God, and to God alone.The same idea explains the prohibition of eatingthe fat. The fat is the richest part of the carcass,and the richest part must be given to God. In somecases, although they are few, there was soundsense behind the prohibitions and the food laws.

(4) There remain a large number of cases inwhich things and beasts and animals were uncleanfor no reason at all except that they were. Tabusare always inexplicable; they are simplysuperstitions, by which certain living things cameto be connected with good or with bad fortune,with cleanness or uncleanness.

These things would not in themselves mattervery much, but the trouble and the tragedy werethat they had become to the scribes and Phariseesmatters of life and death. To serve God, to bereligious, was to observe these good laws. If weput it in the following way, we will see the result.To the Pharisaic mind, the prohibition of eatingrabbit's or pig's flesh was just as much acommandment of God as the prohibition ofadultery; it was therefore just as much a sin to eatpork or rabbit as to seduce a woman and enjoyillegal sexual intercourse.

Religion had got itself mixed up with all kindsof external rules and regulations; and, since it ismuch easier both to observe rules and regulationsand to check up on those who do not, these rulesand regulations had become religion to theorthodox Jews.

THE WAYS OF CLEANSING

Matthew 15:1-9 (contd)Now we come to the particular impact of this onthe passage we are studying. It was clearlyimpossible to avoid all kinds of ceremonialuncleanness. People might personally avoidunclean things, but how could they possibly knowwhen on the street they had touched someone whowas unclean? This was further complicated by thefact that there were Gentiles in Palestine, and thevery dust touched by a Gentile foot becameunclean.

To combat uncleanness, an elaborate system ofwashings was worked out. These washingsbecame ever more elaborate. At first there was ahandwashing on rising in the morning. Then theregrew up an elaborate system of handwashing

whose use was at first confined to the priests inthe Temple before they ate that part of thesacrifice which was their 'perk'. Later, thesecomplicated washings came to be demanded bythe strictest of the orthodox Jews for themselvesand for all who claimed to be truly religious.

The Austrian biblical scholar AlfredEdersheim in The Life and Times of Jesus theMessiah outlines the most elaborate of thesewashings. Water jars were kept ready to be usedbefore a meal. The minimum amount of water tobe used was a quarter of a log, which is definedas enough to fill one and a half eggshells. Thewater was first poured on both hands, held withthe fingers pointed upwards, and must run up thearm as far as the wrist. It must drop off from thewrist, for the water was now itself unclean,having touched the unclean hands, and, if it randown the fingers again, it would again renderthem unclean. The process was repeated with the

hands held in the opposite direction, with thefingers pointing down; and then finally each handwas cleansed by being rubbed with the fist of theother. A really strict Jew would do all this, notonly before a meal, but also between each of thecourses.

The question of the Jewish orthodox leaders toJesus is: 'Why do your disciples not observe thelaws of washing which our tradition lays down?'

They speak of the tradition of the elders. Tothe Jews, the law had two sections. There was thewritten law which was contained in Scriptureitself; and there was the oral law, whichconsisted of the developments, such as those inhand-washing, which the scribes and the expertshad worked out through the generations. All thesedevelopments were the tradition of the elders, andwere regarded as just as binding as the writtenlaw, if not more so. Again we must stop to

remember the salient point - to orthodox Jews, allthis ritual ceremony was religion; this is what, asthey believed, God demanded. To do these thingswas to please God and to be good. To put it inanother way, all this business of ritual washingwas regarded as just as important and just asbinding as the Ten Commandments themselves.Religion had become identified with a host ofexternal regulations. It was as important to washthe hands in a certain way as to obey thecommandment: 'You shall not covet.'

BREAKING GOD'S LAW TOKEEP HUMAN LAW

Matthew 15:1-9 (contd)Jesus did not answer the question of the Phariseesdirectly. What he did was to take an example ofthe operation of the oral and ceremonial law toshow how its observance, far from beingobedience to the law of God, could become actualcontradiction of that law.

Jesus says that the law of God lays it down thatpeople shall honour their father and their mother,then he goes on to say that if anyone says: 'It is agift,' that person is free from the duty of honouringfather and mother. If we look at the parallelpassage in Mark, we see that the phrase is: 'It isCorban.' What is the meaning of this obscurepassage to us? In point of fact, it can have two

meanings, because Corban has two meanings.

(1) Corban can mean that which is dedicatedto God. Now suppose that a man had a father ormother in poverty and in need; and suppose thathis poor parent came to him with a request forhelp. There was a way in which the man couldavoid giving any help. He could, as it were,officially dedicate all his money and all hisproperty to God and to the Temple; his propertywould then be Corban, God-dedicated; then hecould say to his father or mother: 'I'm very sorry, Ican give you nothing; all my belongings arededicated to God.' He could use a ritual practiceto evade the basic duty of helping and honouringhis father and mother. He could take a scribalregulation to wipe out one of the TenCommandments.

(2) But Corban has another meaning, and it maywell be that it is this second meaning which is at

issue here. Corban was used as an oath. A manmight say to his father or mother: 'Corban, ifanything I have will ever be used to help you.'Now suppose this man has remorse of conscience;suppose he has made the refusal in a moment ofanger, or temper, or even of irritation; suppose hehas second and kinder and more filial thoughts,and feels that after all there is a duty to help hisparents. In such a case, any reasonable personwould say that that man has undergone a genuinerepentance, and that his change of mind is a goodthing; and that since he is now prepared to do theright thing and obey the law of God he should beencouraged to follow that line.

The strict scribe said: 'No. Our law says that nooath can ever be broken.' He would quoteNumbers 30:2: 'When a man makes a vow to theLord, or swears an oath to bind himself by apledge, he shall not break his word; he shall doaccording to all that proceeds out of his mouth.'

The scribe would legalistically argue: 'You tookan oath; and for no reason can you ever break it.'That is to say, the scribe would hold a man to areckless oath, taken in a moment of passion, anoath which actually compelled a man to break thehigher law of humanity and of God.

That is what Jesus meant. He meant: 'You areusing your scribal interpretations, your traditions,to compel people to dishonour their parents, evenwhen they have repented and have seen the betterway.'

The strange and tragic thing was that the scribesand Pharisees of the day were actually goingagainst what the greatest Jewish teachers hadsaid. Rabbi Eliezer said: 'The door is opened fora man on account of his father and his mother,' andhe meant that if any man had sworn an oath whichdishonoured his father and his mother, and hadthen repented of it, the door was open to him to

change his mind and to take a different way, evenif an oath had been sworn. As so often, Jesus wasnot presenting men and women with unknowntruth: he was reminding them of things that Godhad already told them, and that they had alreadyknown but had forgotten, because they had cometo prefer the ingenious regulations they haddesigned for themselves to the great simplicitiesof the law of God.

Here is the clash and the collision: here is thecontest between two kinds of religion and twokinds of worship. To the scribes and Pharisees,religion was the observance of certain outwardrules and regulations and rituals, such as thecorrect way to wash the hands before eating; itwas the strict observance of a legalistic outlookon all life. To Jesus, religion was a thing whichhad its seat in the heart; it was a thing whichissued in compassion and kindness, which areabove and beyond the law.

To the scribes and Pharisees, worship wasritual and ceremonial law; to Jesus, worship wasthe clean heart and the loving life. Here is theclash. And that clash still exists. What isworship? Even today, there are many who wouldsay that worship is not worship unless it iscarried out by a priest ordained in a certainsuccession, in a building consecrated in a certainway, and from a liturgy laid down by a certainchurch. And all these things are externals.

One of the greatest definitions of worship everlaid down was laid down by Archbishop WilliamTemple: 'To worship is to quicken the conscienceby the holiness of God, to feed the mind with thetruth of God, to purge the imagination by thebeauty of God, to open the heart to the love ofGod, to devote the will to the purpose of God.'We must take care that we do not stand aghast atthe apparent blindness of the scribes and thePharisees, shocked by their insistence on outward

ceremonial, and yet at the same time beingourselves guilty of the same fault in our own way.Religion can never be founded on any ceremoniesor ritual; religion must always be founded onpersonal relationships between human beings andGod.

THE REAL GOODNESS AND THEREAL EVIL

Matthew 15:10-20

Jesus called the crowd and said tothem: 'Listen and understand. It is notthat which goes into the mouth whichdefiles a man; but what comes out of themouth, that defiles a man.' Then hisdisciples came to him and said: 'Do youknow that when the Pharisees heardyour saying, they were shocked by it?'He answered: 'Every plant which myheavenly Father did not plant will berooted up. Let them be. They are blindguides. If the blind lead the blind, bothof them will fall into the ditch.' Petersaid to him: 'Tell us what this dark

saying means.' He said: 'Are you evenyet without understanding? Do you notknow that everything which goes into aman's mouth goes down into thestomach, and is evacuated out into thedrain? But that which comes out of themouth comes from the heart, and it isthese things which defile a man. Forfrom the heart come perniciousthoughts, acts of murder, adultery, theft,false witness, slander. It is these thingswhich defile a man. To eat withunwashed hands does not defile a man.'

IT may well be held that for a Jew this was themost startling thing Jesus ever said. For in thissaying he does not only condemn scribal andPharisaic ritual and ceremonial religion; heactually wipes out large sections of the book ofLeviticus. This is not a contradiction of the

tradition of the elders alone: this is acontradiction of Scripture itself. This saying ofJesus cancels all the food laws of the OldTestament. Quite possibly these laws might stillstand as matters of health and hygiene andcommon sense and medical wisdom: but theycould never again stand as matters of religion.Once and for all, Jesus lays it down that whatmatters is not the state of people's ritualobservance, but the state of their hearts.

No wonder the scribes and Pharisees wereshocked. The very ground of their religion was cutfrom beneath their feet. This statement was notsimply alarming; it was revolutionary. If Jesuswas right, their whole theory of religion waswrong. They identified religion and pleasing Godwith the observing of rules and regulations whichhad to do with cleanness and with uncleanness,with what could be eaten and with how the handswere washed before eating. Jesus identified

religion with the state of a person's heart, and saidbluntly that these Pharisaic and scribal regulationshad nothing to do with religion. Jesus said that thePharisees were blind guides who had no idea ofthe way to God, and that if people followed them,all they could expect was to stray off the road andto fall into the ditch. And Jesus was profoundlyright.

(1) If religion consists in external regulationsand observances, it is two things. It is far tooeasy. It is very much easier to abstain from certainfoods and to wash the hands in a certain way thanit is to love the unlovely and the unlovable, and tohelp the needy at the cost of one's own time andmoney and comfort and pleasure.

We have still not fully learned this lesson. Togo to church regularly, to give liberally to thechurch and to be a member of a Bible-readingcircle are all external things. They are means

towards religion; but they are not religion. We cannever too often remind ourselves that religionconsists in personal relationships and in anattitude to God and our neighbour.

Further, if religion consists in externalobservances, it is quite misleading. Many peoplehave faultless lives in externals but have thebitterest and the most evil thoughts within theirhearts. The teaching of Jesus is that not all theoutward observances in the world can atone for aheart where pride and bitterness and lust holdsway.

(2) It is Jesus' teaching that the part of anindividual that matters is the heart. 'Blessed arethe pure in heart, for they will see God' (Matthew5:8). As Robert Burns had it in the 'Epistle toDavie':

The heart aye's the part aye

That makes us right or wrang.

What matters to God is not so much how we act,but why we act; not so much what we actually do,but what we wish in our heart of hearts to do.'Man', as Thomas Aquinas had it, 'sees the deed,but God sees the intention.'

It is Jesus' teaching - and it is a teaching whichcondemns every one of us - that people cannotcall themselves good because they observeexternal rules and regulations; they can callthemselves good only when their hearts are pure.That very fact is the end of pride, and the reasonwhy every one of us can say only: 'God bemerciful to me, a sinner.'

FAITH TESTED AND FAITHANSWERED

Matthew 15:21-8

And Jesus left there, and withdrew tothe districts of Tyre and Sidon. And,look you, a Canaanite woman fromthese parts came and cried: 'Have pityupon me, Sir, Son of David! Mydaughter is grievously afflicted by ademon.' But he answered her not aword. His disciples came and askedhim: 'Send her away, for she isshrieking behind us.' Jesus answered: 'Iwas sent only to the lost sheep ofIsrael.' She came and knelt in entreatybefore him. 'Lord,' she said, 'help me!'Jesus answered: 'It is not right to take

the children's bread, and to throw it tothe pet dogs.' She said: True, Lord, buteven the dogs eat of the pieces whichfall from their master's table.' ThenJesus answered her: "Woman, great isyour faith! Let it be done for you as youwish.' And her daughter was restored tohealth from that hour.

There are tremendous implications in thispassage. Apart from anything else, it describes theonly occasion on which Jesus was ever outside ofJewish territory. The supreme significance of thepassage is that it foreshadows the going out of thegospel to the whole world; it shows us thebeginning of the end of all the barriers.

For Jesus, this was a time of deliberatewithdrawal. The end was coming near; and hewished some time of quiet when he could prepare

for the end. It was not so much that he wished toprepare himself, although that purpose was also inhis mind, but rather that he wished for some timein which he could prepare his disciples for theday of the cross. There were things which he musttell them, and which he must compel them tounderstand.

There was no place in Palestine where hecould be sure of privacy; wherever he went, thecrowds would find him. So he went right norththrough Galilee until he came to the land of Tyreand Sidon where the Phoenicians dwelt. There, atleast for a time, he would be safe from thehostility of the scribes and Pharisees, and from thedangerous popularity of the people; for no Jewwould be likely to follow him into Gentileterritory.

This passage shows us Jesus seeking a time ofquiet before the turmoil of the end. This is not in

any sense a picture of him running away; it is apicture of him preparing himself and his disciplesfor the final and decisive battle which lay soclose ahead.

But even in these foreign parts, Jesus was not tobe free from the demand of human need whichcried out to him. There was a woman who had adaughter who was seriously ill. She must haveheard somehow of the wonderful things whichJesus could do; and she followed him and hisdisciples, crying desperately for help. At first,Jesus seemed to pay no attention to her. Thedisciples were embarrassed. 'Give her what shewants,' they said, 'and be rid of her.' The reactionof the disciples was not really compassion at all;it was the reverse - to them the woman was anuisance, and all they wanted was to be rid of heras quickly as possible. To grant a request to getrid of a person who is, or may become, a nuisanceis a common enough reaction; but it is very

different from the response of Christian love andpity and compassion.

But to Jesus there was a problem here. That hewas moved with compassion for this woman wecannot for a moment doubt. But she was a Gentile.Not only was she a Gentile; she belonged to theold Canaanite stock, and the Canaanites were theancestral enemies of the Jews. Even at that verytime, or not much later, Josephus could write: 'Ofthe Phoenicians, the Tyrians have the most ill-feeling towards us.' We have already seen that ifJesus was to have any effect, he had to limit hisobjectives like a wise general. He had to beginwith the Jews: and here was a Gentile crying formercy. There was only one thing for him to do: hemust awaken true faith in the heart of this woman.

So Jesus at last turned to her: 'It is not right totake the children's bread and to throw it to the petdogs.' To call a person a dog was a deadly and a

contemptuous insult. The Jews spoke witharrogant insolence about 'Gentile dogs', 'infideldogs' and later 'Christian dogs'. In those days, thedogs were the unclean scavengers of the street -lean, savage, often diseased. But there are twothings to remember.

The tone and the look with which a thing is saidmake all the difference. A thing which seems hardcan be said with a disarming smile. We can call afriend 'an old villain' or 'a rogue', with a smileand a tone which take all the sting out of it and fillit with affection. We can be quite sure that thesmile on Jesus' face and the compassion in hiseyes robbed the words of all insult and bitterness.

Second, it is the diminutive word for dogs(kunaria) which is used, and the kunaria werenot the street dogs, but the little household pets,very different from the stray dogs that roamed thestreets and probed in the refuse heaps.

The woman was a Greek: she was quick to see,and she had all a Greek's ready wit. 'True,' shesaid, 'but even the dogs get their share of thecrumbs which fall from their master's table.' AndJesus' eyes lit up with joy at such an indomitablefaith; and he granted her the blessing and thehealing which she so much desired.

THE FAITH WHICH WON THEBLESSING

Matthew 15:21-8 (contd)There are certain things about this woman whichwe must note.

(1) First and foremost, she had love. As JohannBengel. the eighteenth-century German theologian,said of her, 'She made the misery of her child herown.' Pagan she might be, but in her heart therewas that love for her child which is always thereflection of God's love for his children. It waslove which made her approach this stranger; itwas love which made her accept his silence andyet still appeal; it was love which made her sufferthe apparent rebuffs; it was love which made herable to see the compassion beyond and behind thewords of Jesus. The driving force of this woman's

heart was love; and there is nothing stronger andnothing nearer God than that very thing.

(2) This woman had faith, (a) It was a faithwhich grew in contact with Jesus. She began bycalling him Son of David; that was a popular title,a political title. It was a title which looked onJesus as a great and powerful wonder-worker, butwhich looked on him in terms of earthly powerand glory. She came asking a favour of one whomshe took to be a great and powerful man. Shecame with a kind of superstition as she might havecome to any magician. She ended by calling JesusLord.

Jesus, as it were, compelled her to look athimself, and in him she saw something that wasnot expressible in earthly terms at all, but wasnothing less than divine. That is precisely whatJesus wanted to awaken in her before he grantedher request. He wanted her to see that a request to

a great man must be turned into a prayer to theliving God. We can see this woman's faithgrowing as she is confronted with Christ, until sheglimpsed him, however distantly, for what hewas.

(b) It was a faith which worshipped. She beganby following; she ended upon her knees. Shebegan with a request; she ended in prayer.Whenever we come to Jesus, we must come firstwith adoration of his majesty, and only then withthe statement of our own need.

(3) This woman had indomitable persistence.She was undiscourageable. So many people, it hasbeen said, pray really because they do not wish tomiss a chance. They do not really believe inprayer; they have only the feeling that somethingmight just possibly happen. This woman camebecause Jesus was not just a possible helper; hewas her only hope. She came with a passionate

hope, a burning sense of need and a refusal to bediscouraged. She had the one supremely effectivequality in prayer - she was in deadly earnest.Prayer for her was no ritual form; it was theoutpouring of the passionate desire of her soul,which somehow felt that she could not - and mustnot - and need not - take no for an answer.

(4) This woman had the gift of cheerfulness.She was in the midst of trouble; she waspassionately in earnest; and yet she could smile.She had a certain sunny-heartedness about her.God loves the cheerful faith, the faith in whoseeyes there is always the light of hope, the faithwith a smile which can light the gloom.

This woman brought to Christ a gallant and anaudacious love, a faith which grew until itworshipped at the feet of the divine, anindomitable persistence springing from anunconquerable hope, a cheerfulness which would

not be dismayed. That is the approach whichcannot help finding an answer to its prayers.

THE BREAD OF LIFE

Matthew 15:29-39

And Jesus left there, and went to theSea of Galilee: and he went up into amountain, and he was sitting there; andgreat crowds came to him, bringingwith them people who were lame andblind and deaf and maimed, and laidthem at his feet, and he healed them, sothat the crowd were amazed when theysaw the dumb speaking, the maimedrestored to soundness, and the lamewalking, and the blind seeing; and theypraised the God of Israel.

Jesus called his disciples to him. 'Myheart is sorry for the crowd,' he said,'because they have stayed with me now

for three days, and they have nothing toeat. I do not wish to send them awayhungry in case they collapse on theroad.' The disciples said to him: 'Wherecould we find enough loaves in a desertplace to satisfy such a crowd?' Jesussaid to them: 'How many loaves haveyou?' They said: 'Seven, and a few littlefishes.' He gave orders to the crowd tosit down on the ground, and he took theseven loaves and the fishes, and, whenhe had given thanks, he broke them andgave them to the disciples, and thedisciples gave them to the crowds. Andthey gathered what remained of thefragments, seven hampers full. Thosewho ate were 4,000 men, apart fromwomen and children. When he had sentthe crowds away, he embarked on theboat, and went to the district of

Magadan.

WE have already seen that when Jesus set out onhis journey to the districts of the Phoenicians, hewas entering upon a period of deliberatewithdrawal that he might prepare himself and hisdisciples for the last days which lay ahead. Oneof the difficulties about the gospels is that they donot give us any definite indication of times anddates; these we have to work out for ourselves,using such hints as the story may give us. Whenwe do, we find that Jesus' period of retiral withhis disciples was very much longer than we mightthink from a casual reading of the story.

When Jesus fed the 5,000 (Matthew 14:15-21;Mark 6:31-44), it was the springtime, for at noother time would the grass be green in that hotland (Matthew 14:19; Mark 6:39). After hisdiscussions with the scribes and Pharisees, hewithdrew to the districts of Tyre and Sidon (Mark

7:24; Matthew 15:21). That in itself was no smalljourney on foot.

For the next note of time and place, we go toMark 7:31 'Then he returned from the region ofTyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Seaof Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.' Thatwas a strange way of travelling. Sidon is north ofTyre; the Sea of Galilee is south of Tyre; and theDecapolis was a confederation of ten Greek citieson the east of the Sea of Galilee. That is to say,Jesus went north in order to go south. It is as if toget from one end of the base of a triangle to theother he went right round by the apex. It is as if hewent from Edinburgh to Glasgow by way of Perth,or from Bristol to London by way of Manchester,or from Philadelphia to Atlanta by way of NewYork. It is clear that Jesus deliberately lengthenedhis journey to have as long as possible with hisdisciples before the last journey to Jerusalem.

Finally he came to the Decapolis, where, as welearn from Mark (Mark 7:31), the incidents of ourpassage happened. Here we get our next hint. Onthis occasion when the people were told to sitdown, they sat on the ground (epi tēn gēn), on theearth: it was by this time high summer, and thegrass was scorched, leaving only the bare earth.

That is to say, this northern journey took Jesusalmost six months. We know nothing about whathappened in the course of these six months; but wecan be perfectly sure that they were the mostimportant six months through which the disciplesever lived; for in them Jesus deliberately taughtand instructed them, and opened their minds to thetruth. It is a thing to remember that the discipleshad six months apart with Jesus before the testingtime came.

Many scholars think that the feeding of the5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000 are different

versions of the same incident; but that is not so.As we have seen, the date is different; the firsttook place in the spring, the second in the summer.The people and the place are different. Thefeeding of the 4,000 took place in the Decapolis.Decapolis literally means ten cities, and theDecapolis was a loose federation of ten freeGreek cities. On this occasion, there would bemany Gentiles present, perhaps more Gentilesthan Jews. It is that fact that explains the curiousphrase in verse 31: 'They praised the God ofIsrael.' To the Gentile crowds, this was ademonstration of the power of the God of Israel.There is another curious little hint of difference.In the feeding of the 5,000, the baskets whichwere used to take up the fragments are calledkophinoi; in the feeding of the 4,000, they arecalled sphurides. The kophinos was a narrow-necked, flask-shaped basket which Jews oftencarried with them, for Jews often carried their

own food, in case they should be compelled to eatfood which had been touched by Gentile handsand was therefore unclean. The sphuris was muchmore like a hamper; it could be big enough tocarry a person, and it was a kind of basket that aGentile would use.

The wonder of this story is that in thesehealings and in this feeding of the hungry, we seethe mercy and the compassion of Jesus going outto the Gentiles. Here is a kind of symbol andforetaste that the bread of God was not to beconfined to the Jews: that the Gentiles were alsoto have their share of him who is the living bread.

THE GRACIOUSNESS OF JESUS

Matthew 15:29-39 (contd)In this passage, we see fully displayed thegraciousness and the sheer kindness of JesusChrist. We see him relieving every kind of humanneed.

(1) We see him curing physical disability. Thelame, the maimed, the blind and the dumb are laidat his feet and cured. Jesus is infinitely concernedwith the bodily pain of the world; and those whobring men and women health and healing are stilldoing the work of Jesus Christ.

(2) We see him concerned for the tired. Thepeople are tired, and he wants to strengthen theirfeet for a long, hard road. Jesus is infinitelyconcerned for the world's travellers, for theworld's toilers, for those whose eyes are weary

and whose hands are tired.

(3) We see him feeding the hungry. We see himgiving all he has to relieve physical hunger andphysical need. Jesus is infinitely concerned forour bodies, just as he is for our souls.

Here we see the power and the compassion ofGod going out to meet the many needs of thehuman situation.

In writing of this passage, the biblical scholarAlfred Edersheim has a lovely thought: he pointsout that in three successive stages of his ministry,Jesus ended each stage by setting a meal beforehis people. First, there was the feeding of the5,000; that came at the end of his ministry inGalilee, for Jesus was never to teach and preachand heal in Galilee again. Second, there was thisfeeding of the 4,000. This came at the end of hisbrief ministry to the Gentiles, beyond the boundsof Palestine - first in the districts of Tyre and

Sidon and then in the Decapolis. Third and last,there was the Last Supper in Jerusalem, whenJesus came to the final stage of the days of hisearthly life.

Here indeed is a lovely thought. Jesus alwaysleft people with strength for the way; always hegathered them to him to feed them with the livingbread. Always he gave them himself before hemoved on. And still he comes to us offering usalso the bread which will satisfy the immortalhunger of the human soul, and in the strength ofwhich we shall be able to go all the days of ourlives.

BLIND TO THE SIGNS

Matthew 16:1-4

The Pharisees and Sadducees came tohim, trying to put him to the test, andasked him to show them a sign fromheaven. He answered them: 'Whenevening comes, you say: "It will be fineweather, because the sky is red." Andearly in the morning, you say: "It willbe stormy today, because the sky is redand threatening." You know how todiscern the face of the sky, but youcannot discern the signs of the times. Anevil and apostate generation seeks for asign. No sign will be given to it exceptthe sign of Jonah.' And he left them andwent away.

Hostility, like necessity, makes strangebedfellows. It is an extraordinary phenomenon tofind a combination of the Pharisees andSadducees. They stood for both beliefs andpolicies which were diametrically opposed. ThePharisees lived life according to the minutestdetails of the oral and the scribal law: theSadducees rejected the oral and the scribal lawcompletely, and accepted only the written wordsof the Bible as their law of life. The Phariseesbelieved in angels and in the resurrection of thebody and the Sadducees did not, an oppositionwhich Paul made use of when he was on trialbefore the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:6-10). And - in thiscase most important of all - the Pharisees werenot a political party and were prepared to liveunder any government which would allow them toobserve their own religious principles; theSadducees were the small, wealthy aristocracy,who were the collaborationist party and were

quite prepared to serve and co-operate with theRoman government, in order to retain their wealthand their privileges. Further, the Pharisees lookedfor and longed for the Messiah; the Sadducees didnot. It would have been well-nigh impossible tofind two more different sects and parties; and yetthey came together in their desire to eliminateJesus. They became united in their hostility.

The demand of the Pharisees and the Sadduceeswas for a sign. As we have already seen, the Jewshad a way of wishing a prophet or a leader toauthenticate his message by some abnormal andextraordinary sign (Matthew 12:38-40). It isJesus' reply that the sign was there, if they couldonly see it. They were weatherwise. They knewthe same weather saying that we ourselves know:

A red sky at night is the shepherd's delight;

A red sky in the morning is the shepherd's warning.

They knew very well that a red sky in the eveningwas a sign of fine weather; and that a red sky inthe morning was the warning of a storm to come.But they were blind to the signs of the times.

Jesus told them that the only sign they wouldreceive was the sign of Jonah. We have alreadyseen what the sign of Jonah was (Matthew 12:38-40). Jonah was the prophet who converted thepeople of Nineveh and turned them from their evilways towards God. Now the sign which turnedthe people of Nineveh to God was not the fact thatJonah was swallowed by the great sea monster.Of that they knew nothing; and Jonah never used itas a means of appeal. The sign of Jonah wasJonah himself and his message from God. It wasthe emergence of the prophet and the messagewhich he brought which changed life for the

people of Nineveh.

So what Jesus is saying is that God's sign isJesus himself and his message. It is as if he saidto them: 'In me you are confronted with God andwith the truth of God. What more could youpossibly need? But you are so blind that youcannot see it.' There is truth and there is warninghere. Jesus Christ is God's last word. Beyond himthe revelation of God cannot go. Here is Godplain for all to see. Here is God's message plainfor all to hear. Here is God's sign to the world. Itis the warning truth that if Jesus cannot appeal tomen and women, nothing can. If Jesus cannotconvince them, no one can. If men and womencannot see God in Jesus, they cannot see God inanything or anyone. When we are confronted withJesus Christ, we are confronted with God's finalword and God's ultimate appeal. If that is so, whatcan be left for those who throw away that lastchance. who refuse to listen to that last word, who

reject that last appeal?

THE DANGEROUS LEAVEN

Matthew 16:5-12

When the disciples came to the otherside, they had forgotten to take loaveswith them. Jesus said to them: 'See thatyou beware of the leaven of thePharisees and Sadducees.' They arguedamong themselves: 'He must be sayingthis because we did not bring loaves.'Jesus knew what they were thinking.'Why', he said, 'are you arguing amongyourselves, you of little faith, becauseyou have no loaves? Do you not yetunderstand, and do you not rememberthe five loaves of the 5,000, and howmany baskets you took up? And do younot remember the seven loaves of the

4,000, and how many hampers you tookup? How is it that you do not understandthat it was not about loaves that I spoketo you? Beware of the leaven of thePharisees and Sadducees!' Then theyunderstood that he did not tell them tobeware of the leaven that is in loaves,but of the teaching of the Pharisees andSadducees.

We are presented here with a passage of verygreat difficulty. In fact, we can only guess at itsmeaning.

Jesus and his disciples had set out for the otherside of the lake, and the disciples had forgotten totake any bread with them. For some reason, theywere quite disproportionately worried anddisturbed by this omission. Jesus said to them:'See that you beware of the leaven of the

Pharisees and Sadducees.' Now the word leavenhas two meanings. It has its physical and literalmeaning, a little piece of fermented dough,without which bread cannot be baked. It was inthat sense that the disciples understood Jesus tospeak about leaven. With their minds fixed on theforgotten loaves, all that they could think of wasthat he was warning them against a certain kind ofdangerous leaven. They had forgotten to bringbread, which meant that, if they were to obtainany, they must buy it from the Gentiles on the otherside of the lake. Now no Jew who was strictlyorthodox could eat any bread which had beenbaked or handled by a Gentile. Therefore theproblem of getting bread on the other side of thelake was insoluble. The disciples may well havethought that Jesus was saying: 'You have forgottenthe bread which is clean; take care when you getto the other side of the lake that you do not polluteyourselves by buying bread with defiling leaven

in it.'

The disciples' minds were running on nothingbut bread. So Jesus asked them to remember.'Remember', he said, 'the feeding of the 5,000 andof the 4,000; and remember the plenty there wasto eat, and the abundance which was left over.And when you remember these things, surely youwill stop fussing about trifles. You have surelyseen that in my presence these trifling problemshave already been solved and can be solvedagain. Stop worrying and trust me.'

That was put so bluntly and so clearly that thedisciples were bound to understand. Then Jesusrepeated his warning: 'Beware of the leaven of thePharisees and Sadducees!' Leaven has a secondmeaning which is metaphorical and not literal andphysical. It was the Jewish metaphoricalexpression for an evil influence. To the Jewishmind, leaven was always symbolic of evil. It is

fermented dough; the Jews identified fermentationwith putrefaction; leaven stood for all that wasrotten and bad. Leaven has the power to permeateany mass of dough into which it is inserted.Therefore leaven stood for an evil influenceliable to spread through life and to corrupt it.

Now the disciples understood. They knew thatJesus was not talking about bread at all; but hewas warning them against the evil influence of theteaching and the beliefs of the Pharisees andSadducees.

What would be in Jesus' mind when he warnedagainst the evil influence of the teaching of thePharisees and Sadducees? That is somethingwhich we can only surmise; but we do know thecharacteristics of the minds of the Pharisees andSadducees.

(1) The Pharisees saw religion in terms of lawsand commandments and rules and regulations.

They saw religion in terms of outward ritual andoutward purity. So Jesus is saying: 'Take care thatyou do not make your religion a series of "youshall nots" in the way the Pharisees do. Take carethat you do not identify religion with a series ofoutward actions, and forget that what matters isthe state of a person's heart.' This is a warningagainst living in legalism and calling it religion; itis a warning against a religion which looks on aperson's outward actions and forgets the innerstate of the heart.

(2) The Sadducees had two characteristics,which were closely connected. They werewealthy and aristocratic, and they were deeplyinvolved in politics. So Jesus may well have beensaying: 'Take care that you never identify thekingdom of heaven with outward goods, and thatyou never pin your hopes of bringing it intopolitical action.' This may well be a warningagainst giving material things too high a place in

our scheme of values and against thinking thatpeople can be reformed by political action. Jesusmay well have been reminding the disciples thatmaterial prosperity is far from being the highestgood, and that political action is far fromproducing the most important results. The trueblessings are the blessings of the heart: and thetrue change is not the change of outwardcircumstances but the change of human hearts.

THE SCENE OF THE GREATDISCOVERY

Matthew 16:13-16

When Jesus had come into the districtsof Caesarea Philippi, he asked hisdisciples: 'Who do men say that the Sonof Man is?' They said: 'Some say Johnthe Baptist, others Elijah, othersJeremiah, or one of the prophets.' Hesaid to them: 'And you - who do you saythat I am?' Simon Peter answered: 'Youare the Anointed One, the Son of theliving God.'

Here we have the story of another withdrawalwhich Jesus made. The end was coming verynear, and Jesus needed all the time alone with his

disciples that he could gain. He had so much tosay to them and so much to teach them, althoughthere were many things which then they could notbear and could not understand.

To that end, he withdrew to the districts ofCaesarea Philippi. Caesarea Philippi lies abouttwenty-five miles northeast of the Sea of Galilee.It was outside the domain of Herod Antipas, whowas the ruler of Galilee, and within the area ofPhilip the Tetrarch. The population was mainlynon-Jewish, and there Jesus would have peace toteach the Twelve.

Confronting Jesus at this time was one pressingand demanding problem that would not go away.His time was short; his days on earth werenumbered. The problem was - was there anyonewho understood him? Was there anyone who hadrecognized him for who and what he was? Werethere any who, when he had departed from the

world, would carry on his work, and labour forhis kingdom? Obviously that was a crucialproblem, for it involved the very survival of theChristian faith. If there were none who hadgrasped the truth, or even glimpsed it, then all hiswork was undone; if there were just a few whorealized the truth, his work was safe. So Jesuswas determined to put all to the test and ask hisfollowers who they believed him to be.

It is of the most dramatic interest to see whereJesus chose to ask this question. There can havebeen few districts with more religiousassociations than Caesarea Philippi.

(1) The area was scattered with temples of theancient Syrian Baal-worship. W. M. Thomson inThe Land and the Book enumerates no fewer thanfourteen such temples in the near neighbourhood.Here was an area where the breath of ancientreligion was in the very atmosphere. Here was a

place beneath the shadow of the ancient gods.

(2) Not only the Syrian gods had their worshiphere. Near to Caesarea Philippi there rose a greathill, in which was a deep cavern; and that cavernwas said to be the birthplace of the great god Pan,the god of nature. So much was Caesarea Philippiidentified with that god that its original name wasPanias, and to this day the place is known asBanias. The legends of the gods of Greecegathered around Caesarea Philippi.

(3) Further, that cave was said to be the placewhere the sources of the Jordan sprang to life.Josephus writes: 'This is a very fine cave in amountain, under which there is a great cavity inthe earth; and the cavern is abrupt, andprodigiously deep, and full of still water. Over ithangs a vast mountain, and under the cavern arisethe springs of the River Jordan' (Antiquities of theJews, 15:10:3). The very idea that this was the

place where the River Jordan had its sourcewould make it highly evocative of all thememories of Jewish history. The ancient faith ofJudaism would be in the air for anyone who was adevout and pious Jew.

(4) But there was something more. In CaesareaPhilippi, there was a great temple of white marblebuilt to the godhead of Caesar. It had been built byHerod the Great. Josephus says: 'Herod adornedthe place, which was already a very remarkableone, still further by the erection of this temple,which he dedicated to Caesar.' In another place,Josephus describes the cave and the temple: 'Andwhen Caesar had further bestowed on Herodanother country, he built there also a temple ofwhite marble, hard by the fountains of Jordan. Theplace is called Panium, where there is the top of amountain which is raised to an immense height,and at its side, beneath, or at its bottom, a darkcave opens itself; within which there is a horrible

precipice that descends abruptly to a vast depth. Itcontains a mighty quantity of water, which isimmovable; and when anyone lets down anythingto measure the depth of the earth beneath thewater, no length of cord is sufficient to reach it'(The Jewish Wars, 1:21:3). Later it was Philip,Herod's son, who further beautified and enrichedthe temple, changed the name of Panias toCaesarea - Caesar's town - and added his ownname - Philippi, which means of Philip - todistinguish it from the Caesarea on the coasts ofthe Mediterranean. Still later, Herod Agrippa wasto call the place Neroneas in honour of theEmperor Nero. No one could look at CaesareaPhilippi, even from the distance, without seeingthat pile of glistening marble, and thinking of themight and of the divinity of Rome.

Here indeed is a dramatic picture. Here is ahomeless, penniless Galilaean carpenter, withtwelve very ordinary men around him. At the

moment, the orthodox are actually plotting andplanning to destroy him as a dangerous heretic. Hestands in an area littered with the temples of theSyrian gods; in a place where the ancient Greekgods looked down; in a place where the history ofIsrael crowded in upon people's minds; where thewhite-marble splendour of the home of Caesar-worship dominated the landscape and drew theeye. And there - of all places - this amazingcarpenter stands and asks his disciples who theybelieve him to be, and expects the answer: TheSon of God.' It is as if Jesus deliberately sethimself against the background of the world'sreligions in all their history and their splendour,and demanded to be compared with them and tohave the verdict given in his favour. There arefew scenes where Jesus' consciousness of his owndivinity shines out with a more dazzling light.

THE INADEQUACY OF HUMANCATEGORIES

Matthew 16:13-16 (contd)So, at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus determined todemand a verdict from his disciples. He had toknow before he set out for Jerusalem and thecross if anyone had even dimly grasped who andwhat he was. He did not ask the question directly;he led up to it. He began by asking what peoplewere saying about him, and who they took him tobe.

Some said that he was John the Baptist. HerodAntipas was not the only man who felt that Johnthe Baptist was so great a figure that it might wellbe that he had come back from the dead.

Others said that he was Elijah. In doing so, theywere saying two things about Jesus. They were

saying that he was as great as the greatest of theprophets, for Elijah had always been looked on asthe summit and the prince of the prophetic line.They were also saying that Jesus was theforerunner of the Messiah. As Malachi had it, thepromise of God was: 'Lo, I will send you theprophet Elijah before the great and terrible day ofthe Lord comes' (Malachi 4:5). To this day, theJews expect the return of Elijah before the comingof the Messiah, and to this day they leave a chairvacant for Elijah when they celebrate thePassover; for when Elijah comes, the Messiahwill not be far away. So the people looked onJesus as the herald of the Messiah and theforerunner of the direct intervention of God.

Some said that Jesus was Jeremiah. Jeremiahhad a curious place in the expectations of thepeople of Israel. It was believed that, before thepeople went into exile, Jeremiah had taken the arkand the altar of incense out of the Temple, and

hidden them away in a lonely cave on MountNebo; and that, before the coming of the Messiah,he would return and produce them, and the gloryof God would come to the people again (2Maccabees 2:1-12). In 4 Ezra [2 Esdras] 2:18, thepromise of God is: 'I will send you help, myservants Isaiah and Jeremiah.'

There is a strange legend of the days of theMaccabaean wars. Before the battle withNicanor, in which the Jewish commander was thegreat Judas Maccabaeus, Onias, the good manwho had been high priest, had a vision. He prayedfor victory in the battle. 'Then in the same fashionanother appeared, distinguished by his grey hairand dignity, and of marvellous majesty andauthority. And Onias spoke saying: "This is a manwho loves the family of Israel and who praysmuch for the people and the holy city - Jeremiah,the prophet of God." Jeremiah stretched out hisright hand and gave to Judas a golden sword, and

as he gave it he addressed him thus: "Take thisholy sword, a gift from God, with which you willstrike down your adversaries"' (2 Maccabees15:13-16). Jeremiah also was to be the forerunnerof the coming of the Messiah, and his country'shelp in time of trouble.

When the people identified Jesus with Elijahand with Jeremiah, they were, according to theirunderstanding, paying him a great compliment andsetting him in a high place, for Jeremiah andElijah were none other than the expectedforerunners of the Anointed One of God. Whenthey arrived, the kingdom would be very nearindeed.

When Jesus had heard the verdicts of thecrowd, he asked the all-important question: 'Andyou - who do you say I am?' At that question,there may well have been a moment's silence,while into the minds of the disciples came

thoughts which they were almost afraid to expressin words; and then Peter made his great discoveryand his great confession: and Jesus knew that hiswork was safe because there was at leastsomeone who understood.

It is interesting to note that each of the threegospels has its own version of the saying of Peter.Matthew has:

You are the Messiah, the Son of the livingGod.

Mark is briefer (8:29):

You are the Messiah.

Luke is clearest of all (9:20):

The Messiah of God.

Jesus knew now that there was at least someonewho had recognized him for the Messiah, theAnointed One of God, the Son of the living God.The word Messiah and the word Christ are thesame; the one is the Hebrew and the other is theGreek for the Anointed One. Kings were ordainedto office by anointing, as they still are. TheMessiah, the Christ, the Anointed One is God'sKing over all people.

Within this passage, there are two great truths.

(1) Essentially, Peter's discovery was thathuman categories, even the highest, are inadequateto describe Jesus Christ. When the peopledescribed Jesus as Elijah or Jeremiah or one ofthe prophets, they thought they were setting Jesusin the highest category they could find. It was thebelief of the Jews that for 400 years the voice of

prophecy had been silent; and they were sayingthat in Jesus men and women heard again thedirect and authentic voice of God. These weregreat tributes; but they were not great enough; forthere are no human categories which are adequateto describe Jesus Christ.

Once Napoleon gave his verdict on Jesus. 'Iknow men,' he said, 'and Jesus Christ is more thana man.' Doubtless Peter could not have given atheological account and a philosophic expressionof what he meant when he said that Jesus was theSon of the living God; the one thing of whichPeter was quite certain was that no merely humandescription was adequate to describe him.

(2) This passage teaches that our discovery ofJesus Christ must be a personal discovery. Jesus'question is: 'You - what do you think of me?'When Pilate asked him if he was the king of theJews, his answer was: 'Do you ask this on your

own, or did others tell you about me?' (John18:34).

Our knowledge of Jesus must never be atsecond hand. We might know every verdict everpassed on Jesus; we might know everyChristology that human minds have ever thoughtout; we might be able to give a competentsummary of the teaching about Jesus of everygreat thinker and theologian - and still not beChristians. Christianity never consists in knowingabout Jesus; it always consists in knowing Jesus.Jesus Christ demands a personal verdict. He didnot ask only Peter, he asks every one of us: 'You -what do you think of me?'

THE GREAT PROMISE

Matthew 16:17-19

Jesus answered him: 'Blessed are you,Simon son of Jonah, because flesh andblood has not revealed this unto you,but my Father who is in heaven. And Itell you that you are Peter, and on thisrock I will build my Church, and thegates of Hades will not prevail againstit. I will give you the keys of thekingdom of heaven; and whatever youbind on earth will remain bound inheaven; and whatever you loose onearth will remain loosed in heaven.'

This passage is one of the storm centres of NewTestament interpretation. It has always been

difficult to approach it calmly and withoutprejudice, for it is the Roman Catholic foundationof the position of the Pope and of the Church. It istaken by the Roman Catholic Church to mean thatto Peter were given the keys which admit orexclude people from heaven, and that to Peter wasgiven the power to absolve or not to absolvepeople from their sins. It is further argued by theRoman Catholic Church that Peter, with thesetremendous rights, became the Bishop of Rome;and that this power descended to all the Bishopsof Rome: and that it exists today in the Pope, whois the head of the Church and the Bishop of Rome.

It is easy to see how impossible any suchdoctrine is for a Protestant believer; and it is alsoeasy to see how Protestants and Roman Catholicsalike may approach this passage not with thesingle-hearted desire to discover its meaning, butwith the determination to yield nothing of theirown position, and, if possible, to disprove the

position of the other. Let us then try to find its truemeaning.

There is a play on words. In Greek, Peter isPetros and a rock is petra. Peter's Aramaic namewas Cephas, and that also is the Aramaic for arock. In either language, there is here a play uponwords. Immediately Peter had made his greatdiscovery and confession, Jesus said to him: 'Youare petros, and on this petra I will build myChurch.'

Whatever else this is, it is a word oftremendous praise. It is a metaphor which is by nomeans strange or unusual to Jewish thought.

The Rabbis applied the word rock to Abraham.They had a saying: 'When the Holy One sawAbraham who was going to arise, he said: "Lo, Ihave discovered a rock [petra] to found the worldupon." Therefore he called Abraham rock [sur],as it is said: "Look unto the rock whence ye are

hewn."' Abraham was the rock on which thenation and the purpose of God were founded.

Even more, the word rock (sur) is again andagain applied to God himself. 'The Rock, hiswork is perfect' (Deuteronomy 32:4). 'Indeed theirrock is not like our Rock' (Deuteronomy 32:31).There is no Rock like our God' (1 Samuel 2:2).The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and mydeliverer' (2 Samuel 22:2). The same phraseoccurs in Psalm 18:2. 'Who is a rock besides ourGod?' (Psalm 18:31). The same phrase is echoedin 2 Samuel 22:32.

One thing is clear. To call anyone a rock wasthe greatest of compliments; and no Jew whoknew the Old Testament could ever use the phrasewithout thinking of God, who alone was the truerock of his defence and salvation. What then didJesus mean when in this passage he used the wordrock? To that question, at least four answers have

been given.

(1) Augustine took the rock to mean Jesushimself. It is as if Jesus said: 'You are Peter; andon myself as rock I will found my Church; and theday will come when, as the reward of your faith,you will be great in the Church.'

(2) The second explanation is that the rock isthe truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the livingGod. To Peter, that great truth had been divinelyrevealed. The fact that Jesus Christ is the Son ofGod is indeed the foundation stone of the Church'sfaith and belief, but it hardly seems to bring outthe play on words which is here.

(3) The third explanation is that the rock isPeter's faith. On the faith of Peter, the Church isfounded. That faith was the spark which was tokindle the faith of the worldwide Church. It wasthe initial impetus which was one day to bring theuniversal Church into being.

(4) The last interpretation is still the best. It isthat Peter himself is the rock, but in a specialsense. He is not the rock on which the Church isfounded; that rock is God. He is the first stone ofthe whole Church. Peter was the first person onearth to discover who Jesus was; he was the firstperson to make the leap of faith and see in him theSon of the living God. In other words, Peter wasthe first member of the Church, and, in that sense,the whole Church is built on him. It is as if Jesussaid to Peter: 'Peter, you are the first person tograsp who I am; you are therefore the first stone,the foundation stone, the very beginning of theChurch which I am founding.' And in ages tocome, everyone who makes the same discovery asPeter is another stone added into the edifice of theChurch of Christ.

Two things help to make this clear.

(1) Often the Bible uses pictures for the sake of

one definite point. The details of the picture arenot to be stressed; it is one point which is beingmade. In connection with the Church, the NewTestament repeatedly uses the picture of building,but it uses that picture for many purposes and frommany points of view. Here Peter is the foundation,in the sense that he is the one person on whom thewhole Church is built, for he was the first personto discover who Jesus was. In Ephesians 2:20, theprophets and the apostles are said to be thefoundation of the Church. It is on their work andon their witness and on their fidelity that theChurch on earth, humanly speaking, depends. Inthe same passage, Jesus Christ is the chiefcornerstone; he is the force who holds the Churchtogether. Without him, the whole edifice woulddisintegrate and collapse. In 1 Peter 2:4-8, allChristians are living stones who are to be builtinto the fabric of the Church. In 1 Corinthians3:11, Jesus is the only foundation, and no one can

lay any other. It is clear to see that the NewTestament writers took the picture of building andused it in many ways. But at the back of it all isalways the idea that Jesus Christ is the realfoundation of the Church, and the only power whoholds the Church together. When Jesus said toPeter that on him he would found his Church, hedid not mean that the Church depended on Peter,as it depended on himself and on God the Rock.He did mean that the Church began with Peter; inthat sense Peter is the foundation of the Church:and that is an honour that no one can take fromhim.

(2) The second point is that the very wordChurch (ekklēsia) in this passage conveyssomething of a wrong impression. We are apt tothink of the Church as an institution and anorganization with buildings and offices, andservices and meetings, and organizations and allkinds of activities. The word that Jesus almost

certainly used was qahal, which is the word theOld Testament uses for the congregation ofIsrael, the gathering of the people of the Lord.What Jesus said to Peter was: 'Peter, you are thebeginning of the new Israel, the new people of theLord, the new fellowship of those who believe inmy name.' Peter was the first of the fellowship ofbelievers in Christ. It was not a Church in thehuman sense, still less a Church in adenominational sense, that began with Peter. Whatbegan with Peter was the fellowship of allbelievers in Jesus Christ, not identified with anyChurch and not limited to any Church, butembracing all who love the Lord.

So, we may say that the first part of thiscontroversial passage means that Peter is thefoundation stone of the Church in the sense that hewas the first of that great fellowship who joyfullydeclare their own discovery that Jesus Christ isLord; but that, in the ultimate sense, it is God

himself who is the rock on which the Church isbuilt.

THE GATES OF HELL

Matthew 16:17-19 (contd)Jesus goes on to say that the gates of Hades shallnot prevail against his Church. What does thatmean? The idea of gates prevailing is not by anymeans a natural or an easily understood picture.Again there is more than one explanation.

(1) It may be that the picture is the picture of afortress. This suggestion may find support in thefact that on the top of the mountain overlookingCaesarea Philippi there stand today the ruins of agreat castle which may well have stood there inall its glory in the time of Jesus. It may be thatJesus is thinking of his Church as a fortress, andthe forces of evil as an opposing fortress; and issaying that the embattled might of evil will neverprevail against the Church.

(2) Richard Glover has an interestingexplanation. In the middle east, the Gate wasalways traditionally the place, especially in thelittle towns and villages, where the elders and therulers met and dispensed counsel and justice. Forinstance, the law is laid down that if a man has arebellious and disobedient son, he must bring him'to the elders of his town at the gate of that place'(Deuteronomy 21:19), and there judgment will begiven and justice done. In Deuteronomy 25:7, theman with a certain problem is told to 'go up to theelders at the gate'. The gate was the scene ofsimple justice where the elders met. So, the gatemay have come to mean the place of government.For a long time, for instance, the government ofTurkey was called the Sublime Porte (porte beingthe French for gate). So, the phrase would mean:the powers, the government of Hades will neverprevail against the Church.

(3) There is a third possibility. Suppose we go

back to the idea that the rock on which the Churchis founded is the conviction that Jesus is noneother than the Son of the living God. Now Hadeswas not the place of punishment, but the placewhere, in primitive Jewish belief, all the deadwent. Obviously, the function of gates is to keepthings in, to confine them, shut them up, controlthem. There was one person whom the gates ofHades could not shut in; and that was Jesus Christ.He burst the bonds of death. As the writer of Actshas it: '[God] freed him from death, because itwas impossible for him to be held in its power . .. You will not abandon my soul to Hades, or letyour Holy One experience corruption' (Acts 2:24,27). So, this may be a triumphant reference tonothing less than the coming resurrection. Jesusmay be saying: 'You have discovered that I am theSon of the living God. The time will soon comewhen I will be crucified, and the gates of Hadeswill close behind me. But they are powerless to

shut me in. The gates of Hades have no poweragainst me, the Son of the living God.'

However we take it, this phrase triumphantlyexpresses the indestructibility of Christ and hisChurch.

THE PLACE OF PETER

Matthew 16:17-19 (contd)We now come to two phrases in which Jesusdescribes certain privileges which were given toand certain duties which were laid on Peter.

(1) He says that he will give to Peter the keysof the kingdom. This is an obviously difficultphrase; and we will do well to begin by settingdown the things about it of which we can be sure.

(a) The phrase always signified some kind ofvery special power. For instance, the Rabbis hada saying: 'The keys of birth, of the rain, and of theresurrection of the dead belong to God.' That is tosay, only God has the power to create life, to sendthe rain and to raise the dead to life again. Thephrase always indicates a special power.

(b) In the New Testament, this phrase is

regularly attached to Jesus. It is in his hands, andno one else's, that the keys are. In Revelation1:18, the risen Christ says: 'I am . . . the livingone. I was dead, and see, I am alive for ever andever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.'Again in Revelation 3:7, the risen Christ isdescribed as: 'The holy one, the true one, who hasthe key of David, who opens and no one will shut,who shuts and no one opens.' This phrase must beinterpreted as indicating a certain divine right;and whatever the promise made to Peter, it cannotbe taken as annulling, or infringing, a right whichbelongs alone to God and to the Son of God.

(c) All these New Testament pictures andusages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will havethe key of the house of David on his shoulder, andwho alone will open and shut. Now the duty ofEliakim was to be the faithful steward of thehouse. It is the steward who carries the keys of

the house, who in the morning opens the door andin the evening shuts it, and through whom visitorsgain access to the royal presence. So, what Jesusis saying to Peter is that in the days to come, hewill be the steward of the kingdom. And in thecase of Peter, the whole idea is that of opening,not shutting, the door of the kingdom.

That came abundantly true. At Pentecost, Peteropened the door to 3,000 souls (Acts 2:41). Heopened the door to the Gentile centurionCornelius, so that it was swinging on its hinges toadmit the great Gentile world (Acts 10). Acts 15tells how the Council of Jerusalem opened widethe door for the Gentiles, and how it was Peter'switness which made that possible (Acts 15:14;Simeon is Peter). The promise that Peter wouldhave the keys to the kingdom was the promise thatPeter would be the means of opening the door toGod for thousands upon thousands of people in the

days to come. But it is not only Peter who has thekeys of the kingdom; every Christian has; for it isopen to every one of us to open the door of thekingdom to some other and so to enter into thegreat promise of Christ.

(2) Jesus further promised Peter that what hebound would remain bound, and what he loosedwould remain loosed. Richard Glover takes thisto mean that Peter would lay people's sins, bindthem, to their consciences, and that he would thenloose them from their sins by telling them of thelove and the forgiveness of God. That is a lovelythought, and no doubt true, for such is the duty ofevery Christian preacher and teacher - but there ismore to it than that.

To loose and to bind were very commonJewish phrases. They were used especially of thedecisions of the great teachers and the greatRabbis. Their regular sense, which any Jew

would recognize, was to allow and to forbid. Tobind something was to declare it forbidden; toloose was to declare it allowed. These were theregular phrases for taking decisions in regard tothe law. That is in fact the only thing these phrasesin such a context would mean. So what Jesus issaying to Peter is: 'Peter, you are going to havegrave and heavy responsibilities laid upon you.You are going to have to take decisions whichwill affect the welfare of the whole Church. Youwill be the guide and the director of the infantChurch. And the decisions you give will be soimportant, that they will affect the souls of menand women in time and in eternity.'

The privilege of the keys meant that Peterwould be the steward of the household of God,opening the door for men and women to enter intothe kingdom. The duty of binding and loosingmeant that Peter would have to take decisionsabout the Church's life and practice which would

have the most far-reaching consequences. Andindeed, when we read the early chapters of Acts,we see that in Jerusalem that is precisely whatPeter did.

When we paraphrase this passage which hascaused so much argument and controversy, we seethat it deals not with religious forms but with thethings of salvation. Jesus said to Peter: 'Peter,your name means a rock, and your destiny is to bea rock. You are the first person to recognize mefor what I am, and therefore you are the first stonein the edifice of the fellowship of those who aremine. Against that fellowship, the embattledpowers of evil will no more prevail than they willbe able to hold me captive in death. And in thedays to come, you must be the steward who willunlock the doors of the kingdom that Jew andGentile may come in: and you must be the wiseadministrator and guide who will solve theproblems and direct the work of the infant and

growing fellowship.'

Peter had made the great discovery; and Peterwas given the great privilege and the greatresponsibility. It is a discovery which we must allmake for ourselves; and, when we have made it,the same privilege and the same responsibility arelaid upon us.

THE GREAT REBUKE

Matthew 16:20-3

He gave orders to his disciples to tellno one that he was God's Anointed One.From that time Jesus began to show hisdisciples that he must go to Jerusalem,and suffer many things from the eldersand chief priests and scribes, and bekilled and be raised on the third day.Peter caught hold of him, and began tourge upon him: 'God forbid that thisshould happen to you! This must nevercome to you!' He turned and said toPeter: 'Get behind me, Satan! You areputting a stumbling-block in my way.Your ideas are not God's but men's.'

Although the disciples had grasped the fact thatJesus was God's Messiah, they still had notgrasped what that great fact meant. To them, itmeant something totally different from what itmeant to Jesus. They were still thinking in termsof a conquering Messiah, a warrior king, whowould sweep the Romans from Palestine and leadIsrael to power. That is why Jesus commandedthem to silence. If they had gone out to the peopleand preached their own ideas, all they would havesucceeded in doing would have been to raise atragic rebellion: they could have produced onlyanother outbreak of violence doomed to disaster.Before they could preach that Jesus was theMessiah, they had to learn what that meant. Inpoint of fact, Peter's reaction shows just how farthe disciples were from realizing just what Jesusmeant when he claimed to be the Messiah and theSon of God.

So Jesus began to seek to open their eyes to the

fact that for him there was no way but the way ofthe cross. He said that he must go to Jerusalemand suffer at the hands of the 'elders and chiefpriests and scribes'. These three groups of menwere in fact the three groups of which theSanhedrin was composed. The elders were therespected men of the people; the chief priestswere predominantly Sadducees; and the scribeswere Pharisees. In effect, Jesus is saying that hemust suffer at the hands of the orthodox religiousleaders of the country.

No sooner had Jesus said that than Peterreacted with violence. Peter had been brought upon the idea of a Messiah of power and glory andconquest. To him, the idea of a suffering Messiah,the connection of a cross with the work of theMessiah, was incredible. He 'caught hold' ofJesus. Almost certainly, the meaning is that heflung a protecting arm round Jesus, as if to hold

him back from a suicidal course. 'This', saidPeter, 'must not and cannot happen to you.' Andthen came the great rebuke which makes us catchour breath - 'Get behind me, Satan!' There arecertain things which we must grasp in order tounderstand this tragic and dramatic scene.

We must try to catch the tone of voice in whichJesus spoke. He certainly did not say it with asnarl of anger in his voice and a blaze of indignantpassion in his eyes. He said it like a manwounded to the heart, with poignant grief and akind of shuddering horror. Why should he reactlike that?

He did so because in that moment there cameback to him with cruel force the temptationswhich he had faced in the wilderness at thebeginning of his ministry. There he had beentempted to take the way of power. 'Give thembread, give them material things,' said the tempter,

'and they will follow you.' 'Give them sensationalacts,' said the tempter, 'give them wonders, andthey will follow you.' 'Compromise with theworld,' said the tempter. 'Reduce your standards,and they will follow you.' It was precisely thesame temptations with which Peter wasconfronting Jesus all over again.

Nor were these temptations ever wholly absentfrom the mind of Jesus. Luke sees far into theheart of the Master. At the end of the temptationstory, Luke writes: 'When the devil had finishedevery test, he departed from him until anopportune time' (Luke 4:13). Again and again, thetempter launched this attack. No one wants across; no one wants to die in agony; even in theGarden of Gethsemane, that same temptation cameto Jesus, the temptation to take another way.

And here Peter is offering it to him now. Thesharpness and the poignancy of Jesus' answer are

due to the fact that Peter was urging upon him thevery things which the tempter was alwayswhispering to him, the very things against whichhe had to steel himself. Peter was confrontingJesus with that way of escape from the crosswhich to the end beckoned to him.

That is why Peter was Satan. Satan literallymeans the Adversary. That is why Peter's ideaswere not God's but all too human. Satan is anyforce which seeks to deflect us from the way ofGod; Satan is any influence which seeks to makeus turn back from the hard way that God has setbefore us; Satan is any power which seeks tomake human desires take the place of the divineimperative.

What made the temptation more acute was thefact that it came from one who loved him. Peterspoke as he did only because he loved Jesus somuch that he could not bear to think of him

treading that dreadful path and dying that awfuldeath. The hardest temptation of all is the onewhich comes from protecting love. There aretimes when fond love seeks to deflect us from theperils of the path of God: but the real love is notthe love which holds people at home, but the lovewhich sends them out to obey the commandmentsof moral courage and conviction which are givennot to make life easy, but to make life great. It isquite possible for love to be so protecting that itseeks to protect those it loves from the adventureand the challenge of committed followers ofChrist, and from the strenuousness of the pathwayof the pilgrim of God. What really wounded Jesus'heart, and what really made him speak as he did,was that the tempter spoke to him that day throughthe fond but mistaken love of Peter's burning andimpetuous heart.

THE CHALLENGE BEHIND THEREBUKE

Matthew 16:20-3 (contd)Before we leave this passage, it is interesting tolook at two very early interpretations of thephrase: 'Get behind me, Satan!' Origen suggestedthat Jesus was saying to Peter: 'Peter, your placeis behind me, not in front of me. It is your placeto follow me in the way I choose, not to try tolead me in the way you would like me to go.' Ifthe phrase can be interpreted in that way,something at least of its sting is removed, for itdoes not banish Peter from Christ's presence;rather, it recalls him to his proper place, as afollower walking in the footsteps of Jesus. It istrue for all of us that we must always take the wayof Christ and never seek to compel him to take ourway.

A further development comes when we closelyexamine this saying of Jesus in the light of hissaying to Satan at the end of the temptations asMatthew records it in Matthew 4:10. Although inthe English translations the two passages sounddifferent, they are almost - but not quite - thesame. In Matthew 4:10, the Revised StandardVersion translates: 'Begone, Satan!' and the Greekis: 'Hupage Satana.' (The final e of hupage ispronounced as the e in the, and the g is hard as inget.) In the Revised Standard Version translationof Matthew 16:23, Jesus says to Peter: 'Getbehind me, Satan,' and the Greek is: 'Hupageopiso mou, Satana.'

The point is that Jesus' command to Satan issimply: 'Begone!' while his command to Peter is:'Begone behind me!' That is to say: 'Become myfollower again.' Satan is banished from thepresence of Christ; Peter is recalled to be Christ'sfollower. The one thing that Satan could never

become is a follower of Christ; in his diabolicalpride he could never submit to that; that is why heis Satan. On the other hand, Peter might bemistaken and might fall and might sin, but for himthere was always the challenge and the chance tobecome a follower again. It is as if Jesus said toPeter: 'At the moment you have spoken as Satanwould. But that is not the real Peter speaking. Youcan redeem yourself. Come behind me, and be myfollower again, and even now, all will be well.'The basic difference between Peter and Satan isprecisely the fact that Satan would never getbehind Jesus. As long as we are prepared to try tofollow, even after we have fallen, there is still forus the hope of glory here and hereafter.

THE GREAT CHALLENGE

Matthew 16:24-6

Then Jesus said to his disciples: 'Ifanyone wishes to come after me, let himdeny himself, and take up his cross, andlet him follow me. For whoever wishesto keep his life safe will lose it: andwhoever loses his life for my sake willfind it. For what shall a man be profitedif he shall gain the whole world at thepenalty of the price of his life? Or whatwill a man give in exchange for hislife?'

HERE we have one of the dominant and constantlyrecurring themes of Jesus' teaching. These arethings which Jesus said to men and women again

and again (Matthew 10:37-9; Mark 8:34-7; Luke9:23-7, 14:25-7, 17:33; John 12:25). Again andagain he confronted them with the challenge of theChristian life. There are three things which peoplemust be prepared to do if they are to live theChristian life.

(1) They must deny themselves. Ordinarily weuse the word self-denial in a restricted sense. Weuse it to mean giving up something. For instance, aweek of self-denial may be a week when we dowithout certain pleasures or luxuries in order tocontribute to some good cause. But that is only avery small part of what Jesus meant by self-denial. To deny oneself means in every moment oflife to say no to self and yes to God. To denyoneself means finally, once and for all to dethroneself and to enthrone God. To deny oneself meansto obliterate self as the dominant principle of life,and to make God the ruling principle - more, theruling passion - of life. The life of constant self-

denial is the life of constant assent to God.

(2) They must take up a cross. That is to say,they must take up the burden of sacrifice. TheChristian life is the life of sacrificial service.Christians may have to abandon personal ambitionto serve Christ; it may be that they will discoverthat the place where they can render the greatestservice to Jesus Christ is somewhere where thereward will be small and the prestige non-existent. They will certainly have to sacrifice timeand leisure and pleasure in order to serve Godthrough the service of others.

To put it quite simply, the comfort of thefireside or the pleasure of a visit to a place ofentertainment may well have to be sacrificed forthe duties of the eldership, the calls of the youthclub, the visit to the home of someone who isunhappy or lonely. Christians may well have tosacrifice certain things that they could well afford

to possess in order to give more away. TheChristian life is the sacrificial life.

Luke, with a flash of sheer insight, adds oneword to this command of Jesus: 'Let them take uptheir cross daily.' The really important thing is notthe great moments of sacrifice, but a life lived inthe constant hourly awareness of the demands ofGod and the need of others. The Christian life is alife which is always concerned with others morethan it is concerned with itself.

(3) They must follow Jesus Christ. That is tosay, they must render to Jesus Christ a perfectobedience. When we were young, many of us usedto play a game called 'Follow my Leader'.Everything the leader did, however difficult, and,in the case of the game, however ridiculous, wehad to copy. The Christian life is a constantfollowing of our leader, a constant obedience inthought and word and action to Jesus Christ.

Christians walk in the footsteps of Christ,wherever he may lead.

LOSING AND FINDING LIFE

Matthew 16:24-6 (contd)There is all the difference in the world betweenexisting and living. To exist is simply to have thelungs breathing and the heart beating; to live is tobe alive in a world where everything is worthwhile, where there is peace in the soul, joy in theheart and a thrill in every moment. Jesus heregives us the recipe for life as distinct fromexistence.

(1) People who play for safety love life.Matthew was writing somewhere between AD 80and 90. He was therefore writing in some of thebitterest days of persecution. He was saying: 'Thetime may well come when you can save your lifeby abandoning your faith: but if you do, so farfrom saving life, in the real sense of the term you

are losing life.' Those who are faithful may die,but they die to live: those who abandon their faithfor safety may live, but they live to die.

In our day and generation, it is not likely to be aquestion of martyrdom, but it still remains a factthat if we meet life in the constant search forsafety, security, ease and comfort, if everydecision is taken from worldly-wise andprudential motives, we are losing all that makeslife worthwhile. Life becomes a soft and flabbything when it might have been an adventure. Lifebecomes a selfish thing when it might have beenradiant with service. Life becomes an earthboundthing when it might have been reaching for thestars. Someone once wrote a bitter epitaph on aman: 'He was born a man and died a grocer.' Anytrade or profession might be substituted for theword grocer. Those who play for safety cease tobe truly human, for human beings are made in theimage of God.

(2) People who risk all for Christ - and maybelook as if they had lost all - find life. It is thesimple lesson of history that it has always beenthe adventurous men and women, bidding farewellto security and safety, who wrote their names onhistory and greatly assisted human progress.Unless there had been those prepared to takerisks, many medical cures would not exist. Unlessthere had been those prepared to take risks, manyof the machines which make life easier wouldnever have been invented. Unless there weremothers prepared to take risks, no child wouldever be born. It is the people who are prepared 'tobet their lives that there is a God' who in the endfind life.

(3) Then Jesus speaks with warning: 'Supposepeople play for safety; suppose they gain thewhole world; then suppose that they find that lifeis not worth living - what can they give to get lifeback again?' And the grim truth is that they cannot

get life back again. In every decision of life, weare doing something to ourselves; we are makingourselves a certain kind of person; we arebuilding up steadily and inevitably a certain kindof character; we are making ourselves able to docertain things and quite unable to do others. It isperfectly possible to gain all the things we haveset our hearts upon, and then to wake up onemorning to find that we have missed the mostimportant things of all.

The world stands for material things asopposed to God; and of all material things thereare three things to be said, (a) We cannot takethem with us at the end; we can take onlyourselves; and if we degrade ourselves in order toget them, our regret will be bitter, (b) They cannothelp us in the shattering days of life. Materialthings will never mend a broken heart or cheer alonely soul, (c) If by any chance our material

possessions have been gained in a way that isdishonourable, there will come a day whenconscience will speak, and we will know hell onthis side of the grave.

The world is full of voices crying out that thosewho sell real life for material things are fools.

(4) Finally Jesus asks about those who wouldfollow him: 'What will they give in exchange fortheir life?' The Greek is: 'What antallagma willthey give for their life?' Antallagma is aninteresting word. In the book of Ecclesiasticus, itsays: There is no antallagma for a faithful friend,'and: There is no antallagma for a disciplinedsoul' (cf. Ecclesiasticus 6:15, 26:14). It meansthat there is no price which will buy a faithfulfriend or a disciplined soul. So, this final sayingof Jesus can mean two things.

(a) It can mean: once we have lost thefundamental value of life, because of our desire

for security and for material things, there is noprice that we can pay to get it back again. Wehave done something to ourselves which cannotever be fully obliterated.

(b) It can mean: We owe ourselves andeverything else to Jesus Christ; and there isnothing that we can give to Christ in place of ourlives. It is quite possible to try to give our moneyto Christ and to withhold our lives. It is evenmore possible to give lip-service to Christ and towithhold our lives. Many people give weeklyfree-will offerings to the church, but do not attend;obviously that does not satisfy the demands ofchurch membership. The only possible gift to thechurch is ourselves; and the only possible gift toChrist is our whole life. There is no substitute forit. Nothing less will do.

THE WARNING AND THEPROMISE

Matthew 16:27-8

'For the Son of Man will come with theglory of his Father, with his angels, andthen he will render to each man inaccordance with his way of action. Thisis the truth I tell you - there are some ofthose who are standing here who willnot taste death, until they see the Son ofMan coming in his kingdom.'

There are two quite distinct sayings here.

(1) The first is a warning, the warning ofinevitable judgment. Life is going somewhere -and life is going to judgment. In any sphere of life,there inevitably comes the day of reckoning.

There is no escape from the fact that Christianityteaches that after life there comes the judgment;and when we take this passage in conjunction withthe passage which goes before, we see at oncewhat the standard of judgment is. People whoselfishly hug life to themselves, people whosefirst concern is their own safety, their ownsecurity and their own comfort, are in heaven'seyes the failures, however rich and successful andprosperous they may seem to be. Those whospend themselves for others, and who live life asa gallant adventure, are the men and women whoreceive heaven's praise and God's reward.

(2) The second is a promise. As Matthewrecords this phrase, it reads as if Jesus spoke as ifhe expected his own visible return in the lifetimeof some of those who were listening to him. IfJesus said that, he was mistaken. But we see thereal meaning of what Jesus said when we turn toMark's record of it. Mark has: 'And he said to

them: "Truly I tell you, there are some standinghere who will not taste death until they see that thekingdom of God has come with power"' (Mark9:1).

It is of the mighty working of his kingdom thatJesus is speaking; and what he said came mostdivinely true. There were those standing therewho saw the coming of Jesus in the coming of theSpirit at the day of Pentecost. There were thosewho were to see Gentiles and Jews swept into thekingdom; they were to see the tide of the Christianmessage sweep across Asia Minor and coverEurope until it reached Rome. Well within thelifetime of those who heard Jesus speak, thekingdom came with power.

Again, this is to be taken closely with whatgoes before. Jesus warned his disciples that hemust go to Jerusalem, and that there he must suffermany things and die. That was the shame; but the

shame was not the end. After the cross there camethe resurrection. The cross was not to be the end:it was to be the beginning of the unleashing of thatpower which was to surge throughout the wholeworld. This is a promise to the disciples of JesusChrist that no human action can hinder theexpansion of the kingdom of God.

THE MOUNT OFTRANSFIGURATION

Matthew 17:1-8

Six days after, Jesus took Peter, andJames, and John his brother, andbrought them by themselves to a highmountain, and his appearance waschanged in their presence. His faceshone like the sun, and his garmentsbecame as white as the light. And, lookyou, Moses and Elijah appeared tothem, talking with him. Peter said toJesus: 'Lord, it is a fine thing for us tobe here. I will make three booths, onefor you, one for Moses, and one forElijah.' While he was still speaking,look you, a shining cloud

overshadowed them; and, look you,there came a voice out of the cloudsaying: 'This is my beloved Son, inwhom I am well pleased. Hear him!'When the disciples heard that, they fellon their faces and were exceedinglyafraid. Jesus came and touched themand said: 'Rise, and do not be afraid.'They lifted up their eyes, and saw noone, except Jesus alone.

The great moment of Caesarea Philippi wasfollowed by the great hour on the Mount ofTransfiguration. Let us first look at the scenewhere this time of glory came to Jesus and histhree chosen disciples. There is a tradition whichconnects the transfiguration with Mount Tabor, butthat is unlikely. The top of Mount Tabor was anarmed fortress and a great castle; it seems almostimpossible that the transfiguration could have

happened on a mountain which was a fortress.Much more likely, the scene of the transfigurationwas Mount Hermon. Hermon was fourteen milesfrom Caesarea Philippi. Hermon is 9,400 feethigh, 11,000 feet above the level of the Jordanvalley - so high that it can actually be seen fromthe Dead Sea, at the other end of Palestine, morethan 100 miles away.

It cannot have been on the very summit of themountain that this happened. The mountain is toohigh for that. The nineteenth-century naturalistCanon H. B. Tristram, who explored the Biblelands, tells how he and his party ascended it. Theywere able to ride practically to the top, and theride took five hours. Activity is not easy on sohigh a summit. Tristram says: 'We spent a greatpart of the day on the summit, but were beforelong painfully affected by the rarity of theatmosphere.'

It was somewhere on the slopes of the beautifuland stately Mount Hermon that the transfigurationhappened. It must have happened in the night.Luke tells us that the disciples were weigheddown with sleep (Luke 9:32). It was the next daywhen Jesus and his disciples came back to theplain to find the father of the epileptic boy waitingfor them (Luke 9:37). It was some time in thesunset, or the late evening, or the night, that thisamazing vision took place.

Why did Jesus go there? Why did he make thisexpedition to these lonely mountain slopes? Lukegives us the clue. He tells us that Jesus waspraying (Luke 9:29).

We must put ourselves, as far as we can, inJesus' place. By this time, he was on the way tothe cross. Of that he was quite sure; again andagain he told his disciples that it was so. AtCaesarea Philippi, we have seen him facing one

problem and dealing with one question. We haveseen him seeking to find out if there was anyonewho had recognized him for who and what hewas. We have seen that question triumphantlyanswered, for Peter had grasped the great fact thatJesus could only be described as the Son of God.But there was an even greater question than thatwhich Jesus had to solve before he set out on thelast journey.

He had to make quite sure, sure beyond alldoubt, that he was doing what God wished him todo. He had to make certain that it was indeedGod's will that he should go to the cross. Jesuswent up Mount Hermon to ask God: 'Am I doingyour will in setting my face to go to Jerusalem?'Jesus went up Mount Hermon to listen for thevoice of God. He would take no step withoutconsulting God. How then could he take thebiggest step of all without consulting him? Ofeverything, Jesus asked one question and only one

question: 'Is it God's will for me?' And that is thequestion he was asking in the loneliness of theslopes of Hermon.

It is one of the supreme differences betweenJesus and us that Jesus always asked: 'What doesGod wish me to do?' We nearly always ask: 'Whatdo I wish to do?' We often say that the uniquecharacteristic of Jesus was that he was sinless.What do we mean by that? We mean preciselythis, that Jesus had no will but the will of God. InHoratius Bonar's great words, the hymn of theChristian must always be:

Thy way, not mine, O Lord, However dark it be!

Lead me by thine own hand; Choose out the path for me.

I dare not choose my lot, I would not if I might:

Choose thou for me, my God, So shall I walk aright.

Not mine, not mine the choice In things or great or small;

Be thou my Guide, my Strength, My Wisdom and my All.

When Jesus had a problem, he did not seek tosolve it only by the power of his own thought; hedid not take it to others for human advice; he tookit to the lonely place and to God.

THE BLESSING OF THE PAST

Matthew 17:1-8 (contd)There on the mountain slopes, two great figuresappeared to Jesus - Moses and Elijah.

It is fascinating to see in how many respects theexperience of these two great servants of Godmatched the experience of Jesus. When Mosescame down from the mountain of Sinai, he did notknow that the skin of his face shone (Exodus34:29). Both Moses and Elijah had their mostintimate experiences of God on a mountain top. Itwas into Mount Sinai that Moses went to receivethe stone tablets of the law (Exodus 31:18). It wason Mount Horeb that Elijah found God, not in thewind, and not in the earthquake, but in the stillsmall voice (1 Kings 19:9-12). It is a strangething that there was something awesome about the

deaths of both Moses and Elijah. Deuteronomy34:5-6 tells of the lonely death of Moses onMount Nebo. It reads as if God himself was theburier of the great leader of the people: 'He wasburied in a valley in the land of Moab. oppositeBeth-peor; but no one knows his burial place tothis day.' As for Elijah, as the old story has it, hetook his departure from the astonished Elisha in achariot and horses of fire (2 Kings 2:11). The twogreat figures who appeared to Jesus as he wassetting out for Jerusalem were men who seemedtoo great to die.

Further, as we have already seen, it was theconsistent Jewish belief that Elijah was to beforerunner and herald of the Messiah, and it wasalso believed by at least some Jewish teachersthat when the Messiah came, he would beaccompanied by Moses.

It is easy to see how appropriate this vision of

Moses and Elijah was. But none of these reasonsis the real reason why the vision of Moses andElijah came to Jesus.

Once again, we must turn to Luke's account ofthe transfiguration. He tells us that Moses andElijah spoke with Jesus 'of his departure, whichhe was about to accomplish at Jerusalem' (Luke9:31). The word which is used for departure inthe Greek is very significant. It is exodos, whichis exactly the same as the English word exodus.

The word exodus has one special connection: itis the word which is always used of the departureof the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,into the unknown way of the desert, which in theend was going to lead them to the Promised Land.The word exodus is the word which describeswhat we might well call the most adventurousjourney in human history, a journey in which awhole people in utter trust in God went out into

the unknown. That is precisely what Jesus wasgoing to do. In utter trust in God, he was going toset out on the tremendous adventure of thatjourney to Jerusalem, a journey beset with perils,a journey involving a cross, but a journey issuingin glory.

In Jewish thought, these two figures, Moses andElijah, always stood for certain things. Moseswas the greatest of all the law-givers; he wassupremely and uniquely the man who broughtGod's law to men and women. Elijah was thegreatest of all the prophets; in him, the voice ofGod spoke to the people with unique directness.These two men were the twin peaks of Israel'sreligious history and achievement. It is as if thegreatest figures in Israel's history came to Jesus,as he was setting out on the last and greatestadventure into the unknown, and told him to go on.In them, all history rose up and pointed Jesus onhis way. In them, all history recognized Jesus as

its own consummation. The greatest of the law-givers and the greatest of the prophets recognizedJesus as the one of whom they had dreamed, as theone whom they had foretold. Their appearancewas the signal for Jesus to go on. So the greatesthuman figures witnessed to Jesus that he was onthe right way and urged him forward on hisadventurous exodus to Jerusalem and to Calvary.

But there was more than that; not only did thegreatest law-giver and the greatest prophet assureJesus that he was right; the very voice of Godcame telling him that he was on the right way. Allthe gospel writers speak of the luminous cloudwhich overshadowed them. That cloud was partof Israel's history. All through that history, theluminous cloud stood for the shechinah, whichwas nothing less than the glory of Almighty God.

In Exodus, we read of the pillar of cloudwhich was to lead the people on their way

(Exodus 13:21-2). Again in Exodus, we read ofthe building and the completing of the Tabernacle;and at the end of the story there come the words:'Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, andthe glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle'(Exodus 40:34). It was in the cloud that the Lorddescended to give the tablets of the law to Moses(Exodus 34:5). Once again, we meet thismysterious, luminous cloud at the dedication ofSolomon's Temple: 'And when the priests cameout of the holy place, a cloud filled the house ofthe Lord' (1 Kings 8:10; cf. 2 Chronicles 5:13-14,7:2). All through the Old Testament, there is thispicture of the cloud in which was the mysteriousglory of God.

We are able to add another vivid fact to this.Travellers tell us of a curious and characteristicphenomenon connected with Mount Hermon. Thebiblical scholar Alfred Edersheim writes: 'Astrange peculiarity has been noticed about

Hermon in "the extreme rapidity of the formationof cloud upon the summit. In a few minutes a thickcap forms over the top of the mountain, and asquickly disperses, and entirely disappears."' Nodoubt on this occasion there came a cloud on theslopes of Hermon: and no doubt at first thedisciples thought little enough of it, for Hermonwas notorious for the clouds which came andwent. But something happened; it is not for us toguess what happened; but the cloud becameluminous and mysterious, and out of it there camethe voice of the divine majesty, setting God's sealof approval on Jesus his Son. And in that momentJesus' prayer was answered; he knew beyond adoubt that he was right to go on.

The Mount of Transfiguration was for Jesus aspiritual mountain peak. His exodus lay beforehim. Was he taking the right way? Was he right toadventure out to Jerusalem and the waiting armsof the cross? First, there came to him the verdict

of history, the greatest of the law-givers and thegreatest of the prophets, to tell him to go on. Andthen, even greater still by far, there came thevoice which gave him nothing less than theapproval of God. It was the experience on theMount of Transfiguration which enabled Jesusinflexibly to walk the way to the cross.

THE INSTRUCTION OF PETER

Matthew 17:1-8 (contd)But the episode of the transfiguration didsomething not only for Jesus but for the disciplesalso.

(1) The minds of the disciples must still havebeen hurt and bewildered by the insistence ofJesus that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer and todie. It must have looked to them as if there wasnothing but black shame ahead. But from start tofinish, the whole atmosphere of the Mountain ofTransfiguration is glory. Jesus' face shone like thesun, and his garments glistened and gleamed likethe light.

The Jews knew well the promise of God to thevictorious righteous: Their face is to shine like thesun' (4 Ezra [2 Esdras] 7:97). No Jew could ever

have seen that luminous cloud without thinking ofthe shechinah, the glory of God resting upon hispeople. There is one very revealing little touch inthis passage. No fewer than three times in its eightbrief verses, there occurs the little interjection:'Behold! Look you!' It is as if Matthew could noteven tell the story without a catch of the breath atthe sheer staggering wonder of it.

Here surely was something which would lift upthe hearts of the disciples and enable them to seethe glory through the shame: the triumph throughthe humiliation; the crown beyond the cross. It isobvious that they still did not understand; but itmust surely have given them some littleglimmering that the cross was not all humiliation,that somehow it was tinged with glory, thatsomehow glory was the very atmosphere of theexodus to Jerusalem and to death.

(2) Further, Peter must have learned two

lessons that night. When Peter woke to what wasgoing on, his first reaction was to build threebooths or tents - one for Jesus, one for Moses andone for Elijah. He was always the man for action;always the man who must be doing something. Butthere is a time for stillness; there is a time forcontemplation, for wonder, for adoration, forawed reverence in the presence of the supremeglory. 'Be still, and know that I am God!' (Psalm46:10). It may be that sometimes we are too busytrying to do something when we would be betterto be silent, to be listening, to be wondering, to beadoring in the presence of God. Before we canstand up and fight for our beliefs, we must wonderand pray upon our knees.

(3) But there is a converse of that. It is quiteclear that Peter wished to wait upon the mountainslopes. He wished that great moment to beprolonged. He did not want to go down to theeveryday and common things again but to remain

forever in the radiance of glory.

That is a feeling which everyone must know.There are moments of intimacy, of serenity, ofpeace, of nearness to God, which everyone hasknown and wished to prolong. As the NewTestament scholar A. H. McNeile, commenting onthis passage, has it: 'The Mountain ofTransfiguration is always more enjoyable than thedaily ministry or the way of the Cross.'

But the Mountain of Transfiguration is given tous only to provide strength for the daily ministryand to enable us to walk the way of the cross.Susanna Wesley, the mother of John and CharlesWesley, had a prayer: 'Help me, Lord, toremember that religion is not to be confined to thechurch or closet, nor exercised only in prayer andmeditation, but that everywhere I am in thypresence.' The moment of glory does not exist forits own sake; it exists to clothe the common things

with a radiance they never had before.

TEACHING THE WAY OF THECROSS

Matthew 17:9-13, 22-3

As they were coming down from themountain, Jesus gave them strictinjunctions: Tell no man about thevision until the Son of Man has beenraised from the dead.' The disciplesasked him: 'Why then do the scribes saythat Elijah must first come?' Heanswered: 'It is true that they say thatElijah is to come and will restore allthings; but I tell you that Elijah hasalready come, and they did notrecognize him, but they did to him whatthey wished. So also the Son of Man isto suffer at their hands.' Then the

disciples understood that he spoke tothem about John the Baptizer. . . .

When they were gathering in Galilee,Jesus said to them: The Son of Man isgoing to be delivered into the hands ofmen, and they will kill him, and on thethird day he will be raised.' And theywere exceedingly distressed.

Here again is an injunction to secrecy, and it wasmuch needed. The great danger was that peopleshould proclaim Jesus as Messiah withoutknowing who and what the Messiah was. Theirwhole conception both of the forerunner and of theMessiah had to be radically and fundamentallychanged.

It was going to take a long time for the idea of aconquering Messiah to be unlearned; it was so

ingrained into the Jewish mind that it was difficult- almost impossible - to alter it. Verses 9-13 are avery difficult passage. Behind them, there is thisidea. The Jews were agreed that, before theMessiah came, Elijah would return to be hisherald and his forerunner. 'Lo, I will send you theprophet Elijah before the great and terrible day ofthe Lord comes.' So writes Malachi, and then hegoes on: 'He will turn the hearts of parents to theirchildren and the hearts of children to their parents,so that I will not come and strike the land with acurse' (Malachi 4:5-6). Bit by bit, this idea of thecoming of Elijah gathered detail, until the Jewscame to believe that not only would Elijah come,but he would restore all things before the Messiahcame; that he would, we might put it, make theworld fit for the Messiah to enter into. The ideawas that Elijah would be a great and terriblereformer, who would walk throughout the worlddestroying all evil and setting things to rights. The

result was that both the forerunner and theMessiah were thought of in terms of power.

Jesus corrects this. 'The scribes', he said, 'saythat Elijah will come like a blast of cleansing andavenging fire. He has come; but his way was theway of suffering and of sacrifice, as must also bethe way of the Son of Man.' Jesus has laid it downthat the way of God's service is never the waywhich blasts men and women out of existence, butalways the way which woos them with sacrificiallove.

That is what the disciples had to learn; and thatis why they had to be silent until they had learned.If they had gone out preaching a conqueringMessiah, there could have been nothing buttragedy. It has been computed that in the centuryprevious to the crucifixion, no fewer than 200,000Jews lost their lives in futile rebellions. Beforemen and women could preach Christ, they must

know who and what Christ was; and until Jesushad taught his followers the necessity of the cross,they had to be silent and to learn. It is not ourideas, it is Christ's message that we must bring toothers; and we cannot teach others until JesusChrist has taught us.

THE ESSENTIAL FAITH

Matthew 17:14-20

When they came to the crowd, a mancame to him and fell at his feet andsaid: 'Sir, have pity on my son, for he isan epileptic, and he suffers severely; foroften he falls into the fire, and often intothe water; and I brought him to yourdisciples, and they were not able tocure him.' Jesus answered: 'O faithlessand perverse generation, how long shallI be with you? How long shall I bearwith you? Bring him to me!' And Jesusspoke sternly to him, and the demoncame out of him, and the boy was curedfrom that hour. Then the disciples cameto Jesus in private and said: 'Why were

we not able to cast out the demon?'Jesus said to them: 'Because of thelittleness of your faith. This is the truth Itell you - if you have your faith as agrain of mustard seed, you will say tothis mountain: "Be removed from here,"and it will remove. So nothing will beimpossible to you.'

No sooner had Jesus come down from theheavenly glory than he was confronted with anearthly problem and a practical demand. A manhad brought his epileptic boy to the disciples inthe absence of Jesus. Matthew describes the boyby the verb selēniazesthai, which literally meansto be moonstruck. As was inevitable in that age,the father attributed the boy's condition to themalign influence of evil spirits. So serious washis condition that he was a danger to himself andto everyone else. We can almost hear the sigh of

relief as Jesus appeared, and at once he took agrip of a situation which had got completely out ofhand. With one strong, stern word, he bade thedemon be gone, and the boy was cured. This storyis full of significant things.

(1) We cannot but be moved by the faith of theboy's father. Even though the disciples had beengiven power to cast out devils (Matthew 10:1),here was a case in which they had very obviouslyand publicly failed. And yet in spite of the failureof the disciples, the father never doubted thepower of Jesus. It is as if he said: 'Only let me getat Jesus himself, and my problems will be solvedand my need will be met.'

There is something very poignant about that;and there is something which is very universaland very modern. There are many who feel thatthe Church, the professed disciples of Jesus intheir own day and generation, has failed and is

powerless to deal with the ills of the humansituation; and yet at the back of their minds thereis the feeling: 'If we could only get beyond hishuman followers, if we could only get behind thefacade of church order and the failure of theChurch, if we could only get at Jesus himself, wewould receive the things we need.' It is at onceour condemnation and our challenge that, evennow, though many have lost their faith in theChurch, they have never lost a wistful faith inJesus Christ.

(2) We see here the constant demands madeupon Jesus. Straight from the glory of the mountaintop, he was met by human suffering. Straight fromhearing the voice of God, he came to hear thepersistent demands of human need that cried out tohim. The most Christlike people in the world arethose who never find other people a nuisance. It iseasy to feel Christian in the moment of prayer andmeditation; it is easy to feel close to God when

the world is shut out.

But that is not religion - that is escapism. Realreligion is to rise from our knees before God tomeet other people and the problems of the humansituation. Real religion is to draw strength fromGod in order to give it to others. Real religioninvolves meeting both God in the secret place andmen and women in the market place. Real religionmeans taking our own needs to God, not that wemay have peace and quiet and undisturbedcomfort, but that we may be enabled graciously,effectively and powerfully to meet the needs ofothers. The wings of the dove are not forChristians who would follow their Master ingoing about doing good.

(3) We see here the grief of Jesus. It is not thatJesus says that he wants to be rid of his disciples.It is that he says: 'How long must I be with youbefore you will understand?' There is nothing

more Christlike than patience. When we are likelyto lose our patience at the follies and thefoolishness of others, let us call to mind God'sinfinite patience with the wanderings and thedisloyalties and the unteachability of our ownsouls.

(4) We see here the central need of faith,without which nothing can happen. When Jesusspoke about removing mountains, he was using aphrase which the Jews knew well. A greatteacher, who could really expound and interpretScripture and who could explain and resolvedifficulties, was regularly known as an uprooter,or even a pulverizer, of mountains. To tear up, touproot, to pulverize mountains were all regularphrases for removing difficulties. Jesus nevermeant this to be taken physically and literally.After all, ordinary people seldom find anynecessity to remove a physical mountain.

What Jesus meant was: 'If you have faithenough, all difficulties can be solved, and eventhe hardest task can be accomplished.' Faith inGod is the instrument which enables men andwomen to remove the hills of difficulty whichblock their path.

THE TEMPLE TAX

Matthew 17:24-7

When they came to Capernaum, thosewho received the half-shekel Templetax came to Peter and said: 'Does yourteacher not pay the tax?' Peter said: 'Hedoes pay it." When he had gone into thehouse, before he could speak, Jesussaid to him: 'What do you think, Simon?From whom do earthly kings take taxand tribute? From their sons or fromstrangers?' When he said: 'Fromstrangers,' Jesus said to him: 'So thenthe sons are free. But, so as not to set astumbling-block in anyone's way, go tothe sea, and cast a hook into it, and takethe first fish which comes up: and when

you have opened its mouth, you willfind a shekel. Take it and give it to themfor me and for you.'

The Temple at Jerusalem was a costly place torun. There were the daily morning and eveningsacrifices which each involved the offering of ayear-old lamb. Along with the lamb were offeredwine and flour and oil. The incense which wasburned every day had to be bought and prepared.The costly hangings and the robes of the priestsconstantly wore out; and the robe of the highpriest was extremely expensive to replace. Allthis required money.

So, on the basis of Exodus 30:13, it was laiddown that every male Jew over twenty years ofage must pay an annual Temple tax of one half-shekel. In the days of Nehemiah, when the peoplewere poor, it was one-third of a shekel. One half-

shekel was equal to two Greek drachmae; and thetax was commonly called the didrachm, as it iscalled in this passage. The value of the tax was infact the equivalent of two days' pay for a workingman. It brought into the Temple treasury about£100,000 a year. Theoretically, the tax wasobligatory and the Temple authorities had powerto seize the goods of anyone who failed to pay.

The method of collection was carefullyorganized. On the 1st of the month Adar, which isMarch of our year, announcement was made in allthe towns and villages of Palestine that the time topay the tax had come. On 15th Adar, booths wereset up in each town and village, and at the boothsthe tax was paid. If the tax was not paid by 25thAdar, it could only be paid directly to the Templein Jerusalem.

In this passage, we see Jesus paying thisTemple tax. The tax authorities came to Peter and

asked him if his Master paid his taxes. There islittle doubt that the question was asked withmalicious intent and that the hope was that Jesuswould refuse to pay; for, if he refused, theorthodox would have grounds for making anaccusation against him. Peter's immediate answerwas that Jesus did pay. Then he went and toldJesus of the situation, and Jesus used a kind ofparable in verses 25 and 26.

The picture drawn has two possibilities, but ineither case the meaning is the same.

(1) In the ancient world, conquering andcolonizing nations had little or no idea ofgoverning for the benefit of subject peoples.Rather, they considered that the subject peoplesexisted to make things easier for them. The resultwas that a king's own nation never paid tribute, ifthere were any nations subject to it. It was thesubject nations who bore the burden and who paid

the tax. So Jesus may be saying: 'God is the Kingof Israel: but we are the true Israel, for we are thecitizens of the kingdom of heaven; outsiders mayhave to pay; but we are free.'

(2) The picture is more likely to be a muchsimpler one than that. If any king imposed taxes ona nation, he certainly did not impose them on hisown family. It was indeed for the support of hisown household that the taxes were imposed. Thetax in question was for the Temple, which was thehouse of God. Jesus was the Son of God. Did henot say when his parents sought him in Jerusalem:'Did you not know that I must be in my Father'shouse?' (Luke 2:49). How could the Son be underobligation to pay the tax which was for his ownFather's house?

Nonetheless, Jesus said that they must pay, notbecause of the compulsion of the law, but becauseof a higher duty. He said they must pay 'lest we

should offend them'. The New Testament alwaysuses the verb to offend (skandalizein) and thenoun offence (skandalon) in a special way. Theverb never means to insult or to annoy or to injurethe pride of. It always means to put a stumbling-block in someone's way, to cause someone to tripup and to fall. Therefore Jesus is saying: 'We mustpay so as not to set a bad example to others. Wemust not only do our duty, we must go beyondduty, in order that we may show others what theyought to do.' Jesus would allow himself nothingwhich might make someone else think less of theordinary obligations of life. In life, there maysometimes be exemptions we could claim; theremay be things we could quite safely allowourselves to do. But we must claim nothing andallow ourselves nothing which might possibly bea bad example to someone else.

We may well ask: why is it that this story wasever transmitted at all? For reasons of space, the

gospel writers had to select their material. Whyselect this story? Matthew's gospel was writtenbetween AD 80 and 90. Now just a little beforethat time, Jews and Jewish Christians had beenfaced with a real and very disturbing problem.We saw that every male Jew over twenty years ofage had to pay the Temple tax; but the Templewas totally destroyed in AD 70, never to berebuilt. After the destruction of the Temple,Vespasian, the Roman emperor, passed an actdecreeing that the half-shekel Temple tax shouldnow be paid to the treasury of the Temple ofJupiter Capitolinus in Rome.

Here indeed was a problem. Many of the Jewsand of the Jewish Christians were violentlyinclined to rebel against this law. Any suchwidespread rebellion would have had disastrousconsequences, for it would have been utterlycrushed at once, and would have gained the Jewsand the Christians the reputation of being bad and

disloyal and disaffected citizens.

This story was put into the gospels to tell theChristians, especially the Jewish Christians, that,however unpleasant the duties of a citizen mightbe, they must be shouldered. It tells us thatChristianity and good citizenship go hand in hand.Christians who exempt themselves from the dutiesof good citizenship are not only failing incitizenship, they are also failing in Christianity.

HOW TO PAY OUR DEBTS

Matthew 17:24-7 (contd)Now we come to the story itself. If we take it witha bald and crude literalism, it means that Jesustold Peter to go and catch a fish, and that he wouldfind a stater in the fish's mouth which would besufficient to pay the tax for both of them. It is notirrelevant to note that the gospel never tells us thatPeter did so. The story ends with Jesus' saying.

Before we begin to examine the story, we mustremember that traditionally people in this part ofthe world love to say a thing in the most dramaticand vivid way possible; and that they love to saya thing with the flash of a smile. This miracle isdifficult on three grounds.

(1) God does not send a miracle to enable us todo what we can quite well do for ourselves. That

would be to harm us and not to help us. Howeverpoor the disciples were, they did not need amiracle to enable them to earn two half-shekels. Itwas not beyond human power to earn such a sum.

(2) This miracle transgresses the great decisionof Jesus that he would never use his miraculouspower for his own ends. He could have turnedstones into bread to satisfy his own hunger - buthe refused. He could have used his power toenhance his own prestige as a wonder-worker -but he refused. In the wilderness, Jesus decidedonce and for all that he would not and could notselfishly use his power. If this story is taken witha crude literalism, it does show Jesus using hisdivine power to satisfy his own personal needs -and that is what Jesus would never do.

(3) If this miracle is taken literally, there is asense in which it is even immoral. Life wouldbecome chaotic if people could pay their debts by

finding coins in fishes' mouths. Life was nevermeant to be arranged in such a way that peoplecould meet their obligations in such a lazy andeffortless way. The gods', said one of the greatGreeks, 'have ordained that sweat should be theprice of all things.' That is just as true for theChristian thinkers as it was for the Greeks.

If all this is so, what are we to say? Are we tosay that this is a mere legendary story, mereimaginative fiction, with no truth behind it at all?Far from it. Beyond a doubt, something happened.

Let us remember again the Jewish love ofdramatic vividness. Undoubtedly, what happenedwas this. Jesus said to Peter: 'Yes, Peter. You'reright. We, too, must pay our just and lawful debts.Well, you know how to do it. Back you go to thefishing for a day. You'll get plenty of money in thefishes' mouths to pay our dues! A day at thefishing will soon produce all we need.'

Jesus was saying: 'Back to your job. Peter:that's the way to pay your debts.' So the typist willfind a new outfit in the computer keyboard. Themotor mechanic will find a living in the cylinderof the car. The teacher will find an income in theresources of the classroom. The accountant willfind enough to cover the cost of living in theledger and in the spreadsheets.

When Jesus said this, he said it with that swiftsmile of his and with his gift for dramaticlanguage. He was not telling Peter literally to getcoins in fishes' mouths. He was telling him that inhis day's work he would get what he needed topay his way.

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

MATTHEW 18 is a most important chapter forChristian ethics, because it deals with thosequalities which should characterize the personalrelationships of the Christian. We shall be dealingin detail with these relationships as we study thechapter section by section; but before we do so, itwill be well to look at the chapter as a whole. Itsingles out seven qualities which should mark thepersonal relationships of the Christian.

(1) First and foremost, there is the quality ofhumility (verses 1-4). Only the person who hasthe humility of the child is a citizen of the kingdomof heaven. Personal ambition, personal prestige,personal publicity and personal profit are motiveswhich can find no place in the lives of Christians.Christians are people who forget self in theirdevotion to Jesus Christ and in their service to

other people.

(2) Second, there is the quality ofresponsibility (verses 5-7). The greatest of allsins is to teach another to sin, especially if thatother should be a weaker, a younger and a lessexperienced brother or sister. God's sternestjudgment is reserved for those who put astumbling-block in the way of others. Christiansare constantly aware that they are responsible forthe effect of their lives, their deeds, their wordsand their example on other people.

(3) There follows the quality of self-renunciation (verses 8-10). Christians are likeathletes for whom no training is too hard, if by itthey may win the prize; they are like students whowill sacrifice pleasure and leisure to reach thecrown. Christians are prepared to cut out of theirlives everything which would keep them fromrendering a perfect obedience to God.

(4) There is individual care (verses 11-14).Christians realize that God cares for themindividually, and that they must reflect thatindividual care in their care for others. Christiansnever think in terms of crowds; they think in termsof persons. For God, no one is unimportant and noone is lost in the crowd; for Christians, everyindividual is important and is a child of God,who, if lost, must be found. The individual care ofthe Christian is in fact the motive and the dynamicof evangelism.

(5) There is the quality of discipline (verses15-20). Christian kindness and Christianforgiveness do not mean that those who are inerror are to be allowed to do as they like. Suchpeople must be guided and corrected and, if needbe, disciplined back into the right way. But thatdiscipline is always to be given in humble loveand not in self-righteous condemnation. It isalways to be given with the desire for

reconciliation and never with the desire forvengeance.

(6) There is the quality of fellowship (verses19-20). It might even be put that Christians arepeople who pray together. They are people whoin fellowship seek the will of God, who infellowship listen and worship together.Individualism is the reverse of Christianity.

(7) There is the spirit of forgiveness (verses23-35); and Christians' forgiveness of theirneighbours is founded on the fact that they knowthemselves to be forgiven. They forgive otherseven as God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven them.

THE MIND OF A CHILD

Matthew 18:1-4

On that day the disciples came to Jesus.'Who, then,' they said, 'is the greatest inthe kingdom of heaven?' Jesus called alittle child and made him stand in themiddle of them, and said: 'This is thetruth I tell you - unless you turn andbecome as children, you will not enterinto the kingdom of heaven. Whoeverhumbles himself as this little child, he isthe greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'

Here is a very revealing question, followed by avery revealing answer. The disciples asked whowas the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesustook a child and said that unless they turned and

became as this little child, they would not get intothe kingdom at all.

The question of the disciples was: 'Who willbe the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' - andthe very fact that they asked that question showedthat they had no idea at all what the kingdom ofheaven was. Jesus said: 'Unless you turn.' He waswarning them that they were going in completelythe wrong direction, away from the kingdom ofheaven and not towards it. In life, it is all aquestion of what people are aiming at; if they areaiming at the fulfilment of personal ambition, theacquisition of personal power, the enjoyment ofpersonal prestige and the exaltation of self, theyare aiming at precisely the opposite of thekingdom of heaven; for to be a citizen of thekingdom means the complete forgetting of self, theobliteration of self, the spending of self in a lifewhich aims at service and not at power. As longas people consider themselves to be the most

important thing in the world, they have turnedtheir backs on the kingdom; if they want ever toreach the kingdom, they must turn round and facein the opposite direction.

Jesus took a child. There is a tradition that thechild grew to be Ignatius of Antioch, who in laterdays became a great servant of the Church, a greatwriter, and finally a martyr for Christ. Ignatiuswas surnamed Theophoros, which means God-carried, and the tradition grew up that he hadreceived that name because Jesus carried him onhis knee. It may be so. Maybe it is more likely thatit was Peter who asked the question, and that itwas Peter's little boy whom Jesus took and set infront of everyone, because we know that Peterwas married (Matthew 8:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5).

So Jesus said that in a child we see thecharacteristics which should mark out men andwomen of the kingdom. There are many lovely

characteristics in children - the power to wonder,before they have become deadeningly used to thewonder of the world; the power to forgive and toforget, even when adults and parents treat themunjustly as they so often do; the innocence which,as Richard Glover beautifully says, brings it aboutthat children have only to learn, not to unlearn;only to do, not to undo. No doubt Jesus wasthinking of these things; but, wonderful as theyare, they are not the main things in his mind.Children have three great qualities which makethem the symbol of those who are citizens of thekingdom.

(1) First and foremost, there is the qualitywhich is the keynote of the whole passage, thechild's humility. Children do not wish to pushthemselves forward; rather, they wish to fade intothe background. They do not wish for prominence;they would rather be left in obscurity. It is only asthey grow up, and begin to be initiated into a

competitive world, with its fierce struggle andscramble for prizes and for first places, that thisinstinctive humility is left behind.

(2) There is the child's dependence. Tochildren, a state of dependence is perfectlynatural. They never think that they can face life bythemselves. They are perfectly content to beutterly dependent on those who love them andcare for them. If men and women would accept thefact of their dependence on God, a new strengthand a new peace would enter their lives.

(3) There is the child's trust. Children areinstinctively dependent, and just as instinctivelythey trust their parents that their needs will bemet. When we are children, we cannot buy ourown food or our own clothes, or maintain our ownhome; yet we never doubt that we will be clothedand fed, and that there will be shelter and warmthand comfort waiting for us when we come home.

When we are children, we set out on a journeywith no means of paying the fare, and with no ideaof how to get to our journey's end, and yet it neverenters our heads to doubt that our parents willbring us safely there.

The child's humility is the pattern of thebehaviour of Christians to their neighbours, andthe child's dependence and trust are the pattern ofthe Christian attitude towards God, the Father ofall.

CHRIST AND THE CHILD

Matthew 18:5-7, 10

'Whoever receives one such little childin my name, receives me. But whoeverputs a stumbling-block in the way ofone of these little ones, who believe inme, it is better for him that a greatmillstone should be hanged about hisneck, and that he should be drowned farout in the open sea. Alas for the worldbecause of stumbling-blocks!Stumbling-blocks are bound to come;but alas for the man by whom thestumbling-block comes!' . . .

'See that you do not despise one ofthese little ones; for, I tell you, theirangels in heaven always look upon the

face of my Father who is in heaven.'

There is a certain difficulty of interpretation inthis passage which must be borne in mind. As wehave often seen, it is Matthew's consistent customto gather together the teaching of Jesus undercertain great headings; he arranges itsystematically. In the early part of this chapter, heis collecting Jesus' teaching about children; andwe must remember that the Jews used the wordchild in a double sense. They used it literally ofthe young child; but regularly a teacher'sdisciples were called his sons or his children.Therefore a child also means a beginner in thefaith, one who has just begun to believe, one whois not yet mature and established in the faith, onewho has just begun on the right way and who mayvery easily be deflected from it. In this passage,very often the child means both the young childand the beginner on the Christian way.

Jesus says that whoever receives one such littlechild in his name receives himself. The phrase inmy name can mean one of two things. (1) It canmean for my sake. The care of children issomething which is carried out for the sake ofnone other than Jesus Christ. To teach a child, tobring up a child in the way he or she ought to go,is something which is done not only for the sakeof the child, but for the sake of Jesus himself. (2)It can mean with a blessing. It can mean receivingthe child, and, as it were, naming the name ofJesus over that child. Anyone who brings Jesusand the blessing of Jesus to a child is doing aChristlike work.

To receive the child is also a phrase which iscapable of bearing more than one meaning.

(1) It can mean, not so much to receive a child,as to receive a person who has this childlikequality of humility. In this highly competitive

world, it is very easy to pay most attention to theperson who is belligerent and aggressive and self-assertive and full of self-confidence. It is easy topay most attention to the person who, in theworldly sense of the term, has made a success oflife. Jesus may well be saying that the mostimportant people are not the thrusters and thosewho have climbed to the top of the tree by pushingeveryone else out of the way, but the quiet,humble, ordinary people, who have the heart of achild.

(2) It can mean simply to welcome the child, togive that child the care and the love and theteaching required to create a good human being.To help a child to live well and to know Godbetter is to help Jesus Christ.

(3) But this phrase can have another and verywonderful meaning. It can mean to see Christ inthe child. To teach unruly, disobedient, restless

little children can be a wearing job. To satisfy thephysical needs of children, to wash their clothesand tend their cuts and soothe their bruises andcook their meals may often seem a veryunromantic task: the cooker and the sink and thefirst-aid kit have not much glamour; but there is noone in all this world who helps Jesus Christ morethan the teacher of the little child and theharassed, hard-pressed parent in the home. Allwho take on these tasks will find a glory in thegrey, and discover wonder in the ordinary, if inthe child they sometimes glimpse none other thanJesus himself.

THE TERRIBLERESPONSIBILITY

Matthew 18:5-7, 1o (contd)But the great keynote of this passage is the terribleweight of responsibility it leaves upon every oneof us.

(1) It stresses the terror of teaching someoneelse to sin. It is true to say that no one sinsuninvited; and the bearer of the invitation is sooften another person. People must always beconfronted with their first temptation to sin: theymust always receive their first encouragement todo the wrong thing; they must always experiencetheir first push along the way to the forbiddenthings. The Jews took the view that the mostunforgivable of all sins is to teach another to sin;and for this reason - our own sins can be forgiven,

for in a sense they are limited in theirconsequences; but if we teach another to sin, thatperson in turn may teach still another, and a trainof sin is set in motion with no foreseeable end.

There is nothing in this world more terriblethan to destroy someone's innocence. And, if thoseresponsible have any conscience left, there isnothing which will haunt them more. The story istold of an old man who was dying; he wasobviously sorely troubled. At last he waspersuaded to explain why. 'When we were boys atplay,' he said, 'one day at a crossroads wereversed a signpost so that its arms were pointingthe opposite way, and I've never ceased towonder how many people were sent in the wrongdirection by what we did.' The sin of all sins is toteach another to sin.

(2) It stresses the terror of the punishment ofthose who teach another to sin. If someone teaches

another to sin, it would be better for that person tohave a millstone hung round the neck and to bedrowned in the depths of the sea.

The millstone in this case is a mulos onikos.The Jews ground corn by crushing it between twocircular stones. This was done at home; and in anycottage such a mill could be seen. The upperstone, which turned round upon the lower, wasequipped with a handle, and it was commonly ofsuch a size that women could easily turn it, for itwas the women who did the grinding of the cornfor the household needs. But a mulos onikos wasa grinding-stone of such a size that it needed adonkey pulling it (onos is the Greek for a donkeyand mulos is the Greek for a millstone) to turn itround at all. The very size of the millstone showsthe awfulness of the condemnation.

Further, in the Greek it is said, not so much thatit would be better to be drowned in the depths of

the sea, but that it would be better to be drownedfar out in the open sea. The Jews feared the sea;for them, heaven was a place where there wouldbe no more sea (Revelation 21:1). Anyone whotaught another to sin would be better to bedrowned far out in the most lonely of all wasteplaces. Moreover, the very picture of drowninghad its terror for the Jews. Drowning wassometimes a Roman punishment, but neverJewish. To the Jews, it was the symbol of utterdestruction. When the Rabbis taught that paganand Gentile objects were to be utterly destroyed,they said that they must be 'cast into the salt sea'.Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 14:15:10) hasa terrible account of a Galilaean revolt in whichthe Galilaeans took the supporters of Herod anddrowned them in the depths of the Sea of Galilee.The very phrase would paint for the Jews apicture of utter destruction. Jesus' words arecarefully chosen to show the fate that awaits

anyone who teaches another to sin.

(3) It has a warning to silence all evasion. Thisis a sin-stained world and a tempting world; noone can go out into it without meeting seductionsto sin. That is specially so if we go out from aprotected home where no evil influence was everallowed to play upon us. Jesus says: 'That isperfectly true; this world is full of temptations;that is inevitable in a world into which sin hasentered; but that does not lessen the responsibilityof the one who is the cause of a stumbling-blockbeing placed in the way of a younger person or ofa beginner in the faith.'

We know that this is a tempting world: it istherefore the Christian's duty to removestumbling-blocks, never to be the cause of puttingthem in another's way. This means that it is notonly a sin to put a stumbling-block in another'sway; it is also a sin even to bring that person into

any situation, or circumstance, or environmentwhere he may meet with such a stumbling-block.No Christian can be satisfied to live complacentlyand lethargically in a civilization where there areconditions of living and housing and life ingeneral where a young person has no chance ofescaping the seductions of sin.

(4) Finally, it stresses the supreme importanceof the child. 'Their angels', said Jesus, 'alwaysbehold the face of my Father who is in heaven.' Inthe time of Jesus, the Jews had a very highlydeveloped angelology. Every nation had its angel;every natural force, such as the wind and thethunder and the lightning and the rain, had itsangel. They even went to the lengths of saying,very beautifully, that every blade of grass had itsangel. So, they believed that every child had aguardian angel.

To say that these angels behold the face of God

in heaven means that they always have the right ofdirect access to God. The picture is of a greatroyal court where only the most favouredcourtiers and ministers and officials have directaccess to the king. In the sight of God, the childrenare so important that their guardian angels alwayshave the right of direct access to the innerpresence of God.

For us, the great value of children must alwayslie in the possibilities which are locked up withinthem. Everything depends on how they are taughtand trained. The possibilities may never bebrought to fruition; they may be stifled andstunted; that which might be used for good may bedeflected to the purposes of evil; or they may beunleashed in such a way that a new tide of powerfloods the earth.

Way back in the eleventh century, Duke Robertof Burgundy was one of the great warrior and

knightly figures. He was about to go off on acampaign. He had a baby son who was his heir;and, before he departed, he made his barons andnobles come and swear allegiance to the littleinfant, in the event of anything happening tohimself. They came with their waving plumes andtheir clanking armour, and knelt before the child.One great baron smiled, and Duke Robert askedhim why. He said: 'The child is so little.' 'Yes,'said Duke Robert, ' he's little - but he'll grow.'Indeed he grew, for that baby became William theConqueror of England.

In every child, there are infinite possibilitiesfor good or ill. It is the supreme responsibility ofthe parent, of the teacher, of the Christian Church,to see that the dynamic possibilities for good arefulfilled. To stifle them, to leave them untapped,to twist them into evil powers, is sin.

THE SURGICAL REMOVAL

Matthew 18:8-9

'If your hand or your foot proves astumbling-block to you, cut it off andthrow it away from you. It is the finething for you to enter into life maimedor lame, rather than to be cast intoeverlasting fire with two hands or twofeet. And if your eye proves astumbling-block to you, pluck it out andthrow it away from you. It is the finething for you to enter into life with oneeye, rather than to be cast into theGehenna of fire with two eyes.'

THERE are two senses in which this passage maybe taken. It may be taken purely personally. It may

be saying that it is worth any sacrifice and anyself-renunciation to escape the punishment ofGod.

We have to be clear what that punishmentinvolves. It is here called everlasting, and thisword everlasting occurs frequently in Jewishideas of punishment. The word is aiōnios. TheBook of Enoch speaks about eternal judgment,about judgment forever, about punishment andtorture forever, about the fire which burnsforever. Josephus calls hell an everlasting prison.The Book of Jubilees speaks about an eternalcurse. The Book of Baruch says that 'there will beno opportunity of returning, nor a limit to thetimes'. There is a Rabbinic tale of RabbiJochanan ben Zaccai, who wept bitterly at theprospect of death. On being asked why, heanswered: 'All the more I weep now that they areabout to lead me before the King of kings, theHoly One, blessed is He, who lives and abides

forever and forever and forever; whose wrath, ifhe be wrathful, is an eternal wrath; and, if he bindme, his binding is an eternal binding; and if hekills me, his killing is an eternal killing; whom Icannot placate with words, nor bribe withwealth.'

All these passages use the word aiōnios; butwe must be careful to remember what it means. Itliterally means belonging to the ages; but there isonly one person to whom the word aiōnios canproperly be applied, and that is God. There is farmore in aiōnios than simply a description of thatwhich has no end. Punishment which is aiōnios ispunishment which it befits God to give, andpunishment which only God can give. When wethink of punishment, we can only say: 'Shall notthe judge of all the earth do right?' Our humanpictures, and our human time scheme, fail; this isin the hands of God.

But there is one clue which we do have. Thispassage speaks of the Gehenna of fire. Gehennawas the valley of Hinnom, a valley below themountain of Jerusalem. It was forever accursed,because it was the place where, in the days of thekingdom, the renegade Jews had sacrificed theirchildren in the fire to the pagan god Moloch. KingJosiah had made it a place accursed. In later days,it became the refuse dump of Jerusalem - a kind ofvast incinerator. Always the refuse was burningthere, and a pall of smoke and a glint ofsmouldering fire surrounded it.

Now, what was this Gehenna, this Valley ofHinnom? It was the place into which everythingthat was useless was cast and there destroyed.That is to say, God's punishment is for those whoare useless, for those who make no contribution tolife, for those who hold life back instead of urginglife on, for those who drag life down instead oflifting life up, for those who are the handicaps of

others and not their inspirations. It is again andagain New Testament teaching that uselessnessinvites disaster. Those who are useless, thosewho are an evil influence on others, those whocannot justify the simple fact of their existence,are in danger of the punishment of God, unlessthey excise from their lives those things whichmake them the handicap that they are.

But it is just possible that this passage is not tobe taken so much personally as in connectionwith the Church. Matthew has already used thissaying of Jesus in a different context (5:30). Here,there may be a difference. The whole passage isabout children, and perhaps especially aboutchildren in the faith. This passage may be saying:'If in your Church there is someone who is an evilinfluence, if there is someone who is a badexample to those who are young in the faith, ifthere is someone whose life and conduct is

damaging the body of the Church, that person mustbe rooted out and cast away.' That may well bethe meaning. The Church is the Body of Christ; ifthat body is to be healthy and health-giving, thatwhich has the seeds of cancerous and poisonousinfection in it must be even surgically removed.

One thing is certain: in any person and in anyChurch, anything that is a seduction to sin must beremoved, however painful the removal may be;for if we allow it to flourish, a worse punishmentwill follow. In this passage, there may well bestressed both the necessity of self-renunciation forthe Christian individual and discipline for theChristian Church.

THE SHEPHERD AND THE LOSTSHEEP

Matthew 18:12-14

'What do you think? If a man has 100sheep, and one of them wanders away,will he not leave the ninety-nine, and goout to the hills, and will he not seek thewandering one? And if he finds it - thisis the truth I tell you - he rejoices moreover it than over the ninety-nine whonever wandered away. So it is not thewill of your Father that one of theselittle ones should perish.'

This is surely the simplest of all the parables ofJesus, for it is the simple story of a lost sheep anda seeking shepherd. In Judaea, it was tragically

easy for sheep to go astray. The pasture land is onthe hill country which runs like a backbone downthe middle of the land. This ridge-like plateau isnarrow, only a few miles across. There are norestraining walls. At its best, the pasture issparse. And, therefore, the sheep are alwaysliable to wander; and, if they stray from the grassof the plateau into the gullies and the ravines ateach side, they have every chance of finishing upon some ledge from which they cannot get up ordown, and of being marooned there until they die.

The Palestinian shepherds were experts attracking down their lost sheep. They could followtheir track for miles; and they would brave thecliffs and the precipices to bring them back.

In the time of Jesus, the flocks were oftencommunal flocks; they belonged not to anindividual but to a village. There were, therefore,usually two or three shepherds with them. That is

why the shepherd could leave the ninety-nine. Ifhe had left them with no guardian, he would havecome back to find still more of them gone; but hecould leave them in the care of his fellowshepherds while he sought the wanderer. Theshepherds always made the most strenuous and themost sacrificial efforts to find a lost sheep. It wasthe rule that if a sheep could not be brought backalive, then at least, if it was at all possible, itsfleece or its bones must be brought back to provethat it was dead.

We can imagine how the other shepherds wouldreturn with their flocks to the village fold atevening time, and how they would tell that oneshepherd was still out on the mountainsideseeking a wanderer. We can imagine how the eyesof the people would turn again and again to thehillside watching for the shepherd who had notcome home; and we can imagine the shout of joywhen they saw him striding along the pathway

with the weary wanderer slung across hisshoulder, safe at last; and we can imagine how thewhole village would welcome him, and gatherround with gladness to hear the story of the sheepwhich was lost and found. Here we have Jesus'favourite picture of God and of God's love. Thisparable teaches us many things about that love.

(1) The love of God is an individual love. Theninety-nine were not enough; one sheep was outon the hillside, and the shepherd could not restuntil he had brought it home. However large afamily may be, parents cannot spare even one;there is not one who does not matter. God is likethat: God cannot be happy until the last wandereris gathered in.

(2) The love of God is a patient love. Sheepare proverbially foolish creatures. The sheep hadno one but itself to blame for the danger it had gotitself into. We are apt to have so little patience

with foolish people. When they get into trouble,we are apt to say: 'It's their own fault; theybrought it on themselves; don't waste anysympathy on fools.' God is not like that. The sheepmight be foolish, but the shepherd would still riskhis life to save it. People may be fools, but Godloves even foolish men and women who have noone to blame but themselves for their sins andtheir sorrow.

(3) The love of God is a seeking love. Theshepherd was not content to wait for the sheep tocome back; he went out to search for it. That iswhat the Jews could not understand about theChristian idea of God. The Jews would gladlyagree that, if the sinner came crawling wretchedlyhome, God would forgive. But we know that Godis far more wonderful than that, for in JesusChrist, he came to seek for those who wanderaway. God is not content to wait until we comehome; he goes out in search of us no matter what it

costs him.

(4) The love of God is a rejoicing love. Here,there is nothing but joy. There are norecriminations; there is no receiving back with agrudge and a sense of superior contempt; it is alljoy. We often accept those who are penitent witha moral lecture and a clear indication that theymust regard themselves as contemptible, and thepractical statement that we have no further use forthem and do not propose to trust them ever again.It is human never to forget the past and always tohold people's sins against them. God puts our sinsbehind his back; and when we return to him, it isall joy.

(5) The love of God is a protecting love. It isthe love which seeks and saves. There can be alove which ruins; there can be a love whichsoftens; but the love of God is a protecting lovewhich saves people for the service of others, a

love which makes the wanderer wise, the weakstrong, the sinner pure, the captives of sin the freemen and women of holiness, and those vanquishedby temptation its conquerors.

SEEKING THE STUBBORN

Matthew 18:15-18

'If your brother sins against you, go, andtry to convince him of his error betweenyou and him alone. If he listens to you,you have gained your brother. If he willnot listen to you, take with you one ortwo more, that the whole matter may beestablished in the mouth of two or threewitnesses. If he refuses to listen tothem, tell it to the Church. And if herefuses to listen to the Church, let himbe to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. This is the truth I tell you - allthat you bind upon earth will remainbound in heaven; and all that you looseupon earth will remain loosed in

heaven.'

In many ways, this is one of the most difficultpassages to interpret in the whole of Matthew'sgospel. Its difficulty lies in the undoubted fact thatit does not ring true; it does not sound like Jesus;it sounds much more like the regulations of achurch committee.

We may go further. It is not possible that Jesussaid this in its present form. Jesus could not havetold his disciples to take things to the Church, forit did not exist; and the passage implies a fullydeveloped and organized Church with a system ofecclesiastical discipline. What is more, it speaksof tax-collectors and Gentiles as irreclaimableoutsiders. Yet Jesus was accused of being thefriend of tax-gatherers and sinners; and he neverspoke of them as hopeless outsiders, but alwayswith sympathy and love, and even with praise (cf.

Matthew 9:1off., 11:19; Luke 18:1off.; andespecially Matthew 21:31ff., where it is actuallysaid that the tax-gatherers and prostitutes will gointo the kingdom before the orthodox religiouspeople of the time). Further, the whole tone of thepassage is that there is a limit to forgiveness, thatthere comes a time when someone may beabandoned as beyond hope, counsel which it isimpossible to think of Jesus giving. And the lastverse actually seems to give the Church the powerto retain and to forgive sins. There are manyreasons to make us think that this, as it stands,cannot be a correct report of the words of Jesus,but an adaptation made by the Church in laterdays, when Church discipline was rather a thingof rules and regulations than of love andforgiveness.

Although this passage is certainly not a correctreport of what Jesus said, it is equally certain thatit goes back to something he did say. Can we

press behind it and come to the actualcommandment of Jesus? At its widest, what Jesuswas saying was: 'If anyone sins against you, spareno effort to make that person admit the fault, andto get things right again between you.' Basically, itmeans that we must never tolerate any situation inwhich there is a breach of personal relationshipsbetween us and another member of the Christiancommunity.

Suppose something does go wrong, what arewe to do to put it right? This passage presents uswith a whole scheme of action for the mending ofbroken relationships within the Christianfellowship.

(1) If we feel that someone has wronged us, weshould immediately put our complaint into words.The worst thing that we can do about a wrong isto brood about it. That is fatal. It can poison thewhole mind and life, until we can think of nothing

else but our sense of personal injury. Any suchfeeling should be brought out into the open, faced,and stated - and often the very stating of it willshow how unimportant and trivial the whole thingis.

(2) If we feel that someone has wronged us, weshould put the matter right personally. Moretrouble has been caused by the writing of lettersthan by almost anything else. A letter may bemisread and misunderstood; it may quiteunconsciously convey a tone it was never meant toconvey. If we have a difference with someone,there is only one way to settle it - and that is faceto face. The spoken word can often settle adifference which the written word would onlyhave exacerbated.

(3) If a private and personal meeting fails in itspurpose, we should take some wise person orpersons with us. Deuteronomy 19:15 has it: 'A

single witness shall not suffice to convict a personof any crime or wrongdoing in connection withany offence that may be committed. Only on theevidence of two or three witnesses shall a chargebe sustained.' That is the saying which Matthewhas in mind. But in this case, the taking of thewitnesses is not meant to be a way of proving tosomeone that he or she has committed an offence.It is meant to help the process of reconciliation.People often hate those whom they have injuredmost of all; and it may well be that nothing we cansay can win them back. But to talk matters overwith some wise and kindly and gracious peoplepresent is to create a new atmosphere in whichthere is at least a chance that we should seeourselves 'as others see us'. The Rabbis had awise saying: 'Judge not alone, for none may judgealone save One [that is, God].'

(4) If that still fails, we must take our personaltroubles to the Christian fellowship. Why?

Because troubles are never settled by going tolaw, or by Christless argument. Legalism merelyproduces further trouble. It is in an atmosphere ofChristian prayer, Christian love and Christianfellowship that personal relationships may berighted. The clear assumption is that the Churchfellowship is Christian, and seeks to judgeeverything not in the light of a book of practiceand procedure, but in the light of love.

(5) It is now we come to the difficult part.Matthew says that if even that does not succeed,then anyone who has wronged us is to be regardedas a Gentile and a tax-collector. The firstimpression is that the person concerned must beabandoned as hopeless and irreclaimable; but thatis precisely what Jesus cannot have meant. Henever set limits to human forgiveness. What thendid he mean?

We have seen that when he speaks of tax-

gatherers and sinners, he always does so withsympathy and gentleness and an appreciation oftheir good qualities. It may be that what Jesus saidwas something like this: 'When you have done allthis, when you have given the sinners everychance, and when they remain stubborn andobdurate, you may think that they are no betterthan renegade tax-collectors, or even godlessGentiles. Well, you may be right. But I have notfound the tax-gatherers and the Gentiles hopeless.My experience of them is that they, too, have aheart to be touched; and there are many of them,like Matthew and Zacchaeus, who have becomemy best friends. Even if the stubborn sinners arelike tax-collectors or Gentiles, you may still winthem, as I have done.'

This, in fact, is not an injunction to abandonpeople; it is a challenge to win them with the lovewhich can touch even the hardest heart. It is not astatement that some people are hopeless; it is a

statement that Jesus Christ has found no onehopeless - and neither must we.

(6) Finally, there is the saying about loosingand binding. It is a difficult saying. It cannot meanthat the Church can remit or forgive sins, and sosettle human destiny in time or in eternity. What itmay well mean is that the relationships which weestablish with one another last not only throughtime but into eternity - therefore we must get themright.

THE POWER OF THE PRESENCE

Matthew 18:19-20

'Again, I tell you, that if two of youagree upon earth upon any matter forwhich you are praying, you will receiveit from my Father who is in heaven.Where two or three are assembledtogether in my name, there am I in themidst of them.'

Here is one of these sayings of Jesus whosemeaning we need to probe, or else we will be leftwith heartbreak and great disappointment. Jesussays that if two upon earth agree upon any matterfor which they are praying, they will receive itfrom God. If that is to be taken literally, andwithout any qualification, it is manifestly untrue.

On countless occasions, two people have agreedto pray for the physical or the spiritual welfare ofa loved one - and their prayer has not, in theliteral sense, been answered. Time after time,God's people have agreed to pray for theconversion of their own land or the conversion ofunbelievers and the coming of the kingdom, andeven today that prayer is far from being fullyanswered. People agree to pray - and praydesperately - and do not receive that for whichthey pray. There is no point in refusing to face thefacts of the situation, and nothing but harm canresult from teaching people to expect what doesnot happen. But when we come to see what thissaying means, there is a precious depth in it.

(1) First and foremost, it means that prayermust never be selfish and that selfish prayercannot find an answer. We are not meant to prayonly for our own needs, thinking of nothing and noone but ourselves; we are meant to pray as

members of a fellowship, in agreement,remembering that life and the world are arrangednot for us as individuals but for the fellowship asa whole. It would often happen that if our prayerswere answered, the prayers of someone elsewould be disappointed. Often, our prayers for oursuccess would necessarily involve someone else'sfailure. Effective prayer must be the prayer ofagreement, from which the element of selfishconcentration on our own needs and desires hasbeen quite cleansed away.

(2) When prayer is unselfish, it is alwaysanswered. But here, as everywhere, we mustremember the basic law of prayer - that law isthat in prayer we receive not the answer whichwe desire, but the answer which God in hiswisdom and his love knows to be best. Simplybecause we are human beings, with human heartsand fears and hopes and desires, most of ourprayers are prayers for escape. We pray to be

saved from some trial, some sorrow, somedisappointment, some hurting and difficultsituation. And always God's answer is the offernot of escape, but of victory. God does not give usescape from a human situation; he enables us toaccept what we cannot understand; he enables usto endure what without him would beunendurable; he enables us to face what withouthim would be beyond all facing. The perfectexample of all this is Jesus in Gethsemane. Heprayed to be released from the fearful situationwhich confronted him. He was not released fromit; but he was given power to meet it, to endure itand to conquer it. When we pray unselfishly, Godsends his answer - but the answer is always hisanswer and not necessarily ours.

(3) Jesus goes on to say that where two or threeare gathered in his name, he is there in the midstof them. The Jews themselves had a saying:

'Where two sit and are occupied with the study ofthe law, the glory of God is among them.' We maytake this great promise of Jesus into two spheres.

(a) We may take it into the sphere of theChurch. Jesus is just as much present in the littlecongregation as in the great mass meeting. He isjust as much present at the prayer meeting or theBible study circle with their handful of people asin the crowded arena. He is not the slave ofnumbers. He is there wherever faithful heartsmeet, however few they may be; for he gives allof himself to each individual person.

(b) We may take it into the sphere of the home.One of the earliest interpretations of this saying ofJesus was that the two or three are father, motherand child, and that it means that Jesus is there, theunseen guest in every home.

There are those who never give of their bestexcept on the so-called great occasion: but, for

Jesus Christ, every occasion where even two orthree are gathered in his name is a great occasion.

HOW TO FORGIVE

Matthew 18:21-35

Then Peter came and said to him: 'Lord,how often will my brother sin againstme, and I forgive him? Up to seventimes?' Jesus said to him: 'I tell you notup to seven times, but up to seventytimes seven. That is why the kingdom ofheaven can be likened to what happenedwhen a king wished to make areckoning with his servants. When hebegan to make a reckoning, one debtorwas brought to him who owed him10,000 talents. Since he was quiteunable to pay, his master ordered him tobe sold, together with his wife andchildren, and all his possessions, and

payment to be made. The servant fell onhis face and besought him: "Sir, havepatience with me, and I will pay you infull." The master of the servant wasmoved with compassion, and let him go,and forgave him the debt. When thatservant went out, he found one of hisfellow servants, who owed him 100denarii. He caught hold of him andseized him by the throat: "Pay what youowe," he said. The fellow servant felldown and besought him: "Have patiencewith me, and I will pay you in full." Buthe refused. Rather, he went away andflung him into prison, until he shouldpay what was due. So, when his fellowservants saw what had happened, theywere very distressed; and they went andinformed their master of all that hadhappened. Then the master summoned

him, and said to him: "You wickedservant! I forgave you all that debt whenyou besought me to do so. Ought you notto have had pity on your fellow servant,as I had pity on you?" And his masterwas angry with him and handed himover to the torturers, until he should payall that was due.

'Even so shall my heavenly Father doto you, if you do not each one forgivehis brother from your hearts.'

We owe a very great deal to the fact that Peter hada quick tongue. Again and again, he rushed intospeech in such a way that his impetuosity drewfrom Jesus teaching which is immortal. On thisoccasion, Peter thought that he was being verygenerous. He asked Jesus how often he ought toforgive someone, and then answered his own

question by suggesting that he should forgiveseven times.

Peter was not without warrant for thissuggestion. It was Rabbinic teaching that a personmust forgive another three times. Rabbi Jose benHanina said: 'He who begs forgiveness from hisneighbour must not do so more than three times.'Rabbi Jose ben Jehuda said: 'If a man commits anoffence once, they forgive him: if he commits anoffence a second time, they forgive him; if hecommits an offence a third time, they forgive him;the fourth time they do not forgive.' The biblicalproof that this was correct was taken from Amos.In the opening chapters of Amos, there is a seriesof condemnations on the various nations for threetransgressions and for four (1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13;2:1, 4, 6). From this, it was deduced that God'sforgiveness extends to three offences and that hevisits the sinner with punishment at the fourth. Itwas not to be thought that people could be more

gracious than God, so forgiveness was limited tothree times.

Peter thought that he was going very far, for hetakes the Rabbinic three times, multiplies it bytwo, for good measure adds one, and suggests,with eager self-satisfaction, that it will be enoughif he forgives seven times. Peter expected to bewarmly commended: but Jesus' answer was thatthe Christian must forgive seventy times seven. Inother words, there is no reckonable limit toforgiveness.

Jesus then told the story of the servant forgivena great debt who went out and dealt mercilesslywith a fellow servant who owed him a debt thatwas an infinitesimal fraction of what he himselfhad owed, and who for his mercilessness wasutterly condemned. This parable teaches certainlessons which Jesus never tired of teaching.

(1) It teaches that lesson which runs through all

the New Testament - we must forgive in order tobe forgiven. Those who will not forgive otherscannot hope that God will forgive them. 'Blessedare the merciful,' said Jesus, 'for they will receivemercy' (Matthew 5:7). No sooner had Jesus taughthis disciples his own prayer than he went on toexpand and explain one petition in it: 'For if youforgive others their trespasses, your heavenlyFather will also forgive you; but if you do notforgive others, neither will your Father forgiveyour trespasses' (Matthew 6:14-15). As Jameshad it: 'For judgment will be without mercy toanyone who has shown no mercy' (James 2:13).Divine and human forgiveness go hand in hand.

(2) Why should that be so? One of the greatpoints in this parable is the contrast between thetwo debts.

The first servant owed his master 10,000talents - and a talent was the equivalent of fifteen

years' wages. That is an incredible debt. It wasmore than the total budget of the ordinaryprovince. The total revenue of the province whichcontained Idumaea, Judaea and Samaria was only600 talents; the total revenue of even a wealthyprovince like Galilee was only 300 talents.Against that background, this debt is staggering. Itwas this that the servant was forgiven.

The debt which a fellow servant owed him wasa trifling thing; it was 100 denarii, and a denariuswas the usual day's wage for a working man. Itwas therefore a mere fraction of his own debt.

The biblical scholar A. R. S. Kennedy drewthis vivid picture to contrast the debts. Supposethey were paid in small coins (he suggestedsixpences; we might think in terms of 5-pencepieces or dimes). The 100-denarii debt could becarried in one pocket. The 1o,ooo-talent debtwould take an army of about 8,600 carriers to

carry it, each carrying a sack of coins 60 lb inweight; and they would form, at a distance of ayard apart, a line five miles long! The contrastbetween the debts is staggering. The point is thatnothing that others can do to us can in any waycompare with what we have done to God; and ifGod has forgiven us the debt we owe to him, wemust forgive our neighbours the debts they owe tous. Nothing that we have to forgive can evenfaintly or remotely compare with what we havebeen forgiven. As A. M. Toplady's great hymn'Rock of Ages' has it:

Not the labours of my hands Can fulfil thy law's demands; Could my zeal no respite know. Could my tears for ever flow, All for sin could not atone.

We have been forgiven a debt which is beyond allpaying - for human sin brought about the death ofGod's own Son - and if that is so, we must forgiveothers as God has forgiven us, or we can hope tofind no mercy.

JEWISH MARRIAGE ANDDIVORCE

Matthew 19:1-9

When Jesus had finished these words,he left Galilee, and came into thedistricts of Judaea which are on the farside of the Jordan. Many crowdsfollowed him, and he healed them there.

Pharisees came to him, trying to testhim. 'Is it lawful', they said, 'for a manto divorce his wife for any cause?' Heanswered: 'Have you not read that fromthe beginning the Creator made themmale and female, and he said: "For thiscause a man shall leave his father andhis mother, and shall cleave to his wife,

and the two shall become one flesh"?They are therefore no longer two, butone flesh. What, then, God has joinedtogether, let no man separate.' They saidto him: 'Why, then, did Moses lay itdown to give her a bill of divorcement,and to divorce her?' He said to them: 'Itwas to meet the hardness of your heartthat Moses allowed you to divorce yourwives; but in the beginning that was notthe state of things which was intended. Itell you that whoever divorces his wife,except on the ground of fornication, andmarries another, commits adultery: andhe who marries her who has beendivorced commits adultery.'

Here Jesus is dealing with what was in his day, asit is in our own, a vexed and burning question.Divorce was something about which there was no

unanimity among the Jews; and the Pharisees weredeliberately trying to involve Jesus incontroversy.

No nation has ever had a higher view ofmarriage than the Jews. Marriage was a sacredduty. To remain unmarried after the age of twenty,except in order to concentrate upon the study ofthe law, was to break a positive commandment to'be fruitful and multiply'. The man who had nochildren 'slew his own posterity' and 'lessened theimage of God upon earth'. 'When husband andwife are worthy, the glory of God is with them.'

Marriage was not to be entered into carelesslyor lightly. Josephus outlines the Jewish approachto marriage, based on the Mosaic teaching(Antiquities of the Jews, 4:8:23). A man mustmarry a virgin of good parentage. He must neverseduce another man's wife: and he must not marrya woman who had been a slave or a prostitute. If a

man accused his wife of not being a virgin whenhe married her, he must bring proof of hisaccusation. Her father or brother must defend her.If the girl was vindicated, he must take her inmarriage, and could never again put her away,except for the most flagrant sin. If the accusationwas proved to have been reckless and malicious,the man who made it must be beaten with fortystripes save one, and must pay fifty shekels to thegirl's father. But if the charge was proved and thegirl found guilty, if she was one of the ordinarypeople, the law was that she must be stoned todeath, and if she was the daughter of a priest, shemust be burned alive.

If a man seduced a girl who was engaged to bemarried, and the seduction took place with herconsent, both he and she must be put to death. If,in a lonely place or where there was no helppresent, the man forced the girl into sin, the manalone was put to death. If a man seduced an

unattached girl, he must marry her, or. if her fatherwas unwilling for him to marry her, he must paythe father fifty shekels.

The Jewish laws of marriage and of purityaimed very high. Ideally, divorce was hated. Godhad said: 'I hate divorce' (Malachi 2:16). It wassaid that the very altar wept tears when a mandivorced the wife of his youth.

But ideal and actuality did not go hand in hand.In the situation, there were two dangerous anddamaging elements.

First, in the eyes of Jewish law, a woman wasa thing. She was the possession of her father, or ofher husband as the case might be: and thereforeshe had, technically, no legal rights at all. MostJewish marriages were arranged either by theparents or by professional matchmakers. A girlmight be engaged to be married in childhood, andwas often engaged to be married to a man whom

she had never seen. There was this safeguard:when she came to the age of twelve, she couldreject her father's choice of husband. But inmatters of divorce, the general law was that theinitiative must lie with the husband. The law ran:'A woman may be divorced with or without herconsent, but a man can be divorced only with hisconsent.' The woman could never initiate theprocess of divorce; she could not divorce, she hadto be divorced.

There were certain safeguards. If a mandivorced his wife on any other grounds than thoseof flagrant immorality, he must return her dowry;and this must have been a barrier to irresponsibledivorce. The courts might put pressure on a manto divorce his wife, in the case, for instance, ofrefusal to consummate the marriage, of impotence,or of proved inability to support her properly. Awife could force her husband to divorce her, if hecontracted a loathsome disease, such as leprosy,

or if he was a tanner, which involved thegathering of dogs' excrement, or if he proposed tomake her leave the Holy Land. But, by and large,the law was that the woman had no legal rights,and the right to divorce lay entirely with thehusband.

Second, the process of divorce was fatallyeasy. That process was founded on the passage inthe Mosaic law to which Jesus' questionersreferred: 'Suppose a man enters into marriagewith a woman, but she does not please himbecause he finds something objectionable abouther, so he writes her a certificate of divorce, putsit in her hand, and sends her out of his house . . .'(Deuteronomy 24: 1). The bill of divorcementwas a simple, one-sentence statement that thehusband dismissed his wife. Josephus writes: 'Hethat desires to be divorced from his wife for anycause whatsoever (and many such causes happenamong men) let him, in writing, give assurance

that he will never use her as his wife any more;for by this means she may be at liberty to marryanother husband.' The one safeguard against thedangerous ease of the divorce process was thefact that unless the woman was a notorious sinner,her dowry must be returned.

JEWISH GROUNDS FORDIVORCE

Matthew 19:1-9 (contd)One of the great problems of Jewish divorce lieswithin the Mosaic enactment. That enactmentstates that a man may divorce his wife 'if she doesnot please him, because he finds somethingobjectionable about her'. The question is - how isthe phrase something objectionable to beinterpreted?

On this point the Jewish Rabbis were violentlydivided, and it was here that Jesus' questionerswished to involve him. The school of Shammaiwere quite clear that something objectionablemeant fornication, and fornication alone, and thatfor no other cause could a wife be put away. Let awoman be as mischievous as Jezebel; so long as

she did not commit adultery, she could not be putaway. On the other hand, the school of Hillelinterpreted this something objectionable in thewidest possible way. They said that it meant that aman could divorce his wife if she spoiled hisdinner; if she spun, or went with unbound hair, orspoke to men in the streets; if she spokedisrespectfully of his parents in his presence; ifshe was an argumentative woman whose voicecould be heard in the next house. Rabbi Akibaeven went to the lengths of saying that the phraseif she does not please him meant that a man coulddivorce his wife if he found a woman whom heliked better and considered more beautiful.

The tragedy was that, as was to be expected, itwas the school of Hillel whose teachingsprevailed; the marriage bond was often lightlyheld, and divorce on the most trivial grounds wassadly common.

To complete the picture, certain further factsmust be added. It is relevant to note that underRabbinic law divorce was compulsory for tworeasons. It was compulsory for adultery. 'Awoman who has committed adultery must bedivorced.' Second, divorce was compulsory forsterility. The object of marriage was theprocreation of children; and if after ten years acouple were still childless, divorce wascompulsory. In this case the woman mightremarry, but the same regulation governed thesecond marriage.

Two further interesting Jewish regulations inregard to divorce must be added. First, desertionwas never a cause for divorce. If there wasdesertion, death must be proved. The onlyrelaxation was that, whereas all other factsneeded the corroboration of two witnesses inJewish law, one witness was enough to prove thedeath of a partner in marriage who had vanished

and not come back.

Secondly, strangely enough, insanity was not aground of divorce. If the wife became insane, thehusband could not divorce her, for, if she wasdivorced, she would have no protector in herhelplessness. There is a certain poignant mercy inthat regulation. If the husband became insane.divorce was impossible, for in that case he wasincapable of writing a bill of divorcement, andwithout such a bill, initiated by him, there couldbe no divorce.

When Jesus was asked this question, at the backof it was a situation which was vexed andtroubled. He was to answer it in a way whichcame as a staggering surprise to both parties in thedispute, and which suggested a radical change inthe whole situation.

THE ANSWER OF JESUS

Matthew 19:1-9 (contd)In effect, the Pharisees were asking Jesus whetherhe favoured the strict view of Shammai or thelaxer view of Hillel, and were thereby seeking toinvolve him in controversy.

Jesus' answer was to take things back to thevery beginning, back to the ideal of the creation.In the beginning, he said, God created Adam andEve, man and woman. Inevitably, in the verycircumstances of the story of the creation, Adamand Eve were created for each other and for noone else; their union was necessarily completeand unbreakable. Now, says Jesus, these two arethe pattern and the symbol of all who were tocome. As the New Testament scholar A. H.McNeile puts it: 'Each married couple is a

reproduction of Adam and Eve, and their union istherefore no less indissoluble.'

The argument is quite clear. In the case ofAdam and Eve, divorce was not only inadvisable;it was not only wrong; it was completelyimpossible, for the very simple reason that therewas no one else whom either of them couldpossibly marry. Therefore Jesus was laying downthe principle that all divorce is wrong. Thus early,we must note that it is not a law; it is a principle,which is a very different thing.

Here, at once, the Pharisees saw a point ofattack. Moses (Deuteronomy 24: 1) had said that,if a man wished to divorce his wife because shedid not please him, and because of somethingobjectionable in her, he could give her a bill ofdivorce and the marriage was dissolved. Herewas the very chance the Pharisees wanted. Theycould now say to Jesus: 'Are you saying Moses

was wrong? Are you seeking to repeal the divinelaw which was given to Moses? Are you settingyourself above Moses as a law-giver?'

Jesus' answer was that what Moses said wasnot in fact a law but nothing more than aconcession. Moses did not command divorce; atthe best, he only permitted it in order to regulate asituation which would have become chaoticallypromiscuous. The Mosaic regulation was only aconcession to fallen human nature. In Genesis2:23-4, we have the ideal which God intended,the ideal that two people who marry shouldbecome so indissolubly one that they are oneflesh. Jesus' answer was: 'True, Moses permitteddivorce; but that was a concession in view of alost ideal. The ideal of marriage is to be found inthe unbreakable, perfect union of Adam and Eve.That is what God meant marriage to be.'

It is now that we are face to face with one of

the most real and most acute difficulties in theNew Testament. What did Jesus mean? There iseven a prior question - what did Jesus say? Thedifficulty is - and there is no escaping it - thatMark and Matthew report the words of Jesusdifferently. Matthew has:

And I say to you, whoever divorces hiswife, except for unchastity, and marriesanother commits adultery. (Matthew19:9)

Mark has:

Whoever divorces his wife and marriesanother commits adultery against her;and if she divorces her husband andmarries another, she commits adultery.(Mark 10:11-12)

Luke has still another version of this saying:

Anyone who divorces his wife andmarries another commits adultery, andwhoever marries a woman divorcedfrom her husband commits adultery.(Luke 16:18)

There is the comparatively small difficulty thatMark implies that a woman can divorce herhusband, a process which, as we have seen, wasnot possible under Jewish law. But theexplanation is that Jesus must have been wellaware that under Gentile law a woman coulddivorce her husband, and in that particular clausehe was looking beyond the Jewish world.

The great difficulty is that both Mark and Lukemake the prohibition of divorce absolute; withthem, there are no exceptions whatsoever. But

Matthew has one saving clause - divorce ispermitted on the ground of adultery. In this case,there is no real escape from a decision. The onlypossible way out would be to say that in point offact, under Jewish law, divorce for adultery wasin any event compulsory, as we have seen, andthat therefore Mark and Luke did not think thatthey needed to mention it; but then so was divorcefor sterility.

In the last analysis, we must choose betweenMatthew's version of this saying and that of Markand Luke. We think there is little doubt that theversion of Mark and Luke is right.

There are two reasons. Only the absoluteprohibition of separation will satisfy the ideal ofthe Adam-and-Eve symbolic complete union. Andthe words of the staggered disciples imply thisabsolute prohibition, for, in effect, they say (verse10) that if marriage is as binding as that, it is safer

not to marry at all. There is little doubt that herewe have Jesus laying down the principle - noteagain, not the law - that the ideal of marriage is aunion which cannot be broken. There is muchmore to be said - but here the ideal, as God meantit, is laid down, and Matthew's saving clause is alater interpretation inserted in the light of thepractice of the Church when he wrote.

THE HIGH IDEAL

Matthew 19:1-9 (contd)Let us now go on to see the high ideal of themarried state which Jesus sets before those whoare willing to accept his commands. We will seethat the Jewish ideal gives us the basis of theChristian ideal. The Jewish term for marriage wasKiddushin. Kiddushin meant sanctification orconsecration. It was used to describe somethingwhich was dedicated to God as his exclusive andpeculiar possession. Anything totally surrenderedto God was kiddushin. This meant that inmarriage the husband was consecrated to the wife,and the wife to the husband. The one became theexclusive possession of the other, as much as anoffering became the exclusive possession of God.That is what Jesus meant when he said that for thesake of marriage a man would leave his father and

his mother and be joined to his wife: and that iswhat he meant when he said that husband and wifebecame so totally one that they could be calledone flesh. That was God's ideal of marriage as theold Genesis story saw it (Genesis 2:24), and thatis the ideal which Jesus restated. Clearly, thatidea has certain consequences.

(1) This total unity means that marriage is notgiven for one act in life, however important thatact may be, but for all. That is to say that, whilesex is a supremely important part of marriage, it isnot the whole of it. Any marriage entered intosimply because an urgent physical desire can besatisfied in no other way is from the outsetdoomed to failure. Marriage is given not that twopeople should do one thing together, but that theyshould do all things together.

(2) Another way to put this is to say thatmarriage is the total union of two personalities.

Two people can exist together in a variety ofways. One can be the dominant partner to such anextent that nothing matters but the wishes and theconvenience and the aims in life of that partner,while the other is totally subservient and existsonly to serve the desires and the needs of theother. Again, two people can exist in a kind ofarmed neutrality, where there is continuoustension and continuous opposition, and continuouscollision between their wishes. Life can be onelong argument, and the relationship is based atbest on an uneasy compromise. Again, two peoplecan base their relationship on a more or lessresigned acceptance of each other. To all intentsand purposes, while they live together, each goeshis or her own way, and each has his or her ownlife. They share the same house, but it would bean exaggeration to say that they share the samehome.

Clearly, none of these relationships is the ideal.

The ideal is that in the marriage state two peoplefind the completing of their personalities. Platohad a strange idea. He had a kind of legend thatoriginally human beings were double what theyare now. Because their size and strength madethem arrogant, the gods cut them in halves; andreal happiness comes when the two halves findeach other again, and marry, and so complete eachother.

Marriage should not narrow life; it shouldcomplete it. For both partners, it must bring a newfullness, a new satisfaction, a new contentmentinto life. It is the union of two personalities inwhich the two complete each other. That does notmean that adjustments, and even sacrifices, havenot to be made; but it does mean that the finalrelationship is fuller, more joyous and moresatisfying than any life in singleness could be.

(3) We may put this even more practically:

marriage must be a sharing of all thecircumstances of life. There is a certain danger inthe delightful time of courtship. In such days, it isalmost inevitable that the two people will seeeach other at their best. These are days ofglamour. They often see each other dressed up andlooking their best: usually they are going out toenjoy themselves; often, money has not yetbecome a problem. But in marriage, two peoplemust see each other when they are not at theirbest; when they are tired and weary; whenchildren bring the upset to a house and home thatchildren must bring; when money is tight, and foodand clothes and bills become a problem; whenmoonlight and roses become the kitchen sink andwalking the floor at night with a crying baby.Unless two people are prepared to face theroutine of life as well as the glamour of lifetogether, marriage must be a failure.

(4) From that, there follows one thing, which is

not universally true but which is much more likelyto be true than not. Marriage is most likely to besuccessful after a fairly long acquaintanceship,when the two people involved really know eachother's background. Marriage means constantlyliving together. It is perfectly possible foringrained habits, unconscious mannerisms andways of upbringing to collide. The fuller theknowledge people have of each other before theydecide indissolubly to link their lives together, thebetter. This is not to deny that there can be such athing as love at first sight, and that love canconquer all things; but the fact is that the greatermutual knowledge people have of each other, themore likely they are to succeed in making theirmarriage what it ought to be.

(5) All this leads us to a final practicalconclusion - the basis of marriage istogetherness, and the basis of togetherness isnothing other than considerateness. If marriage is

to succeed, the partners must always be thinkingmore of each other than of themselves. Selfishnessis the murderer of any personal relationship; andthat is truest of all when two people are boundtogether in marriage.

The novelist Somerset Maugham tells of hismother. She was lovely and charming and belovedby all. His father was not by any means handsome,and had few social and easily acknowledged giftsand graces. Someone once said to his mother:'When everyone is in love with you, and when youcould have anyone you liked, how can you remainfaithful to that ugly little man you married?' Sheanswered simply: 'He never hurts my feelings.'There could be no finer tribute.

The true basis of marriage is not complicatedand difficult to understand - it is simply the lovewhich thinks more of the happiness of others thanit thinks of its own, the love which is proud to

serve, which is able to understand, and thereforealways able to forgive. That is to say, it is theChristlike love, which knows that in forgettingself it will find self, and that in losing itself it willcomplete itself.

THE REALIZATION OF THEIDEAL

Matthew 19:10-12

His disciples said to him: 'If the onlyreason for divorce between a man andhis wife stands thus, it is not expedientto marry.' He said to them: 'Not all canreceive this saying, but only those towhom it has been granted to do so.There are eunuchs who were born sofrom their mothers' womb, and there areeunuchs who have been made eunuchsby men: and there are eunuchs who havemade themselves eunuchs for the sakeof the kingdom of heaven. Let him whois able to receive this saying, receiveit.'

Here, we come to the necessary amplification ofwhat has gone before. When the disciples heardthe ideal of marriage which Jesus set before them,they were daunted. Many Rabbinic sayings wouldcome into the minds of the disciples. The Rabbishad many sayings about unhappy marriages.'Among those who will never behold the face ofGehinnom is he who has had a bad wife.' Such aman is saved from hell because he has expiatedhis sins on earth! 'Among those whose life is notlife is the man who is ruled by his wife.' 'A badwife is like leprosy to her husband. What is theremedy? Let him divorce her and be cured of hisleprosy.' It was even laid down: 'If a man has abad wife, it is a religious duty to divorce her.'

To people who had been brought up to listen tosayings like that, the uncompromising demand ofJesus was an almost frightening thing. Theirreaction was that if marriage is so final andbinding a relationship and if divorce is forbidden,

it is better not to marry at all, for there is noescape route - as they understood it - from an evilsituation. Jesus gives two answers.

(1) He says quite clearly that not everyone canin fact accept this situation but only those to whomit has been granted to do so. In other words, onlythe Christian can accept the Christian ethic.Only those who have the continual help of JesusChrist and the continual guidance of the HolySpirit can build up the personal relationshipwhich the ideal of marriage demands. Only by thehelp of Jesus Christ can they develop thesympathy, the understanding, the forgiving spiritand the considerate love which true marriagerequires. Without that help, these things areimpossible. The Christian ideal of marriageinvolves the prerequisite that the partners areChristian.

Here is a truth which goes far beyond this

particular application of it. We continually hearpeople say: 'We accept the ethics of the Sermonon the Mount: but why bother about the divinity ofJesus, and his resurrection, and his risenpresence, and his Holy Spirit, and all that kind ofthing? We accept that he was a good man, and thathis teaching is the highest teaching ever given.Why not leave it at that, and get on with the livingout of that teaching and never mind the theology?'The answer is quite simple. No one can live outJesus Christ's teaching without Jesus Christ. Andif Jesus was only a great and good man, even if hewas the greatest and the best of men, then at mosthe is only a great example. His teaching becomespossible only in the conviction that he is not deadbut present here to help us to carry it out. Theteaching of Christ demands the presence of Christ:otherwise it is only an impossible - and atorturing - ideal. So, we have to face the fact thatChristian marriage is possible only for Christians.

(2) The passage finishes with a very puzzlingverse about eunuchs. It is quite possible that Jesussaid this on some other occasion, and thatMatthew puts it here because he is collectingJesus' teaching on marriage, for it was alwaysMatthew's custom to gather together teaching on aparticular subject.

A eunuch is a man who is unsexed. Jesusdistinguishes three classes of people. There arethose who, through some physical imperfection ordeformity, can never be capable of sexualintercourse. There are those 'who have been madeeunuchs by men'. This represents customs whichare strange to western civilization. Quitefrequently in royal palaces, servants, especiallythose who had to do with the royal harem, weredeliberately castrated. Also, quite frequently,priests who served in temples were castrated;this, for instance, is true of the priests who servedin the Temple of Diana in Ephesus.

Then Jesus talks about those who have madethemselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom ofGod. We must be quite clear that this is not to betaken literally. One of the tragedies of the earlyChurch was the case of Origen, the third-centuryscholar. When he was young, he took this textquite literally and castrated himself, although hecame to see that he was in error. The second-century theologian Clement of Alexandria comesnearer it. He says: 'The true eunuch is not he whocannot, but he who will not indulge in fleshlypleasures.' By this phrase, Jesus meant those whofor the sake of the kingdom deliberately badefarewell to marriage and to parenthood and tohuman physical love.

How can that be? It can happen that we have tochoose between some call to which we arechallenged and human love. As Rudyard Kipling'spoem 'The Winners' has it: 'He travels the fastest

who travels alone.' One person may feel that it isonly possible to do the work in some sociallydeprived area by living in circumstances in whichmarriage and a home are impossible. Anotherperson may feel called to work in conditionswhere bringing up a family would be unwise.Others may find that, having fallen in love, theyare offered an exacting task which those they loverefuse to share. Then they must choose betweenhuman love and the task to which Christ callsthem.

Thank God it is not often that such a choice hasto be made; but there are those who have takenupon themselves voluntarily vows of chastity,celibacy, purity, poverty, abstinence andcontinence. That will not be the way for mostpeople, but the world would be a poorer placewere it not for those who accept the challenge totravel alone for the sake of the work of Christ.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

Matthew 19:10-12 (contd)It would be wrong to leave this matter withoutsome attempt to see what it actually means for thequestion of divorce at the present time.

We may at the beginning note this. What Jesuslaid down was a principle and not a law. To turnthis saying of Jesus into a law is gravely tomisunderstand it. The Bible does not give us laws;it gives principles which we must prayerfully andintelligently apply to any given situation.

Of the Sabbath, the Bible says: 'you shall not doany work' (Exodus 20:10). In point of fact, weknow that a complete cessation of work wasnever possible in any civilization. In anagricultural civilization, cattle had still to betended and cows had to be milked no matter what

the day was. In a developed civilization, certainpublic services must go on, or transport will standstill and water, light and heat will not beavailable. In any home, especially where there arechildren, there has to be a certain amount of work.

A principle can never be quoted as a final law;a principle must always be applied to theindividual situation. We cannot therefore settle thequestion of divorce simply by quoting the wordsof Jesus. That would be legalism; we must takethe words of Jesus as a principle to apply to theindividual cases as they meet us. That being so,certain truths emerge.

(1) Beyond all doubt, the ideal is that marriageshould be an indissoluble union between twopeople, and that marriage should be entered intoas a total union of two personalities, not designedto make one act possible, but designed to make alllife a satisfying and mutually completing

fellowship. That is the essential basis on whichwe must proceed.

(2) But life is not, and never can be, acompletely tidy and orderly business. Into lifethere is bound to come sometimes the element ofthe unpredictable. Suppose, then, that two peopleenter into the marriage relationship; suppose theydo so with the highest hopes and the highestideals; and then suppose that somethingunaccountably goes wrong, and that therelationship which should be life's greatest joybecomes hell upon earth. Suppose all availablehelp is called in to mend this broken and terriblesituation. Suppose the doctor is called in to dealwith physical things; the psychiatrist to deal withpsychological things; the priest or the minister todeal with spiritual things. Suppose the trouble isstill there; suppose one of the partners to themarriage is so constituted physically, mentally orspiritually that marriage is an impossibility, and

suppose that discovery could not have been madeuntil the experiment itself had been made - arethen these two people to be forever fetteredtogether in a situation which cannot do other thanbring a lifetime of misery to both?

It is extremely difficult to see how suchreasoning can be called Christian; it is extremelyhard to see Jesus legalistically condemning twopeople to any such situation. This is not to say thatdivorce should be made easy, but it is to say thatwhen all the physical and mental and spiritualresources have been brought to bear on such asituation, and the situation remains incurable andeven dangerous, then the situation should beended; and the Church, so far from regardingpeople who have been involved in such asituation as being beyond the pale, should doeverything it can in strength and tenderness to helpthem. There does not seem any other way than thatin which to bring the real Spirit of Christ to bear.

(3) But in this matter we are face to face with amost tragic situation. It often happens that thethings which wreck marriage are in fact the thingswhich the law cannot touch. Some people, in amoment of passion and failure of control, commitadultery and spend the rest of their lives in shameand in sorrow for what they did. That they shouldever repeat their sin is the least likely thing in theworld. Other people may be models of rectitudein public; to commit adultery is the last thing theywould do; and yet by a day-to-day sadisticcruelty, a day-to-day selfishness, a day-to-daycriticism and sarcasm and mental cruelty, theymake life a hell for those who live with them: andthey do it with callous deliberation.

We may well remember that the sins which getinto the newspapers and the sins whoseconsequences are most glaringly obvious need notbe in the sight of God the greatest sins. Many men

and many women wreck the marriage relationshipand yet present to the outer world a front ofblameless and correct behaviour.

This whole matter is one to which we mightwell bring more sympathy and less condemnation,for of all things the failure of a marriage mustleast be approached in legalism and most in love.In such a case, it is not a so-called law that mustbe conserved: it is human heart and soul. What iswanted is that there should be prayerful care andthought before the married state is entered upon;that if a marriage is in danger of failure, everypossible medical, psychological and spiritualresource should be mobilized to save it; but, thatif there is something beyond the mending, thesituation should be dealt with not with rigidlegalism, but with understanding love.

JESUS' WELCOME FOR THECHILDREN

Matthew 19:13-15

Children were brought to him, that hemight lay his hands on them, and prayfor them. The disciples spoke sternly tothem. Jesus said: 'Let the little childrencome to me, and do not hinder them, forthe kingdom of heaven belongs to suchas they are.' And after he had laid hishands on them, he went away fromthere.

It may well be said that here we have the loveliestincident in the gospel story. The characters allstand out clear and plain, although it only takestwo verses to tell it.

(1) There are those who brought the children.No doubt these would be their mothers.

No wonder they wished Jesus to lay his handson them. They had seen what these hands coulddo; had seen them touch disease and pain away;had seen them bring sight to the blind eyes, andpeace to the distracted mind: and they wantedhands like that to touch their children. There arefew stories which show so clearly the sheerloveliness of the life of Jesus. Those who broughtthe children would not know who Jesus was; theywould be well aware that Jesus was anything butpopular with the scribes and the Pharisees, andthe priests and the Sadducees and the leaders oforthodox religion; but there was a loveliness inhim.

The Indian Christian Premanand tells of a thinghis mother once said to him. When he became aChristian, his family cast him off, and the doors

were shut against him; but sometimes he used toslip back to see his mother. She was broken-hearted that he had become a Christian, but shedid not cease to love him. She told him that whenshe was carrying him in her womb, a missionaryhad given her a copy of one of the gospels. Sheread it; she still had it. She told her son that shehad no desire to become a Christian, but thatsometimes, in those days before he was born, itwas her greatest wish that he might grow up to bea man like this Jesus.

There is a loveliness in Jesus Christ thatanyone can see. It is easy to think of these mothersin Palestine feeling that the touch of a man likethat on their children's heads would bring ablessing, even if they did not understand why.

(2) There are the disciples. The disciplessound as if they were rough and stern; but, if theywere, it was love that made them so. Their one

desire was to protect Jesus.

They saw how tired he was; they saw whathealing cost him. He was talking to them so oftenabout a cross, and they must have seen on his facethe tension of his heart and soul. All that theywanted was to see that Jesus was not bothered.They could only think that, at such a time as this,the children were a nuisance to the Master.

We must not think of them as hard; we must notcondemn them; they wished only to save Jesusfrom another of those insistent demands whichwere always laying their claims upon his strength.

(3) There is Jesus himself. This story tells usmuch about him. He was the kind of person whomchildren loved. The poet and novelist GeorgeMacdonald used to say that people could never befollowers of Jesus if the children were afraid ofthem. Jesus was certainly no grim ascetic if thechildren loved him.

Further, to Jesus no one was unimportant. Somemight say: "They're only children: don't let thembother you.' Jesus would never say that. No onewas ever a nuisance to Jesus. He was never tootired, never too busy to give all of himself toanyone who needed it. There is a strangedifference between Jesus and many famouspreachers or evangelists. It is often next toimpossible to get into the presence of one of thesefamous ones. They have a kind of retinue andbodyguard which keep the public away lest thegreat figure be wearied and bothered. Jesus wasthe opposite of that. The way to his presence wasopen to the humblest person and to the youngestchild.

(4) There are the children. Jesus said of themthat they were nearer God than anyone else there.The child's simplicity is, indeed, closer to Godthan anything else. It is life's tragedy that, as wegrow older, we so often grow further from God

rather than nearer to him.

THE GREAT REFUSAL

Matthew 19:16-22

And, look you, a man came to him andsaid: 'Teacher, what good thing am I todo to possess eternal life?' He said tohim: 'Why do you ask me about thegood? There is One who is good. If youwish to enter into life, keep thecommandments.' He said to him: 'Whatkind of commandments?' Jesus said:'"You must not kill; you must notcommit adultery: you must not steal;honour your father and your mother."And, "You must love your neighbour asyourself."' The young man said: 'I haveobserved all these things. What am Istill lacking?' Jesus said to him: 'If you

wish to be complete, go, sell yourpossessions, and give to the poor, andyou will have treasure in heaven: andcome, follow me!' When the young manheard that saying, he went away insorrow, for he had many possessions.

Here is one of the best-known and best-lovedstories in the gospel history. One of the mostinteresting things about it is the way in which mostof us, quite unconsciously, unite different detailsof it from the different gospels in order to get acomplete picture. We usually call it the story ofthe rich young ruler. All the gospels tell us thatthis man was rich, for therein is the point of thestory. But only Matthew says that he was young(Matthew 19:20); and only Luke says that he wasa ruler (Luke 18:18). It is interesting to see how,quite unconsciously, we have created forourselves a composite picture composed of

elements taken from all three gospels (Matthew19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22: Luke 18:18-23).

There is another interesting point about thisstory. Matthew alters the question put to Jesus bythis man. Both Mark and Luke say that thequestion was: 'Why do you call me good? No oneis good but God alone' (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19).Matthew says that the question was: 'Why do youask me about what is good? There is only onewho is good' (Matthew 19:17). (The text of theAuthorized Version is in error here, as referenceto any of the newer and more correct translationswill show.) Matthew's is the latest of the firstthree gospels, and his reverence for Jesus is suchthat he cannot bear to show Jesus asking thequestion: 'Why do you call me good?' That almostsounds to him as if Jesus was refusing to be calledgood, so he alters it into: 'Why do you ask meabout what is good?' in order to avoid theapparent irreverence.

This story teaches one of the deepest of alllessons, for it has within it the whole basis of thedifference between the right and the wrong idea ofwhat religion is.

The man who came to Jesus was searching forwhat he called eternal life. He was searching forhappiness, for satisfaction, for peace with God.But his very way of phrasing his question betrayshim. He asks: 'What must I do?' He is thinking interms of actions. He is like the Pharisees, thinkingin terms of keeping rules and regulations. He isthinking of piling up a credit balance sheet withGod by acting in accordance with the law. Heclearly knows nothing of a religion of grace. SoJesus tries to lead him on to a correct view.

Jesus answers him in his own terms. He tellshim to keep the commandments. The young manasks what kind of commandments Jesus means.Thereupon Jesus cites five of the Ten

Commandments. Now there are two importantthings about the commandments which Jesuschooses to cite.

First, they are all commandments from thesecond half of the Ten Commandments, the halfwhich deals not with our duty to God but with ourduty to others. They are the commandments whichgovern our personal relationships and ourattitude to our neighbours.

Second, Jesus cites one commandment, as itwere, out of order. He cites the command tohonour parents last, when in point of fact it oughtto come first. It is clear that Jesus wishes to layspecial stress on that commandment. Why? May itnot be that this young man had grown rich andsuccessful in his career, and had then forgotten hisparents, who may have been very poor? He maywell have risen in the world, and have been half-ashamed of his family back at home; and then he

may have justified himself perfectly legally by thelaw of Corban, which Jesus had so unsparinglycondemned (Matthew 15:1-6; Mark 7:9-13).These passages show that he could well havedone that, and still have legally claimed to haveobeyed the commandments. In the verycommandments which he cites, Jesus is asking thisyoung man what his attitude to other people and tohis parents is, asking what his personalrelationships are like.

The young man's answer was that he had keptthe commandments; and yet there was stillsomething which he knew he ought to have andwhich he had not got. So Jesus told him to sell allhe had and give it to the poor and follow him.

It so happens that we have another account ofthis incident in the Gospel according to theHebrews, which was one of the very earlygospels which failed to be included in the New

Testament. Its account gives us certain veryvaluable additional information. Here it is:

The second of the rich men said to him:'Master, what good thing can I do andlive?' He said unto him: 'O man, fulfilthe law and the prophets.' He answeredhim: 'I have kept them." He said untohim: 'Go, sell all that thou ownest, anddistribute it unto the poor, and, come,follow me.' But the rich man began toscratch his head, and it pleased him not.And the Lord said unto him: 'Howsayest thou, I have kept the law and theprophets? For it is written in the law:Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;and lo, many of thy brethren, sons ofAbraham, are clad in filth, dying ofhunger, and thine house is full of manygood things, and nought at all goeth out

of it unto them.'

Here is the key to the whole passage. Theyoung man claimed to have kept the law. In thelegal sense, that might be true; but in the spiritualsense it was not true, because his attitude to otherpeople was wrong. In the last analysis, his attitudewas utterly selfish. That is why Jesus confrontedhim with the challenge to sell all and to give to thepoor. This man was so shackled to hispossessions that nothing less than surgicalremoval of them would suffice. If people look ontheir possessions as given to them for nothing buttheir own comfort and convenience, thosepossessions are a chain which must be broken; ifthey look on their possessions as a means tohelping others; those possessions are a crown.

The great truth of this story lies in the way itsheds light on the meaning of eternal life. Eternal

life is life such as God himself lives. The wordfor eternal is aiōnios, which does not meanlasting forever; it means such as befits God, orsuch as belongs to God, or such as ischaracteristic of God. The great characteristic ofGod is that he so loved and he gave. Therefore theessence of eternal life is not a carefully calculatedkeeping of the commandments and the rules andthe regulations; eternal life is based on an attitudeof loving and sacrificial generosity to otherpeople. If we would find eternal life, if we wouldfind happiness, joy, satisfaction, peace of mindand serenity of heart, it will not be by piling up acredit balance with God through keepingcommandments and observing rules andregulations; it will be through reproducing God'sattitude of love and care to our neighbours. Tofollow Christ and in grace and generosity to servethe men and women for whom Christ died are oneand the same thing.

In the end, the young man turned away in greatdistress. He refused the challenge, because he hadgreat possessions. His tragedy was that he lovedthings more than he loved people; and he lovedhimself more than he loved others. Those who putthings before people and self before others mustturn their backs on Jesus Christ.

THE PERIL OF RICHES

Matthew 19:23-6

Jesus said to the disciples: 'This is thetruth I tell you - it is with difficulty thata rich man shall enter into the kingdomof heaven. Again I say unto you - it iseasier for a camel to pass through theeye of a needle than for a rich man toenter into the kingdom of heaven.' Whenthe disciples heard this, they wereexceedingly astonished. 'What rich man,then,' they said, 'can be saved?' Jesuslooked at them. 'With men,' he said, 'thisis impossible, but with God all thingsare possible.'

The case of the rich young ruler shed a vivid and

a tragic light on the danger of riches; here was aman who had made the great refusal because hehad great possessions. Jesus now goes on tounderline that danger. 'It will be hard,' he said,'for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.'

To illustrate how difficult that was, he used avivid simile. He said that it was as difficult forthe rich to enter the kingdom of heaven as it wasfor a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.Different interpretations have been given of thepicture which Jesus was drawing.

The camel was the largest animal which theJews knew. It is said that sometimes in walledcities there were two gates. There was the greatmain gate through which all trade and trafficmoved. Beside it, there was often a little low andnarrow gate. When the great main gate was lockedand guarded at night, the only way into the citywas through the little gate, through which even a

man could hardly pass upright. It is said thatsometimes that little gate was called The Needle'sEye'. So it is suggested that Jesus was saying thatit was just as difficult for the rich to enter thekingdom of heaven as for a huge camel to getthrough the little gate through which a man canhardly pass.

There is another, and very attractive,suggestion. The Greek word for camel iskumēlos; the Greek word for the cable used to tiea ship up in dock is kamilos. It was characteristicof later Greek that the vowel sounds tended tolose their sharp distinctions and to approximate toeach other. In such Greek, there would be hardlyany discernible difference between the sound of iand ē; they would both be pronounced as ee is inEnglish. So, then, what Jesus may have said is thatit was just as difficult for the rich to enter into thekingdom of heaven as it would be to thread adarning-needle with a ship's cable. That indeed is

a vivid picture.

But the likelihood is that Jesus was using thepicture quite literally, and that he was actuallysaying that it was as hard for the rich to enter thekingdom of heaven as it was for a camel to gothrough the eye of a needle. Wherein then lies thisdifficulty? Riches have three main effects onpeople's outlook.

(1) Riches encourage a false independence. Ifpeople are well supplied with this world's goods,they are very apt to think that they can cope withany situation which may arise.

There is a vivid instance of this in the letter tothe Church of Laodicaea in the Book ofRevelation. Laodicaea was the richest town inAsia Minor. It was laid waste by an earthquake inAD 60. The Roman government offered aid and alarge grant of money to repair its shatteredbuildings. The population refused it, saying that

they were well able to handle the situation bythemselves. 'Laodicaea,' said Tacitus, the Romanhistorian, 'rose from the ruins entirely by her ownresources and with no help from us.' The risenChrist hears Laodicaea say: 'I am rich, I haveprospered, and I need nothing' (Revelation 3:17).

It was the English statesman Sir RobertWalpole who coined the cynical epigram that allmen have their price. If people are wealthy, theyare apt to think that everything has its price, that ifthey want a thing enough they can buy it, that if anydifficult situation descends upon them they canbuy their way out of it. They can come to think thatthey can buy their way into happiness and buytheir way out of sorrow. So they come to think thatthey can well do without God and are quite ableto handle life by themselves. There comes a timewhen people discover that that is an illusion, thatthere are things which money cannot buy, andthings from which money cannot save them. But

always there is the danger that great possessionsencourage that false independence which thinks -until it learns better - that it has eliminated theneed for God.

(2) Riches shackle people to this earth.'Where your treasure is,' said Jesus, 'there yourheart will be also' (Matthew 6:21). If every desireis contained within this world, if people'sinterests are all here, they never think of anotherworld and of a hereafter. If people have too big astake on earth, they are very apt to forget that thereis a heaven. After a tour of a certain wealthy andluxurious castle and estate, Dr Johnson, that greateighteenth-century man of letters, grimlyremarked: 'These are the things which make itdifficult to die.' It is perfectly possible to be sointerested in earthly things that heavenly things areforgotten, to be so involved in the things whichare seen that the things which are unseen areforgotten - and therein lies tragedy, for the things

which are seen are temporal, but the things whichare unseen are eternal.

(3) Riches tend to make people selfish.However much we have, it is human for us towant still more; for, as it has beenepigrammatically said, 'Enough is always a littlemore than a man has.' Further, once people havepossessed comfort and luxury, they always tend tofear the day when they may lose them. Lifebecomes a strenuous and worried struggle toretain the things they have. The result is that whenpeople become wealthy, instead of having theimpulse to give things away, they very often havethe impulse to cling on to them. Their instinct is toamass more and more for the sake of the safetyand the security which they think possessions willbring. The danger of riches is that they tend tomake people forget that we lose what we keep,and gain what we give away.

But Jesus did not say that it was impossible forthe rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Zacchaeuswas one of the richest men in Jericho, yet quiteunexpectedly he found the way in (Luke 19:9).Joseph of Arimathaea was a rich man (Matthew27:57); Nicodemus must have been very wealthy,for he brought spices to anoint the dead body ofJesus, which were worth a great deal of money(John 19:39). It is not that those who have richesare shut out. It is not that riches are a sin - but theyare a danger. The basis of all Christianity is anurgent sense of need; when people have manythings on earth, they are in danger of thinking thatthey do not need God; when they have few thingson earth, they are often driven to God becausethey have nowhere else to go.

A WISE ANSWER TO AMISTAKEN QUESTION

Matthew 19:27-30

Then Peter said to him: 'Look you, wehave left everything and have followedyou. What then will we get?' Jesus saidto him: 'When all things are reborn, andwhen the Son of Man shall sit on thethrone of his glory, you too, who havefollowed me, will also sit on twelvethrones, judging the twelve tribes ofIsrael. Anyone who has left houses, orbrothers, or sisters, or father, or mother,or children, or lands for my name, willreceive them 100 times over, and hewill enter into possession of eternallife. But many who were first will be

last, and many who were last will befirst.'

It would have been very easy for Jesus to dismissPeter's question with an impatient rebuke. In asense, it was entirely the wrong question to ask.To put it bluntly, Peter was asking: 'What do weget out of following you?' Jesus could well havesaid that anyone who followed him in that kind ofspirit had no idea what following him meant atall. And yet it was a natural question. True, it hadits implicit rebuke in the parable which followed;but Jesus did not scold Peter. He took hisquestion, and out of it laid down three great lawsof the Christian life.

(1) It is always true that those who shareChrist's campaign will share Christ's victory. Inhuman warfare, it has been too often true that thecommon soldiers who fought the battles were

forgotten once the fighting was ended, and thevictory won, and their usefulness past. In humanwarfare, it has been too often true that those whofought to make a country in which heroes mightlive found that that same country had become aplace where heroes might starve. It is not so withJesus Christ. Those who share Christ's warfarewill share Christ's triumph; and those who bearthe cross will wear the crown.

(2) It is always true that Christians will receivefar more than they ever have to give up; but whatthey receive is not new material possessions, buta new fellowship, human and divine.

When we become Christians, we enter into anew human fellowship; as long as there is aChristian church, Christians should never befriendless. If our Christian decision has meant thatwe have had to give up friends, it ought also tomean that we have entered into a wider circle of

friendship than we ever knew before. It ought tobe true that there is hardly a town or village orcity anywhere where a Christian can be lonely.For where there is a church, there is a fellowshipinto which all have a right to enter. It may be thata Christian who is a stranger is too shy to makethat entry; it may be that the church in that strangeplace has become too much of a private clique toopen its arms and its doors to the new member.But if the Christian ideal is being realized, thereis no place in the world with a Christian churchwhere the individual Christian should befriendless or lonely. Simply to be a Christianmeans to have entered into a fellowship whichgoes out to the ends of the earth.

Further, when we become Christians, we enterinto a new divine fellowship. We enter intopossession of eternal life, the life which is thevery life of God. From other things Christians maybe separated, but they can never be separated

from the love of God in Christ Jesus their Lord.

(3) Finally, Jesus lays it down that there willbe surprises in the final assessment. God'sstandards of judgment are not human standards, iffor no other reason than that God sees into thehearts of men and women. There is a new worldto redress the balance of the old; there is eternityto adjust the misjudgments of time. And it may bethat these who were humble on earth will be greatin heaven, and that those who were great in thisworld will be humbled in the world to come.

THE MASTER SEEKS HISWORKERS

Matthew 20:1-16

'For the situation in the kingdom ofheaven is like what happened when ahouseholder went out first thing in themorning to hire workers for hisvineyard. When he had come to anagreement with them that they wouldwork for a denarius a day, he sent theminto his vineyard. He went out againabout 9 am, and saw others standingidle in the market place. He said tothem: "Go you also into the vineyard,and I will pay you whatever is right."And they went. He went out again about12 noon, and about 3 pm, and did the

same. About 5 pm, he went out andfound others standing there, and said tothem: "Why are you standing here thewhole day idle?" They said to him:"Because no one has hired us." He saidto them: "Go you also to the vineyard."When evening came, the master of thevineyard said to his steward: "Call theworkers, and give them their pay,beginning from the last and going onuntil you come to the first." So, whenthose who had been engaged about 5 pmcame, they received a denarius each.Those who had come first thought thatthey would receive more; but they tooreceived a denarius each. When theyreceived it, they grumblinglycomplained against the master. "Theselast." they said, "have only worked forone hour, and you have made them

equal to us, who have borne the burdenand the hot wind of the day." Heanswered one of them: "Friend, I amdoing you no wrong. Did you not cometo an agreement with me to work forone denarius? Take what is yours andgo! It is my will to give to this last manthe same as to you. Can I not do what Ilike with my own money? Or, are yougrudging because I am generous?" Evenso the last shall be first, and the firstshall be last.'

THIS parable may sound to us as if it described apurely imaginary situation, but that is far frombeing the case. Apart from the method of payment,the parable describes the kind of thing thatfrequently happened at certain times in Palestine.The grape harvest ripened towards the end ofSeptember, and then close on its heels the rains

came. If the harvest was not gathered in before therains broke, then it was ruined; and so to get theharvest in was a frantic race against time. Anyworker was welcome, even if he could give onlyan hour to the work.

The pay was perfectly normal; a denarius or adrachma was the normal day's wage for aworking man. It was not a wage which left anymargin.

The men who were standing in the market placewere not street-corner idlers, lazing away theirtime. The market place was the equivalent of thejob centre or employment agency. A man camethere first thing in the morning, carrying his tools,and waited until someone hired him. The men whostood in the market place were waiting for work,and the fact that some of them stood there untileven 5 pm is the proof of how desperately theywanted it.

These men were hired labourers; they were thelowest class of workers, and life for them wasalways desperately precarious. Slaves andservants were regarded as being at least to someextent attached to the family for whom theyworked; they were within the group; their fortuneswould vary with the fortunes of the family, butthey would never be in any imminent danger ofstarvation in normal times. It was very differentwith the hired day labourers. They were notattached to any group; they were entirely at themercy of chance employment; they were alwaysliving on the semi-starvation line. As we haveseen, the pay was one denarius a day; and, if theywere unemployed for one day, the children wouldgo hungry at home. For them, to be unemployedfor a day was disaster.

The hours in the parable were the normalJewish hours. The Jewish day began at sunrise, 6am, and the hours were counted from then until 6

pm, when officially the next day began. Countingfrom 6 am therefore, the third hour is 9 am, thesixth hour is 12 noon, and the eleventh hour is 5pm.

This parable gives a vivid picture of the kind ofthing which could happen in the market place ofany Jewish village or town any day, when thegrape harvest was being rushed in before the rainscame.

WORK AND WAGES IN THEKINGDOM OF GOD

Matthew 20:1-16 (contd)The Jewish scholar C. G. Montefiore calls thisparable 'one of the greatest and most glorious ofall'. It may indeed have had a comparativelylimited application when it was spoken for thefirst time; but it contains truth which goes to thevery heart of the Christian religion. We begin withthe comparatively limited significance itoriginally had.

(1) It is in one sense a warning to the disciples.It is as if Jesus said to them: 'You have receivedthe great privilege of coming into the ChristianChurch and fellowship very early, right at thebeginning. In later days, others will come in. Youmust not claim a special honour and a special

place because you were Christians before theywere. All men and women, no matter when theycome, are equally precious to God.'

There are people who think that, because theyhave been members of a church for a long time,the Church practically belongs to them and theycan dictate its policy. Such people resent whatseems to them the intrusion of new blood or therise of a new generation with different plans anddifferent ways. In the Christian Church, senioritydoes not necessarily mean honour.

(2) There is an equally definite warning to theJews. They knew that they were the chosenpeople, nor would they ever willingly forget thatchoice. As a consequence, they looked down onthe Gentiles. Usually they hated and despisedthem, and hoped for nothing but their destruction.This attitude threatened to be carried forward intothe Christian Church. If the Gentiles were to be

allowed into the fellowship of the Church at all,they must come in as inferiors.

'In God's economy,' as someone has said, 'thereis no such thing as a most-favoured-nation clause.'Christianity knows nothing of such a conception ofsuperiority. It may well be that we who have beenChristian for so long have much to learn fromthose younger churches who are late-comers to thefellowship of the faith.

(3) These are the original lessons of thisparable; but it has very much more to say to us.

In it, there is the comfort of God. It means thatno matter when people enter the kingdom - late orsoon, in the first flush of youth, in the strength ofthe middle of the day, or when the shadows arelengthening - they are equally dear to God. TheRabbis had a saying: 'Some enter the kingdom inan hour; others hardly enter it in a lifetime.' In thepicture of the holy city in the Book of Revelation,

there are twelve gates. There are gates on the eastwhich is the direction of the dawn, and wherebypeople may enter in the glad morning of theirdays; there are gates on the west which is thedirection of the setting sun, and whereby peoplemay enter in their age. No matter when they cometo Christ, they are equally dear to him.

May we not go even further with this thought ofcomfort? Sometimes people die full of years andfull of honour, with their day's work ended andtheir task completed. Sometimes young people diealmost before the door of life and achievementhas opened at all. From God, they will bothreceive the same welcome: for both, Jesus Christis waiting, and in neither case, in the divine sense,has life ended too soon or too late.

(4) Here, also, is the infinite compassion ofGod. There is an element of human tenderness inthis parable.

There is nothing more tragic in this world thanmen and women who are unemployed, thosewhose talents are rusting in idleness because thereis nothing for them to do. One great teacher usedto say that the saddest words in all Shakespeare'splays are the words: 'Othello's occupation's gone.'In that market place, men stood waiting becauseno one had hired them; in his compassion, themaster gave them work to do. He could not bearto see them idle.

Further, in strict justice, the fewer hours a manworked, the less pay he should have received. Butthe master knew perfectly well that one denarius aday was no great wage; he knew that if a workmanwent home with less, there would be a worriedwife and hungry children: and therefore he wentbeyond justice and gave them more than was theirdue.

As it has been put, this parable states implicitly

two great truths which are the very charter of allthose who work - the right of everyone to workand the right of everyone to a living wage for thatwork.

(5) Here also is the generosity of God. Thesemen did not all do the same work; but they didreceive the same pay. There are two great lessonshere. The first is, as Robert Browning said inTippa Passes': 'All service ranks the same withGod.' It is not the amount of service given, but thelove in which it is given which matters. A wealthyfriend may give us a valuable gift, and in truth weare grateful; a child may give us a birthday orChristmas gift which cost only a small amount butwhich was laboriously and lovingly saved up for- and that gift, with little value of its own, touchesour heart far more. God does not look on theamount of our service. As long as it is all we haveto give, all service ranks the same with God.

The second lesson is even greater - all Godgives is of grace. We cannot earn what God givesus; we cannot deserve it; what God gives us isgiven out of the goodness of his heart; what Godgives is not pay, but a gift; not a reward, but agrace.

(6) Surely that brings us to the supreme lessonof the parable - the whole point of work is thespirit in which it is done. The servants areclearly divided into two classes. The first came toan agreement with the master; they had a contract:they said: 'We work, if you give us so much pay.'As their conduct showed, all they were concernedwith was to get as much as possible out of theirwork. But in the case of those who were engagedlater, there is no word of contract; all they wantedwas the chance to work, and they willingly left thereward to the master.

We are not Christians if our first concern is

pay. Peter asked: 'What do we get out of it?'Christians work for the joy of serving God andothers. That is why the first will be last and thelast will be first. Many in this world, who haveearned great rewards, will have a very low placein the kingdom because rewards were their solethought. Many who, as the world counts it, arepoor, will be great in the kingdom, because theynever thought in terms of reward but worked forthe thrill of working and for the joy of serving. Itis the paradox of the Christian life that those whoaim at reward lose it, and those who forgetreward find it.

TOWARDS THE CROSS

Matthew 20:17-19

As he was going up to Jerusalem, Jesustook the twelve disciples apart, andsaid to them, while they were on theroad: 'Look you, we are going up toJerusalem, and the Son of Man will bedelivered to the chief priests and thescribes, and they will condemn him todeath, and they will hand him over tothe Gentiles to mock, and to scourge,and to crucify; and on the third day hewill be raised.'

This is the third time that Jesus warned hisdisciples that he was on the way to the cross(Matthew 16:21, 17:22-3). Both Mark and Luke

add their own touches to the story, to show that onthis occasion there was in the atmosphere of theapostolic band a certain tenseness and a certainforeboding of tragedy to come. Mark says thatJesus was walking ahead by himself, and that thedisciples were amazed and afraid (Mark 10:32-4). They did not understand what was happening,but they could see in every line of Jesus' body thestruggle of his soul. Luke, too, tells how Jesustook the disciples to himself alone that he mighttry to compel them to understand what lay ahead(Luke 18:31-4). There is here the first decisivestep to the last act of the inescapable tragedy.Jesus, deliberately and with open eyes, sets outfor Jerusalem and the cross.

There was a strange inclusiveness in thesuffering to which Jesus looked forward; it was asuffering in which no pain of heart or mind orbody was to be lacking.

He was to be betrayed into the hands of thechief priests and scribes; there we see thesuffering of the heart broken by the disloyalty offriends. He was to be condemned to death; therewe see the suffering of injustice, which is veryhard to bear. He was to be mocked by theRomans; there we see the suffering of humiliationand of deliberate insult. He was to be scourged;few tortures in the world compared with theRoman scourge, and there we see the suffering ofphysical pain. Finally, he was to be crucified;there we see the ultimate suffering of death. It isas if Jesus was going to gather in upon himselfevery possible kind of physical and emotional andmental suffering that the world could inflict.

Even at such a time, that was not the end of hiswords, for he finished with the confident assertionof the resurrection. Beyond the curtain of sufferinglay the revelation of glory; beyond the cross wasthe crown; beyond the defeat was triumph; and

beyond death was life.

THE FALSE AND THE TRUEAMBITION

Matthew 20:20-8

At that time the mother of Zebedee'ssons came to him with her sons,kneeling before him, and askingsomething from him. He said to her:'What do you wish?' She said to him:'Speak the word that these two sons ofmine may sit, one on your right hand,and one on your left, in your kingdom.'Jesus answered: 'You do not know whatyou are asking. Can you drink the cupwhich I have to drink?' They said tohim: 'We can.' He said to them: 'My cupyou are to drink; but to sit on my righthand and my left is not mine to give, but

that belongs to those for whom it hasbeen prepared by my Father.' When theten heard about this, they were angrywith the two brothers. Jesus called themto him and said: 'You know that therulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,and their great ones exercise authorityover them. It shall not be so among you,but whoever wishes to prove himselfgreat among you must be your servant;and whoever wishes to occupy theforemost place will be your slave, justas the Son of Man did not come to beserved but to serve, and to give his lifea ransom for many.'

HERE we see the worldly ambition of thedisciples in action. There is one very revealinglittle difference between Matthew's and Mark'saccount of this incident. In Mark 10:35-45, it is

James and John who come to Jesus with thisrequest. In Matthew, it is their mother. The reasonfor the change is this: Matthew was writingtwenty-five years later than Mark; by that time akind of halo of sanctity had become attached to thedisciples. Matthew did not wish to show Jamesand John guilty of worldly ambition, and so heputs the request into the mouth of their motherrather than of themselves.

There may have been a very natural reason forthis request. It is probable that James and Johnwere closely related to Jesus. Matthew, Mark andJohn all give lists of the women who were at thecross when Jesus was crucified. Let us set themdown.

Matthew's list is:

Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother

of James and Joseph, and the mother ofthe sons of Zebedee. (Matthew 27:56)

Mark's list is:

Mary Magdalene, and Mary the motherof James the younger and of Joses, andSalome. (Mark 15:40)

John's list is:

His mother, and his mother's sister,Mary the wife of Clopas, and MaryMagdalene. (John 19:25)

Mary Magdalene is named in all the lists; Marythe mother of James and Joses must be the sameperson as Mary the wife of Clopas; therefore thethird woman is described in three different ways.

Matthew calls her the mother of the sons ofZebedee; Mark calls her Salome; and John callsher Jesus' mother's sister. So, we learn that themother of James and John was named Salome, andthat she was the sister of Mary the mother ofJesus. That means that James and John were fullcousins of Jesus: and it may well have been thatthey felt that this close relationship entitled themto a special place in his kingdom.

This is one of the most revealing passages inthe New Testament. It sheds light in threedirections.

First, it sheds a light on the disciples. It tells usthree things about them. It tells us of theirambition. They were still thinking in terms ofpersonal reward and personal distinction: andthey were thinking of personal success withoutpersonal sacrifice. They wanted Jesus with aroyal command to ensure for them a princely life.

Everyone has to learn that true greatness lies notin dominance but in service; and that in everysphere the price of greatness must be paid.

That is on the debit side of the account of thedisciples; but there is much on the credit side.There is no incident which so demonstrates theirinvincible faith in Jesus. Think of when thisrequest was made. It was made after a series ofannouncements by Jesus that ahead of him lay aninescapable cross; it was made at a moment whenthe air was heavy with the atmosphere of tragedyand the sense of foreboding. And yet in spite ofthat, the disciples are thinking of a kingdom. It isof immense significance to see that, even in aworld in which the dark was coming down, thedisciples would not abandon the conviction thatthe victory belonged to Jesus. In Christianity,there must always be this invincible optimism inthe moment when things are conspiring to drive usto despair.

Still further, here is demonstrated theunshakable loyalty of the disciples. Even whenthey were bluntly told that there lay ahead a bittercup, it never struck them to turn back; they weredetermined to drink it. If to conquer with Christmeant to suffer with Christ, they were perfectlywilling to face that suffering.

It is easy to condemn the disciples, but the faithand the loyalty which lay behind the ambitionmust never be forgotten.

THE MIND OF JESUS

Matthew 20:20-8 (contd)Second, this passage sheds a light upon theChristian life. Jesus said that those who wouldshare his triumph must drink his cup. What wasthat cup? It was to James and John that Jesusspoke. Now life treated James and John verydifferently. James was the first of the apostolicband to die a martyr (Acts 12:2). For him, the cupwas martyrdom. On the other hand, by far thegreater weight of tradition goes to show that Johnlived to a great old age in Ephesus and died anatural death when he must have been nearly 100years old. For him, the cup was the constantdiscipline and struggle of the Christian lifethroughout the years.

It is quite wrong to think that for the Christian

the cup must always mean the short, sharp, bitter,agonizing struggle of martyrdom; the cup may wellbe the long routine of the Christian life, with allits daily sacrifice, its daily struggle, and itsheartbreaks and its disappointments and its tears.A Roman coin was once found with the picture ofan ox on it; the ox was facing two things - an altarand a plough; and the inscription read: 'Ready foreither.' The ox had to be ready either for thesupreme moment of sacrifice on the altar or thelong labour of the plough on the farm. There is noone cup for Christians to drink. That cup may bedrunk in one great moment; that cup may be drunkthroughout a lifetime of Christian living. To drinkthe cup simply means to follow Christ whereverhe may lead, and to be like him in any situationlife may bring.

Third, this passage sheds a light on Jesus. Itshows us his kindness. The amazing thing aboutJesus is that he never lost patience and became

irritated. In spite of all he had said, here werethese men and their mother still chattering aboutposts in an earthly government and kingdom. ButChrist does not explode at their obtuseness, orblaze at their blindness, or despair at theirinability to learn. In gentleness, in sympathy andin love, with never an impatient word, he seeks tolead them to the truth.

It shows us his honesty. He was quite clear thatthere was a bitter cup to be drunk and did nothesitate to say so. No one can ever claim to havebegun to follow Jesus under false pretences. Henever failed to point out that, even if life ends incrown-wearing, it continues in cross-bearing.

It shows us his trust in his followers. He neverdoubted that James and John would maintain theirloyalty. They had their mistaken ambitions; theyhad their blindness; they had their wrong ideas;but he never dreamt of writing them off as bad

debts. He believed that they could and woulddrink the cup, and that in the end they would stillbe found at his side. One of the great fundamentalfacts to which we must hold on, even when wehate and loathe and despise ourselves, is thatJesus believes in us. Christians are men andwomen put upon their honour by Jesus.

THE CHRISTIAN REVOLUTION

Matthew 20:20-8 (contd)The request of James and John not unnaturallyannoyed the other disciples. They did not see whythe two brothers should steal a march on them,even if they were the cousins of Jesus. They didnot see why they should be allowed to stake theirclaims to pre-eminence. Jesus knew what wasgoing on in their minds: and he spoke to themwords which are the very basis of the Christianlife. Out in the world, said Jesus, it is quite truethat greatness is seen in those who control others -those to whose word of command others mustleap and who with a wave of the hand can havetheir slightest need supplied. Out in the world,there was the Roman governor with his retinueand the powerful local ruler with his slaves. Theworld counts them great. But among my followers,

service alone is the badge of greatness. Greatnessdoes not consist in commanding others to dothings for you; it consists in doing things forothers: and the greater the service, the greater thehonour. Jesus uses a kind of gradation. 'If youwish to be great,' he says, 'be a servant; if youwish to be first of all, be a slave.' Here is theChristian revolution; here is the complete reversalof all the world's standards. A complete new setof values has been brought into life.

The strange thing is that instinctively the worlditself has accepted these standards. The worldknows quite well that good men and women arepeople who serve others. The world will respect,and admire, and sometimes fear, the powerful; butit will love those who love. The doctor who willcome out at any time of the day or night to serveand save patients; the parson who is always on theroad among people; the employer who takes anactive interest in the lives and troubles of

employees; the person to whom we can go andnever be made to feel a nuisance - these are thepeople whom everyone loves, and in whominstinctively we see Jesus Christ.

When that great Japanese saint ToyohikoKagawa first came into contact with Christianity,he felt its fascination, until one day the cry burstfrom him: 'O God, make me like Christ.' To belike Christ, he went to live in the slums, eventhough he himself was suffering from tuberculosis.It seemed the last place on earth to which a man inhis condition should have gone.

Cecil Northcott in Famous Life Decisions tellsof what Kagawa did. He went to live in a six-foot-by-six hut in a Tokyo slum. 'On his first nighthe was asked to share his bed with a mansuffering from contagious itch. That was a test ofhis faith. Would he go back on his point of noreturn? No. He welcomed his bed-fellow. Then a

beggar asked for his shirt and got it. Next day hewas back for Kagawa's coat and trousers, and gotthem too. Kagawa was left standing in a raggedold kimono. The slum dwellers of Tokyo laughedat him, but they came to respect him. He stood inthe driving rain to preach, coughing all the time."God is love," he shouted. "God is love. Wherelove is, there is God." He often fell downexhausted, and the rough men of the slums carriedhim gently back to his hut.'

Kagawa himself wrote: 'God dwells among thelowliest of men. He sits on the dust heap amongthe prison convicts. He stands with the juveniledelinquents. He is there with the beggars. He isamong the sick, he stands with the unemployed.Therefore let him who would meet God visit theprison cell before going to the temple. Before hegoes to Church let him visit the hospital. Beforehe reads his Bible let him help the beggar.'

Therein is greatness. The world may assesspeople's greatness by the number of people whomthey control and who are at their beck and call; orby their intellectual standing and their academiceminence; or by the number of committees ofwhich they are members; or by the size of theirbank balances and the material possessions whichthey have amassed; but in the assessment of JesusChrist these things are irrelevant. His assessmentis quite simply: how many people have theyhelped?

THE LORDSHIP OF THE CROSS

Matthew 20:20-8 (contd)What Jesus calls upon his followers to do, hehimself did. He came not to be served, but toserve. He came to occupy not a throne, but across. It was just because of this that the orthodoxreligious people of his time could not understandhim. All through their history, the Jews haddreamed of the Messiah; but the Messiah of whomthey had dreamed was always a conquering king,a mighty leader, one who would smash theenemies of Israel and reign in power over thekingdoms of the earth. They looked for aconqueror; they received one broken on a cross.They looked for the raging Lion of Judah: theyreceived the gentle Lamb of God. The GermanNew Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann writes:'In the cross of Christ Jewish standards of

judgment and human notions of the splendour ofthe Messiah are shattered.' Here is demonstratedthe new glory and the new greatness of sufferinglove and sacrificial service. Here is royalty andkingship restated and remade.

Jesus summed up his whole life in one poignantsentence: 'The Son of Man came to give his life aransom for many.' It is worth stopping to see whatthe crude hands of theology have done with thatlovely saying. Very early, people began to ask:'Jesus gave his life a ransom for many. Well, then,to whom was the ransom paid?' Origen has nodoubt that the ransom was paid to the devil. 'Theransom could not have been paid to God; it wastherefore paid to the evil one, who was holding usfast until the ransom should be given to him, eventhe life of Jesus.' The fourth-century theologianGregory of Nyssa saw the glaring fault in thattheory. It puts the devil on a level with God; itmeans that the devil could dictate his terms to

God before he would let people go. So Gregoryof Nyssa has a strange idea. The devil was trickedby God. He was tricked by the apparenthelplessness of Jesus; he took Jesus to be a mereman; he tried to retain hold of Jesus, and in tryingto do so, he lost his power and was brokenforever. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory theGreat took the picture to even more grotesque,almost revolting, lengths. The incarnation, he said,was a divine stratagem to catch the greatleviathan. The deity of Christ was the hook; hisflesh was the bait: the bait was dangled before thesea monster: he swallowed it and was taken. Thelimit was reached by the twelfth-century Italiantheologian Peter the Lombard. 'The cross', hesaid, 'was a mousetrap [muscipula] to catch thedevil, baited with the blood of Christ.'

All this is what happens when people take thepoetry of love and try to turn it into their owntheories. Jesus came to give his life a ransom for

many. What does it mean? It means quite simplythis. Men and women were in the grip of a powerof evil which they could not break; their sinsdragged them down; their sins separated themfrom God; their sins wrecked life for themselvesand for the world and for God himself. A ransomis something paid or given to liberate people froma situation from which it is impossible for them tofree themselves. Therefore what this saying meansis quite simply: it cost the life and the death ofJesus Christ to bring men and women back toGod.

There is no question of to whom the ransomwas paid. There is simply the great, tremendoustruth that without Jesus Christ and his life ofservice and his death of love, we could neverhave found our way back to the love of God. Jesusgave everything to bring us back to God; and wemust walk in the steps of him who loved to the

uttermost.

LOVE'S ANSWER TO NEED'SAPPEAL

Matthew 20:29-34

When they were leaving Jericho, a greatcrowd followed him. And, look you,two blind men were sitting by theroadside, and, when they heard thatJesus was passing by, they shouted out:'Lord, have pity on us. you Son ofDavid!' The crowd rebuked them, sothat they might be silent. Jesus stoodand called them. 'What do you want meto do for you?' he said. 'Lord,' they said,'what we want is that our eyes shouldbe opened.' Jesus was moved withcompassion to the depths of his being,and touched their eyes; and immediately

they recovered their sight and followedhim.

HERE is the story of two men who found their wayto a miracle. It is a very significant story, for itpaints a picture of the spirit and of the attitude ofmind and heart to which the most precious gifts ofGod are open.

(1) These two blind men were waiting, andwhen their chance came they seized it with bothhands. No doubt they had heard of the wondrouspower of Jesus; and no doubt they wondered ifthat power might ever be exercised for them.Jesus was passing by. If they had let him pass,their chance would have gone by forever; butwhen the chance came they seized it.

There are a great many things which have to bedone straight away or they will never be done atall. There are a great many decisions which have

to be taken on the spot or they will never be taken.The moment to act goes past; the impulse todecide fades. After Paul had preached on MarsHill, there were those who said: 'We will hearyou again about this' (Acts 17:32). They put it offuntil a more convenient time, but so often the moreconvenient time never comes.

(2) These two blind men could not bediscouraged. The crowd commanded them to stoptheir shouting; they were making a nuisance ofthemselves. It was the custom in Palestine for aRabbi to teach as he walked along the road; andno doubt those around Jesus could not hear whatJesus was saying for this clamorous uproar. Butnothing would stop the two blind men; for them itwas a matter of sight or blindness, and nothingwas going to keep them back.

It often happens that we are easily discouragedfrom seeking the presence of God. It is the man or

woman who will not be kept from Christ who inthe end finds him.

(3) These two blind men had an imperfect faith,but they were determined to act on the faith theyhad. It was as Son of David that they addressedJesus. That meant that they did believe him to bethe Messiah, but it also meant that they werethinking of Messiahship in terms of kingly and ofearthly power. It was an imperfect faith, but theyacted on it; and Jesus accepted it.

However imperfect it may be, if faith is there,Jesus accepts it.

(4) These two blind men were not afraid tobring a great request. They were beggars; but itwas not money they asked for, it was nothing lessthan sight.

No request is too great to bring to Jesus.

(5) These two blind men were grateful. When

they had received the favour for which theycraved, they did not go away and forget; theyfollowed Jesus.

So many people, both in things material and inthings spiritual, get what they want, and thenforget even to say thanks. Ingratitude is the ugliestof all sins. These blind men received their sightfrom Jesus, and then they gave to him theirgrateful loyalty. We can never repay God for whathe has done for us, but we can always be gratefulto him.

THE BEGINNING OF THE LASTACT OF THE DRAMA

Matthew 21:1-11

When they had come near to Jerusalem,and when they had come to Bethphage,to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus senton two disciples ahead. 'Go into thevillage which is facing you,' he said,'and immediately you will find an asstethered, and a colt with her. Loosethem, and bring them to me. And, ifanyone says anything to you, say: "TheMaster needs them." Immedately he willsend them on.' This was done that theremight be fulfilled that which wasspoken through the prophet, when hesaid: 'Say to the daughter of Zion: look

you, your king comes to you, gentle, andriding upon an ass, and a colt, the foalof a beast who bears the yoke.' So thedisciples went, and they carried outJesus' orders, and they brought the assand the colt, and put their cloaks uponthem: and he took his seat on them. Thevery large crowd spread their cloaks onthe road. Others cut down branchesfrom the trees and strewed them on theroad: and the crowds who went in frontand followed behind kept shouting:'Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessedin the name of the Lord is he whocomes. Hosanna in the highest!' As heentered Jerusalem, the whole city wasshaken. 'Who is this?' they asked; andthe crowds said: 'This is the prophet,Jesus, who comes from Nazareth inGalilee.'

WITH this passage, we embark on the last act inthe drama of the life of Jesus: and here indeed is adramatic moment.

It was the Passover time, and Jerusalem and thewhole surrounding neighbourhood were crowdedwith pilgrims. Thirty years later, a Romangovernor was to take a census of the lambs slainin Jerusalem for the Passover and find that thenumber was not far off 250,000. It was thePassover regulation that there must be a party of aminimum of ten for each lamb, which means thatat that Passover time more than 2,500,000 peoplehad crowded their way into Jerusalem. The lawwas that every adult male Jew who lived withinfifteen miles of Jerusalem must come to thePassover; but not only the Jews of Palestine, Jewsfrom every corner of the world made their way tothe greatest of their national festivals. Jesus couldnot have chosen a more dramatic moment; it wasinto a city surging with people keyed up with

religious expectations that he came.

Nor was this a sudden decision of Jesus, takenon the spur of the moment. It was something whichhe had prepared in advance. The whole tone ofthe story shows that he was carrying out planswhich he had made in advance. He sent hisdisciples into 'the village' to collect the donkeyand her foal. Matthew mentions Bethphage only(the pronunciation is not Bethphage with the ageas in the English word page; the e at the end ispronounced as ae; the word is Bethphagae). ButMark also mentions Bethany (Mark 11:1). Nodoubt the village was Bethany. Jesus had alreadyarranged that the donkey and her foal should bewaiting for him, for he must have had manyfriends in Bethany; and the phrase 'The Masterneeds them' was a password by which their ownerwould know that the hour which Jesus hadarranged had come.

So Jesus rode into Jerusalem. Mark's gospel(11:2) gives us the added detail that the donkeyhad never been ridden before, a fact that made itspecially suitable for sacred purposes. The redheifer which was used in the ceremonies ofcleansing must be an animal 'on which no yokehas been laid' (Numbers 19:2; Deuteronomy21:3); the cart on which the ark of the Lord wascarried had to be a vehicle which had never beenused for any other purpose (1 Samuel 6:7). Thespecial sacredness of the occasion wasunderlined by the fact that the donkey had neverbeen ridden by anyone before.

The crowd received Jesus like a king. Theyspread their cloaks in front of him. That is whathis friends had done when Jehu was proclaimedking (2 Kings 9:13). They cut down and wavedthe palm branches. That is what they did whenSimon Maccabaeus entered Jerusalem after one ofhis most notable victories (1 Maccabees 13:51).

They greeted him as they would greet a pilgrim,for the greeting: 'Blessed is the one who comes inthe name of the Lord' (Psalm 118:26) was thegreeting which was addressed to pilgrims as theycame to the feast.

They shouted 'Hosanna!' We must be careful tosee what this word means. Hosanna means Savenow!, and it was the cry for help which a peoplein distress addressed to their king or their god. Itis really a kind of quotation from Psalm 118:25:'Save us, we beseech you, O Lord!' The phrase'Hosanna in the highest!' must mean: 'Let even theangels in the highest heights of heaven cry to God,save now!'

It may be that the word hosanna had lost someof its original meaning, and that it had become tosome extent only a cry of welcome and ofacclamation, like 'Hail!'; but essentially it is apeople's cry for deliverance and for help in the

day of their trouble; it is an oppressed people'scry to their saviour and their king.

THE INTENTION OF JESUS

Matthew 21:1-11 (contd)We may then take it that Jesus' actions in thisincident were planned and deliberate. He wasfollowing a method of awakening people's mindswhich was deeply interwoven with the methods ofthe prophets. Again and again in the religioushistory of Israel, when the prophets felt that wordswere of no avail against a barrier of indifferenceor incomprehension, they put their message into adramatic act which the people could not fail tosee and to understand. Out of many Old Testamentinstances, we choose two of the most outstanding.

When it became clear that the kingdom wouldnot stand the excesses and extravagances ofRehoboam, and that Jeroboam was marked out asthe rising power, the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite

chose a dramatic way of foretelling the future. Hedressed himself in a new garment; he went out andhe met Jeroboam alone; he took the new garmentand tore it into twelve pieces; then of the pieceshe gave to Jeroboam ten, and two of the pieces hekept; and by this dramatic action he made it clearthat ten of the twelve tribes were about to revoltin support of Jeroboam, while only two wouldremain faithful to Rehoboam (1 Kings 11:29-32).Here is the prophetic message delivered indramatic action.

When Jeremiah was convinced that Babylonwas about to conquer Palestine in spite of the easyoptimism of the people, he made bonds and yokesand sent them to Edom, to Moab, to Ammon, toTyre and to Sidon; and put a yoke upon his ownneck that all might see it. By this dramatic action,he made it clear that, as he saw it, nothing butslavery and servitude lay ahead (Jeremiah 27:1-6); and when Hananiah, the false prophet with the

mistaken optimism, wished to show that hethought Jeremiah's gloomy foreboding altogetherwrong, he took the yoke from Jeremiah's neck andbroke it (Jeremiah 28:10-11).

It was the custom of the prophets to expresstheir message in dramatic action when they feltthat words were not enough. And that was whatJesus was doing when he entered Jerusalem.

There are two pictures behind Jesus' dramaticaction.

(1) There is the picture of Zechariah 9:9, inwhich the prophet saw the king coming toJerusalem, humble and riding upon a donkey, on acolt the foal of a donkey. In the first instance,Jesus' dramatic action is a deliberate messianicclaim. He was here offering himself to the people,at a time when Jerusalem was surging with Jewsfrom all over the country and from all over theworld, as the Anointed One of God. Just what

Jesus meant by that claim we shall go on to see;but that he made the claim there is no doubt.

(2) There may have been another intention inJesus' mind. One of the supreme disasters ofJewish history was the capture of Jerusalem byAntiochus Epiphanes about 175 BC. Antiochuswas determined to stamp out Judaism and tointroduce into Palestine Greek ways of life andworship. He deliberately profaned the Temple,offering pig's flesh on the altar, making sacrificesto Olympian Zeus, and even turning the Templechambers into public brothels. It was then that theMaccabees rose against him and ultimatelyrescued their native land. In due time, Jerusalemwas retaken and the desecrated Temple wasrestored and purified and rededicated. In 2Maccabees 10:7, we read of the rejoicing of thatgreat day: Therefore, carrying ivy-wreathedwands and beautiful branches and also fronds ofpalm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him

who had given success to the purifying of his ownholy place.' On that day, the people carried thepalm branches and sang their psalms; it is analmost exact description of the actions of thecrowd who welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem.

It is at least possible that Jesus knew this, andthat he entered into Jerusalem with the deliberateintention of cleansing God's house as JudasMaccabaeus had done 200 years before. That wasin fact what Jesus did. He may well be saying indramatic symbol not only that he was the AnointedOne of God, but also that he had come to cleansethe House of God from the abuses which defiled itand its worship. Had not Malachi said that theLord would suddenly come to his Temple(Malachi 3:1)? And, in his vision of judgment,had not Ezekiel seen the terrible judgment of Godbegin at the sanctuary (Ezekiel 9:6)?

THE CLAIM OF THE KING

Matthew 21 :1-1 1 (contd)To conclude our study of this incident, let us lookat Jesus in its setting. It shows us three thingsabout him.

(1) It shows us his courage. Jesus knew fullwell that he was entering a hostile city. Howeverenthusiastic the crowd might be, the authoritieshated him and had sworn to eliminate him: andwith them lay the last word. Almost any other manin such a case would have considered discretionthe better part of valour; and, if he had come toJerusalem at all, would have slipped in undercover of night and kept prudently to the backstreets until he reached his shelter. But Jesusentered Jerusalem in a way that deliberately sethimself in the centre of the stage and deliberately

riveted every eye upon himself. All through hislast days, there is in his every action a kind ofmagnificent and sublime defiance; and here hebegins the last act with a flinging down of thegauntlet, a deliberate challenge to the authoritiesto do their worst.

(2) It shows us his claim. Certainly it shows ushis claim to be God's Messiah, God's AnointedOne; very probably it shows us his claim to be thecleanser of the Temple. If Jesus had been contentto claim to be a prophet, the probability is that heneed never have died. But he could be satisfiedwith nothing less than the highest place. WithJesus, it is all or nothing. People mustacknowledge him as king, or not receive him atall.

(3) Equally, it shows us his appeal. It was notthe kingship of the throne which he claimed: itwas the kingship of the heart. He came humbly

and riding upon a donkey. We must be careful tosee the real meaning of that. In western lands, thedonkey is a despised animal: but in the middleeast the donkey could be a noble animal. Often aking came riding upon a donkey; but when he did,it was the sign that he came in peace. The horsewas the mount of war; the donkey was the mountof peace. So when Jesus claimed to be king, heclaimed to be the king of peace. He showed thathe came not to destroy but to love: not to condemnbut to help; not in the might of arms but in thestrength of love.

So here, at one and the same time, we see thecourage of Christ, the claim of Christ and theappeal of Christ. It was a last invitation to menand women to open not their palaces but theirhearts to him.

THE SCENE IN THE TEMPLE

Matthew 21:12-14

And Jesus entered into the precincts ofthe Temple of God, and cast out all whowere selling and buying in the Templeprecincts, and overturned the tables ofthe money-changers, and of those whowere selling doves. 'It is written,' hesaid to them, 'my house shall be called ahouse of prayer, but you make it "arobbers' cave".'

And the blind and the lame came tohim in the Temple and he healed them.

If the entry into Jerusalem had been defiance, hereis defiance added to defiance. To see this scene

unfolding before our eyes, we need to visualizethe picture of the Temple.

There are in the New Testament two wordswhich are translated as Temple, and rightly so; butthere is a clear distinction between them. TheTemple itself is called the naos. It was acomparatively small building, and contained theholy place and the Holy of Holies into which onlythe high priest might enter, and he only on thegreat Day of Atonement. But the naos itself wassurrounded by a vast space which was occupiedby successive and ascending courtyards. Firstthere was the Court of the Gentiles, into whichanyone might come, and beyond which it wasdeath for a Gentile to penetrate. Then there camethe Court of the Women, entered by the BeautifulGate of the Temple, into which any Israelite mightcome. Next there came the Court of the Israelites,entered by the gate called Nicanor's Gate, a greatgate of Corinthian bronze which needed twenty

men to open and shut it. It was in this court that thepeople assembled for the Temple services. Lastlythere came the Court of the Priests, into whichonly the priests might enter; in it there stood thegreat altar of the burnt offering, the altar of theincense, the seven-branched lamp stand, the tableof the shewbread, and the great bronze bowl forablutions; and at the back of it there stood thenaos itself. This whole area, including all thecourts, is also in the Revised Standard Versioncalled the Temple; the Greek is hieron. It is betterto keep a distinction between the two words - toretain the word Temple for the Temple proper,that is the naos, and to use the term the Templeprecincts for the whole area, that is the wordhieron.

The scene of this incident was the Court of theGentiles into which anyone might come. It wasalways crowded and busy; but at Passover, withpilgrims there from all over the world, it was

thronged to capacity. There would, even at anytime, be many Gentiles there, for the Temple atJerusalem was famous throughout the world, sothat even the Roman writers described it as one ofthe world's most amazing buildings.

In this Court of the Gentiles, two kinds oftrading were going on. There was the business ofmoney-changing. Every Jew had to pay a templetax of one half-shekel, and that tax had to be paidnear to the Passover time. A month before, boothswere set up in all the towns and villages, and themoney could be paid there; but after a certain dateit could be paid only in the Temple itself, and itwould be there that the vast majority of pilgrimJews from other lands paid it. This tax had to bepaid in certain currency, although for generalpurposes all kinds of currencies were equallyvalid in Palestine. It must not be paid in ingots ofsilver, but in stamped currency; it must not be

paid in coins of inferior alloy or coins which hadbeen clipped, but in coins of high-grade silver. Itcould be paid in shekels of the sanctuary, inGalilaean half-shekels, and especially in Tyriancurrency, which was of a very high standard.

The function of the money-changers was tochange unsuitable currency into the correctcurrency. That seems on the face of it to be anentirely necessary function; but the trouble wasthat these money-changers charged a commissionfor changing the currency at all; and, if the coinwas of greater value than a half-shekel, they madea further charge for giving back the surpluschange. That is to say, many pilgrims not only hadto pay the half-shekel but also the fees forchanging currency. All this made a considerableimpact on a working man's income.

This surplus charge was called the qolbon. Itdid not by any means all go into the money-

changers' pockets; some of it was classed as free-will offerings; some of it went to the repair of theroads; some of it went to purchase the gold plateswith which it was planned entirely to cover theTemple proper; and some of it found its way intothe Temple treasury. The whole matter was notnecessarily an abuse; but the trouble was that itlent itself to abuse. It lent itself to the exploitationof the pilgrims who had come to worship, andthere is no doubt that the Temple money-changersmade large profits out of it.

The selling of doves was worse. For mostvisits to the Temple, some kind of offering wasessential. Doves, for instance, were necessarywhen a woman came for purification afterchildbirth, or when a leper came to have a cureattested and certified (Leviticus 12:8, 14:22,15:14, 15:29). It was easy enough to buy animalsfor sacrifice outside the Temple; but any animaloffered in sacrifice must be without blemish.

There were official inspectors of the animals, andit was to all intents and purposes certain that theywould reject an animal bought outside and woulddirect the worshipper to the Temple stalls andbooths.

No great harm would have been done if theprices had been the same inside and outside theTemple, but inside the Temple a pair of dovescould cost as much as fifteen times the pricecharged for them outside. This was an old abuse.A certain Rabbi, Simon ben Gamaliel, wasremembered with gratitude because 'he hadcaused doves to be sold for silver coins instead ofgold'. Clearly, he had attacked this abuse. Further,these stalls where the victims were sold werecalled the Bazaars of Annas, and were the privateproperty of the family of the high priest of thatname.

Here, again, there was not necessarily abuse.

There must have been many honest andsympathetic traders. But abuse readily and easilycrept in. The New Testament scholar F. C. Burkittcan say that 'the Temple had become a meetingplace of scamps', the worst kind of commercialmonopoly and vested interest. George AdamSmith, the biblical scholar, can write: 'In thosedays every priest must have been a trader.' Therewas every danger of shameless exploitation ofpoor and humble pilgrims - and it was thatexploitation which raised the wrath of Jesus.

THE WRATH AND THE LOVE

Matthew 21:12-14 (contd)There is hardly anywhere in the gospel storywhere we need to make a more deliberate andmore conscious effort to be fair than in thispassage. It is easy to use it as a basis for acomplete condemnation of the whole Templeworship. There are two things to be said.

There were many traders and people sellingthings in the Temple Court, but there were alsomany whose hearts were set on God. As Aristotlesaid long ago, a man and an institution must bejudged at their best, and not at their worst.

The other thing to be said is simply this - let theindividual and the church without sin cast the firststone. The traders were not all exploiters, andeven those who seized the opportunity of making a

quick profit were not all simply money-grabbers.The great Jewish scholar Israel Abrahams has acomment on the too common Christian treatmentof this passage: 'When Jesus overturned themoney-changers and ejected the sellers of dovesfrom the Temple, he did a service to Judaism . . .But were the money-changers and the dove-sellersthe only people who visited the Temple? And waseveryone who bought or sold a dove a mereformalist? Last Easter I was in Jerusalem, andalong the facade of the Church of the HolySepulchre I saw the stalls of the vendors of sacredrelics, of painted beads and inscribed ribbons, ofcoloured candles, gilded crucifixes, and bottles ofJordan water. There these Christians babbled andswayed and bargained, a crowd of buyers andsellers in front of the church sacred to the memoryof Jesus. Would, I thought, that Jesus were comeagain to overthrow these false servants of his,even as he overthrew his false brothers in Israel

long ago.'

This incident shows us certain things aboutJesus.

(1) It shows us one of the fiercestmanifestations of his anger directed against thosewho exploited other people, and especiallyagainst those who exploited them in the name ofreligion. It was Jeremiah who had said that theTemple had been made a den of thieves (Jeremiah7:11). Jesus could not bear to see ordinary peopleexploited for profit.

Too often, the Church has been silent in such asituation; it has a duty to protect those who in ahighly competitive economic situation cannotprotect themselves.

(2) It shows us that his anger was speciallydirected against those who made it impossible forordinary people to worship in the House of God.

It was Isaiah who said that God's house was ahouse of prayer for all peoples (Isaiah 56:7). TheCourt of the Gentiles was, in fact, the only part ofthe Temple into which Gentiles might come. It isnot to be thought that every Gentile came tosightsee. Some, at least, must have come withhaunting longings in their souls to worship and topray. But in that uproar of buying and selling andbargaining and auctioneering, prayer wasimpossible. Those who sought God's presencewere being debarred from it by the very people ofGod's house.

God will never hold guiltless those who makeit impossible for others to worship him. It can stillhappen. A spirit of bitterness, a spirit of argument,a spirit of strife can get into a church, whichmakes worship impossible. Members and office-bearers can become so concerned with their rightsand their wrongs, their dignities and theirprestiges, their practice and their procedure, that

in the end no one can worship God in theatmosphere which is created. Even ministers ofGod can be more concerned with imposing theirways of doing things on a congregation than withpreaching the gospel, and the end is a service withan atmosphere which makes true worshipimpossible. The worship of God and our all-too-human disputes can never go together. Let usremember the wrath of Jesus at those who blockedthe approach to God for other people.

(3) There remains one thing to note. Ourpassage ends with Jesus healing the blind and thelame in the Temple Court. They were still there;Jesus did not clear everyone out. Only those withguilty consciences fled before the eyes of hiswrath. Those who needed him stayed.

Need is never sent away empty by Jesus Christ.Jesus' anger was never merely negative; it neverstopped with the attack on that which was wrong;

it always went on to the positive helping of thosewho were in need. In the truly great man orwoman, anger and love go hand in hand. There isanger at those who exploit the simple and bar theseeker; but there is love for those whose need isgreat. The destructive force of anger must alwaysgo hand in hand with the healing power of love.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THESIMPLE IN HEART

Matthew 21:15-17

When the chief priests and scribes sawthe wonderful things that he did, and thechildren shouting in the Temple:'Hosanna to the Son of David!' theywere angry. 'Do you hear what these aresaying?' they said. Jesus said to them:'Yes! Have you never read: "Out of themouths of babes and sucklings you havethe perfect praise"?' And he left them,and went out of the city to Bethany, andlodged there.

Some scholars have found difficulty with thispassage. It is said that it is unlikely that there

would be crowds of children in the Temple Court;and that, if the children were there at all, theTemple police would have dealt swiftly andefficiently with them if they had dared to cry outas this passage says they did. Now earlier in thestory, Luke has an incident where the disciplesare depicted as shouting their glad cries to Jesus,and where the authorities are described as tryingto silence them (Luke 19:39-40). Very often, aRabbi's disciples were called his children. Wesee, for instance, the phrase my little childrenoccurring in the writings of John. So it issuggested that Luke and Matthew are really tellingthe same story and that the children are in fact thedisciples of Jesus.

No such explanation is necessary. The use thatMatthew makes of the quotation from Psalm 8:2makes it clear that he had real children in mind;and, in any event, things were happening that dayin the Temple Court which had never happened

before. It was not every day that the traders andthe money-changers were sent packing; and it wasnot every day that the blind and the lame werehealed. Maybe ordinarily it would have beenimpossible for the children to shout like this, butthis was no ordinary day.

When we take this story just as it stands andlisten again to the fresh, clear voices of thechildren shouting their praises, we are faced withone great fact. There are truths which only thesimple in heart can see and which are hidden fromthe wise and the learned and the sophisticated.There are many times when heaven is nearer thechild than it is to the cleverest among us.

Bertel Thorvaldsen, the great Danish sculptor,once carved a statue of Jesus. He wished to see ifthe statue would cause the right reaction in thosewho saw it. He brought a little child to look at thestatue and asked: 'Who do you think that is?' The

child answered: 'It is a great man.' Thorvaldsenknew that he had failed; so he scrapped his statueand began again. Again when he had finished, hebrought the child and asked the same question:'Who do you think that is?' The child smiled andanswered: "That is Jesus who said: "Let thechildren come to me."' Thorvaldsen knew that thistime he had succeeded. The statue had passed thetest of a child's eyes.

That is no bad test. George Macdonald, theScottish poet and novelist, once said that heplaced no value on the alleged Christianity ofanyone at whose door, or at whose garden gate,the children were afraid to play. If a child thinks aperson good, the likelihood is that that person isgood; if a child shrinks away from a person,however great or important he or she may be, thatperson is certainly not Christlike. Somewhere thewriter J. M. Barrie draws a picture of a motherputting her little one to bed at night and looking

down on the child who is half-asleep, with anunspoken question in her eyes and in her heart:'My child, have I done well today?' The goodnesswhich can meet the clear gaze of a child and standthe test of a child's simplicity is goodness indeed.It was only natural that the children shouldrecognize Jesus when the scholars were blind.

THE WAY OF THE FIG TREE

Matthew 21:18-22

When Jesus was returning to the cityearly in the morning, he was hungry.When he saw a fig tree by the roadside,he went up to it, and found nothing butleaves. He said to it: 'Let no fruit comefrom you any more forever!' Andimmediately the fig tree withered away.When the disciples saw it, they wereastonished. 'How did the fig treeimmediately wither away?' they said.Jesus answered them: 'This is the truth Itell you - if you have faith, and, if youdo not doubt, not only will you do whathappened to the fig tree, but you willeven say to this mountain: "Be removed

and be cast into the sea," and it willhappen. All that you ask in prayer, ifyou believe, you will receive.'

FEW honest readers of the Bible would deny thatthis is perhaps the most uncomfortably difficultpassage in the New Testament. If it is taken withcomplete literalism, it shows Jesus in an actionwhich is an acute shock to our whole conceptionof him. It must, therefore, be approached with areal desire to find out the truth which lies behindit and with the courage to think our way through it.

Mark also tells this story (Mark 11:12-14, 20-1) but with one basic difference. In Matthew, thewithering of the fig tree takes place at once. (TheAuthorized Version has: 'And presently the figtree withered away.' In Elizabethan English,presently meant immediately, at that presentmoment. The Greek is parachrēma, which the

Revised Standard Version translates as at once,and which James Moffatt translates as instantly.)On the other hand, in Mark, nothing happened tothe tree immediately, and it is only the nextmorning, when they are passing on the same road,that the disciples see that the tree has witheredaway. From the existence of these two versions ofthe story, it is quite clear that some developmenthas taken place; and, since Mark's is the earliestgospel, it is equally clear that his version must benearer to the actual historical facts.

It is necessary to understand the growing andfruit-bearing habits of fig trees. The fig tree wasthe favourite of all trees. The picture of thePromised Land was the picture of 'a land of wheatand barley, of vines and fig trees' (Deuteronomy8:8). Pomegranates and figs were part of thetreasures which the spies brought back to showthe rich fertility of the land (Numbers 13:23). Thepicture of peace and prosperity which is common

to every part of the Old Testament is the picture ofa time when people will sit under their own vinesand their own fig trees (1 Kings 4:25; Micah 4:4;Zechariah 3:10). The picture of the wrath of Godis the picture of a day when he would smite anddestroy the fig trees (Psalm 105:33; Jeremiah8:13; Hosea 2:12). The fig tree is the very symbolof fertility and peace and prosperity.

The tree itself is a handsome tree; it can bethree feet thick in its trunk. It grows to a height offrom fifteen to twenty feet; and the spread of itsthick branches can be twenty-five to thirty feet. Itwas, therefore, much valued for its shade. InCyprus, the cottages have their fig trees at thedoor, and the nineteenth-century naturalist andtraveller Henry Baker Tristram tells how often hesheltered under them and found coolness on thehottest day. Very commonly, the fig tree growsovershadowing wells, so that there is shade andwater in the one place. Often, the shade of the fig

tree provided a private space for meditation andprayer, and that is why Nathanael was amazed thatJesus had noticed him under the fig tree (John1:48).

But it is the fig tree's habit of fruit-bearingwhich is relevant here. The fig tree is unique inthat it bears two full crops in the year. The first isborne on the old wood. Quite early in the year,little green knobs appear at the end of thebranches. They are called paggim, and they willone day be the figs. These fruit buds come inApril, but they are quite inedible. Bit by bit, theleaves and the flowers open out, and anotherunique thing about the fig is that it is in full fruitand full leaf and full flower all at the same time;that happens by June. No fig tree ever bore fruit inApril; that is far too early. The process is thenrepeated with the new wood; and the second cropcomes in September.

The strangest thing about this story is twofold.First, it tells of a fig tree in full leaf in April.Jesus was at Jerusalem for the Passover; thePassover fell on 15th April; and this incidenthappened a week before. The second thing is thatJesus looked for figs on a tree where no figs couldpossibly be; and Mark says: 'for it was not theseason for figs' (Mark 11:13).

The difficulty of this story is not so much adifficulty of possibility. It is a moral difficulty;and it is twofold. First, we see Jesus cursing a figtree for not doing what it was not able to do. Thetree could not have borne fruit in the second weekof April, and yet we see Jesus destroying it for notdoing that very thing. Second, we see Jesus usinghis miraculous powers for his own ends. That isprecisely what in the temptations in thewilderness he determined never to do. He wouldnot turn stones into bread to satisfy his ownhunger. The plain truth is this - if we had read of

anyone else cursing a fig tree for not bearing figsin April, we would have said it was an act of ill-tempered petulance, springing from personaldisappointment. In Jesus, that is inconceivable;therefore there must be some explanation. What isit?

Some have found an explanation on thefollowing lines. In Luke, there is the parable ofthe fig tree which failed to bear fruit. Twice thegardener pleaded for mercy for it; twice mercyand delay were granted; in the end it was stillfruitless and was therefore destroyed (Luke 13:6-9). The curious thing is that Luke has the parableof the barren fig tree, but he does not have thisincident of the withering of the fig tree; Matthewand Mark have this incident of the withering of thefig tree, but they do not have the parable of thebarren fig tree. It looks very much as if the gospelwriters felt that if they included the one they did

not need to include the other. It is suggested thatthe parable of the barren fig tree has beenmisunderstood and been turned into an actualincident. Confusion has changed a story Jesus toldinto an action Jesus did. That is by no meansimpossible; but it seems to us that the realexplanation must be sought elsewhere. And nowwe go on to seek it.

PROMISE WITHOUTPERFORMANCE

Matthew 21:18-22 (contd)When we were studying the story of the entry ofJesus into Jerusalem, we saw that frequently theprophets made use of symbolic actions: that whenthey felt that words would not penetrate, they didsomething dramatic to drive a lesson home. Let ussuppose that some such symbolic action is at theback of this story.

Jesus, let us suppose, was on his way toJerusalem. By the wayside he saw a tree in fullleaf. It was perfectly legitimate for him to pluckthe figs from it, if there had been any. Jewish lawallowed that (Deuteronomy 23:24-5); and W. M.Thomson in The Land and the Book tells us thateven in modern times the wayside fig tree is open

to all. Jesus went up to the fig tree, knowingperfectly well that there could be no fruit, and thatthere must be something radically wrong with it.One of two things could have happened. The figtree could have reverted to its wild state, just asroses revert to briars. Or, it could be in some waydiseased. Then Jesus said: 'This tree will neverbear fruit; it will certainly wither.' It was thestatement of a man who knew nature, because hehad lived with nature. And on the next day it wasclear that the diagnosis of the expert eye of Jesuswas exactly right.

If this was a symbolic action, it was meant toteach something. What it was meant to teach wastwo things about the Jewish nation.

(1) It taught that uselessness invites disaster.That is the law of life. Anything which is uselessis on the way to elimination; anything can justifyits existence only by fulfilling the end for which it

was created. The fig tree was useless; therefore itwas doomed.

The nation of Israel had been brought intoexistence for one reason and one reason only -that from it there might come God's Anointed One.He had come; the nation had failed to recognizehim; more, they were about to crucify him. Thenation had failed in its function which was towelcome God's Son - therefore the nation wasdoomed.

Failure to fulfil the purpose of God bringsnecessary disaster. Everyone in this world isjudged in terms of usefulness. Even if people liehelpless in bed, they can be of the greatest use bypatient example and by prayer. No one needs tobe useless; and those who are useless are headingfor disaster.

(2) It taught that profession of faith withoutpractice is condemned. The tree had leaves; the

leaves were a claim to have figs; the tree had nofigs; its claim was false; therefore it was doomed.The Jewish nation professed faith in God; but inpractice they were unable to recognize God's Son;therefore they stood condemned.

Profession of faith without practice was notonly the curse of the Jews: it has been throughoutthe ages the curse of the Church. During his earlydays in South Africa - in Pretoria - MahatmaGandhi inquired into Christianity. For severalSundays, he attended a Christian church; but, henoted, 'the congregation did not strike me as beingparticularly religious; they were not an assemblyof devout souls, but appeared rather to beworldly-minded people going to Church forrecreation and in conformity to custom'. He,therefore, concluded that there was nothing inChristianity which he did not already possess -and so Gandhi was lost to the Christian Churchwith incalculable consequences to India and to the

world.

Profession of faith without practice issomething of which we are all more or less guilty.It does incalculable harm to the Christian Church;and it is doomed to disaster, for it produces afaith which cannot do anything else but witheraway.

We may well believe that Jesus used the lessonof a diseased and degenerate fig tree to say to theJews - and to us - that uselessness invitesdisaster, and profession of faith without practiceis doomed. That is surely what this story means,for we cannot think of Jesus as literally andphysically cursing a fig tree for failing to bearfruit at a season when fruit was impossible.

THE DYNAMIC OF PRAYER

Matthew 21:18-22 (contd)This passage concludes with certain words ofJesus about the dynamic of prayer. If these wordsare misunderstood, they can bring nothing butheartbreak; but if they are correctly understood,they can bring nothing but power.

In them, Jesus says two things: that prayer canremove mountains, and that, if we ask in belief,we will receive. It is abundantly clear that thesepromises are not to be taken physically andliterally. Neither Jesus himself nor anyone elseever removed a physical, geographical mountainby prayer. Moreover, many people have prayedwith passionate faith that something may happenor that something may not happen, that somethingmay be given or that someone may be spared from

death, and in the literal sense of the words thatprayer has not been answered. What then is Jesuspromising us through prayer?

(1) He promises that prayer gives us the abilityto do things. Prayer is never the easy way out;never simply pushing things on to God for him todo them for us. Prayer is power. It is not askingGod to do something; it is asking him to make usable to do it ourselves. Prayer is not taking theeasy way; it is the way to receive power to takethe hard way. It is the channel through whichcomes power to tackle and remove mountains ofdifficulty by ourselves with the help of God. If itwere simply a method of getting things done forus, prayer would be very bad for us, for it wouldmake us flabby and lazy and inefficient. Prayer isthe means whereby we receive power to do thingsfor ourselves. Therefore, we should never prayand then sit and wait; we must pray and then riseand work; but we will find that, when we do, a

new dynamic enters our lives, and that in truthwith God all things are possible, and with Godthe impossible becomes that which can be done.

(2) Prayer is the ability to accept things and,in accepting, to transform them. It is not meant tobring deliverance from a situation; it is meant tobring the ability to accept it and transform it.There are two great examples of that in the NewTestament.

One is the example of Paul. Desperately heprayed that he might be delivered from the thornin his flesh. He was not delivered from thatsituation: he was made able to accept it; and inthat very situation he discovered the strength thatwas made perfect in his weakness and the gracewhich was sufficient for all things - and in thatstrength and grace the situation was not onlyaccepted, but also transformed into glory (2Corinthians 12:1-10).

The other is Jesus himself. In Gethsemane, heprayed that the cup might pass from him and hemight be delivered from the agonizing situation inwhich he found himself. That request could not begranted, but in that prayer he found the ability toaccept the situation; and, in being accepted, thesituation was transformed, and the agony of thecross led straight to the glory of the resurrection.We must always remember that prayer does notbring deliverance from a situation: it bringsconquest of it. Prayer is not a means of runningaway from a situation; it is a means whereby wemay gallantly face it.

(3) Prayer brings the ability to bear things. Itis natural and inevitable that, in our human needand with our human hearts and our humanweakness, there should be things which we feelwe cannot bear. We see some situationdeveloping; we see some tragic happeningapproaching with a grim inevitability; we see

some task looming ahead which is obviouslygoing to demand more than we have to give to it.At such a time, our inevitable feeling is that wecannot bear this thing. Prayer does not remove thetragedy; it does not offer us a means of escapefrom the situation: it does not give us exemptionfrom the task; but it does make us able to bear theunbearable, to face the unfaceable, to pass thebreaking point and not to break.

As long as we regard prayer as escape, nothingbut bewildered disappointment can result; butwhen we regard it as the way to conquest and thedivine dynamic, things happen.

THE EXPEDIENT IGNORANCE

Matthew 21:23-7

When Jesus had come into the Templeprecincts, the chief priests and elders ofthe people came to him as he wasteaching and said: 'By what authority doyou do these things? And who gave youthis authority?' Jesus answered them: 'Iwill ask you one question, and if yougive me an answer to it, I too will tellyou by what authority I do these things.Whence was the baptism of John? Wasit from heaven? Or, was it from men?'They debated within themselves. 'If,they said, 'we say "From heaven," hewill say to us: "Why then did you notbelieve in him?" But, if we say "From

men," we fear the crowd, for all regardJohn as a prophet.' So they answeredJesus: 'We do not know.' So he too saidto them: 'Neither do I tell you by whatauthority I do these things.'

WHEN we think of the extraordinary things Jesushad been doing, we cannot be surprised that theJewish authorities asked him what right he had todo them. At the moment, Jesus was not preparedto give them the direct answer that his authoritycame from the fact that he was the Son of God. Todo so would have been to precipitate the end.There were actions still to be done and teachingstill to be given. It sometimes takes more courageto bide one's time and to await the necessarymoment than it does to throw oneself on the enemyand invite the end. For Jesus, everything had to bedone in God's time; and the time for the finalcrisis had not yet come.

So he countered the question of the Jewishauthorities with a question of his own, one whichplaced them in a dilemma. He asked them whetherJohn's ministry came 'from heaven or from men',whether it was divine or merely human in itsorigin. Were those who went out to be baptized atthe Jordan responding to a merely human impulse,or were they in fact answering a divine challenge?The dilemma of the Jewish authorities was this. Ifthey said that the ministry of John was from God,then they had no alternative to admitting that Jesuswas the Messiah, for John had borne definite andunmistakable witness to that fact. On the otherhand, if they denied that John's ministry came fromGod, then they would have to bear the anger of thepeople, who were convinced that he was themessenger of God.

For a moment, the Jewish chief priests andelders were silent. Then they gave the lamest ofall lame answers. They said: 'We do not know.' If

ever anyone stood self-condemned, these men did.They ought to have known; it was part of the dutyof the Sanhedrin, of which they were members, todistinguish between true and false prophets; andthey were saying that they were unable to makethat distinction. Their dilemma drove them into ashameful self-humiliation.

There is a grim warning here. There is such athing as the deliberately assumed ignorance ofcowardice. If we consult expediency rather thanprinciple, our first question will be not 'What isthe truth?' but 'What is it safe to say?' Again andagain, the worship of expediency will drive us toa cowardly silence. We will lamely say: 'I do notknow the answer,' when we know perfectly wellthe answer, but are afraid to give it. The truequestion is not 'What is it safe to say?' but 'Whatis it right to say?'

The deliberately assumed ignorance of fear and

the cowardly silence of expediency are shamefulthings. If we know the truth, we are underobligation to tell it, though the heavens shouldfall.

THE BETTER OF TWO BAD SONS

Matthew 21:28-32

Jesus said: 'What do you think? A manhad two children. He went to the firstand said: "Child, go and work in myvineyard today." He answered: "I willnot." But afterwards he changed hismind and went. He went to the secondand spoke to him in the same way. Heanswered: "Certainly, sir." And he didnot go. Which of these two did the willof his father?' The first,' they answered.Jesus said to them: This is the truth I tellyou - the tax-collectors and harlots gointo the kingdom of heaven before you.For John came to you in the way ofrighteousness, and you did not believe

in him; but the tax-gatherers and harlotsdid believe in him. And when you sawthis, you did not even then change yourminds, and so come to believe in him.'

THE meaning of this parable is crystal clear. TheJewish leaders are the people who said theywould obey God and then did not. The tax-gatherers and the prostitutes are those who saidthat they would go their own way and then tookGod's way.

The key to the correct understanding of thisparable is that it is not really praising anyone. It issetting before us a picture of two very imperfectsets of people, of whom one set were nonethelessbetter than the other. Neither son in the story wasthe kind of son to bring full joy to his father. Bothwere unsatisfactory; but the one who in the endobeyed was incalculably better than the other. The

ideal son would be the son who accepted thefather's orders with obedience and with respectand who unquestioningly and fully carried themout. But there are truths in this parable which gofar beyond the situation in which it was firstspoken.

It tells us that there are two very commonclasses of people in this world. First, there are thepeople whose promises are much better than theirpractice. They will promise anything; they makegreat protestations of piety and fidelity; but theirpractice lags far behind. Second, there are thosewhose practice is far better than their promises.They claim to be tough, hard-headed materialists,but somehow they are found out doing kindly andgenerous things, almost in secret, as if they wereashamed of it. They profess to have no interest inthe Church and in religion, and yet in reality theylive more Christian lives than many professingChristians.

We have all of us met these people, thosewhose practice is far away from the almostsanctimonious piety of their professed beliefs, andthose whose practice is far ahead of thesometimes cynical, and sometimes almostirreligious, declarations which they make aboutwhat they believe. The real point of the parable isthat, while the second class are infinitely to bepreferred to the first, neither is anything likeperfect. The really good man or woman is the onein whom professed belief and practice meet andmatch.

Further, this parable teaches us that promisescan never take the place of performance, and finewords are never a substitute for fine deeds. Theson who said he would go, and did not, had all theoutward marks of courtesy. In his answer, hecalled his father 'sir' with all respect. But acourtesy which never gets beyond words is atotally illusory thing. True courtesy is obedience,

willingly and graciously given.

On the other hand, the parable teaches us that agood thing can easily be spoiled by the way it isdone. A fine thing can be done with a lack ofgraciousness and a lack of charm which spoil thewhole deed. Here, we learn that the Christian wayis in performance and not promise, and that themark of a Christian is obedience graciously andcourteously given.

THE VINEYARD OF THE LORD

Matthew 21:33-46

Jesus said: 'Listen to another parable.There was a householder who planted avineyard, and surrounded it with ahedge, and dug a wine press in it, andbuilt a tower, and gave it out tocultivators and went away. When thetime of the fruits had come, hedespatched his servants to thecultivators, to receive his fruits; and thecultivators took his servants, and beatone of them, and killed another of them,and stoned another of them. Again hedespatched other servants, more thanthe first; and they did the same to them.Afterwards he despatched his son to

them. "They will respect my son," hesaid. But when the cultivators saw theson, they said to themselves: "This isthe heir. Come, let us kill him, and letus take the inheritance." And they threwhim out of the vineyard and killed him.When the owner of the vineyard comes,what will he do to these cultivators?'They said to him: 'He will bring theseevil men to an evil end, and he willgive out the vineyard to othercultivators, who will pay him the fruitsat their correct time.' Jesus said to them:'Have you never read in the Scriptures:"The stone which the builders rejected,this has become the headstone of thecorner. This is the doing of the Lord,and it is amazing in our eyes"? That iswhy I tell you that the kingdom of Godwill be taken from you, and will be

given to a nation which produces itsfruits. And he who falls against thestone will be broken; and it will shatterto powder him on whom it falls.'

When the chief priests and Phariseesheard his parables, they knew that hewas speaking about them. They tried tofind a way to lay hold on him, but theywere afraid of the crowds, for theyregarded him as a prophet.

IN interpreting a parable, it is normally a firstprinciple that every parable has only one pointand that the details are not to be stressed.Normally, to try to find a meaning for every detailis to make the mistake of treating the parable as anallegory. But in this case it is different. In thisparable, the details do have a meaning, and thechief priests and the Pharisees knew very well

what Jesus was meaning this parable to say tothem.

Every detail is founded on what, for those whoheard it, was familiar fact. The Jewish nation asthe vineyard of God was a familiar propheticpicture. 'For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts isthe house of Israel' (Isaiah 5:7). The hedge was athickset thorn hedge, designed to keep out both thewild boars which might ravage the vineyard, andthe thieves who might steal the grapes. Everyvineyard had its wine press. The wine pressconsisted of two troughs either hollowed out ofthe rock, or built of bricks; the one was a littlehigher than the other, and was connected with thelower one by a channel. The grapes were pressedin the higher trough, and the juice ran off into thelower trough. The tower served a double purpose.It served as a watch-tower, from which to watchfor thieves when the grapes were ripening; and itserved as a lodging for those who were working

in the vineyard.

The actions of the owner of the vineyard wereall quite normal. In the time of Jesus, Palestinewas a troubled place with little luxury; it was,therefore, very familiar with absentee landlords,who let out their estates and were interested onlyin collecting the rental at the right time. The rentmight be paid in any of three ways. It might be amoney rent: it might be a fixed amount of the fruit,no matter what the crop might be; and it might bean agreed percentage of the crop.

Even the action of the cultivators was notunusual. The country was seething with economicunrest; the working people were discontented andrebellious; and the action of the cultivators inseeking to eliminate the son was not by any meansimpossible.

As we have said, it would be easy for thosewho heard this parable to make the necessary

identifications. Before we treat it in detail, let usset these identifications down. The vineyard is thenation of Israel, and its owner is God. Thecultivators are the religious leaders of Israel,who, as it were, had charge for God of thewelfare of the nation. The messengers who weresent successively are the prophets sent by Godand so often rejected and killed. The son whocame last is none other than Jesus himself. Here,in a vivid story, Jesus set out at one and the sametime the history and the doom of Israel.

PRIVILEGE ANDRESPONSIBILITY

Matthew 21:33-46 (contd)This parable has much to tell us in threedirections.

(1) It has much to tell us about God.

(a) It tells of God's trust in human beings. Theowner of the vineyard entrusted it to thecultivators. He did not even stand over them toexercise a police-like supervision. He went awayand left them with their task. God pays us thecompliment of entrusting us with his work. Everytask we receive is a task given us to do by God.

(b) It tells of God's patience. The master sentmessenger after messenger. He did not come withsudden vengeance when one messenger had been

abused and ill-treated. He gave the cultivatorschance after chance to respond to his appeal. Godbears with us in all our sinning and will not castus off.

(c) It tells of God's judgment. In the end, themaster of the vineyard took the vineyard from thecultivators and gave it to others. God's sternestjudgment is when he takes out of our hands thetask which he meant us to do. To become uselessto God is to sink to the lowest level.

(2) It has much to tell us about human nature.

(a) It tells of human privilege. The vineyardwas equipped with everything - the hedge, thewine press, the tower - which would make thetask of the cultivators easy and enable them todischarge it well. God does not only give us atask to do; he also gives us the means whereby todo it.

(b) It tells of human freedom. The master leftthe cultivators to do the task as they liked. God isno tyrannical taskmaster; he is like a wise leaderwho allocates tasks and then trusts people to dothem.

(c) It tells of human answerability. Toeverybody comes a day of reckoning. We areanswerable for the way in which we have carriedout the task God gave us to do.

(d) It tells of the deliberateness of human sin.The cultivators carry out a deliberate policy ofrebellion and disobedience towards the master.Sin is deliberate opposition to God: it is thetaking of our own way when we know quite wellwhat the way of God is.

(3) It has much to tell us about Jesus.

(a) It tells of the claim of Jesus. It shows usquite clearly Jesus lifting himself out of the

succession of the prophets. Those who camebefore him were the messengers of God; no onecould deny them that honour; but they wereservants; he was the Son. This parable containsone of the clearest claims Jesus ever made to beunique, to be different from even the greatest ofthose who went before.

(b) It tells of the sacrifice of Jesus. It makes itclear that Jesus knew what lay ahead. In theparable, the hands of wicked men killed the son.Jesus was never in any doubt of what lay ahead.He did not die because he was compelled to die;he went willingly and with open eyes to death.

THE SYMBOL OF THE STONE

Matthew 21:33-46 (contd)The parable concludes with the picture of thestone. There are two pictures really.

(1) The first is quite clear. It is the picture of astone which the builders rejected but whichbecame the most important stone in the wholebuilding. The picture is from Psalm 118:22: 'Thestone that the builders rejected has become thechief cornerstone.' Originally, the psalmist meantthis as a picture of the nation of Israel. Israel wasthe nation which was despised and rejected. TheJews were hated by everyone. They had beenservants and slaves of many nations; butnonetheless the nation which everyone despisedwas the chosen people of God.

It may be that people reject Christ, and refuse

him, and seek to eliminate him; but they may yetfind that the Christ whom they rejected is the mostimportant person in the world. It was Julian, theRoman emperor, who tried to turn the clock back,to banish Christianity and to bring back the oldpagan gods. He failed, and failed completely. Theman upon the cross had become the Judge andKing of all the world.

(2) The second 'stone' picture is in verse 44,although it is to be noted that some manuscriptsomit this verse altogether. This is a more difficultpicture - of a stone which breaks anyone whostumbles against it, and which crushes to powderanyone on whom it falls. It is a composite picture,put together from three Old Testament passages.The first is Isaiah 8:13-15: 'But the Lord of hosts,him you shall regard as holy; let him be your fear,and let him be your dread. He will become asanctuary, a stone one strikes against; for bothhouses of Israel he will become a rock one

stumbles over - a trap and a snare for theinhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among themshall stumble; they shall fall and be broken; theyshall be snared and taken.' The second is Isaiah28:16: 'See, I am laying in Zion a foundationstone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, asure foundation.' The third is Daniel 2:34, 44-5,where there is a strange picture of a stone, cut notby human hands, which broke the enemies of Godin pieces.

The idea behind this is that all these OldTestament pictures of a stone are summed up inJesus Christ. Jesus is the foundation stone onwhich everything is built, and the cornerstonewhich holds everything together. To refuse hisway is to batter one's head against the walls of thelaw of God. To defy him is in the end to becrushed out of life. However strange thesepictures may seem to us, they were familiar toevery Jew who knew the prophets.

JOY AND JUDGMENT

Matthew 22:1-10

Jesus again answered them in parables:The kingdom of heaven is like thesituation which arose when a man whowas a king arranged a wedding for hisson. He sent his servants to summonthose who had been invited to thewedding, and they refused to come. Heagain sent other servants. 'Tell thosewho have been invited," he said, "lookyou, I have my meal all prepared; myoxen and my specially fattened animalshave been killed; and everything isready. Come to the wedding." But theydisregarded the invitation and wentaway, one to his estate, and another to

his business. The rest seized theservants and treated them shamefullyand killed them. The king was angry,and sent his armies, and destroyed thosemurderers, and set fire to their city.Then he said to his servants: "Thewedding is ready. Those who have beeninvited did not deserve to come. Go,then, to the highways and invite to thewedding all you may find." So theservants went out to the roads, andcollected all whom they found, both badand good; and the wedding wassupplied with guests.'

VERSES 1-14 of this chapter form not one parable,but two; and we will grasp their meaning far moreeasily and far more fully if we take themseparately.

The events of the first of the two werecompletely in accordance with normal Jewishcustoms. When the invitations to a great feast, likea wedding feast, were sent out, the time was notstated; and when everything was ready, theservants were sent out with a final summons totell the guests to come. So, the king in this parablehad long ago sent out his invitations; but it was notuntil everything was prepared that the finalsummons was issued - and insultingly refused.This parable has two meanings.

(1) It has a purely local meaning, driving homewhat had already been said in the parable of thewicked husbandmen; once again it was anaccusation directed at the Jews. The invitedguests, who when the time came refused to come,stand for the Jews. Ages ago, they had beeninvited by God to be his chosen people; yet whenGod's Son came into the world, and they wereinvited to follow him, they contemptuously

refused. The result was that the invitation of Godwent out directly to the highways and the byways;and the people in the highways and the bywaysstand for the sinners and the Gentiles, who neverexpected an invitation into the kingdom.

As the writer of the gospel saw it, theconsequences of the refusal were terrible. Thereis one verse of the parable which is strangely outof place; and that because it is not part of theoriginal parable as Jesus told it, but aninterpretation by the writer of the gospel. That isverse 7, which tells how the king sent his armiesagainst those who refused the invitation, andburned their city.

This introduction of armies and the burning ofthe city seems at first sight completely out ofplace taken in connection with invitations to awedding feast. But Matthew was composing hisgospel some time between AD 80 and 90. What

had happened during the period between theactual life of Jesus and now? The answer is - thedestruction of Jerusalem by the armies of Romein AD 70. The Temple was plundered and burnedand the city destroyed stone by stone, so that aplough was drawn across it. Complete disasterhad come to those who did not recognize the Sonof God when he came.

The writer of the gospel adds as his commentthe terrible things which did in fact happen to thenation which would not take the way of Christ.And it is indeed the simple historical fact that ifthe Jews had accepted the way of Christ, and hadwalked in love, in humility and in sacrifice, theywould never have been the rebellious, warringpeople who finally provoked the avenging wrathof Rome, when Rome could stand their politicalscheming no longer.

(2) Equally, this parable has much to say on a

much wider scale.

(a) It reminds us that the invitation of God is toa feast as joyous as a wedding feast. Hisinvitation is to joy. To think of Christianity as agloomy giving up of everything which bringslaughter and sunshine and happy fellowship is tomistake its whole nature. It is to joy thatChristians are invited; and it is joy they miss, ifthey refuse the invitation.

(b) It reminds us that the things which makepeople deaf to the invitation of Christ are notnecessarily bad in themselves. In the parable, oneman went to his estate: the other to his business.They did not go off on a wild binge or an immoraladventure. They went off on the, in itself,excellent task of efficiently administering theirbusiness life. It is very easy to be so busy with thethings of the present that the things of eternity areforgotten, to be so preoccupied with the things

which are seen that the things which are unseenare forgotten, to hear so insistently the claims ofthe world that the soft invitation of the voice ofChrist cannot be heard. The tragedy of life is thatit is so often the second bests which shut out thebests, that it is things which are good inthemselves which shut out the things that aresupreme. We can be so busy making a living thatwe fail to make a life; we can be so busy with theadministration and the organization of life that weforget life itself.

(c) It reminds us that the appeal of Christ is notso much to consider how we will be punished asit is to see what we will miss if we do not take hisway of things. Those who would not come werepunished, but their real tragedy was that they lostthe joy of the wedding feast. If we refuse theinvitation of Christ, some day our greatest painwill lie not in the things we suffer but in therealization of the precious things we have missed.

(d) It reminds us that in the last analysis God'sinvitation is the invitation of grace. Those whowere gathered in from the highways and thebyways had no claim on the king at all; they couldnever by any stretch of the imagination haveexpected an invitation to the wedding feast; stillless could they ever have deserved it. It came tothem from nothing other than the wide-armed,open-hearted, generous hospitality of the king. Itwas grace which offered the invitation and gracewhich gathered them in.

THE SCRUTINY OF THE KING

Matthew 22:11-14

The king came in to see those who weresitting at table, and he saw there a manwho was not wearing a weddinggarment. "Friend," he said to him, "howdid you come here with no weddinggarment?" The man was struck silent.Then the king said to the attendants:"Bind him hands and feet, and throwhim out into the outer darkness. Thereshall be weeping and gnashing of teeththere. For many are called, but few arechosen."'

This is a second parable, but it is also a veryclose continuation and amplification of the

previous one. It is the story of a guest whoappeared at a royal wedding feast without awedding garment.

One of the great interests of this parable is thatin it we see Jesus taking a story which wasalready familiar to his hearers and using it in hisown way. The Rabbis had two stories whichinvolved kings and garments. The first told of aking who invited his guests to a feast, withouttelling them the exact date and time: but he did tellthem that they must wash, anoint and clothethemselves that they might be ready when thesummons came. The wise prepared themselves atonce, and took their places waiting at the palacedoor, for they believed that in a palace a feastcould be prepared so quickly that there would beno long warning. The foolish believed that itwould take a long time to make the necessarypreparations and that they would have plenty oftime. So they went, the mason to his lime, the

potter to his clay, the smith to his furnace, thefuller to his bleaching-ground, and went on withtheir work. Then, suddenly, the summons to thefeast came without any warning. The wise wereready to sit down, and the king rejoiced overthem, and they ate and drank. But those who hadnot dressed themselves in the finery of theirwedding garments had to stand outside, sad andhungry, and look on at the joy that they had lost.That Rabbinic parable tells of the duty ofpreparedness for the summons of God, and thegarments stand for the preparation that must bemade.

The second Rabbinic parable told how a kingentrusted to his servants royal robes. Those whowere wise took the robes, and carefully storedthem away, and kept them in all their pristineloveliness. Those who were foolish wore therobes to their work, and soiled and stained them.The day came when the king demanded the robes

back. The wise handed them back fresh and clean;so the king laid up the robes in his treasury andtold them to go in peace. The foolish handed themback stained and soiled. The king commanded thatthe robes should be taken away and cleaned, andthat the foolish servants should be cast intoprison. This parable teaches that we must all handback our souls to God in all their original purity;but that anyone who has nothing but a stained soulto render back stands condemned.

No doubt Jesus had these two parables in mindwhen he told his own story. What, then, was heseeking to teach? This parable also contains botha local and a universal lesson.

(1) The local lesson is this. Jesus has just saidthat the king, to supply his feast with guests, senthis messengers out into the highways and bywaysto gather people in. That was the parable of theopen door. It told how the Gentiles and the sinners

would be gathered in. This parable strikes thenecessary balance. It is true that the door is opento everyone, but when people come they mustbring a life which seeks to fit the love which hasbeen given to them. Grace is not only a gift; it is agrave responsibility. We cannot go on living thelife we lived before we met Jesus Christ. Wemust be clothed in a new purity and a newholiness and a new goodness. The door is open,but the door is not open for the sinner to come andremain a sinner, but for the sinner to come andbecome a saint.

(2) This is the permanent lesson. The way inwhich people come to anything demonstrates thespirit in which they come. If we go to visit in afriend's house, we do not go in the clothes wewear on the building site or in the garden. Weknow very well that it is not the clothes whichmatter to the friend. It is not that we want to put ona show. It is simply a matter of respect that we

should present ourselves in our friend's house asneatly as we can. The fact that we prepareourselves to go there is the way in which weoutwardly show our affection and our esteem forour friend. So it is with God's house. This parablehas nothing to do with the clothes in which we goto church; it has everything to do with the spirit inwhich we go to God's house. It is profoundly truethat church-going must never be a fashion parade.But there are garments of the mind and of the heartand of the soul - the garment of expectation, thegarment of humble penitence, the garment of faith,the garment of reverence - and these are thegarments without which we ought not to approachGod. Too often, we go to God's house with nopreparation at all; if every man and woman in ourcongregations came to church prepared toworship, after a little prayer, a little thought and alittle self-examination, then worship would beworship indeed - the worship in which and

through which things happen in the souls of menand women and in the life of the Church and in theaffairs of the world.

HUMAN AND DIVINE RIGHT

Matthew 22:15-22

Then the Pharisees came, and tried toform a plan to ensnare him in hisspeech. So they sent their disciples tohim, along with the Herodians.'Teacher,' they said, 'we know that youare true, and that you teach the way ofGod in truth, and that you never allowyourself to be swayed by any man, foryou are no respecter of persons. Tell us,then, your opinion - is it right to paytribute to Caesar, or not?' Jesus waswell aware of their malice.'Hypocrites,' he said, 'why do you try totest me? Show me the tribute coin.'They brought him a denarius. 'Whose

image is this,' he said to them, 'andwhose inscription?' 'Caesar's,' they saidto him. 'Well then,' he said to them,'render to Caesar the things which areCaesar's, and to God the things whichare God's.' When they heard thisanswer, they were amazed, and left himand went away.

Up to this point we have seen Jesus, as it were, onthe attack. He had spoken three parables in whichhe had plainly indicted the orthodox Jewishleaders. In the parable of the two sons (Matthew21:28-32), the Jewish leaders appear under theguise of the unsatisfactory son who did not do hisfather's will. In the parable of the wicked tenants(21:33-46), they are the wicked tenants. In theparable of the king's feast (22:1-14), they are thecondemned guests.

Now we see the Jewish leaders launching theircounterattack; and they do so by directing at Jesuscarefully formulated questions. They ask thesequestions in public, while the crowd look on andlisten, and their aim is to make Jesus discredithimself by his own words in the presence of thepeople. Here, then, we have the question of thePharisees, and it was subtly framed. Palestinewas an occupied country, and the Jews weresubject to the Roman Empire; and the questionwas: 'Is it, or is it not, lawful to pay tribute toRome?'

There were, in fact, three regular taxes whichthe Roman government exacted. There was aground tax; a man must pay to the governmentone-tenth of the grain and one-fifth of the oil andwine which he produced; this tax was paid partlyin kind, and partly in a money equivalent. Therewas income tax, which was one per cent of aman's income. There was a poll tax; this tax had

to be paid by every male person from the age offourteen to the age of sixty-five, and by everyfemale person from the age of twelve to sixty-five; it amounted to one denarius - that is whatJesus called the tribute coin - and was theequivalent of the usual day's wage for a workingman. The tax in question here is the poll tax.

The question which the Pharisees asked setJesus a very real dilemma. If he said that it wasunlawful to pay the tax, they would promptlyreport him to the Roman government officials as aseditious person, and his arrest would certainlyfollow. If he said that it was lawful to pay the tax,he would stand discredited in the eyes of many ofthe people. Not only did the people resent the taxas everyone resents taxation; they resented it evenmore for religious reasons. To the Jews, God wasthe only king; their nation was a theocracy; to paytax to an earthly king was to admit the validity of

his kingship and thereby to insult God. Thereforethe more fanatical of the Jews insisted that any taxpaid to a foreign king was necessarily wrong.Whichever way Jesus might answer - so hisquestioners thought - he would lay himself open totrouble.

The seriousness of this attack is shown by thefact that the Pharisees and the Herodianscombined to make it, for normally these twoparties were in bitter opposition. The Phariseeswere the supremely orthodox, who resented thepayment of the tax to a foreign king as aninfringement of the divine right of God. TheHerodians were the party of Herod, king ofGalilee, who owed his power to the Romans andwho worked hand in glove with them. ThePharisees and the Herodians were strangebedfellows indeed: their differences were for themoment forgotten in a common hatred of Jesus anda common desire to eliminate him. Those who

insist on their own way, no matter what it is, arebound to hate Jesus.

This question of tax-paying was not merely ofhistorical interest. Matthew was writing betweenAD 80 and 90. The Temple had been destroyed inAD 70. So long as the Temple stood, every Jewhad been bound to pay the half-shekel Temple tax.After the destruction of the Temple, the Romangovernment demanded that that tax should be paidto the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. It isobvious how bitter a regulation that was for theJews to stomach. The matter of taxes was a realproblem in the actual ministry of Jesus: and it wasstill a real problem in the days of the earlyChurch.

But Jesus was wise. He asked to see adenarius, which was stamped with the emperor'shead. In the ancient days, coinage was the sign ofkingship. As soon as a king came to the throne, he

struck his own coinage; even a pretender wouldproduce a coinage to show the reality of hiskingship; and that coinage was held to be theproperty of the king whose image it bore. Jesusasked whose image was on the coin. The answerwas that Caesar's head was on it. 'Well then,' saidJesus, 'give it back to Caesar; it is his. Give toCaesar what belongs to him, and give to God whatbelongs to him.'

With his unique wisdom, Jesus never laid downrules and regulations; that is why his teaching istimeless and never goes out of date. He alwayslays down principles. Here he lays down a verygreat and very important one.

Every Christian has a double citizenship.Christians are citizens of the country in which theyhappen to live. To it they owe many things. Theyowe the safety against lawless people which onlysettled government can give; they owe all public

services. To take a simple example, few arewealthy enough to have a lighting system or acleansing system or a water system of their own.These are public services. In a welfare state,citizens owe still more to the state - education,medical services, provision for unemploymentand old age. This places them under a debt ofobligation. Because Christians are men andwomen of honour, they must be responsiblecitizens; failure in good citizenship is also failurein Christian duty. Untold troubles can descendupon a country or an industry when Christiansrefuse to take their part in the administration andleave it to selfish, self-seeking, partisan and un-Christian men and women. The Christians had aduty to Caesar in return for the privileges whichthe rule of Caesar brought to them.

But Christians are also citizens of heaven.There are matters of religion and of principle inwhich the responsibility of Christians is to God. It

may well be that the two citizenships will neverclash; they do not need to. But when Christiansare convinced that it is God's will that somethingshould be done, it must be done; or, if they areconvinced that something is against the will ofGod, they must resist it and take no part in it.Where the boundaries between the two duties lie,Jesus does not say. That is for our ownconsciences to test. But real Christians - and thisis the permanent truth which Jesus here lays down- are at one and the same time good citizens oftheir country and good citizens of the kingdom ofheaven. They will fail in their duty neither to Godnor to society. They will, as Peter said, 'FearGod. Honour the emperor' (1 Peter 2:17).

THE LIVING GOD IS GOD OFTHE LIVING

Matthew 22:23-33

On that day the Sadducees, who denythat there is any resurrection, came tohim, and questioned him. 'Teacher,' theysaid, 'Moses said: "If anyone dieswithout children, his brother shallmarry his wife, and shall raise up afamily for his brother." Among us therewere seven brothers. The first marriedand died, and, since he had no children,he left his wife to his brother. The samething happened with the second and thethird, right to the end of the seven ofthem. Last of all the woman died. Ofwhich of the seven will she be the wife

in the resurrection? For they all hadher.' Jesus answered: 'You are in error,because you do not know the Scripturesor the power of God. In the resurrectionthey neither marry nor are married, butthey are as the angels in heaven. Now,in regard to the resurrection of the dead,have you never read what God said: "Iam the God of Abraham, the God ofIsaac, and the God of Jacob"? God isnot the God of dead men, but of thosewho live.' When the crowds heard thisanswer, they were amazed at histeaching.

When the Pharisees had made their counter-attackon Jesus and been routed, the Sadducees took upthe battle.

The Sadducees were not many in number; but

they were the wealthy, the aristocratic and thegoverning class. The chief priests, for instance,were Sadducees. In politics, they werecollaborationists, quite ready to co-operate withthe Roman government if co-operation was theprice of the retention of their own privileges. Inthought, they were quite ready to open their mindsto Greek ideas. In their Jewish belief, they weretraditionalists. They refused to accept the oral andscribal law, which to the Pharisees was of suchparamount importance. They went even further;the only part of Scripture which they regarded asbinding was the Pentateuch, the law parexcellence, the first five books of the OldTestament. They did not accept the prophets or thepoetical books as Scripture at all. In particular,they were at variance with the Pharisees in thatthey completely denied any life after death, abelief on which the Pharisees insisted. ThePharisees indeed laid it down that anyone who

denied the resurrection of the dead was shut outfrom God.

The Sadducees insisted that the doctrine of lifeafter death could not be proved from thePentateuch. The Pharisees said that it could, and itis interesting to look at the proofs which theyadduced. They cited Numbers 18:28, which says:'You shall give the Lord's offering to the priestAaron.' That is permanent regulation; the verb isin the present tense; therefore Aaron is still alive!They cited Deuteronomy 31:16, which in theRevised Standard Version reads: "This peoplewill rise,' a peculiarly unconvincing citation, forthe second half of the verse goes on: 'and play theharlot after the strange gods of the land'! Theycited Deuteronomy 32:39: 'I kill and I make alive.'Outside the Pentateuch, they cited Isaiah 26:19:'Your dead shall live.' It cannot be said that any ofthe citations of the Pharisees were reallyconvincing; and no real argument for the

resurrection of the dead had ever been producedfrom the Pentateuch.

The Pharisees were very definite about theresurrection of the body. They discussed obscurepoints. Would people rise clothed or unclothed? Ifclothed, would they rise with the clothes in whichthey died, or other clothes? They used 1 Samuel28:14 (the witch of Endor's raising of the spirit ofSamuel at the request of Saul) to prove that afterdeath people retain the appearance they had in thisworld. They even argued that they rose with thephysical defects with which, and from which, theydied - otherwise they would not be the samepersons! All Jews would be resurrected in theHoly Land, so they said that under the earth therewere cavities and, when Jews were buried in aforeign land, their bodies rolled through thesecavities until they reached the homeland. ThePharisees held as a primary doctrine the bodilyresurrection of the dead; the Sadducees

completely denied it.

The Sadducees produced a question which,they believed, reduced the doctrine of theresurrection of the body to an absurdity. Therewas a Jewish custom called levirate marriage.How far it was ever carried out in practice isvery doubtful. If a man died childless, his brotherwas under obligation to marry the widow, and tohave children for him; such children were legallyregarded as the first man's children. If the brotherrefused to marry the widow, they must both go tothe elders. The woman must loosen the man'sshoe, spit in his face and curse him: and the manwas thereafter under a stigma of refusal(Deuteronomy 25:5-10). The Sadducees cited acase of levirate marriage in which seven brothers,each dying childless, one after another married thesame woman; and then asked: 'When theresurrection takes place, whose wife will this

much-married woman be?' Here indeed was acatch question.

Jesus began by laying down one principle: thewhole question starts from a basic error, the errorof thinking of heaven in terms of earth, and ofthinking of eternity in terms of time. Jesus' answerwas that anyone who reads Scripture must see thatthe question is irrelevant, for heaven is not goingto be simply a continuation or an extension of thisworld. There will be new and greaterrelationships which will far transcend thephysical relationships of time.

Then Jesus went on to demolish the wholeSadducean position. They had always held thatthere was no text in the Pentateuch which could beused to prove the resurrection of the dead. Now,what was one of the most common titles for Godin the Pentateuch? 'The God of Abraham, and ofIsaac, and of Jacob.' God cannot be the God of the

dead and of decaying corpses. The living Godmust be the God of the living. The Sadducean casewas shattered. Jesus had done what the wisestRabbis had never been able to do. Out ofScripture itself, he had proved the Sadducees tobe wrong and had shown them that there is a lifeafter death which must not be thought of in earthlyterms. The crowds were amazed at a man whocould take command of an argument like this, andeven the Pharisees must have felt like cheering.

DUTY TO GOD AND DUTY TOOTHERS

Matthew 22:34-40

When the Pharisees heard that he hadsilenced the Sadducees, they gatheredtogether. One of them, who was anexpert in the law, asked him a questionas a test: 'What commandment in thelaw is greatest?' He said to him: '"Youmust love the Lord your God with yourwhole heart, and your whole soul, andyour whole mind." This is the great andthe chief commandment; and the secondis like it: "You must love yourneighbour as yourself." On these twocommandments the whole law and theprophets depend.'

IN Matthew, this question looks like a return to theattack on the part of the Pharisees; but in Mark,the atmosphere is different. As Mark tells thestory (Mark 12:28-34), the scribe did not askJesus this question to trip him up. He asked it ingratitude that Jesus had proved the Sadducees tobe wrong and to enable Jesus to demonstrate howwell he could answer; and the passage ends withthe scribe and Jesus very close to each other.

We may well say that here Jesus laid down thecomplete definition of religion.

(1) Religion consists in loving God. The versewhich Jesus quotes is Deuteronomy 6:5. Thatverse was part of the Shema, the basic andessential creed of Judaism, the sentence withwhich every Jewish service still opens, and thefirst text which every Jewish child commits tomemory. It means that to God we must give a totallove, a love which dominates our emotions, a

love which directs our thoughts, and a love whichis the dynamic of our actions. All religion startswith the love which is total commitment of life toGod.

(2) The second commandment which Jesusquotes comes from Leviticus 19:18. Our love forGod must issue in love for others. But it is to benoted in which order the commandments come; itis love of God first, and love of others second. Itis only when we love God that other peoplebecome lovable. The biblical teaching abouthuman beings is not that we are collections ofchemical elements, not that we are part of thebrute creation, but that men and women are madein the image of God (Genesis 1:26-7). It is for thatreason that human beings are lovable. The truebasis of all democracy is in fact the love of God.Take away the love of God, and we can look athuman nature and become angry at those whocannot be taught; we can become pessimistic

about those who cannot make progress; we canbecome callous to those who are cold andcalculating in their actions. The love of humanityis firmly grounded in the love of God.

To be truly religious is to love God and to lovethose whom God made in his own image; and tolove God and other people, not with a vaguesentimentality, but with that total commitmentwhich issues in devotion to God and practicalservice of others.

NEW HORIZONS

Matthew 22:41-6

When the Pharisees had come together,Jesus asked them a question: 'What isyour opinion about the Anointed One?Whose son is he?' 'David's son,' theysaid. He said to them: 'How, then, doesDavid in the Spirit call him Lord, whenhe says: "The Lord said to my Lord, Siton my right hand till I put your enemiesbeneath your feet"? If David calls himLord, how is he his son?' And no onewas able to give him any answer. Andfrom that day no one any longer dared toask him a question.

To us, this may seem one of the most obscure

things which Jesus ever said. This may be so, butnonetheless it is a most important statement. Evenif, at first sight, we do not fully grasp its meaning,we can still feel the air of awe and astonishmentand mystery which it has about it.

We have seen again and again that Jesusrefused to allow his followers to proclaim him asthe Messiah until he had taught them whatMessiahship meant. Their ideas of Messiahshipneeded the most radical change.

The most common title of the Messiah was Sonof David. Behind it lay the expectation that therewould one day come a great prince of the line ofDavid who would shatter Israel's enemies andlead the people to the conquest of all nations. TheMessiah was most commonly thought of innationalistic, political, military terms of powerand glory. This is another attempt by Jesus to alterthat conception.

He asked the Pharisees whose son theyunderstood the Messiah to be; they answered, ashe knew they would: 'David's son'. Jesus thenquotes Psalm 110:1: 'The Lord says to my lord,"Sit at my right hand."' All accepted that as amessianic text. In it, the first Lord is God; thesecond lord is the Messiah. That is to say, Davidcalls the Messiah lord. But, if the Messiah isDavid's son, how could David call his own sonlord?

The clear result of the argument is that it is notadequate to call the Messiah Son of David. He isnot David's son; he is David's lord. When Jesushealed the blind men, they called him Son ofDavid (Matthew 20:30). When he enteredJerusalem, the crowds hailed him as Son of David(Matthew 21:9). Jesus is here saying: 'It is notenough to call the Messiah Son of David. It is notenough to think of him as a prince of David's lineand an earthly conqueror. You must go beyond

that, for the Messiah is David's lord.'

What did Jesus mean? He can have meant onlyone thing - that the true description of him is Sonof God. Son of David is not an adequate title; onlySon of God will do. And, if that is so,Messiahship is not to be thought of in terms ofDavidic conquest, but in terms of divine andsacrificial love. Here, then, Jesus makes hisgreatest claim. In him, there came not the earthlyconqueror who would repeat the military triumphsof David, but the Son of God who woulddemonstrate the love of God upon his cross.

There would be few that day who caughtanything like all that Jesus meant; but when Jesusspoke these words, even the densest of them felt ashiver in the presence of the eternal mystery. Theyhad the awed and uncomfortable feeling that theyhad heard the voice of God; and for a moment, inthis man Jesus, they glimpsed God's very face.

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

IF someone is characteristically andtemperamentally an irritable, ill-tempered andirascible person, notoriously given touncontrolled outbursts of passionate anger, thatanger is neither effective nor impressive. Nobodypays any attention to the anger of a bad-temperedperson. But when a person who ischaracteristically meek and lowly, gentle andloving, suddenly erupts into blazing wrath, eventhe most thoughtless person is shocked into takingthought. That is why the anger of Jesus is so awe-inspiring a sight. It is seldom in literature that wefind so unsparing and sustained an indictment aswe find in this chapter when the wrath of Jesus isdirected against the scribes and Pharisees. Beforewe begin to study the chapter in detail, it will bewell to see briefly what the scribes and Pharisees

stood for.

The Jews had a deep and lasting sense of thecontinuity of their religion; and we can see bestwhat the Pharisees and scribes stood for by seeingwhere they came into the scheme of Jewishreligion. The Jews had a saying: 'Moses receivedthe law and delivered it to Joshua; and Joshua tothe elders; and the elders to the prophets; and theprophets to the men of the Great Synagogue.' AllJewish religion is based first on the TenCommandments and then on the Pentateuch, thelaw.

The history of the Jews was designed to makethem a people of the law. As every nation has,they had their dream of greatness. But theexperiences of history had made that dream take aspecial direction. They had been conquered by theAssyrians, the Babylonians and the Persians, andJerusalem had been left desolate. It was clear that

they could not be pre-eminent in political power.But although political power was an obviousimpossibility, they nonetheless possessed the law,and to them the law was the very word of God,the greatest and most precious possession in theworld.

There came a day in their history when that pre-eminence of the law was, as it were, publiclyadmitted; there came what one can only call adeliberate act of decision, whereby the people ofIsrael became in the most unique sense the peopleof the law. Under Ezra and Nehemiah, the peoplewere allowed to come back to Jerusalem, and torebuild their shattered city, and to take up theirnational life again. When that happened, therecame a day when Ezra, the scribe, took the bookof the law, and read it to them, and there happenedsomething that was nothing less than a nationaldedication of a people to the keeping of the law(Nehemiah 8: 1-8).

From that day, the study of the law became thegreatest of all professions; and that study of thelaw was committed to the men of the GreatSynagogue, the scribes.

We have already seen how the great principlesof the law were broken up into thousands uponthousands of little rules and regulations (seesection on Matthew 5:17-20). We have seen, forinstance, how the law said that people must notwork on the Sabbath day, and how the scribeslaboured to define work, how they laid it downhow many paces anyone might walk on theSabbath, how heavy a burden might be carried,the things that might and might not be done. By thetime this scribal interpretation of the law wasfinished, it took more than fifty volumes to holdthe mass of regulations which resulted.

The return of the people to Jerusalem and thefirst dedication of the law took place about 450

BC. But it is not until long after that that thePharisees emerge. About 175 BC, AntiochusEpiphanes of Syria made a deliberate attempt tostamp out the Jewish religion and to introduceGreek religion and Greek customs and practices.It was then that the Pharisees arose as a separatesect. The name means the separated ones; andthey were the men who dedicated their whole lifeto the careful and meticulous observance of everyrule and regulation which the scribes had workedout. Faced with the threat directed against it, theydetermined to spend their whole lives in one longobservance of Judaism in its most elaborate andceremonial and legal form. They were men whoaccepted the ever-increasing number of religiousrules and regulations extracted from the law.

There were never very many of them; at mostthere were not more than 6,000 of them; for theplain fact was that, in order to accept and carryout every little regulation of the law, there would

be time for nothing else; they had to withdrawthemselves, to separate themselves, from ordinarylife in order to keep the law.

The Pharisees then were two things. First, theywere dedicated legalists; religion to them was theobservance of every detail of the law. But second- and this is never to be forgotten - they were menin desperate earnest about their religion, for noone would have accepted the impossiblydemanding task of living a life like that unless hehad been in the most deadly earnest. They could,therefore, develop at one and the same time all thefaults of legalism and all the virtues of completeself-dedication. A Pharisee might either be a dryor arrogant legalist, or a man of burning devotionto God.

To say this is not to pass a particularlyChristian verdict on the Pharisees, for the Jewsthemselves passed that very verdict. The Talmud

distinguishes seven different kinds of Pharisee.

(1) There was the Shoulder Pharisee. He wasmeticulous in his observance of the law; but hewore his good deeds upon his shoulder. He wasout for a reputation for purity and goodness. True,he obeyed the law, but he did so in order to benoticed.

(2) There was the Wait-a-little Pharisee. Hewas the Pharisee who could always produce anentirely valid excuse for putting off a good deed.He professed the creed of the strictest Pharisees,but he could always find an excuse for allowingpractice to lag behind. He spoke, but he did notdo.

(3) There was the Bruised or BleedingPharisee. The Talmud speaks of the plague ofself-afflicting Pharisees. These Phariseesreceived their name for this reason. Women had avery low status in Palestine. No really strict

orthodox teacher would be seen talking to awoman in public, even if that woman was his ownwife or sister. These Pharisees went even further;they would not even allow themselves to look at awoman on the street. In order to avoid doing so,they would shut their eyes, and so bump into wallsand buildings and obstructions. They thus bruisedand wounded themselves, and their wounds andbruises gained them a special reputation forexceeding piety.

(4) There was the Pharisee who was variouslydescribed as the Pestle and Mortar Pharisee, orthe Hump-backed Pharisee, or the TumblingPharisee. Such men walked in such ostentatioushumility that they were bent like a pestle in amortar or like a hunchback. They were so humblethat they would not even lift their feet from theground and so tripped over every obstruction theymet. Their humility was a self-advertisingostentation.

(5) There was the Ever-reckoning orCompounding Pharisee. This kind of Phariseewas forever reckoning up his good deeds; he wasforever striking a balance sheet between himselfand God, and he believed that every good deed hedid put God a little further in his debt. To him,religion was always to be reckoned in terms of aprofit and loss account.

(6) There was the Timid or Fearing Pharisee.He was always in dread of divine punishment. Hewas, therefore, always cleansing the outside of thecup and the platter, so that he might seem to begood. He saw religion in terms of judgment andlife in terms of a terror-stricken evasion of thisjudgment.

(7) Finally, there was the God-fearingPharisee; he was the Pharisee who really andtruly loved God and who found his delight inobedience to the law of God, however difficult it

might be.

That was the Jews' own classification of thePharisees; and it is to be noted that there were sixbad types to one good one. There would be not afew listening to Jesus' denunciation of thePharisees who agreed with every word of it.

MAKING RELIGION A BURDEN

Matthew 23:1-4

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to hisdisciples: 'The scribes and Pharisees siton Moses' seat. Therefore do andobserve everything they tell you; but donot act as they act; for they speak, butthey do not do. They bind burdens thatare heavy and hard to bear, and placethem on men's shoulders: but theythemselves refuse to lift a finger toremove them.'

Here we see the characteristics of the Phariseesalready beginning to appear. Here we see theJewish conviction of the continuity of the faith.God gave the law to Moses; Moses handed it to

Joshua; Joshua transmitted it to the elders; theelders passed it down to the prophets; and theprophets gave it to the scribes and Pharisees.

It must not for a moment be thought that Jesus iscommending the scribes and Pharisees with alltheir rules and regulations. What he is saying isthis: 'In so far as these scribes and Pharisees havetaught you the great principles of the law whichMoses received from God, you must obey them.'When we were studying Matthew 5:17-20, wesaw what these principles were. The whole of theTen Commandments are based on two greatprinciples. They are based on reverence,reverence for God, for God's name, for God's day,for the parents God has given to us. They arebased on respect, respect for an individual's life,for that person's possessions, personality andgood name, and for oneself. These principles areeternal; and, in so far as the scribes and Phariseesteach reverence for God and respect for other

people, their teaching is eternally binding andeternally valid.

But their whole outlook on religion had onefundamental effect. It made it a thing of thousandsupon thousands of rules and regulations; andtherefore it made it an intolerable burden. Hereis the test of any presentation of religion. Does itcreate wings to lift people up, or a deadweight todrag them down? Does it bring about joy ordepression? Are people helped by their religionor are they haunted by it? Does it carry them, orhave they to carry it? Whenever religion becomesa depressing affair of burdens and prohibitions, itceases to be true religion.

Nor would the Pharisees allow the slightestrelaxation. Their whole self-confessed purposewas to 'build a fence around the law'. Not oneregulation would they relax or remove. Wheneverreligion becomes a burden, it ceases to be true

religion.

THE RELIGION OFOSTENTATION

Matthew 23:5-12

'They perform all their actions to beseen by men. They broaden theirphylacteries; they wear outsize tassels.They love the highest places at meals,and the front seats in the synagogues,and greetings in the market place, and tobe called Rabbi by men. You must notbe called Rabbi; for you have only oneteacher, and you are all brothers. Callno one upon earth father; you have oneFather - your Father in heaven. Normust you be called leaders; you haveone leader - Christ. He who is greatestamong you will be your servant.

Anyone who will exalt himself will behumbled; and whoever will humblehimself will be exalted.'

The religion of the Pharisees became almostinevitably a religion of ostentation. If religionconsists in obeying countless rules andregulations, it becomes easy for people to see to itthat everyone is aware how well they fulfil theregulations, and how perfect is their piety. Jesusselects certain actions and customs in which thePharisees showed their ostentation.

They made broad their phylacteries. It is saidof the commandments of God in Exodus 13:9: 'Itshall serve for you as a sign on your hand, and asa reminder on your forehead.' The same saying isrepeated: 'It shall serve as a sign on your hand andas an emblem on your forehead' (Exodus 13:16;cf. Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18). In order to fulfil

these commandments, Jews wore at prayer, andstill wear, what are called tephillin orphylacteries. They are worn on every day exceptthe Sabbath and special holy days. They are likelittle leather boxes, strapped one on the wrist andone on the forehead. The one on the wrist is alittle leather box of one compartment, and inside itthere is a parchment roll with the following fourpassages of Scripture written on it: Exodus 13:1-10, 11-16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21. The oneworn on the forehead is the same except that in itthere are four little compartments, and in eachcompartment there is a little scroll inscribed withone of these four passages. The Pharisees, inorder to draw attention to themselves, not onlywore phylacteries, but wore specially big ones,so that they might demonstrate their exemplaryobedience to the law and their exemplary piety.

They wear outsize tassels; the tassels are inGreek kraspeda and in Hebrew zizith. In

Numbers 15:37-41 and in Deuteronomy 22:12, weread that God commanded his people to makefringes on the borders of their garments, so thatwhen they looked on them they might rememberthe commandments of God. These fringes werelike tassels worn on the four corners of the outergarment. Later they were worn on the innergarment, and today they are perpetuated in thetassels of the prayer shawl which devout Jewswear at prayer. It was easy to make these tasselsof specially large size so that they became anostentatious display of piety, worn not as areminder of the commandments but as a means ofdrawing attention to the wearer.

Further, the Pharisees liked to be given theprincipal places at meals, on the left and on theright of the host. They liked the front seats in thesynagogues. In Palestine, the back seats wereoccupied by the children and the most unimportantpeople; the further forward the seat, the greater

the honour. The most honoured seats of all werethe seats of the elders, which faced thecongregation. If a man was seated there, everyonewould see that he was present, and he couldconduct himself throughout the service with apose of piety which the congregation could notfail to notice. Still further, the Pharisees liked tobe addressed as Rabbi and to be treated with thegreatest respect. They claimed, in point of fact,greater respect than that which was given toparents; for, they said, people's parents give themordinary, physical life, but teachers give themeternal life. They even liked to be called father asElisha called Elijah (2 Kings 2:12) and as thefathers of the faith were known.

Jesus insists that Christians should rememberthat they have one teacher only - and that teacheris Christ; and only one Father in the faith - andthat Father is God.

The intention of the Pharisees was to dress andact in such a way as to draw attention tothemselves; the intention of Christians should beto obliterate themselves, so that if others see theirgood deeds, they may glorify not the Christiansbut their Father in heaven. Any religion whichproduces ostentation in action and pride in theheart is a false religion.

SHUTTING THE DOOR

Matthew 23:13

'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites, for you shut the door to thekingdom of heaven in the face of men!You yourselves are not going into it; nordo you allow those who are trying to getinto it to enter it.'

Verses 13-26 of this chapter form the mostterrible and the most sustained denunciation in theNew Testament. Here we hear what A. T.Robertson called 'the rolling thunder of Christ'swrath'. As A. Plummer has written, these woes are'like thunder in their unanswerable severity, andlike lightning in their unsparing exposure . . . Theyilluminate while they strike.'

Here, Jesus directs a series of seven woesagainst the scribes and Pharisees. The RevisedStandard Version begins every one of them: 'Woeto you!' The Greek word for woe is ouai; it ishard to translate, for it includes not only wrath butalso sorrow. There is righteous anger here, but itis the anger of the heart of love, broken bystubborn human blindness. There is not only an airof savage denunciation; there is also anatmosphere of poignant tragedy.

The word hypocrite occurs here again andagain. Originally, the Greek word hupokritēsmeant one who answers; it then came to bespecially connected with the statement andanswer, the dialogue, of the stage; and it is theregular Greek word for an actor. It then came tomean an actor in the worse sense of the term, apretender, one who acts a part, one who wears amask to cover true feelings, one who puts on anexternal show while inwardly having thoughts and

feelings of a very different kind.

To Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees were menwho were acting a part. What he meant was this.Their whole idea of religion consisted in outwardobservances, the wearing of elaboratephylacteries and tassels, the meticulousobservance of the rules and regulations of the law.But in their hearts there was bitterness and envyand pride and arrogance. To Jesus, these scribesand Pharisees were men who, under a mask ofelaborate godliness, concealed hearts in which themost godless feelings and emotions held sway.And that accusation holds good in greater orlesser degree of anyone who lives life on theassumption that religion consists in externalobservances and external acts.

There is an unwritten saying of Jesus whichsays: "The key of the kingdom they hid.' Hiscondemnation of these scribes and Pharisees is

that they are not only failing to enter the kingdomthemselves, they shut the door on the faces ofthose who seek to enter. What did he mean by thisaccusation?

We have already seen (Matthew 6:10) that thebest way to think of the kingdom is to think of it asa society on earth where God's will is as perfectlydone as it is in heaven. To be a citizen of thekingdom and to do God's will are one and thesame thing. The Pharisees believed that to doGod's will was to observe their thousands of pettyrules and regulations; and nothing could be furtherfrom that kingdom whose basic idea is love.When people tried to find entry into the kingdom,the Pharisees presented them with these rules andregulations, which was as good as shutting thedoor in their faces.

The Pharisees preferred their ideas of religionto God's idea of religion. They had forgotten the

basic truth that if they would teach others, theymust themselves first listen to God. The gravestdanger which teachers or preachers encounter isthat they should turn their own prejudices intouniversal principles and substitute their own ideasfor the truth of God. When they do that, they arenot guides but barriers to the kingdom - for, beingmisled themselves, they mislead others.

MISSIONARIES OF EVIL

Matthew 23:15

'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, foryou range over the sea and the dry landto make one proselyte, and, when thathappens, you make him twice as much ason of hell as yourselves!'

A STRANGE feature of the ancient world was therepulsion and attraction which Judaism exercisedover men and women at one and the same time.There was no more hated people than the Jews.Their separatism and their isolation and theircontempt of other nations gained them hostility. Itwas, in fact, believed that a basic part of theirreligion was an oath that they would never underany circumstances give help to a Gentile, even tothe extent of giving directions to anyone who

asked the way. Their observance of the Sabbathgained them a reputation for laziness; their refusalof pig's flesh gained them mockery, even to theextent of the rumour that they worshipped the pigas their god. Anti-semitism was a real anduniversal force in the ancient world.

And yet there was an attraction. The idea of oneGod came as a wonderful thing to a world whichbelieved in a multitude of gods. Jewish ethicalpurity and standards of morality had a fascinationin a world steeped in immorality, especially forwomen. The result was that many were attractedto Judaism.

Their attraction was on two levels. There werethose who were called the God-fearers. Theseaccepted the conception of one God; theyaccepted the Jewish moral law; but they took nopart in the ceremonial law and did not becomecircumcised. Such people existed in large

numbers, and were to be found listening andworshipping in every synagogue, and indeedprovided Paul with his most fruitful field forevangelization. They are, for instance, the devoutGreeks of Thessalonica (Acts 17:4).

It was the aim of the Pharisees to turn theseGod-fearers into proselytes; the word proselyteis an English transliteration of a Greek wordprosēlutos, which means one who hasapproached or drawn near. The proselyte wasthe full convert who had accepted the ceremoniallaw and circumcision and who had become in thefullest sense a Jew. As so often happens, 'the mostconverted were the most perverted'. A convertoften becomes the most fanatical devotee of thenew religion; and many of these proselytes weremore fanatically devoted to the Jewish law thaneven the Jews themselves.

Jesus accused these Pharisees of being

missionaries of evil. It was true that very fewbecame proselytes, but those who did went thewhole way. The sin of the Pharisees was that theywere not really seeking to lead others to God, theywere seeking to lead them to Pharisaism. One ofthe gravest dangers which any missionary runs isthat of trying to convert people to a sect ratherthan to a religion, and of being more concerned inbringing people to a church than to Jesus Christ.

The Indian Christian Premanand has certainthings to say about this sectarianism which sooften disfigures so-called Christianity: 'I speak asa Christian; God is my Father, the Church is myMother. Christian is my name; Catholic is mysurname. Catholic, because we belong to nothingless than the Church Universal. So do we needany other names? Why go on to add Anglican,Episcopalian, Protestant, Presbyterian, Methodist,Congregational, Baptist, and so on, and so on?These terms are divisive, sectarian, narrow. They

shrivel up one's soul.'

It was not to God that the Pharisees sought tolead people; it was to their own sect ofPharisaism. That in fact was their sin. And that sinis still present in certain quarters when there is aninsistence that a man or woman must leave onechurch and become a member of another beforebeing allowed a place at the table of the Lord.The greatest of all heresies is the sinful convictionthat any church has a monopoly of God or of histruth, or that any church is the only gateway toGod's kingdom.

THE SCIENCE OF EVASION

Matthew 23:16-22

'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees!Blind guides! You who say: "If anyoneswears by the Temple, it is nothing, butwhoever swears by the gold of theTemple is bound by his oath." Foolishones and blind! Which is the greater?The gold? Or the Temple whichhallows the gold? You say: "If anyoneswears by the altar, it is nothing; but ifanyone swears by the gift that is on it,he is bound by his oath." Blind ones!Which is greater? The gift? Or the altarwhich hallows the gift? He who swearsby the altar, swears by it and all that ison it. He who swears by the Temple,

swears by it and by him who inhabits it.And he who swears by heaven, swearsby the throne of God and by him whosits upon it.'

We have already seen that in matters of oaths theJewish legalists were experts in evasion(Matthew 5:33-7). The general principle ofevasion was this. To the Jew, an oath wasabsolutely binding, as long as it was a bindingoath. Broadly speaking, a binding oath was anoath which definitely and without equivocationemployed the name of God: such an oath must bekept, no matter what the cost. Any other oath mightbe legitimately broken. The idea was that if God'sname was actually used, then God was introducedas a partner into the transaction, and to break theoath was not only to break faith with others but toinsult God.

The science of evasion had been brought to ahigh degree. It is most probable that in thispassage Jesus is presenting a caricature of Jewishlegalistic methods. He is saying: 'You havebrought evasion to such a fine art that it ispossible to regard an oath by the Temple as notbinding, while an oath by the gold of the Templeis binding; and an oath by the altar as not binding,while an oath by the gift on the altar is binding.'This is to be regarded as an extreme descriptionmade to bring out the absurdity of Jewishmethods, rather than a literal description.

The idea behind the passage is just this. Thewhole idea of treating oaths in this way, the wholeconception of a kind of technique of evasion, isborn of a fundamental deceitfulness. Trulyreligious men and women will never make apromise with the deliberate intention of evadingit; they will never, as they make it, providethemselves with a series of escape routes, which

they may use if they find that promise hard tokeep.

We need not with conscious superioritycondemn the Pharisaic science of evasion. Thetime is not yet ended when people seek to evadesome duty on a technicality or call in the strictletter of the law to avoid doing what the spirit ofthe law clearly means they ought to do.

For Jesus, the binding principle was twofold.God hears every word we speak, and God seesevery intention of our hearts. In view of that, thefine art of evasion is one which should be foreignto every Christian. The technique of evasion maysuit the sharp practice of the world, but never theopen honesty of the Christian mind.

THE LOST SENSE OFPROPORTION

Matthew 23:23-4

'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! For you tithe mint, and dill,and cummin, and let go the weightiermatters of the law - justice and mercyand fidelity. These you ought to havedone without neglecting the others.Blind guides who strain out a gnat andswallow a camel!'

THE tithe was an essential part of Jewish religiousregulations. 'Set apart a tithe of all the yield ofyour seed that is brought in yearly from the field'(Deuteronomy 14:22). 'All tithes from the land,whether the seed from the ground or the fruit from

the tree, are the Lord's; they are holy to the Lord'(Leviticus 27:30). This tithe was specially for thesupport of the Levites, whose task it was to do thematerial work of the Temple. The things whichhad to be tithed were further defined by the law:'Everything which is eatable, and is preserved,and has its nourishment from the soil, is liable tobe tithed.' It is laid down: 'Of dill one must tithethe seeds, the leaves and the stalks.' So, it waslaid down that everyone must lay aside one-tenthof all produce for God.

The point of Jesus' saying is this. It wasuniversally accepted that tithes of the main cropsmust be given. But mint and dill and cummin areherbs of the kitchen garden and would not begrown in any quantity; a household would haveonly a little patch of them. All three were used incooking, and dill and cummin had medicinal uses.To tithe them was to tithe an infinitesimally smallcrop, maybe not much more than the produce of

one plant. Only those who were superlativelymeticulous would tithe the single plants of thekitchen garden.

That is precisely what the Pharisees were like.They were so absolutely meticulous about tithesthat they would tithe even one clump of mint; andyet these same men could be guilty of injustice;could be hard and arrogant and cruel, forgettingthe claims of mercy; could take oaths and pledgesand promises with the deliberate intention ofevading them, forgetting fidelity. In other words,many of them kept the trifles of the law and forgotthe things which really matter.

That spirit is not dead; it never will be untilChrist rules in our hearts. There are many whowear the right clothes to church, carefully hand inan offering to the church, adopt the right attitude atprayer, are never absent from the celebration ofthe sacrament, and who are not doing an honest

day's work and are irritable and bad-temperedand mean with their money. There are people whoare full of good works and who serve on all kindsof committees, and whose children are lonely forthem at night. There is nothing easier than toobserve all the outward actions of religion and yetbe completely irreligious.

There is nothing more necessary than a sense ofproportion to save us from confusing religiousobservances with real devotion.

Jesus uses a vivid illustration. In verse 24, acurious thing has happened in the AuthorizedVersion. It should not be to strain at a gnat, but tostrain out a gnat as in the Revised StandardVersion. Originally that mistake was simply amisprint, but it has been perpetuated for centuries.In point of fact, the older versions - Tyndale,Coverdale and the Geneva Bible - all correctlyhave to strain out a gnat. The picture is this. A

gnat was an insect and therefore unclean; and sowas a camel. In order to avoid the risk of drinkinganything unclean, wine was strained throughmuslin gauze so that any possible impurity mightbe strained out of it. This is a humorous picturewhich must have raised a laugh, of someonecarefully straining wine through gauze to avoidswallowing a microscopic insect and yetcheerfully swallowing a camel. It is the picture ofa person who has completely lost all sense ofproportion.

THE REAL CLEANNESS

Matthew 23:25-6

'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! For you cleanse the outsideof the cup and the plate, but inside theyare full of rapacity and lust. BlindPharisee! Cleanse the inside of the cupand the plate first, that the outside of italso may be clean.'

The idea of uncleanness is continually arising inthe Jewish law. It must be remembered that thisuncleanness was not physical uncleanness. Anunclean vessel was not in our sense of the term adirty vessel. For a person to be ceremoniallyunclean meant being forbidden entry to theTemple or the synagogue, debarred from the

worship of God. A man was unclean if, forinstance, he touched a dead body, or came intocontact with a Gentile. A woman was unclean ifshe had a haemorrhage, even if that haemorrhagewas perfectly normal and healthy. If a person whowas himself unclean touched any vessel, thatvessel became unclean; and, thereafter, any otherperson who touched or handled the vessel becamein turn unclean. It was, therefore, of paramountimportance to have vessels cleansed; and the lawfor cleansing them is fantastically complicated.We can quote only certain basic examples of it.

An earthen vessel which is hollow becomesunclean only on the inside and not on the outside;and it can be cleansed only by being broken. Thefollowing cannot become unclean at all - a flatplate without a rim, an open coal-shovel, a grid-iron with holes in it for roasting grains of wheat.On the other hand, a plate with a rim, or anearthen spice box, or a writing case can become

unclean. Of vessels made of leather, bone, woodand glass, flat ones do not become unclean; deepones do. If they are broken, they become clean.Any metal vessel which is at once smooth andhollow can become unclean: but a door, a bolt, alock, a hinge or a knocker cannot become unclean.If a thing is made of wood and metal, then thewood can become unclean, but the metal cannot.These regulations seem to us fantastic, and yetthese are the regulations the Phariseesmeticulously kept.

The food or drink inside a vessel might havebeen obtained by cheating or extortion or theft; itmight be luxurious and gluttonous; that did notmatter, as long as the vessel itself wasceremonially clean. Here is another example offussing about trifles and letting the weightiermatters go.

Grotesque as the whole thing may seem, it can

still happen. A church can be torn in two about thecolour of a carpet, or about the shape or metal ofthe cups to be used in the sacrament. The last thingthat men and women seem to learn in matters ofreligion is a relative sense of values; and thetragedy is that it is so often magnification ofmatters of no importance that wreck the peace.

DISGUISED DECAY

Matthew 23:27-8

'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees!For you are like whitewashed tombs,which look beautiful on the outside, butinside are full of the bones of dead men,and of all corruption. So you, too,outwardly look righteous to men, butinwardly you are full of hypocrisy andlawlessness.'

Here again is a picture which any Jew wouldunderstand. One of the most common places fortombs was by the wayside. We have already seenthat anyone who touched a dead body becameunclean (Numbers 19:16). Therefore, anyone whocame into contact with a tomb automatically

became unclean. At one time in particular, theroads of Palestine were crowded with pilgrims -at the time of the Passover Feast. To becomeunclean on the way to the Passover Feast wouldbe a disaster, for that meant that such a personwould be debarred from sharing in it. It was thenJewish practice in the month of Adar towhitewash all wayside tombs, so that no pilgrimsmight accidentally come into contact with one ofthem and be rendered unclean.

So, as people journeyed the roads of Palestineon a spring day, these tombs would glint white,and almost lovely, in the sunshine; but within theywere full of bones and bodies whose touch woulddefile. That, said Jesus, was a precise picture ofwhat the Pharisees were. Their outward actionswere the actions of intensely religious men; theirinward hearts were foul and putrid with sin.

It can still happen. As Shakespeare in Hamlet

had it, one may smile and smile and be a villain.People may walk with bowed heads and reverentsteps and folded hands in the posture of humility,and all the time be looking down with coldcontempt on those whom they regard as sinners.Their very humility may be the pose of pride; and,as they walk so humbly, they may be thinking withrelish of the picture of piety which they present tothose who are watching them. There is nothingharder than for good people not to know that theyare good; and once they know they are good, thatgoodness is gone, in spite of all appearances tothe contrary.

THE TAINT OF MURDER

Matthew 23:29-36

'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! For you erect the tombs ofthe prophets, and adorn the memorialsof the righteous, and say: "If we hadlived in the days of our fathers, wewould not have been partners with themin the murder of the prophets." Thus youwitness against yourselves that you arethe sons of those who slew theprophets. Fill up the measure of yourfathers. Serpents, brood of vipers, howare you to escape being condemned tohell fire? For this reason, look you, Isend you the prophets and the wise menand the scribes. Some of them you will

kill and crucify; and some of them youwill scourge in your synagogues, andpursue them with persecution from cityto city, that on you there may fall theresponsibility for all the righteousblood shed upon the earth from theblood of Abel, the righteous, to theblood of Zacharias, the son ofBarachios, whom you murderedbetween the Temple and the altar. Thisis the truth I tell you - the responsibilityfor all these crimes shall fall on thisgeneration.'

Jesus is charging the Jews that the taint of murderis in their history and that that taint has not evenyet worked itself out. The scribes and Phariseestend the tombs of the martyrs and beautify theirmemorials, and claim that, if they had lived in theold days, they would not have killed the prophets

and the men of God. But that is precisely whatthey would have done, and precisely what theyare going to do.

Jesus' charge is that the history of Israel is thehistory of the murder of those sent from God. Hesays that the righteous from Abel to Zachariaswere murdered. Why are these two chosen? Themurder of Abel by Cain everyone knows; but themurder of Zacharias is not nearly so well known.The story is told in a grim little cameo in 2Chronicles 24:20-2. It happened in the days ofJoash. Zacharias rebuked the nation for their sin,and Joash stirred up the people to stone him todeath in the very Temple court; and Zachariasdied saying: 'May the Lord see and avenge!'(Zacharias is called the son of Barachios,whereas in fact he was the son of Jehoiada, nodoubt a slip of the gospel writer in retelling thestory.)

Why should Zacharias be chosen? In theHebrew Bible, Genesis is the first book, as it is inours; but, unlike our order of the books, 2Chronicles is the last in the Hebrew Bible. Wecould say that the murder of Abel is the first in theBible story, and the murder of Zacharias the last.From beginning to end, the history of Israel is therejection, and often the slaughter, of those sentfrom God.

Jesus is quite clear that the murder taint is stillthere. He knows that now he must die, and that inthe days to come his messengers will bepersecuted and ill-treated and rejected and killed.

Here indeed is tragedy; the people of the nationwhich God chose and loved had turned theirhands against him: and the day of reckoning wasto come.

It makes us think. When history judges us, willits verdict be that we were the hinderers or the

helpers of God? That is a question which everyindividual, and every nation, must answer.

THE REJECTION OF LOVE'SAPPEAL

Matthew 23:37-9

'Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killer of theprophets, stoner of those sent to you,how often have I wished to gather yourchildren together, as a bird gathers hernestlings under her wings - and yourefused. Look you, your house is left toyou desolate, for I tell you from nowyou will not see me until you will say:"Blessed in the name of the Lord is hethat comes."'

HERE is all the poignant tragedy of rejected love.Here Jesus speaks, not so much as the stern judgeof all the earth, as the lover of human souls.

There is one curious light this passage throwson the life of Jesus which we may note in thepassing. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesuswas never in Jerusalem after his public ministrybegan, until he came to this last Passover Feast.We can see here how much the gospel storyleaves out, for Jesus could not have said what hesays here unless he had paid repeated visits toJerusalem and issued to the people repeatedappeals. A passage like this shows us that in thegospels we have the merest sketch and outline ofthe life of Jesus.

This passage shows us four great truths.

(1) It shows us the patience of God. Jerusalemhad killed the prophets and stoned the messengersof God; yet God did not cast her off; and in theend he sent his Son. There is a limitless patiencein the love of God which bears with humansinning and will not cast people off.

(2) It shows us the appeal of Jesus. Jesusspeaks out of love. He will not force his way in;the only weapon he can use is the appeal of love.He stands with outstretched hands of appeal, anappeal which men and women have the awfulresponsibility of being able to accept or to refuse.

(3) It shows us the deliberate nature of humansin. Men and women looked on Christ in all thesplendour of his appeal - and refused him. Thereis no handle on the outside of the door of thehuman heart; it must be opened from the inside;and sin is the open-eyed deliberate refusal of theappeal of God in Jesus Christ.

(4) It shows us the consequences of rejectingChrist. Only forty years were to pass, and in AD70 Jerusalem would be a heap of ruins. Thatdisaster was the direct consequence of therejection of Jesus Christ. If only the way of powerpolitics had been abandoned in favour of the

Christian way of love, Rome would never havedescended on Jerusalem with its avenging might.As history has shown, rejection of God oftenbrings with it disaster.

THE VISION OF THINGS TOCOME

WE have already seen that it is one of the greatcharacteristics of Matthew that he gathers togetherin large blocks the teaching of Jesus aboutdifferent subjects. In chapter 24, he gatherstogether things that Jesus said about the future andgives us the vision of things to come. In so doing,Matthew weaves together sayings of Jesus aboutdifferent aspects of the future; and it will makethis difficult chapter very much easier tounderstand if we can disentangle the variousstrands and look at them one by one.

Matthew's interweaving of the sayings of Jesuslasts throughout the first thirty-one verses of thechapter. It will be best if, first of all, we set downthese verses as a whole; if, next, we set down thevarious aspects of the future with which they deal;

and if, last, we try to assign each section to itsplace in the pattern. We cannot claim certainty orfinality for the pattern which we obtain; but thegeneral picture will become clear.

First, then, we set down the verses, and weshall number them to make easier their assignmentto their place in the pattern.

THE VISION OF THE FUTURE

Matthew 24:1-311. When Jesus had left the precincts of the

Temple, he was going away; and hisdisciples came to him to point out to him thebuildings of the Temple

2. area. He said to them: 'Do you not see allthese things? This is the truth I tell you - onestone will not be left here upon another thatwill not be thrown down.'

3. His disciples came to him privately, when hewas sitting on the Mount of Olives. Tell us',they said, 'when these things shall be. Andtell us what will be the sign of your coming,and of the consumma-

4. tion of the age.' Jesus answered: 'Be on thelook-

5. out lest anyone lead you astray, for manywill come in my name saying: "I am God'sAnointed One,"

6. and they will lead many astray. You willhear of wars and reports of wars. See thatyou are not disturbed; for these things musthappen; but the

7. end is not yet. For nation shall rise againstnation, and kingdom against kingdom, andthere will be

8. famines and earthquakes in various places.All

9. these things are the beginning of the agonies.Then they will deliver you to affliction, andthey will kill you, and you will be hated byall nations

10. because of my name. And then many willstumble, and will betray each other, and will

hate each other.

11. And many false prophets will arise, andthey will

12. lead many astray. And the love of manywill grow

13. cold, because lawlessness will bemultiplied. But it is he who endures to theend who will be saved.

14. And the gospel will be proclaimed to thewhole inhabited world, for a testimony to allnations -

15. and then the end will come. When you seethe desolating abomination, which wasspoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing inthe Holy Place (let

16. him who reads understand), then let himwho is in

17. Judaea flee to the mountains. Let him whois on the housetop not come down to removehis goods

18. from his house; and let him who is in thefield not

19. come back to remove his cloak. Alas forthose who in those days are carrying childrenin the womb,

20. and who are suckling children. Pray thatyour flight may not be in the winter time, noron a Sabbath.

21. For at that time there will be greataffliction, such as has never happened fromthe beginning of the world until now, andsuch as never will happen.

22. And, if the days had not been shortened, nohuman being would have survived. But thedays will be

23. shortened for the sake of the elect. At thattime, if anyone says to you: "Look you, here,or here, is the Anointed One of God," do notbelieve him.

24. For false Messiahs and false prophets willarise, and they will produce great signs andwonders, the consequences of which will be,if possible, to lead

25. astray the elect. Look you, I have told youabout

26. these things before they happen. If anyonesays to you: "Look you, he is in thewilderness," do not go out. "Look you, he isin the inner chambers,"

27. do not believe him. For as the lightningcomes from the east and shines as far as thewest, so shall be

28. the coming of the Son of Man. Where the

body is, there the vultures will be gatheredtogether.

29. Immediately after the affliction of thesedays the sun will be darkened, and the moonwill not give her light, and the stars will fallfrom heaven, and

30. the powers of heaven will be shaken. Thenthere will appear the sign of the Son of Manin heaven. And then all the tribes of the earthwill lament, and they will see the Son ofMan coming on the clouds

31. of heaven with power and much glory. Andhe will send his angels with a great trumpet-call, and they will gather the elect from thefour winds, from one boundary of heaven tothe other.'

THE INTERWEAVING OF THESTRANDS

THERE, then, is the composite vision of the futurewhich Matthew collects for us; we must now tryto disentangle the various strands in it. At thisstage we only indicate the strands and leave fullerexplanation for the detailed commentary.

(1) Some verses foretell the terrible days of thesiege of Jerusalem by Titus, the Roman general, asiege which was one of the most terrible in allhistory. These are verses 15-22.

(2) Some verses tell of the ultimate completedestruction of Jerusalem and its reduction to aheap of ruins. These are verses 1 and 2.

(3) Some verses paint pictures taken from theJewish conception of the day of the Lord. Wehave spoken about that conception before, but we

must briefly outline it again. The Jews divided alltime into two ages - this present age and the age tocome. The present age is wholly bad and beyondall hope of human reformation. It can be mendedonly by the direct intervention of God. When Goddoes intervene, the golden age, the age to come,will arrive. But in between the two ages therewill come the day of the Lord, which will be atime of terrible and fearful upheaval, like thebirth-pangs of a new age.

In the Old Testament itself, there are manypictures of the day of the Lord; and in the Jewishbooks written between the Old and the NewTestaments these pictures are further developedand made still more vivid and still more terrible.

It will be a time of terror. That day will be aday of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a dayof ruin and devastation, a day of darkness andgloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness'

(Zephaniah 1:15). The pictures of that terrorbecame more and more lurid.

It will come suddenly. 'The day of the Lordwill come like a thief in the night' (1Thessalonians 5:2). 'Three things', said theRabbis, 'are sudden - the coming of the Messiah, adiscovery, and a scorpion.'

The universe will be shattered to pieces. Thesun will be turned into darkness and the moon intoblood (Joel 2:30-1; Isaiah 13:10, 13).

It will be a time of moral chaos, when moralstandards will be turned upside down, and wheneven nature will act contrary to itself, and whenwars and violence and hatred will be the commonatmosphere of life.

Emil Schürer (The Jewish People in the Timeof Christ, ii, 154) sums up the Jewish ideas of theday of the Lord, ideas with which Jewish

literature was full and which everyone knew inthe time of Jesus. 'The sun and moon will bedarkened, swords appear in heaven, trains ofhorses and foot march through the clouds.Everything in nature falls into commotion andconfusion. The sun appears by night, the moon byday. Blood trickles from wood, the stone givesforth a voice, and salt is found in fresh water.Places that have been sown will appear asunsown, full barns be found empty, and thesprings of wells be stopped. Among men allrestraints of order will be dissolved, sin andungodliness rule upon earth. And men will fightagainst each other as if stricken with madness, thefriend against the friend, the son against the father,the daughter against the mother. Nation will riseagainst nation, and to war shall be addedearthquake, fire and famine, whereby men shall becarried off.'

Such were the terrible pictures of the day of the

Lord. The verses are 6-8 and 29-31.

(4) Some verses deal with the persecutionwhich the followers of Christ will have to endure.These are verses 9 and 10.

(5) Some verses deal with the threats whichwill develop against the life and purity of theChurch. These are verses 4-5, 11-13 and 23-6.

(6) Some verses speak directly of the secondcoming of Christ. These are verses 3, 14, 27 and28.

So, in this amazing and difficult chapter ofMatthew, we have in the first thirty-one verses akind of sixfold vision of the future. We now go onto look at this vision, not taking the verses of thechapter consecutively, but taking together in turnthose which deal with each strand.

THE DOOM OF THE HOLY CITY

Matthew 24:1-2

When Jesus had left the precincts of theTemple, he was going away; and hisdisciples came to him to point out tohim the buildings of the Temple area.He said to them: 'Do you not see allthese things? This is the truth I tell you -one stone will not be left here uponanother that will not be thrown down.'

It may well be that at least some of the discipleshad not been very often to Jerusalem. They wereGalilaeans, men of the highlands and of thecountry, fishermen who knew the lakeside farbetter than they knew the city. Some of them atleast would be like people from the country

coming up to London or New York for a visit,staggered by what they saw; and well they mightbe, for there was nothing in the ancient worldquite like the Temple.

The summit of Mount Zion had been dug awayto leave a plateau of 1,000 feet square. At the farend of it was the Temple itself (the naos). It wasbuilt of white marble plated with gold, and itshone in the sun so that people could scarcelybear to look at it. Between the lower city and theTemple mount lay the valley of the Tyropoeon,and across this valley stretched a colossal bridge.Its arches had a span of 41 /2 feet, and its springstones were 24 feet long by 6 inches thick. TheTemple area was surrounded by great porches,Solomon's Porch and the Royal Porch. Theseporches were upheld by pillars, cut out of solidblocks of marble in one piece. They were 37 /2,feet high, and of such a thickness that three men

1

1

linked together could scarcely put their armsround them. At the corners of the Temple, anglestones have been found which measure from 20 to40 feet in length, and which weigh more than 100tons. How they were ever cut and placed inposition is one of the mysteries of ancientengineering. Little wonder that the Galilaeanfishermen looked and called Jesus' attention tothem.

Jesus answered that the day would come whennot one of these stones would be left standingupon the other - and Jesus was right. In AD 70, theRomans, finally exasperated by the rebelliousintransigence of the Jews, gave up all attempt atpacification and turned to destruction, andJerusalem and the Temple were laid waste so thatJesus' prophecy literally came true.

Here speaks Jesus the prophet. Jesus knew thatthe way of power politics can end only in doom.

The individual and the nation which will not takethe way of God are heading for disaster - even inmaterial things. The individual and the nationwhich refuse the dream of God will find their owndreams shattered also.

THE GRIM TERROR OF THESIEGE

Matthew 24:15-22

'When you see the desolatingabomination, which was spoken of bythe prophet Daniel, standing in the HolyPlace (let him who reads understand),then let him who is in Judaea flee to themountains. Let him who is on thehousetop not come down to remove hisgoods from his house: and let him whois in the field not come back to removehis cloak. Alas for those who in thosedays are carrying children in the womb,and who are suckling children. Pray thatyour flight may not be in the wintertime, nor on a Sabbath. For at that time

there will be great affliction, such ashas never happened from the beginningof the world until now, and such asnever will happen. And, if the days hadnot been shortened, no human beingwould have survived. But the days willbe shortened for the sake of the elect.'

The siege of Jerusalem was one of the mostterrible sieges in all history. Jerusalem wasobviously a difficult city to take, being a city setupon a hill and defended by religious fanatics; soTitus determined to starve it out.

No one quite knows what the desolatingabomination is. The phrase itself comes fromDaniel 12:11. There, it is said that theabomination that makes desolate is set up in theTemple. The Daniel reference is quite clear.About 170 BC Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of

Syria, determined to stamp out Judaism and tointroduce into Judaea Greek religion and Greekpractices. He captured Jerusalem and desecratedthe Temple by erecting an altar to Olympian Zeusin the Temple Court and by sacrificing pig's fleshupon it, and by turning the priests' rooms and theTemple chambers into public brothels. It was adeliberate attempt to stamp out Judaism.

It was the prophecy of Jesus that the same thingwould happen again, and that once again the HolyPlace would be desecrated - as indeed it was.Jesus saw coming upon Jerusalem a repetition ofthe terrible things which had happened 200 yearsago; only this time there would arise no JudasMaccabaeus; this time there would be nodeliverance and no purification; there would benothing but ultimate destruction.

Jesus foretold of that siege that unless its dayshad been shortened, no human being could have

survived it. It is strange to see how Jesus gavepractical advice which was not taken, thedisregarding of which multiplied the disaster.Jesus' advice was that when that day came, menand women ought to flee to the mountains. Theydid not; they crammed themselves into the city andinto the walls of Jerusalem from all over thecountry, and that very folly multiplied the grimhorror of the famine of the siege a hundredfold.

When we go to the history of Josephus, we seehow right Jesus was about that terrible future.Josephus writes of these fearful days of siege andfamine: Then did the famine widen its progress,and devoured the people by whole houses andfamilies; the upper rooms were full of women andchildren that were dying of famine; and the lanesof the city were full of the dead bodies of theaged; the children also and the young menwandered about the market places like shadows,all swelled with famine, and fell down dead

wheresoever their misery seized them. As forburying them, those that were sick themselveswere not able to do it: and those that were heartyand well were deterred from doing it by the greatmultitude of those dead bodies, and by theuncertainty there was how soon they should diethemselves, for many died as they were buryingothers, and many went to their coffins before thefatal hour was come. Nor was there anylamentation made under these calamities, norwere heard any mournful complaints; but thefamine confounded all natural passions; for thosewho were just going to die looked upon those whowere gone to their rest before them with dry eyesand open mouths. A deep silence, also, and a kindof deadly night had seized upon the city . . . Andevery one of them died with their eyes fixed uponthe Temple' (Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 5:12:3).

Josephus tells a dreadful story of a woman whoin those days actually killed and roasted and ate

her suckling child (6:3:4). He tells us that eventhe Romans, when they had taken the city andwere going through it to plunder, were so strickenwith horror at the sights they saw that they wentaway empty-handed. 'When the Romans werecome to the houses to plunder them, they found inthem entire families of dead men, and the upperrooms full of dead corpses . . . They then stood ona horror of this sight, and went out withouttouching anything' (6:8:5). Josephus himselfshared in the horrors of this siege, and he tells usthat 97,000 were taken captive and enslaved, and1,100,000 died.

That is what Jesus foresaw; these are the thingshe forewarned. We must never forget that not onlyindividuals but also nations need the wisdom ofChrist. Unless the leaders of the nations arethemselves led by Christ, they cannot do otherthan lead people not only to spiritual but also to

physical disaster. Jesus was no impracticaldreamer; he laid down the laws by which alone anation can prosper, and by disregard of which itcan do no other than perish miserably.

THE DAY OF THE LORD

Matthew 24:6-8, 29-31

'You will hear of wars and reports ofwars. See that you are not disturbed; forthese things must happen; but the end isnot yet. For nation shall rise againstnation, and kingdom against kingdom,and there will be famines andearthquakes in various places.' . . .

'Immediately after the affliction ofthese days the sun will be darkened, andthe moon will not give her light, and thestars will fall from heaven, and thepowers of heaven will be shaken. Thenthere will appear the sign of the Son ofMan in heaven. And then all the tribesof the earth will lament, and they will

see the Son of Man coming on theclouds of heaven with power and muchglory. And he will send his angels witha great trumpet-call, and they willgather the elect from the four winds,from one boundary of heaven to theother.'

We have already seen that an essential part of theJewish thought of the future was the day of theLord, that day when God was going to intervenedirectly in history, and when the present age, withall its incurable evil, would begin to betransformed into the age to come.

Very naturally, the New Testament writers to avery great extent identified the second coming ofJesus and the day of the Lord; and they took overall the imagery which had to do with the day ofthe Lord and applied it to the second coming.

None of these pictures is to be taken literally; theyare pictures, and they are visions; they areattempts to put the indescribable into humanwords and to find some kind of picture forhappenings for which human language has nopicture.

But from all these pictures there emerge certaingreat truths.

(1) They tell us that God has not abandoned theworld; for all its wickedness, the world is still thescene in which God's purpose is being workedout. It is not abandonment that God contemplates;it is intervention.

(2) They tell us that even an ever-increasingpresence of evil must not discourage us. Anessential part of the Jewish picture of the day ofthe Lord is that a complete breakdown of allmoral standards and an apparent completedisintegration of the world must precede it. But,

for all that, this is not the prelude to destruction; itis the prelude to recreation.

(3) They tell us that both judgment and a newcreation are certain. They tell us that Godcontemplates the world both in justice and inmercy; and that God's plan is not the obliterationof the world, but the creation of a world which isnearer to his heart's desire.

The value of these pictures is not in theirdetails, which at best are only symbolic andwhich use the only pictures which the minds ofmen and women could conceive, but in the eternaltruth which they conserve; and the basic truth inthem is that whatever the world is like, God hasnot abandoned it.

THE PERSECUTION TO COME

Matthew 24:9-10

'Then they will deliver you to affliction,and they will kill you, and you will behated by all nations because of myname. And then many will stumble, andwill betray each other, and will hateeach other.'

This passage shows the uncompromising honestyof Jesus. He never promised his disciples an easyway; he promised them death and suffering andpersecution. There is a sense in which a realChurch will always be a persecuted Church, aslong as it exists in a world which is not aChristian world. Where does that persecutioncome from?

(1) Christ offers a new loyalty; and again andagain he declared that this new loyalty mustsurpass all earthly ties. The greatest ground ofhatred in the days of the early Church was the factthat Christianity split homes and families, whenone member decided for Christ and the others didnot. Christians are those who are pledged to giveJesus Christ the first place in their lives - andmany a human clash is liable to result from that.

(2) Christ offers a new standard. There arecustoms and practices and ways of life which maybe all right for the world, but which are far frombeing all right for Christians. For many people,the difficulty about Christianity is that it is ajudgment upon themselves and upon their way oflife in their business or in their personalrelationships. The awkward thing aboutChristianity is that anyone who does not wish tobe changed is bound to hate it and resent it.

(3) Christians, if they are true Christians,introduce into the world a new example. There isa daily beauty in their lives which makes the livesof others ugly. Christians are the light of theworld, not in the sense that they criticize andcondemn others, but in the sense that theydemonstrate in themselves the beauty of theChrist-filled life and therefore the ugliness of theChristless life.

(4) This is all to say that Christianity brings anew conscience into life. Neither the individualChristian nor the Christian Church can ever knowanything of a cowardly concealment or acowardly silence. The Church and the individualChristian must at all times constitute theconscience of Christianity - and it is a humancharacteristic that there are many times when wewould wish to silence conscience.

THREATS TO THE FAITH

Matthew 24:4-5, 11-13, 23-6

Jesus answered: 'Be on the look-out lestanyone lead you astray, for many willcome in my name saying: "I am God'sAnointed One," and they will lead manyastray.' . . .

'And many false prophets will arise,and they will lead many astray. And thelove of many will grow cold, becauselawlessness will be multiplied. But it ishe who endures to the end who will besaved.' . . .

'At that time, if anyone says to you:"Look you, here, or here, is theAnointed One of God," do not believe

him. For false Messiahs and falseprophets will arise, and they willproduce great signs and wonders, theconsequence of which will be, ifpossible, to lead astray the elect. Lookyou, I have told you about these thingsbefore they happen. If anyone says toyou: "Look you, he is in thewilderness," do not go out. "Look you,he is in the inner chambers," do notbelieve him.'

In the days to come, Jesus saw that two dangerswould threaten the Church.

(1) There would be the danger of false leaders.False leaders are people who seek to propagatetheir own version of the truth rather than the truthas it is in Jesus Christ, and are those who try toattach others to themselves rather than to Jesus

Christ. The inevitable result is that false leadersspread division instead of building up unity. Thetest of any leader is likeness to Christ.

(2) The second danger is that ofdiscouragement. There are those whose love willgrow cold because of the increasing lawlessnessof the world. True Christians are men and womenwho hold to their beliefs, when belief is at itsmost difficult; and who, in the most discouragingcircumstances, refuse to believe that God's arm isshortened or his power grown less.

THE COMING OF THE KING

Matthew 24:3, 14, 27-8

His disciples came to him privately,when he was sitting on the Mount ofOlives. 'Tell us', they said, 'when thesethings shall be. And tell us what will bethe sign of your coming, and of theconsummation of the age.' . . .

'And the gospel will be proclaimedto the whole inhabited world, for atestimony to all nations - and then theend will come.' . . .

'For as the lightning comes from theeast and shines as far as the west, soshall be the coming of the Son of Man.Where the body is, there the vultures

will be gathered together.'

Here, Jesus speaks of his second coming directly.The New Testament does not ever use the phrasethe second coming. The word which it uses todescribe the return of Christ in glory isinteresting. It is parousia, a word which has comeinto English as a description of the secondcoming; it is quite common in the rest of the NewTestament, but in the gospels this is the onlychapter in which it occurs (verses 3, 27, 37, 39).The interesting thing is that it is the regular wordfor the arrival of a governor into his province orfor the coming of a king to his subjects. Itregularly describes a coming in authority and inpower.

The remainder of this chapter will have muchto tell us about it, but at the moment we note that,whatever else is true about the doctrine of the

second coming, it certainly conserves two greatfacts.

(1) It conserves the fact of the ultimate triumphof Christ. He who was crucified on a cross willone day be the Lord of all. For Jesus Christ, theend is sure - and that end is his universal kingship.

(2) It conserves the fact that history is goingsomewhere. Sometimes people have felt thathistory was plunging to a wilder and wilderchaos, that it is nothing more than the record ofhuman sins and follies. Sometimes people havefelt that history was cyclic and that the sameweary round of things would happen over andover again. The Stoics believed that there arecertain fixed periods, that at the end of each theworld is destroyed in a great conflagration; andthat then the same story in every tiny detail takesplace all over again.

As the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus had it:

Then again the world is restored anew in aprecisely similar arrangement as before. The starsagain move in their orbits, each performing itsrevolution in the former period, without anyvariation. Socrates and Plato and each individualman will live again, with the same friends andfellow-citizens. They will go through the sameexperiences and the same activities. Every cityand village and field will be restored, just as itwas. And this restoration of the universe takesplace, not once, but over and over again - indeedto all eternity, without end.' This is a grim thoughtthat human beings are bound to an eternaltreadmill in which there is no progress and fromwhich there is no escape.

But the second coming has in it this essentialtruth - that there is 'one divine far-off event, towhich the whole creation moves', and that thatevent is not dissolution but the universal andeternal rule of God.

THE COMING OF THE KING

Matthew 24:32-41

'Learn the lesson which comes from thefig tree. Whenever the branch hasbecome tender, and puts forth its leaves,you know that summer is near. Even so,when you too see these things, knowthat he is near at the doors. This is thetruth I tell you - this generation shall notpass away, until these things havehappened. Heaven and earth will passaway, but my words will not passaway.

'No one knows about that day andhour, not even the angels of heaven, noteven the Son, but only the Father. Aswere the days of Noah, so will be the

coming of the Son of Man. For, as inthose days before the flood they spenttheir time eating and drinking, marryingand giving in marriage, until the day thatNoah entered into the ark, and werequite unaware of what was to happenuntil the flood came and swept them allaway, so will be the coming of the Sonof Man. At that time there will be twomen in the field; one is taken, and theother is left. There will be two womengrinding with the mill; one is taken, andthe other is left.'

Few passages confront us with greater difficultiesthan this. It is in two sections, and they seem tocontradict each other. The first (verses 32-5)seems to indicate that, just as it is possible to tellby the signs of nature when summer is on the way,so it will be possible to tell by the signs of the

world when the second coming is on the way.Then it seems to go on to say that the secondcoming will happen within the lifetime of thegeneration listening to Jesus at that moment.

The second section (verses 36-41) says quitedefinitely that no one knows the time of the secondcoming, not the angels, not even Jesus himself, butonly God; and that it will come upon men andwomen with the suddenness of a rainstorm out ofa blue sky.

There is a very real difficulty here which, evenif we cannot completely solve it, we mustnevertheless face boldly.

Let us take as our starting point verse 34: 'Thisis the truth I tell you - this generation shall notpass away, until these things have happened.'When we consider that saying, three possibilitiesemerge.

(a) If Jesus said it in reference to the secondcoming, he was mistaken, for he did not returnwithin the lifetime of the generation listening tohis words. Many accept that point of view,believing that Jesus in his humanity hadlimitations of knowledge and did believe thatwithin that generation he would return. We canreadily accept that in his humanity Jesus hadlimitations of knowledge; but it is difficult tobelieve that he was in error regarding so great aspiritual truth as this.

(b) It is possible that Jesus said something likethis which was changed in the transmitting. InMark 9: 1, Jesus is reported as saying: 'Truly Itell you, there are some standing here who willnot taste death until they see that the kingdom ofGod has come with power.' That was gloriouslyand triumphantly true. Within that generation, thekingdom of God did spread mightily until therewere Christians throughout the known world.

Now the early Christians did look for thesecond coming immediately. In their situation ofsuffering and persecution, they looked and longedfor the release that the coming of their Lord wouldbring, and sometimes they took sayings whichwere intended to speak of the kingdom andattached them to the second coming, which is avery different thing. Something like that may havehappened here. What Jesus may have said wasthat his kingdom would come in power and mightbefore that generation had passed away.

(c) But there is a third possibility. What if thephrase until these things have happened has noreference to the second coming? What if theirreference is, in fact, to the prophecy with whichthe chapter began, the siege and fall of Jerusalem?If we accept that, there is no difficulty. What Jesusis saying is that these grim warnings of hisregarding the doom of Jerusalem will be fulfilled

within that very generation - and they were, infact, fulfilled forty years later. It seems by far thebest course to take verses 32-5 as referring not tothe second coming but to the doom of Jerusalem,for then all the difficulties in them are removed.

Verses 36-41 do refer to the second coming:and they tell us certain most important truths.

(1) They tell us that the hour of that event isknown to God and to God alone. It is, therefore,clear that speculation regarding the time of thesecond coming is nothing less than blasphemy, foranyone who so speculates is seeking to wrestfrom God secrets which belong to God alone. It isno one's duty to speculate; it is our duty to prepareourselves, and to watch.

(2) They tell us that that time will come withshattering suddenness on those who are immersedin material things. In the old story, Noah preparedhimself in the calm weather for the flood which

was to come, and when it came he was ready. Butthe rest of humanity was lost in its eating anddrinking and marrying and giving in marriage, andwas caught completely unawares, and wastherefore swept away. These verses are a warningnever to become so immersed in time that weforget eternity, never to let our concern withworldly affairs, however necessary, completelydistract us from remembering that there is a God,that the issues of life and death are in his hands,and that whenever his call comes, at morning, atmidday or at evening, it must find us ready.

(3) They tell us that the coming of Christ willbe a time of separation and of judgment, when hewill gather to himself those who are his own.

Beyond these things we cannot go - for God haskept the ultimate knowledge to himself and hiswisdom.

READY FOR THE COMING OFTHE KING

Matthew 24:42-51

'Watch therefore, for you do not knowon what day your Lord comes.Understand this - that if the householderhad known at what watch of the nightthe thief was coming, he would havebeen awake, and he would not haveallowed him to break into his house.That is why you, too, must showyourselves ready; for the Son of Man iscoming at an hour you do not expect.

'Who, then, is the dependable andwise servant whom his master put incharge over his household staff, to give

them their food at the right time? Happyis the servant whom his master, when hehas come, will find acting thus. This isthe truth I tell you - he will put him incharge of all his belongings. But if thatbad servant says to himself: "My masterwill not be back for a long time yet,"and if he begins to beat his fellowservants, and if he eats and drinks withdrunkards, then the master of thatservant will come on a day when he isnot expecting him, and at an hour whichhe does not know, and will cut him inpieces, and assign him a place with thehypocrites. There will be weeping andgnashing of teeth there.'

HERE is the practical outcome of all that has gonebefore. If the day and the hour of the coming ofChrist are known to none save God, then all life

must be a constant preparation for that coming.And, if that is so, there are certain basic sins.

(1) To live without watchfulness invitesdisaster. Thieves do not send a letter saying whenthey are going to burgle a house; the principalweapon in their wicked undertakings is surprise;therefore a householder who has valuables in thehouse must maintain a constant guard. But to getthis picture right, we must remember that thewatching of the Christian for the coming of Christis not that of terror-stricken fear and shiveringapprehension; it is the watching of eagerexpectation for the coming of glory and joy.

(2) The spirit which leads to disaster is thespirit which says there is plenty of time. It is thecomfortable delusion of the servant that he willhave plenty of time to put things to rights beforehis master returns.

There is a fable which tells of three apprentice

devils who were coming to this earth to finishtheir apprenticeship. They were talking to Satan,the chief of the devils, about their plans to temptand ruin men and women. The first said: 'I willtell them there is no God.' Satan said: 'That willnot delude many, for they know that there is aGod.' The second said: 'I will tell them there is nohell.' Satan answered: 'You will deceive no onethat way; they know even now that there is a hellfor sin.' The third said: 'I will tell them there is nohurry.' 'Go,' said Satan, 'and you will ruin them bythe thousand.' The most dangerous of all delusionsis that there is plenty of time. The most dangerousday of our lives is when we learn that there issuch a word as tomorrow. There are things whichmust not be put off, for none of us knows if for ustomorrow will ever come.

(3) Rejection is based on failure in duty, andreward is based on fidelity. The servant whofulfilled his duty faithfully was given a still

greater place; and the servant who failed wasseverely dealt with. The inevitable conclusion isthat, when he comes, Jesus Christ can find usemployed in no better and greater task than indoing our duty.

In the words of a spiritual:

There's a king and a captain high. And he's coming by and by, And he'll find me hoeing cotton when he comes. You can hear his legions charging in the regionsof the sky, And he'll find me hoeing cotton when he comes. There's a man they thrust aside, Who was tortured till he died, And he'll find me hoeing cotton when he comes. He was hated and rejected, He was scorned and crucified, And he'll find me hoeing cotton when he comes.

When he comes! When he comes! He'll be crowned by saints and angels when he comes. They'll be shouting out Hosanna! to the man that men denied.And I'll kneel among my cotton when he comes.

If people are doing their duty, however simplethat duty may be, on the day Christ comes therewill be joy for them.

THE FATE OF THEUNPREPARED

Matthew 25:1-13

'What will happen in the kingdom ofheaven is like the situation which arosewhen ten virgins took their lamps andwent out to meet the bridegroom. Fiveof them were foolish and five werewise. The foolish took their lamps, butdid not take oil with them; but the wisetook oil in their vessels together withtheir lamps. When the bridegroom waslong in coming, all of them settled downto rest and slept. In the middle of thenight the cry went up: "Look you, thebridegroom! Go out to meet him!" Thenall these virgins awoke, and they

prepared their lamps. The foolish onessaid to the wise ones: "Give us some ofyour oil. for our lamps have gone out."But the wise answered: "No; we cannotdo that in case there is not enough for usand for you. Go rather to those who selloil, and buy it for yourselves." Whilethey went away to buy oil, thebridegroom came; and those who wereready entered with him into themarriage celebrations, and the door wasshut. Later the rest of the virgins cametoo. "Sir, sir," they said, "open the doorto us." But he answered: "This is thetruth I tell you - I do not know you." Beon the watch then, for you do not knowthe day and the hour.'

IF we look at this parable with western eyes, itmay seem an unnatural and a 'made-up' story. But,

in point of fact, it tells a story which could havehappened at any time in a Palestinian village andwhich could still happen today.

A wedding was a great occasion. The wholevillage turned out to accompany the couple totheir new home, and they went by the longestpossible road, in order that they might receive theglad good wishes of as many as possible.'Everyone', runs the Jewish saying, 'from six tosixty will follow the marriage drum.' The Rabbisagreed that a man might even abandon the study ofthe law to share in the joy of a wedding feast.

The point of this story lies in a Jewish customwhich is very different from anything we know.When a couple married, they did not go away fora honeymoon. They stayed at home; for a weekthey kept open house; they were treated, and evenaddressed, as prince and princess; it was thehappiest week in all their lives. To the festivities

of that week their chosen friends were admitted;and it was not only the marriage ceremony, it wasalso that joyous week that the foolish virginsmissed, because they were unprepared.

The story of how they missed it all is perfectlytrue to life. Dr J. Alexander Findlay, Principal ofDidsbury Methodist College, Manchester, tells ofwhat he himself saw in Palestine. 'When we wereapproaching the gates of a Galilaean town,' hewrites, 'I caught a sight often maidens gaily cladand playing some kind of musical instrument, asthey danced along the road in front of our car;when I asked what they were doing, the dragoman[interpreter] told me that they were going to keepthe bride company till her bridegroom arrived. Iasked him if there was any chance of seeing thewedding, but he shook his head, saying in effect:"It might be tonight, or tomorrow night, or in afortnight's time, nobody ever knows for certain."Then he went on to explain that one of the great

things to do, if you could, at a middle-classwedding in Palestine was to catch the bridal partynapping. So the bridegroom comes unexpectedly,and sometimes in the middle of the night: it is truethat he is required by public opinion to send aman along the street to shout: "Behold! thebridegroom is coming!" but that may happen atany time; so the bridal party have to be ready togo out into the street at any time to meet him,whenever he chooses to come . . . Other importantpoints are that no one is allowed on the streetsafter dark without a lighted lamp, and also that,when the bridegroom has once arrived, and thedoor has been shut, late-comers to the ceremonyare not admitted.' There, the whole drama ofJesus' parable is re-enacted in the twentiethcentury. Here is no made-up story but a slice oflife from a village in Palestine.

Like so many of Jesus' parables, this one has animmediate and local meaning, and also a wider

and universal meaning.

In its immediate significance, it was directedagainst the Jews. They were the chosen people;their whole history should have been apreparation for the coming of the Son of God; theyought to have been prepared for him when hecame. Instead, they were quite unprepared andtherefore were shut out. Here in dramatic form isthe tragedy of the unpreparedness of the Jews.

But the parable has at least two universalwarnings.

(1) It warns us that there are certain thingswhich cannot be obtained at the last minute. It isfar too late for a student to be preparing when theday of the examination has come. It is too late toacquire a skill, or a character, if we do notalready possess it, when some task offers itself tous. Similarly, it is easy to leave things so late thatwe can no longer prepare ourselves to meet with

God. When the Queen of England, Mary ofOrange, was dying, her chaplain sought to tell herof the way of salvation. Her answer was: 'I havenot left this matter to this hour.' To be too late isalways tragedy.

(2) It warns us that there are certain thingswhich cannot be borrowed. The foolish virginsfound it impossible to borrow oil when theydiscovered they needed it. We cannot borrow arelationship with God: we must possess it forourselves. We cannot borrow a character, wemust be clothed with it. We cannot always beliving on the spiritual capital which others haveamassed. There are certain things we must win oracquire for ourselves, for we cannot borrow themfrom others.

Tennyson took this parable and turned it intoverse in the song the little novice sang toGuinevere the queen, when Guinevere had too late

discovered the cost of sin:

Late, late so late! and dark the night and chill! Late, late so late! but we can enter still. Too late, too late! ye cannot enter now.

No light had we; for that we do repent; And learning this, the bridegroom will relent. Too late, too late! ye cannot enter now.

No light: so late! and dark and chill the night! O let us in, that we may find the light! Too late, too late: ye cannot enter now.

Have we not heard the bridegroom is so sweet?

O let us in, tho' late, to kiss his feet! No, no, too late! ye cannot enter now.

There is no knell so laden with regret as the soundof the words too late.

THE CONDEMNATION OF THEBURIED TALENT

Matthew 25:14-30

'Even so, a man who was going abroadcalled his servants, and handed over hisbelongings to them. To one he gave fivetalents; to another two talents; toanother one talent; to each according tohis individual ability. So he went away.Straightaway the man who had receivedthe five talents went and worked withthem, and made another five talents. Inthe same way the man who had receivedthe two talents made another two talentsof profit. But the man who had receivedthe one talent went away and dug up theearth, and hid his master's money. After

a long time the master of those servantscame, and struck a reckoning with them.The one who had received the fivetalents came and brought another fivetalents. "Sir," he said, "you gave mefive talents. Look! I have made a profitof another five talents." His master saidto him: "Well done! good and faithfulservant. You have been faithful in a fewthings; I will put you in charge overmany things; enter into the joy of yourmaster." The one who had received thetwo talents came and said: "Sir, youhanded over to me two talents. Look! Ihave made a profit of another twotalents." His master said to him: "Welldone! good and faithful servant. Youhave been faithful in a few things. I willput you in charge over many things."The one who had received the one

talent came also. "Sir," he said, "I knewthat you are a harsh man, reaping whereyou did not sow, and gathering whereyou do not winnow. So I was afraid,and I went away and hid your talent inthe earth. Look! you have what isyours." The master answered him: "Eviland timid servant! You were wellaware that I reap where I have notsowed, and that I gather where I havenot winnowed. You ought to have putmy money out to the bankers, and whenI came I would have received backwhat is my own with interest. Take,then, the talent from him, and give it tohim who has the ten talents. For toeveryone who has, it will be given, andhe will have abundance; but from himwho has not, even what he has will betaken away from him. And cast the

useless servant into the outer darkness.There shall be weeping and gnashing ofteeth there."'

LIKE the preceding one, this parable had animmediate lesson for those who heard it for thefirst time, and a whole series of permanentlessons for us today. It is always known as theparable of the talents. The talent was not a coin,it was a weight; and therefore its value obviouslydepended on whether the coinage involved wascopper, gold or silver. The most common metalinvolved was silver; and the value of a talent ofsilver was considerable. It was worth aboutfifteen years' wages for a working man.

There can be no doubt that originally in thisparable the whole attention is riveted on theuseless servant. There can be little doubt that hestands for the scribes and the Pharisees, and for

their attitude to the law and the truth of God. Theuseless servant buried his talent in the ground, inorder that he might hand it back to his masterexactly as it was. The whole aim of the scribesand Pharisees was to keep the law exactly as itwas. In their own phrase, they sought 'to build afence around the law'. Any change, anydevelopment, any alteration, anything new was tothem anathema. Their method involved theparalysis of religious truth.

Like the man with the talent, they desired tokeep things exactly as they were - and it is for thatthat they are condemned. In this parable, Jesustells us that there can be no religion withoutadventure, and that God can find no use for theshut mind. But there is much more in this parablethan that.

(1) It tells us that God gives us differing gifts.One man received five talents, another two, and

another one. It is not our talent which matters;what matters is how we use it. God neverdemands from us abilities which we have not got;but he does demand that we should use to the fullthe abilities which we do possess. Human beingsare not equal in talent; but they can be equal ineffort. The parable tells us that whatever talent wehave, little or great, we must lay it at the serviceof God.

(2) It tells us that the reward of work well doneis still more work to do. The two servants whohad done well are not told to lean back and reston their oars because they have done well. Theyare given greater tasks and greaterresponsibilities in the work of the master.

(3) It tells us that those who are punished arethe people who will not try. The man with the onetalent did not lose his talent: he simply did nothingwith it. Even if he had adventured with it and lost

it, it would have been better than to do nothing atall. It is always a temptation for the one-talentperson to say: 'I have so small a talent and I cando so little with it. It is not worth while to try, forall the contribution I can make.' The condemnationis for anyone who, having even one talent, willnot try to use it, and will not risk it for thecommon good.

(4) It lays down a rule of life which isuniversally true. It tells us that to those who have,more will be given, and those who have not willlose even what they have. The meaning is this. Ifwe have a talent and exercise it, we areprogressively able to do more with it. But, if wehave a talent and fail to exercise it, we willinevitably lose it. If we have some proficiency ata game or an art, if we have some gift for doingsomething, the more we exercise that proficiencyand that gift, the harder the work and the biggerthe task we will be able to tackle. Whereas, if we

fail to use it, we lose it. That is equally true ofplaying golf or playing the piano, or singing songsor writing sermons, of carving wood or thinkingout ideas. It is the lesson of life that the only wayto keep a gift is to use it in the service of God andin the service of our neighbours.

GOD'S STANDARD OFJUDGMENT

Matthew 25:31-46

'When the Son of Man shall come in hisglory, and all the angels with him, thenhe will take his seat upon the throne ofhis glory, and all nations will beassembled before him, and he willseparate them from each other, as ashepherd separates the sheep from thegoats, and he will place the sheep onhis right hand and the goats on his left.Then the King will say to those on hisright hand: "Come, you who are blessedby my Father, enter into possession ofthe kingdom which has been preparedfor you since the creation of the world.

For I was hungry, and you gave me toeat; I was thirsty, and you gave me todrink; I was a stranger, and yougathered me in; naked, and you clothedme; I was sick, and you came to visitme; in prison, and you came to me."Then the righteous will answer him:"Lord, when did we see you hungry, andnourish you? Or thirsty, and gave you todrink? When did we see you a stranger,and gather you to us? Or naked, andclothed you? When did we see you sick,or in prison, and come to you?" And theKing will answer them: "This is thetruth I tell you - insomuch as you did itto one of the least of these my brothers,you did it to me." Then he will say tothose on the left: "Go from me, youcursed ones, to the eternal fire preparedfor the devil and angels. For I was

hungry, and you did not give me to eat; Iwas thirsty, and you did not give me todrink; I was a stranger, and you did notgather me to you; naked, and you did notclothe me; sick and in prison, and youdid not come to visit me." Then thesetoo will answer: "Lord, when did wesee you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger,or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didnot render service to you?" Then hewill answer them: "This is the truth Itell you - in so far as you did not do it toone of the least of these, you did not doit to me." And these will go away toeternal punishment, but the righteouswill go away to eternal life.'

THIS is one of the most vivid parables Jesus everspoke, and the lesson is crystal clear - that Godwill judge us in accordance with our reaction to

human need. His judgment does not depend on theknowledge we have amassed, or the fame that wehave acquired, or the fortune that we have gained,but on the help that we have given. And there arecertain things which this parable teaches us aboutthe help which we must give.

(1) It must be help in simple things. The thingswhich Jesus picks out - giving a hungry person ameal, or a thirsty person a drink, welcoming astranger, cheering the sick, visiting the prisoner -are things which anyone can do. It is not aquestion of giving away huge sums of money, orof writing our names in the annals of history; it isa case of giving simple help to the people wemeet every day. There never was a parable whichso opened the way to glory to us all.

(2) It must be help which is uncalculating.Those who helped did not think that they werehelping Christ and thus piling up eternal merit:

they helped because they could not stopthemselves. It was the natural, instinctive, quiteuncalculating reaction of the loving heart.Whereas, on the other hand, the attitude of thosewho failed to help was: 'If we had known it wasyou we would gladly have helped; but we thoughtit was only some insignificant person who wasnot worth helping.' It is still true that there arethose who will help if they are given praise andthanks and publicity; but to help like that is not tohelp, it is to pander to self-esteem. Such help isnot generosity; it is disguised selfishness. Thehelp which wins the approval of God is thatwhich is given for nothing but the sake of helping.

(3) Jesus confronts us with the wonderful truththat all such help given is given to himself; incontrast, all such help withheld is withheld fromhimself. How can that be? If we really wish tobring delight to those who are parents, if wereally wish to move them to gratitude, the best

way to do it is to help their children. God is thegreat Father; and the way to delight the heart ofGod is to help his children, our fellow men andwomen.

There were two men who found this parableblessedly true. The one was Francis of Assisi; hewas wealthy and high-born and high-spirited. Buthe was not happy. He felt that life wasincomplete. Then one day he was out riding andmet a leper, loathsome and repulsive in theugliness of his disease. Something moved Francisto dismount and fling his arms around thiswretched sufferer; and in his arms the face of theleper changed to the face of Christ.

The other was Martin of Tours. He was aRoman soldier and a Christian. One cold winterday, as he was entering a city, a beggar stoppedhim and asked for alms. Martin had no money; butthe beggar was blue and shivering with cold, and

Martin gave what he had. He took off his soldier'scoat, worn and frayed as it was; he cut it in twoand gave half of it to the beggar man. That night hehad a dream. In it he saw the heavenly places andall the angels and Jesus among them; and Jesuswas wearing half of a Roman soldier's cloak. Oneof the angels said to him: 'Master, why are youwearing that battered old cloak? Who gave it toyou?' And Jesus answered softly: 'My servantMartin gave it to me.'

When we learn the generosity which withoutcalculation helps others in the simplest things, wetoo will know the joy of helping Jesus Christhimself.

THE BEGINNING OF THE LASTACT OF THE TRAGEDY

Matthew 26:1-5

When Jesus had completed all thesesayings, he said to his disciples: 'Youknow that in two days' time it is thePassover Feast, and the Son of Man isgoing to be delivered to be crucified.'At that time the chief priests and theelders of the people gathered in thecourtyard of the high priest, who wascalled Caiaphas, and took counseltogether to seize Jesus by guile and tokill him. They said: 'Not at the time ofthe Feast, lest a tumult arise among thepeople.'

HERE, then, is the definite beginning of the last actof the divine tragedy. Once again, Jesus warnedhis disciples of what was to come. For the lastfew days, he had been acting with suchmagnificent defiance that they might have thoughthe proposed to defy the Jewish authorities; buthere once again he makes it clear that his aim isthe cross.

At the same time, the Jewish authorities werelaying their plots and stratagems. JosephCaiaphas, to give him his full name, was highpriest. We know very little about him, but we doknow one most suggestive fact. In the old days, theoffice of high priest had been hereditary and hadbeen for life; but when the Romans took over inPalestine, high priests came and went in rapidseries, for the Romans appointed and deposedhigh priests to suit their own purposes. Between37 BC and AD 67, when the last was appointedbefore the destruction of the Temple, there were

no fewer than twenty-eight high priests. Thesuggestive thing is that Caiaphas was high priestfrom AD 18-36. This was an extraordinarily longtime for a high priest to last, and Caiaphas musthave brought the technique of co-operating withthe Romans to a fine art. And therein precisely layhis problem.

The one thing the Romans would not stand wascivil disorder. Let there be any rioting, andcertainly Caiaphas would lose his position. At thePassover time, the atmosphere in Jerusalem wasalways explosive. The city was packed tightlywith people. Josephus tells us of an occasionwhen an actual census of the people was taken(Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 6:9:3). It happenedin this way.

The governor at the time was Cestius; Cestiusfelt that Nero did not understand the number of theJews and the problems which they posed to any

governor. So he asked the high priests to take acensus of the lambs killed for sacrifice at acertain Passover time. Josephus goes on to say: 'Acompany of not less than ten must belong to everysacrifice (for it is not lawful for them to feastsingly by themselves), and many of us are twentyin a company.' It was found that on this occasionthe number of lambs killed was 256,500. It isJosephus' estimate that there were in the city forthat Passover some 2,750,000 people.

It is little wonder that Caiaphas sought somestratagem to take Jesus secretly and quietly, formany of the pilgrims were Galilaeans, and to themJesus was a prophet. It was in fact his plan toleave the whole thing until after the PassoverFeast had ended, and the city was quieter; butJudas was to provide him with a solution to hisproblem.

LOVE'S EXTRAVAGANCE

Matthew 26:6-13

When Jesus was in Bethany, in thehouse of Simon the leper, a womancame to him with an alabaster phial ofvery costly perfume, and poured it overhis head as he reclined at table. Whenthe disciples saw it, they were vexed.'What is the good of this waste?' theysaid. 'For this could have been sold formuch money, and the proceeds given tothe poor.' When Jesus knew what theywere saying, he said to them: 'Why doyou distress the woman? It is a lovelything that she has done to me. For youalways have the poor with you, but youhave not me always. When she poured

this perfume on my body, she did it toprepare me beforehand for burial. Thisis the truth I tell you - wherever thegospel is preached throughout the wholeworld, this too that she has done shallbe spoken of so that all will rememberher."

THIS story of the anointing at Bethany is told alsoby Mark and by John. Mark's story is almostexactly the same; but John adds the informationthat the woman who anointed Jesus was noneother than Mary, the sister of Martha and ofLazarus. Luke does not tell this story; he does tellthe story of an anointing in the house of Simon thePharisee (Luke 7:36-50), but in Luke's story thewoman who anointed Jesus' feet and wiped themwith the hair of her head was a notorious sinner.

It must always remain a most interesting

question whether the story Luke tells is, in fact,the same story as is told by Matthew and Markand John. In both cases the name of the host isSimon, although in Luke he is Simon the Pharisee,and in Matthew and Mark he is Simon the leper;in John the host is not named at all, although thenarrative reads as if it took place in the house ofMartha and Mary and Lazarus. Simon was a verycommon name; there are at least ten Simons in theNew Testament, and more than twenty arerecorded by the Jewish historian Josephus. Thegreatest difficulty in identifying the stories of Lukeand of the other three gospel writers is that inLuke's story the woman was a notorious sinner;and there is no indication that that was true ofMary of Bethany. And yet the very intensity withwhich Mary loved Jesus may well have been theresult of the depths from which he had rescuedher.

Whatever the answer to the question of

identification, the story is indeed what Jesuscalled it - the story of a lovely thing, and in it areenshrined certain very precious truths.

(1) It shows us love's extravagance. Thewoman took the most precious thing she had andpoured it out on Jesus. Jewish women were veryfond of perfume; and often they carried a littlealabaster phial of it round their necks. Suchperfume was very valuable. Both Mark and Johnmake the disciples say that this perfume couldhave been sold for 300 denarii (Mark 14:5; John12:5), which means that this phial of perfumerepresented very nearly a whole year's wages fora working man. Or we may think of it this way.When Jesus and his disciples were discussinghow the multitude was to be fed, Philip's answerwas that 200 denarii would scarcely be enough tofeed them. This phial of perfume, therefore, costas much as it would take to feed a crowd of 5,000people.

It was something as precious as that which thiswoman gave to Jesus, and she gave it because itwas the most precious thing she had. Love nevercalculates; love never thinks how little it candecently give; love's one desire is to give to theuttermost limits; and, when it has given all it hasto give, it still thinks the gift too little. We havenot even begun to be Christian if we think ofgiving to Christ and to his Church in terms of aslittle as we respectably can.

(2) It shows us that there are times when thecommonsense view of things fails. On thisoccasion, the voice of common sense said: 'Whatwaste!' and no doubt it was right. But there is aworld of difference between the economics ofcommon sense and the economics of love.Common sense obeys the dictates of prudence; butlove obeys the dictates of the heart. There is inlife a large place for common sense; but there are

times when only love's extravagance can meetlove's demands. A gift is never really a gift whenwe can easily afford it: a gift truly becomes a giftonly when there is sacrifice behind it, and whenwe give far more than we can afford.

(3) It shows us that certain things must be donewhen the opportunity arises, or they can never bedone at all. The disciples were anxious to help thepoor; but the Rabbis themselves said: 'Godallows the poor to be with us always, that theopportunities for doing good may never fail.'There are some things which we can do at anytime; there are some things which can be doneonly once; and to miss the opportunity to do themthen is to miss the opportunity forever. Often weare moved by some generous impulse, and do notact upon it: and all the chances are that thecircumstances, the person, the time and theimpulse will never return. For so many of us, thetragedy is that life is the history of the lost

opportunities to do the lovely thing.

(4) It tells us that the fragrance of a lovely deedlasts forever. There are so few lovely things thatone shines like a light in a dark world. At the endof Jesus' life, there was so much bitterness, somuch treachery, so much intrigue and so muchtragedy that this story shines like an oasis of lightin a darkening world. In this world, there are fewgreater things that any of us may do than leave thememory of a lovely deed.

THE LAST HOURS IN THE LIFEOF THE TRAITOR

INSTEAD of taking the story of Judas piecemeal asit occurs in the gospel record, we shall take it as awhole, reading one after another the last incidentsand the final suicide of the traitor.

THE TRAITOR'S BARGAIN

Matthew 26:14-16

Then one of the Twelve, called JudasIscariot, went to the chief priests andsaid: 'What are you willing to give me,if I hand him over to you?' They settledwith him for a sum of thirty shekels; andfrom that time he sought for anopportunity to betray him.

We have seen that the Jewish authorities wishedto find a way in which to arrest Jesus withoutprovoking riotous disturbances, and now that waywas presented to them by the approach of Judas.There can be only three real reasons why Judasbetrayed Jesus. All other suggestions arevariations of these three.

(1) It may have been because of greed.According to Matthew and Mark, it wasimmediately after the anointing at Bethany thatJudas struck his dreadful bargain; and when Johntells his story of that event, he says that Judasmade his protest against the anointing because hewas a thief and pilfered from the money that wasin the box (John 12:6). If that is so, Judas struckone of the most dreadful bargains in history. Thesum for which he agreed to betray Jesus was thirtyarguria. An argurion was a shekel, and was theequivalent of about four days' wages. Judas,therefore, sold Jesus for a little under six months'pay. If greed was the cause of his act of treachery,it is the most terrible example in history of thedepths which love of money can reach.

(2) It may have been because of bitter hatred,based on complete disillusionment. The Jewsalways had their dream of power; therefore theyhad their extreme nationalists who were prepared

to go to any lengths of murder and violence todrive the Romans from Palestine. Thesenationalists were called the sicarii, the dagger-bearers, because they followed a deliberatepolicy of assassination. It may be that Judas wasone such, and that he had looked on Jesus as thedivinely sent leader who, with his miraculouspowers, could lead the great rebellion. He mayhave seen that Jesus had deliberately takenanother way, the way that led to a cross. And inhis bitter disappointment, Judas' devotion mayhave turned first to disillusionment and then to ahatred which drove him to seek the death of theman from whom he had expected so much. Judasmay have hated Jesus because he was not theChrist he wished him to be.

(3) It may be that Judas never intended Jesus todie. It may be that, as we have seen, he saw inJesus the divine leader. He may have thought that

Jesus was proceeding far too slowly; and he mayhave wished for nothing else than to force hishand. He may have betrayed Jesus with theintention of compelling him to act. That is in factthe view which best suits all the facts. And thatwould explain why Judas was shattered intosuicide when his plan went wrong.

However we look at it, the tragedy of Judas isthat he refused to accept Jesus as he was and triedto make him what he wanted him to be. It is notJesus who can be changed by us, but we who mustbe changed by Jesus. We can never use him forour purposes; we must submit to be used for his.The tragedy of Judas is that of a man who thoughthe knew better than God.

LOVE'S LAST APPEAL

Matthew 26:20-5

When evening had come, Jesus wasreclining at table with the twelvedisciples. While they were eating, hesaid: This is the truth I tell you - one ofyou will betray me.' They were greatlydistressed and began one by one to sayto him: 'Lord, can it be I?' Heanswered: 'He who dips his hand withme in the dish, it is he who will betrayme. The Son of Man is going to goaway, as it stands written concerninghim, but alas for that man through whomthe Son of Man is betrayed! It had beengood for that man if he had not beenborn.' Judas, who betrayed him, said:

'Master, can it be I?' He said to him: 'Itis you who have said it.'

THERE are times in these last scenes of the gospelstory when Jesus and Judas seem to be in a worldwhere there is none other present exceptthemselves. One thing is certain - Judas must havegone about his grim business with completesecrecy. He must have kept his comings andgoings completely hidden; for, if the rest of thedisciples had known what Judas was doing, hewould never have escaped with his life.

He had concealed his plans from his fellowdisciples - but he could not conceal them fromChrist. It is always the same; we can hide our sinsfrom other people, but we can never hide themfrom the eyes of Christ, who sees the secrets ofthe heart. Jesus knew, although no one else knew,what Judas was about.

And now we can see Jesus' methods with thesinner. He could have used his power to curseJudas, to paralyse him, to render him helpless,even to kill him. But the only weapon that Jesuswill ever use is the weapon of love's appeal. Oneof the great mysteries of life is the respect thatGod has for human free will. God does notcoerce; God only appeals.

When Jesus seeks to stop someone fromsinning, he does two things.

First, he confronts the person with the sin. Hetries to make people stop and think what they aredoing. He, as it were, says to them: 'Look at whatyou are contemplating doing - can you really do athing like that?' It has been said that our greatestsecurity against sin lies in our being shocked by it.And again and again, Jesus bids people pause andlook and realize so that they may be shocked intosanity.

Second, he confronts the person with himself.He asks people to look at him, as if to say: 'Canyou look at me, can you meet my eyes, and go outto do the thing you intend doing?' Jesus seeks tomake people become aware of the horror of thething they are about to do, and of the love whichyearns to stop them doing it.

It is just here that we see the real awfulness ofsin in its terrible deliberation. In spite of love'slast appeal, Judas went on. Even when he wasconfronted with his sin and confronted with theface of Christ, he would not turn back. There issin and sin. There is the sin of the passionateheart, of the one who, on the impulse of themoment, is swept into wrongdoing. Let no onebelittle such sin; its consequences can be veryterrible. But far worse is the calculated, calloussin of deliberation, which in cold blood knowswhat it is doing, which is confronted with thebleak awfulness of the deed and with the love in

the eyes of Jesus, and still takes its own way. Ourhearts revolt against the son or daughter whocold-bloodedly breaks a parent's heart - which iswhat Judas did to Jesus - and the tragedy is thatthis is what we ourselves so often do.

THE TRAITOR'S KISS

Matthew 26:47-50

While Jesus was still speaking, therecame Judas, one of the Twelve, and agreat crowd with swords and cudgels,from the chief priests and the elders ofthe people. The traitor had given them asign. 'Whom I shall kiss,' he said, 'thatis the man. Lay hold on him!'Immediately he went up to Jesus andsaid: 'Greetings, Master!' and kissedhim lovingly. Jesus said to him:'Comrade, get on with the deed forwhich you have come!' Then they cameforward, and laid hands on Jesus, andheld him.

As we have already seen, the actions of Judasmay spring from one of two motives. He mayreally, either from greed or from disillusionment,have wished to see Jesus killed; or he may havebeen trying to force his hand, and may havewished not to see him killed but to compel him toact.

There is, therefore, a double way ofinterpreting this incident. If in Judas' heart therewas nothing but black hatred and a kind ofmaniacal sense of greed, this is simply the mostterrible kiss in history and a sign of betrayal. Ifthat is so, there is nothing too terrible to be saidabout Judas.

But there are signs that there is more to it thanthat. When Judas told the armed mob that hewould indicate the man whom they had come toarrest by a kiss, the word he uses is the Greekword philein, which is the normal word for a

kiss; but when it is said that Judas actually didkiss Jesus, the word used is kataphilein, whichintensifies the meaning. It means to kissrepeatedly and fervently. Why should Judas dothat?

Further, why should any identification of Jesushave been necessary? It was not identification ofJesus the authorities required; it was a convenientopportunity to arrest him. The people who cameto arrest him were from the chief priests and theelders of the people; they must have been theTemple police, the only force the chief priests hadat their disposal. It is incredible that the Templepolice did not already know only too well the manwho just days before had cleansed the Temple anddriven the money-changers and the sellers ofdoves from the Temple court. It is incredible thatthey should not have known the man who hadtaught daily in the Temple cloisters. Having beenled to the garden, they would have recognized the

man whom they had come to arrest.

It is much more likely that Judas kissed Jesus asa disciple kissed a master and meant it; and thatthen he stood back with expectant pride waitingon Jesus at last to act. The curious thing is thatfrom the moment of the kiss Judas vanishes fromthe scene in the garden, not to reappear until he isintent on suicide. He does not even appear as awitness at the trial of Jesus. It is far more likelythat in one stunning, blinding, staggering, searingmoment Judas saw how he had miscalculated andstaggered away into the night, a forever brokenand forever haunted man. If this is true, at thatmoment Judas entered the hell which he hadcreated for himself; for the worst kind of hell isthe full realization of the terrible consequences ofsin.

THE TRAITOR'S END

Matthew 27:3-10

When Judas the traitor saw that Jesushad been condemned, he repented, andhe brought the thirty shekels back to thechief priests and the elders. 'I havesinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed aninnocent man.' 'What has that got to dowith us?' they said. 'It is you who mustsee to that.' He threw the money into theTemple and went away. And when hehad gone away, he hanged himself. Thechief priests took the money. 'Wecannot,' they said, 'put these into thetreasury, for they are the price ofblood.' They took counsel, and boughtwith them the potter's field, to be a

burying place for strangers. That is whyto this day that field is called the Fieldof Blood. Then there was fulfilled thatwhich was spoken through Jeremiah theprophet, when he said: 'And they tookthe thirty shekels, the price of him onwhom a price had been set by the sonsof Israel, and they gave them for thefield of the potter, as the Lord instructedme.'

HERE in all its stark grimness is the last act of thetragedy of Judas. However we interpret his mind,one thing is clear - Judas now saw the horror ofthe thing that he had done. Matthew tells us thatJudas took the money and flung it into the Temple,and the interesting thing is that the word he uses isnot the word for the Temple precincts in general(hieron), it is the word for the actual Templeitself (naos). It will be remembered that the

Temple consisted of a series of courts eachopening off the other. Judas in his blind despaircame into the Court of the Gentiles, passedthrough it into the Court of the Women, and passedthrough that into the Court of the Israelites.Beyond that, he could not go; he had come to thebarrier which shut off the Court of the Priests withthe Temple itself at the far end of it. He called onthem to take the money; but they would not: and heflung it at them and went away and hangedhimself. And the priests took the money, so taintedthat it could not be put into the Temple treasury,and with it bought a field to bury the uncleanbodies of Gentiles who died within the city.

The suicide of Judas is surely the finalindication that his plan had gone wrong. He hadmeant to make Jesus blaze forth as a conqueror;instead he had driven him to the cross, and life forJudas was shattered. There are two great truthsabout sin here.

(1) The terrible thing about sin is that wecannot put the clock back. We cannot undo whatwe have done. Once a thing is done, nothing callalter it or bring it back. As words from EdwardFitzgerald's The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam putit:

The Moving Finger writes: and having writ Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line. Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

No one needs to be very old to have that hauntinglonging for some hour to be lived over again.When we remember that no action can ever berecalled, it should make us doubly careful howwe act.

(2) The strange thing about sin is that peoplecan come to hate the very thing they gained by it.The very prize that was won by sinning cansuddenly become disgusting, revolting andrepellent, until the one desire is to fling it away.Most people sin because they think that if they canonly possess the forbidden thing it will make themhappy. But the thing which sin desired canbecome the thing that above all they would ridthemselves of - and so often they cannot.

As we have seen, Matthew finds forecasts ofthe events of the life of Jesus in the most unlikelyplaces. Here there is, in fact, an actual mistake.Matthew is quoting from memory; and thequotation which he makes is, in fact, not fromJeremiah but from Zechariah. It is from a strangepassage (Zechariah 11:10-14) in which theprophet tells us how he received an unworthyreward and flung it to the potter. In that oldpicture, Matthew saw a symbolic resemblance to

the thing that Judas did.

It might have been that if Judas had remainedtrue to Jesus, he would have died a martyr's death;but, because he wanted his own way too much, hedied by his own hand. He missed the glory of themartyr's crown to find life intolerable because hehad sinned.

THE LAST SUPPER

As we took together the passages which tell thestory of Judas, so now we take the passageswhich tell the story of the Last Supper.

THE ANCESTRAL FEAST

Matthew 26:17-19

On the first day of the Feast ofUnleavened Bread the disciples came toJesus. 'Where', they said, 'do you wishthat we should make the necessarypreparations for you to eat thePassover?' He said: 'Go into the city tosuch and such a man, and say to him:"The Teacher says, my time is near. Iwill keep the Passover with mydisciples at your house."' And thedisciples did as Jesus instructed them,and made the preparations for thePassover.

It was for the Passover Feast that Jesus had come

to Jerusalem. We have seen how crowded the citywas at such a time. During the Passover Feast, allJews were supposed to stay within the boundariesof the city, but the numbers made that impossible;and for official purposes villages like Bethany,where Jesus was staying, ranked as the city.

But the Feast itself had to be celebrated withinthe city. The disciples wished to know whatpreparation they must make. Clearly, Jesus hadnot left the matter to the last moment: he hadalready made his arrangements with a friend inJerusalem, and he had already arranged apassword: 'The Teacher says, my time is near.' Sothe disciples were sent on to give the passwordand to make all the necessary preparations.

The whole week of which the Passover Feastoccupied the first evening was called the Feast ofUnleavened Bread. In following the events, wemust remember that for the Jews the next day

began at 6 pm. In this case, the Feast ofUnleavened Bread began on Thursday morning.On the Thursday morning, every particle of leavenwas destroyed, after a ceremonial searchthroughout the house.

There was a double reason for that. The Feastcommemorated the greatest event in the history ofIsrael, the deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Andwhen the Israelites had fled from Egypt, they hadto flee in such haste that they did not have time tobake their bread leavened (Exodus 12:34). Doughwithout leaven (that is, a little piece of fermenteddough) cooks very quickly, but produces asubstance more like a water biscuit than a loaf;and that is what unleavened bread is like. So theleaven was banished and the bread unleavened torepeat the acts of the night on which they leftEgypt and its slavery behind them.

Second, in Jewish thought, leaven is the symbol

of corruption. As we have said, leaven isfermented dough, and the Jews identifiedfermentation with putrefaction; so leaven stoodfor all that was rotten and corrupt, and was,therefore, as a sign of purification, cleansedaway.

When did the preparations which the discipleswould make take place?

On the Thursday morning, they would preparethe unleavened bread and rid the house of everyscrap of leaven. The other staple ingredient of theFeast was the Passover lamb. It was indeed fromthe lamb that the Feast took its name. The lastterrible plague which fell on the Egyptians andwhich compelled them to let the people go waswhen the Angel of Death walked throughout theland of Egypt and slew the first-born son in everyhouse. To identify their houses, the Israelites hadto kill a lamb and smear the lintel and the side

posts of their doors with its blood, so that theavenging angel seeing that sign would pass overthat house (Exodus 12:21-3). On the Thursdayafternoon, the lamb had to be taken to the Templeand killed, and its blood - which was the life -had to be offered to God in sacrifice.

There were four other items necessary for theFeast.

(1) A bowl of salt water had to be set upon thetable, to remind them of the tears they had shedwhile they were slaves in Egypt and of the saltwaters of the Red Sea through which God's handhad wondrously brought them.

(2) A collection of bitter herbs had to beprepared, composed of horseradish, chicory,endive, lettuce, horehound and the like. This wasagain to remind them of the bitterness of slavery,and of the bunch of hyssop with which the bloodof the lamb had been smeared on the lintel and the

doorposts.

(3) There was a paste called the charosheth. Itwas a mixture of apples, dates, pomegranates andnuts. It was to remind them of the clay with whichthey had been compelled to make bricks in Egypt,and through it there were sticks of cinnamon toremind them of the straw with which the brickshad been made.

(4) Lastly, there were four cups of wine. Thesewere to remind them of the four promises ofExodus 6:6-7: 'I will free you from the burdens ofthe Egyptians and deliver you from slavery tothem. I will redeem you with an outstretched armand with mighty acts of judgment. I will take youas my people, and I will be your God.'

Such then were the preparations of theThursday morning and afternoon. These were thethings that the disciples prepared; and at any timeafter 6 pm, that is when Friday, 15th Nisan, had

begun, the guests might gather at the table.

HIS BODY AND HIS BLOOD

Matthew 26:26-30

While they were eating, Jesus tookbread and blessed it and broke it, andgave it to his disciples and said: 'Take,eat; this is my body.' Then he took acup, and when he had given thanks, hegave it to them. 'Drink all of you fromit,' he said, 'for this is my blood, theblood of the covenant, which is pouredout for many, that their sins may beforgiven. I tell you that from now on Iwill not drink of this fruit of the vineuntil that day when I drink it new withyou in the kingdom of my Father.' Andwhen they had sung a hymn, they wentout to the Mount of Olives.

We have already seen how the prophets, whenthey wished to say something in a way that peoplecould not fail to understand, made use of symbolicactions. We have already seen Jesus using thatmethod both in his triumphal entry and in theincident of the fig tree. That is what Jesus is doinghere. All the symbolism and all the ritual action ofthe Passover Feast was a picture of what hewished to say to us, for it was a picture of what hewas to do for us. What then was the picture whichJesus was using, and what is the truth which liesbehind it?

(1) The Passover Feast was a commemorationof deliverance; its whole intention was to remindthe people of Israel of how God had liberatedthem from slavery in Egypt. First and foremost,Jesus claimed to be the great liberator. He cameto liberate us from fear and from sin. He liberatesus from the fears which haunt us and from the sinswhich will not let us go.

(2) In particular, the Passover lamb was thesymbol of safety. On that night of destruction, itwas the blood of the Passover lamb which keptIsrael safe. So, Jesus was claiming to be Saviour.He had come to save us from our sins and fromtheir consequences. He had come to give safety onearth and safety in heaven, safety in time andsafety in eternity.

There is a word here which is a keyword andenshrines the whole of Jesus' work and intention.It is the word covenant. Jesus spoke of his bloodbeing the blood of the covenant. What did he meanby that? A covenant is a relationship between twopeople: but the covenant of which Jesus spokewas not one made between individuals; it wasbetween God and humanity. That is to say, it wasa new relationship between God and all people.What Jesus was saying at the Last Supper wasthis: 'Because of my life, and above all because of

my death, a new relationship has become possiblebetween you and God.' It is as if he said: 'Youhave seen me; and in me you have seen God; Ihave told you, I have shown you, how much Godloves you; he loves you even enough to suffer thisthat I am going through; that is what God is like.'Because of what Jesus did, the way for us is opento all the loveliness of this new relationship withGod.

This passage concludes by saying that, whenthe company of Jesus and the disciples had sung ahymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Anessential part of the Passover ritual was thesinging of the Hallel. Hallel means Praise God!And the Hallel consisted of Psalms 113-18,which are all praising psalms. At different pointsof the Passover Feast, these psalms were sung insections; and at the very end there was sung TheGreat Hallel, which is Psalm 136. That was thehymn they sang before they went out to the Mount

of Olives.

Here is another thing to note. There was onebasic difference between the Last Supper and thesacrament which we observe. The Last Supperwas a real meal; it was, in fact, the law that thewhole lamb and everything else must be eaten andnothing left. This was no eating of a cube of breador a wafer and drinking of a sip of wine. It was ameal for hungry people. We might well say thatwhat Jesus is teaching us is not only to assemblein church and eat a ritual and symbolic feast; he istelling us that every time we sit down to eat ameal, that meal is in memory of him. Jesus is notonly Lord of the communion table; he must beLord of the dinner table, too.

There remains one final thing. Jesus says that hewill not feast with his disciples again until hedoes so in his Father's kingdom. Here, indeed, isdivine faith and divine optimism. Jesus was going

out to Gethsemane, out to trial before theSanhedrin, out to the cross - and yet he is stillthinking in terms of a kingdom. To Jesus, thecross was never defeat; it was the way to glory.He was on his way to Calvary, but he was also onhis way to a throne.

THE COLLAPSE OF PETER

WE now gather together the passages which tellthe story of Peter.

THE MASTER'S WARNING

Matthew 26:31-5

Then Jesus said to them: 'Every one ofyou will be made to stumble because ofme during this night; for it standswritten: "I will smite the shepherd, andthe sheep of the flock shall be scatteredabroad." But after I have been raised, Iwill go before you into Galilee.' Peteranswered him: 'If all are made tostumble because of you, I will never bemade to stumble.' Jesus said to him:'This is the truth I tell you - during thisnight, before the cock crows, you willdeny me three times.' Peter said to him:'Even if I have to die with you, I willnot deny you.' So also spoke all the

disciples.

IN this passage, certain characteristics of Jesusare clear.

(1) We see the realism of Jesus. He knew whatlay ahead. Matthew actually sees the runningaway of the disciples foretold in the OldTestament in Zechariah 13:7. Jesus was no easyoptimist who could comfortably shut his eyes tothe facts. He foresaw what would inevitablyhappen, and yet he went on.

(2) We see the confidence of Jesus. 'After Ihave been raised,' he says, 'I will go before youinto Galilee.' Always, Jesus saw beyond thecross. He was every bit as certain of the glory ashe was of the suffering.

(3) We see the sympathy of Jesus. He knew thathis disciples were going to flee for their lives and

abandon him in the moment of his deepest need;but he does not rebuke them, he does not condemnthem, he does not heap reproaches on them or callthem useless creatures and broken reeds. Far fromthat, he tells them that when that terrible time ispast, he will meet them again. It is the greatness ofJesus that he knew human beings at their worstand still loved them. He knows our humanweakness; he knows how certain we are to makemistakes and to fail in loyalty; but that knowledgedoes not turn his love to bitterness or contempt.Jesus has nothing but sympathy for those who intheir weakness are driven to sin.

Further, this passage shows us something aboutPeter. Surely his fault is clear - overconfidence inhimself. He knew that he loved Jesus - that wasnever in doubt - and he thought that all by himselfhe could face any situation that might arise. Hethought that he was stronger than Jesus knew himto be. We shall be safe only when we replace the

confidence which boasts by the humility whichknows its weakness and which depends not onitself but on the help of Christ.

The Romans and the Jews divided the night intofour watches - 6 pm to 9 pm; 9 pm to midnight;midnight to 3 am; 3 am to 6 am. It was betweenthe third and the fourth watch that the cock wassupposed to crow. What Jesus is saying is thatbefore the dawn comes, Peter will deny him threetimes.

THE FAILURE OF COURAGE

Matthew 26:57-8, 69-75

Those who had laid hold of Jesus ledhim away to the house of Caiaphas thehigh priest, where the scribes and theelders were assembled. Peter followedhim at a distance, right into thecourtyard of the high priest's house, andhe went inside and sat down with theservants to see the end. . . .

Peter was sitting outside in thecourtyard. A maid servant came up tohim and said: 'You, too, were withJesus the Galilaean.' He denied it in thepresence of them all. 'I do not know', hesaid, 'what you are saying.' When hewent out to the porch, another maid

servant saw him, and said to those whowere there: This man too was withJesus of Nazareth.' And again he deniedit with an oath: 'I do not know the man.'A little later those who were standingthere said to Peter: 'Truly you too wereone of them; for your accent gives youaway.' Then he began to curse and toswear: 'I do not know the man.' Andimmediately the cock crew. And Peterremembered the saying of Jesus, whenhe said: 'Before the cock crows, youwill deny me three times.' And he wentout and wept bitterly.

No one can read this passage without being struckwith the staggering honesty of the New Testament.If ever there was an incident which one mighthave expected to be hushed up, this was it - andyet here it is told in all its stark shame. We know

that Matthew very closely followed the narrativeof Mark; and in Mark's gospel this story is told ineven more vivid detail (Mark 14:66-72). We alsoknow, as Papias, the first-century Bishop ofHierapolis, tells us, that Mark's gospel is nothingother than the preaching material of Peter writtendown. And so we arrive at the amazing fact thatwe possess the story of Peter's denial becausePeter himself told it to others.

So far from suppressing this story, Peter madeit an essential part of his gospel; and did so forthe very best of reasons. Every time he told thestory, he could say: 'That is the way that this Jesuscan forgive. He forgave me when I failed him inhis bitterest hour of need. That is what Jesus cando. He took me, Peter the coward, and used evenme.' We must never read this story withoutremembering that it is Peter himself who is tellingof the shame of his own sin so that everyone mightknow the glory of the forgiving love and cleansing

power of Jesus Christ.

And yet it is quite wrong to regard Peter withnothing but unsympathetic condemnation. Theblazingly obvious fact is that the disaster whichhappened to Peter is one which could havehappened only to someone of the most heroiccourage. All the other disciples ran away (cf.26:56); Peter alone did not. In Palestine, thehouses of the well-to-do were built in a hollowsquare around an open courtyard, off which thevarious rooms opened. For Peter to enter thatcourtyard in the centre of the high priest's housewas to walk into the lion's den - and yet he did it.However this story ends, it begins with Peter theone brave man.

The first denial happened in the courtyard; nodoubt the maid servant had marked Peter as one ofthe most prominent followers of Jesus and hadrecognized him. After that recognition, anyone

would have thought that Peter would have fled forhis life; a coward would certainly have gone intothe night as quickly as he could. But not Peter -although he did retire as far as the porch.

He was torn between two feelings. In his heart,there was a fear that made him want to run away;but in his heart, too, there was a love which kepthim there. Again, in the porch he was recognized;and this time he swore he did not know Jesus.And still he did not go. Here is the most doggedcourage.

But Peter's second denial had given him away.From his speech, it was clear that he was aGalilaean. The Galilaeans spoke with a burr; sougly was their accent that no Galilaean wasallowed to pronounce the benediction at asynagogue service. Once again, Peter wasaccused of being a follower of Jesus. Peter wentfurther this time; not only did he swear that he did

not know Jesus; he actually cursed his Master'sname. But still it is clear that Peter had nointention of leaving that courtyard. And then thecock crew.

There is a distinct possibility here whichwould provide us with a vivid picture. It maywell be that the cock-crow was not the voice of abird: and that from the beginning it was not meantto mean that. After all, the house of the high priestwas right in the centre of Jerusalem, and it isunlikely that there would have been poultry in thecentre of the city. There was, in fact, a regulationin the Jewish law that it was illegal to keep cocksand hens in the holy city, because they defiled theholy things. But the hour of 3 am was called cock-crow, and for this reason. At that hour, the Romanguard was changed in the Castle of Antonia; andthe sign of the changing of the guard was atrumpet-call. The Latin for that trumpet-call wasgallicinium, which means cock-crow. It is at least

possible that just as Peter made his third denial,the trumpet from the castle battlements rang outover the sleeping city - the gallicinium, the cock-crow - and Peter remembered; and thereupon hewent and wept his heart out.

What happened to Peter after that, we do notknow, for the gospel story draws a kindly veilover the agony of his shame. But before wecondemn him, we must remember very clearly thatfew of us would ever have had the courage to bein that courtyard at all. And there is one last thingto be said - it was love which gave Peter thatcourage; it was love which riveted him there inspite of the fact that he had been recognized threetimes; it was love which made him remember thewords of Jesus; it was love which sent him outinto the night to weep - and it is love whichcovers a multitude of sins. The lasting impressionof this whole story is not of Peter's cowardice, butof Peter's love.

THE SOUL'S BATTLE IN THEGARDEN

Matthew 26:36-46

Then Jesus went with them to a placecalled Gethsemane, and he said to hisdisciples: 'Sit here, while I go awayand pray in this place.' So he took Peterand the two sons of Zebedee, and beganto be distressed and in sore trouble.Then he said to them: 'My soul is muchdistressed with a distress like death.Stay here, and watch with me.' He wenta little way forward and fell on his facein prayer. 'My Father,' he said, 'if it ispossible, let this cup pass from me. Butlet it be not as I will, but as you will.'He came to his disciples, and he found

them sleeping, and he said to Peter:'Could you not stay awake with me forthis - for one hour? Watch and pray lestyou enter into testing. The spirit iseager, but the flesh is weak.' He wentaway a second time and prayed. 'MyFather,' he said, 'if it is not possible forthis to pass from me unless I drink it,your will be done.' He came again andfound them sleeping, for their eyes wereweighted down. He left them, and wentaway again, and prayed the third time,saying the same words over again. Thenhe came to his disciples and said tothem: 'Sleep on now and take your rest.Look you, the hour is near, and the Sonof Man is being delivered into the handsof sinners. Rise; let us go; look you, hewho betrays me is near.'

SURELY this is a passage which we must approachupon our knees. Here, study should pass intowondering adoration.

In Jerusalem itself, there were no gardens ofany size, for a city set on the top of a hill has noroom for open spaces; every inch is of value forbuilding. So, it came about that wealthy citizenshad their private gardens on the slopes of theMount of Olives. The word Gethsemane veryprobably means an olive vat, or an olive press;and no doubt it was a garden of olives to whichJesus had the right of entry. It is a strange and alovely thing to think of the nameless friends whorallied round Jesus in the last days. There was theman who gave him the donkey on which he rodeinto Jerusalem; there was the man who gave himthe upper room where the Last Supper was eaten;and now there is the man who gave him the rightof entry to the garden on the Mount of Olives. In adesert of hatred, there were still oases of love.

Into the garden, he took the three who had beenwith him on the Mount of Transfiguration, andthere he prayed; more, he wrestled in prayer. Aswe look with awed reverence on the battle ofJesus' soul in the garden, we see certain things.

(1) We see the agony of Jesus. He was nowquite sure that death lay ahead. Its very breath wason him. No one wants to die at thirty-three; andleast of all does anyone want to die in the agonyof a cross. Here, Jesus had his supreme struggle tosubmit his will to the will of God. No one canread this story without seeing the intense reality ofthat struggle. This was no play-acting; it was astruggle in which the outcome swayed in thebalance. The salvation of the world was at risk inthe Garden of Gethsemane, for even then Jesusmight have turned back, and God's purpose wouldhave been frustrated.

At this moment, all that Jesus knew was that he

must go on, and ahead there lay a cross. In allreverence, we may say that here we see Jesuslearning the lesson that everyone must some daylearn - how to accept what he could notunderstand. All he knew was that the will of Godimperiously summoned him on. Things happen toevery one of us in this world that we cannotunderstand: it is then that faith is tried to its utmostlimits; and at such a time it is sweetness to thesoul that in Gethsemane Jesus went through thattoo. Writing at the end of the second century, theChurch Father Tertullian (De Baptismo, 20) tellsus of a saying of Jesus, which is not in any of thegospels: 'No one who has not been tempted canenter the kingdom of heaven.' That is, we all haveour own private Gethsemane, and each one of ushas to learn to say: 'Your will be done.'

(2) We see the loneliness of Jesus. He tookwith him his three chosen disciples; but they wereso exhausted with the drama of these last days and

hours that they could not stay awake. And Jesushad to fight his battle all alone. That also is truefor us all. There are certain things we must faceand certain decisions we must make in the awfulloneliness of our own souls; there are times whenother helpers fail and comforts flee: but in thatloneliness there is for us the presence of one who,in Gethsemane, experienced it and came throughit.

(3) Here we see the trust of Jesus. We see thattrust even better in Mark's account, where Jesusbegins his prayer: 'Abba, Father' (Mark 14:36).There is a world of loveliness in this word Abba,which to our western ears is altogether hidden,unless we know the facts about it. The Germanscholar Joachim Jeremias, in his book TheParables of Jesus, writes: 'Jesus' use of the wordAbba in addressing God is unparalleled in thewhole of Jewish literature. The explanation of thisfact is to be found in the statement of the fathers

Chrysostom, Theodore, and Theodoret that Abba(as jaba is still used today in Arabic) was theword used by a young child to its father; it was aneveryday family word, which no one had venturedto use in addressing God. Jesus did. He spoke tohis heavenly Father in as childlike, trustful, andintimate a way as a little child to its father.'

We know how our children speak to us andwhat they call those among us who are fathers.That is the way in which Jesus spoke to God.Even when he did not fully understand, even whenhis one conviction was that God was urging himto a cross, he called Abba, as a little child mightcall. Here indeed is trust, a trust which we mustalso have in that God whom Jesus taught us toknow as Father.

(4) We see the courage of Jesus. 'Rise,' saidJesus, 'let us be going. He who betrays me isnear.' Celsus, the pagan philosopher who attacked

Christianity, used that sentence as an argument thatJesus tried to run away. It is the very opposite.'Rise,' he said. The time for prayer and the timefor the garden is past. Now is the time for action.Let us face life at its grimmest and human beingsat their worst.' Jesus rose from his knees to go outto the battle of life. That is what prayer is for. Inprayer, we kneel before God that we may standerect before the world. In prayer, we enter heaventhat we may face the battles of earth.

THE ARREST IN THE GARDEN

Matthew 26:50-6

Then they came forward and laid handson Jesus and held him. And, look you,one of these who was with Jesusstretched out his hand, and drew hissword, and struck the servant of the highpriest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesussaid to him: 'Put back your sword in itsplace; for all who take the sword shallperish by the sword. Or, do you notthink that I am able to call on my Father,and he will on the spot send to my aidmore than twelve regiments of angels?How then are the Scriptures to befulfilled that it must happen so?' At thathour Jesus said to the crowds: 'Have

you come out with swords and cudgelsto arrest me, as against a brigand? DailyI sat teaching in the Temple, and youdid not lay hold on me. All this hashappened that the writings of theprophets might be fulfilled.' Then all hisdisciples forsook him and fled.

It was Judas who had given the authorities theinformation which enabled them to find Jesus inthe privacy of the Garden of Gethsemane. Theforces at the disposal of the Jewish authoritieswere the Temple police, under the command ofthe Sagan, or Captain of the Temple. But the mobwhich surged after Judas to the garden was morelike a mob for a lynching than a detachment for anorderly arrest.

Jesus would allow no resistance. Matthewsimply tells us that one of the disciples drew a

sword and, prepared to resist to the death and tosell his life dearly, wounded a servant of the highpriest. When John tells the same story (John18:10), he tells us that the disciple was Peter, andthe servant was Malchus. The reason why Johnnames Peter, and Matthew does not, may simplybe that John was writing much later, and that whenMatthew was writing it was still not safe to namethe disciple who had sprung so quickly to hisMaster's defence. Here we have still anotherinstance of the almost fantastic courage of Peter.He was willing to take on the mob alone; and letus always remember that it was after that, when hewas a marked man, that Peter followed Jesus rightinto the courtyard of the high priest's house. But inall these incidents of the last hours it is on Jesusthat our attention is fastened; and here we learntwo things about him.

(1) His death was by his own choice. He neednever have come to Jerusalem for the Passover

Feast. Having come, he need never have followedhis deliberate policy of magnificent defiance.Even in the garden, he could have slipped awayand saved himself, for it was night, and therewere many who would have smuggled him out ofthe city. Even here, he could have called down themight of God and destroyed his enemies. Everystep of these last days makes it clearer and clearerthat Jesus laid down his life and that his life wasnot taken from him. Jesus died, not because hisenemies killed him, but because he chose to die.

(2) He chose to die because he knew that hisdeath was the purpose of God. He took this waybecause it was the very thing that had beenforetold by the prophets. He took it because loveis the only way. 'All who take the sword shallperish by the sword.' Violence can beget nothingbut violence; one drawn sword can produce onlyanother drawn sword to meet it. Jesus knew thatwar and might settle nothing, but produce only a

train of evil, and beget a grim horde of childrenworse than themselves. He knew that God'spurpose can be worked out only by sacrificiallove. And history proved him right; for those whotook him with violence, and who gloried inviolence, and who would gladly have dipped theirswords in Roman blood, saw forty years latertheir city destroyed forever, while the man whowould not fight is enthroned forever in the heartsof men and women.

THE TRIAL BEFORE THE JEWS

Matthew 26:57, 59-68

Those who had laid hold of Jesus ledhim away to the house of Caiaphas thehigh priest, where the scribes and theelders were assembled. . . . The chiefpriests and the whole Sanhedrin tried tofind false witness against him, in orderto put him to death; but they could notfind it, although many false witnessescame forward. Later two came forwardand said: 'This fellow said: "I candestroy the Temple of God, and in threedays I can build it again.'" The highpriest rose and said: 'Do you make noanswer? What is it that these witnessagainst you?' But Jesus kept silent. So

the high priest said to him: 'I adjure youby the living God, that you tell us,whether you are the Anointed One ofGod, the Son of God.' Jesus said to him:'It is you who have said it. But I tell youthat from now on you will see the Sonof Man seated on the right hand of thePower and coming on the clouds ofHeaven.' Then the high priest rent hisgarments, saying: 'He has blasphemed.What further need have we ofwitnesses? Look you, you have nowheard his blasphemy. What is youropinion?' They answered: 'He has madehimself liable to the death penalty.'Then they spat upon his face, andbuffeted him. And some struck him onthe cheek saying: 'Prophesy to us, youAnointed One of God! Who is he whostruck you?'

THE process of the trial of Jesus is not altogethereasy to follow. It seems to have fallen into threeparts. The first part took place after the arrest inthe Garden, during the night and in the highpriest's house, and is described in this section.The second part took place first thing in themorning, and is briefly described in Matthew27:1-2. The third part took place before Pilate,and is described in Matthew 27:11-26. Thesalient question is this - was the meeting duringthe night an official meeting of the Sanhedrin,hastily summoned, or was it merely a preliminaryexamination, in order to formulate a charge, andwas the meeting in the morning the officialmeeting of the Sanhedrin? However that questionis answered, in the trial of Jesus, the Jewsviolated their own laws; but if the meeting in thenight was a meeting of the Sanhedrin, the violationwas even more extreme. On the whole, it seemsthat Matthew took the night meeting to be a

meeting of the Sanhedrin, for in verse 59 he saysthat the whole Sanhedrin sought for false witnessto put Jesus to death. Let us then first look at thisprocess from the Jewish legal point of view.

The Sanhedrin was the supreme court of theJews. It was composed of scribes, Pharisees,Sadducees and elders of the people; it numberedseventy-one members; and it was presided overby the high priest. For a trial such as this, aquorum was twenty-three. It had certainregulations. All criminal cases must be triedduring the daytime and must be completed duringthe daytime. Criminal cases could not betransacted during the Passover season at all. Onlyif the verdict was 'not guilty' could a case befinished on the day it was begun; otherwise a nightmust elapse before the pronouncement of theverdict, so that feelings of mercy might have timeto arise. Further, no decision of the Sanhedrin wasvalid unless it met in its own meeting place, the

Hall of Hewn Stone in the Temple precincts. Allevidence had to be guaranteed by two witnessesseparately examined and having no contact witheach other. And false witness was punishable bydeath. The seriousness of the occasion wasimpressed upon any witness in a case where lifewas at stake: 'Forget not, O witness, that it is onething to give evidence in a trial for money, andanother in a trial for life. In a money suit, if thywitness-bearing shall do wrong, money mayrepair that wrong; but in this trial for life, if thousinnest, the blood of the accused and the blood ofhis seed unto the end of time shall be imputed untothee.' Still further, in any trial the process beganby the laying before the court of all the evidencefor the innocence of the accused, before theevidence for guilt was adduced.

These were the Sanhedrin's own rules, and it isabundantly clear that, in their eagerness to get ridof Jesus, they broke their own rules. Jesus'

enemies had reached such a peak of hatred thatany means were justified to put an end to him.

THE CRIME OF CHRIST

Matthew 26:57. 59-68 (contd)The main business of the night meeting of theJewish authorities was to formulate a chargeagainst Jesus. As we have seen, all evidence hadto be guaranteed by two witnesses, separatelyexamined. For some time, not even two falsewitnesses could be found to agree. And then acharge was found, the charge that Jesus had saidthat he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it inthree days.

It is clear that this charge is a twisting ofcertain things he did actually say. We havealready seen that he foretold - and rightly - thedestruction of the Temple. This had been twistedinto a charge that he had said that he himselfwould destroy the Temple. We have seen that he

foretold that he himself would be killed andwould rise on the third day. This had been twistedinto a charge that he had said that he wouldrebuild the Temple in three days.

This charge was formulated by deliberately andmaliciously misrepeating and misinterpretingcertain things which Jesus had said. To thatcharge, Jesus utterly refused to reply. Therein thelaw was on his side, for no person on trial couldeither be asked, or compelled to answer, anyquestion which would incriminate him.

It was then that the high priest launched hisvital question. We have seen that repeatedly Jesuswarned his disciples to tell no one that he was theMessiah. How then did the high priest know toask the question the answer to which Jesus couldnot escape? It may well be that when Judaspassed on information against him, he also toldthe Jewish authorities about Jesus' revelation of

his own Messiahship. It may well be that Judashad deliberately broken the bond of secrecywhich Jesus had laid upon his disciples.

In any event, the high priest asked the question,and asked it upon oath: 'Are you the Messiah?' hedemanded. 'Do you claim to be the Son of God?'Here was the crucial moment in the trial. Wemight well say that all the universe held its breathas it waited for Jesus' answer. If Jesus said 'No',the bottom fell out of the trial; there was nopossible charge against him. He had only to say'No', and walk out a free man, and escape beforethe Sanhedrin had time to think of another way ofentrapping him. On the other hand, if he said 'Yes',he signed his own death warrant. Nothing morethan a simple 'Yes' was needed to make the crossa complete and inescapable certainty.

It may be that Jesus paused for a moment onceagain to count the cost before he made the great

decision; and then he said 'Yes'. He went further.He quoted Daniel 7:13 with its vivid account ofthe ultimate triumph and kingship of God's chosenone. He knew perfectly well what he was doing.Immediately there went up the cry of blasphemy.Garments were rent in a kind of synthetic andhysterical horror; and Jesus was condemned todeath.

Then followed the spitting on him, the buffeting,the slapping of his face, the mockery. Even theexternals of justice were forgotten, and thehostility of the Jewish authorities broke through.That meeting in the night began as a court ofjustice and ended in a frenzied display of hatred,in which there was no attempt to maintain even thesuperficialities of impartial justice.

To this day, when people are brought face toface with Jesus Christ, they must either hate himor love him; they must either submit to him or

desire to destroy him. No one who realizes whatJesus Christ demands can possibly be neutral. Thechoice must be between becoming his loyalservant or becoming his foe.

THE MAN WHO SENTENCEDJESUS TO DEATH

Matthew 27:1-2, 11-26

When the morning came, all the chiefpriests and elders of the people tookcounsel against Jesus, to put him todeath: so they bound him. and led himaway, and handed him over to Pilate thegovernor. . . .

Jesus stood before the governor, andthe governor put the question to him:'Are you the King of the Jews?' Jesussaid to him: 'You say so.' While he wasbeing accused by the chief priests andthe elders, he returned no answer. ThenPilate said to him: 'Do you not hear the

evidence which they are stating againstyou?' Jesus answered not a single word,so that the governor was much amazed.At the time of the Feast the governorwas in the habit of releasing oneprisoner to the crowd, a prisoner whomthey wished. At that time he washolding a very well-known prisonercalled Barabbas. So, when they wereassembled, Pilate said to them: 'Whomdo you wish me to release to you?Barabbas? Or, Jesus who is calledChrist?' For he was well aware thatthey had delivered Jesus to him becauseof malice. While he was sitting on hisjudgment seat, his wife sent a messageto him. 'Have nothing to do with thisjust man,' she said, 'for today I have hadan extraordinary experience in a dreambecause of him.' The chief priests and

the elders persuaded the crowds to askfor the release of Barabbas, and thedestruction of Jesus. 'Which of the two',said the governor, 'am I to release toyou?' 'Barabbas,' they said. 'What then,'said Pilate to them, 'am I to do withJesus who is called Christ?' 'Let him becrucified,' they all said. 'What evil hashe done?' he said. They kept shoutingall the more: 'Let him be crucified.'When Pilate saw that it was hopeless todo anything, and that rather adisturbance was liable to arise, he tookwater, and washed his hands inpresence of the crowd. 'I am innocent ofthe blood of this just man,' he said. 'Youmust see to it.' All the people answered:'Let the responsibility for his blood beon us and on our children.' Then hereleased Barabbas to them; but he had

Jesus scourged, and handed him over tobe crucified.

THE first two verses of this passage describe whatmust have been a very brief meeting of theSanhedrin, held early in the morning, with a viewto formulating finally an official charge againstJesus. The necessity for this lay in the fact that,while the Jews could themselves deal with anordinary charge, they could not inflict the deathpenalty. That was a sentence which could bepronounced only by the Roman governor, andcarried out by the Roman authorities. TheSanhedrin had therefore to formulate a chargewith which they could go to Pilate and demand thedeath of Jesus.

Matthew does not tell us what that charge was;but Luke does. In the Sanhedrin, the charge whichwas levelled against Jesus was a charge of

blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-6). But no one knewbetter than the Jewish authorities that that was acharge to which Pilate would not listen. He wouldtell them to go away and settle their own religiousquarrels. So, as Luke tells us, they appearedbefore Pilate with a threefold charge, every itemin which was a lie, and a deliberate lie. Theycharged Jesus first with being a revolutionary,second, with inciting the people not to pay theirtaxes, and third, with claiming to be a king (Luke23:2). They fabricated three political charges, allof them conscious lies, because they knew thatonly on such charges would Pilate act.

So, everything hung on the attitude of Pilate.What kind of man was this Roman governor?

Pilate was officially procurator of theprovince; and he was directly responsible not tothe Roman senate but to the Roman emperor. Hemust have been at least twenty-seven years of age,

for that was the minimum age for taking up theoffice of procurator. He must have been a man ofconsiderable experience, for there was a ladderof offices, including military command, up whicha man must climb until he qualified to become agovernor. Pilate must have been a tried and testedsoldier and administrator. He became procuratorof Judaea in AD 26 and held office for ten years,when he was recalled from his post.

When Pilate came to Judaea, he found troublein plenty, and much of it was of his own making.His great handicap was that he was completelyout of sympathy with the Jews. More, he wascontemptuous of what he would have called theirirrational and fanatical prejudices, and what theywould have called their principles. The Romansknew the intensity of Jewish religion and theunbreakable character of Jewish belief, and verywisely had always dealt with the Jews with kidgloves. Pilate arrogantly proposed to take a hard

line.

He began with trouble. The Romanheadquarters were in Caesarea. The Romanstandards were not flags; they were poles with theRoman eagle, or the image of the reigningemperor, on top. In deference to the Jewish hatredof graven images, every previous governor hadremoved the eagles and the images from thestandards before he marched into Jerusalem on hisstate visits. Pilate refused to do so. The result wassuch bitter opposition and such intransigence thatPilate in the end was forced to yield, for it is notpossible either to arrest or to slaughter a wholenation.

Later, Pilate decided that Jerusalem needed abetter water supply - a wise decision. To that end,he constructed a new aqueduct - but he tookmoney from the Temple treasury to pay for it.

Philo, the great Jewish Alexandrian scholar,

has a character study of Pilate - and Philo,remember, was not a Christian, but was speakingfrom the Jewish point of view. The Jews, Philotells us, had threatened to exercise their right toreport Pilate to the emperor for his misdeeds.This threat 'exasperated Pilate to the greatestpossible degree, as he feared lest they might go onan embassy to the emperor, and might impeachhim with respect to other particulars of hisgovernment - his corruption, his acts of insolence,his rapine, his habit of insulting people, hiscruelty, his continual murders of people untriedand uncondemned, and his never-ending gratuitousand most grievous inhumanity.' Pilate had a badrecord in dealing with the Jews, who held him incomplete contempt; and the fact that they couldreport him made his position entirely insecure.

We follow the career of Pilate to the end. In theend, he was recalled to Rome on account of hissavagery in an incident in Samaria. A certain

impostor had summoned the people to MountGerizim with the claim that he would show themthe sacred vessels which Moses had hidden there.Unfortunately many of the crowd came armed, andassembled in a village called Tirabatha. Pilatefell on them and slaughtered them with quiteunnecessary savagery, for it was a harmlessenough movement. The Samaritans lodged acomplaint with Vitellius, the legate of Syria, whowas Pilate's immediate superior, and Vitelliusordered him to return to Rome to answer for hisconduct.

When Pilate was on his way to Rome, Tiberiusthe emperor died; and it appears that Pilate nevercame to trial. Legend has it that in the end hecommitted suicide; his body was flung into theTiber, but the evil spirits so troubled the river thatthe Romans took the body to Gaul and threw itinto the Rhone. Pilate's so-called tomb is stillshown in the French town of Vienne. The same

thing happened there; and the body was finallytaken to a place near Lausanne and buried in a pitin the mountains. Opposite Lucerne there is a hillcalled Mount Pilatus. Originally the mountain wascalled Pileatus, which means wearing a cap ofclouds, but because it was connected with Pilatethe name was changed to Pilatus.

Later Christian legend was sympathetic toPilate and tended to place all the blame for thedeath of Jesus on the Jews. Not unnaturally,legend came to hold that Pilate's wife, who it issaid was a Jewish convert, and was calledClaudia Procula, became a Christian. It was evenheld that Pilate himself became a Christian; and tothis day the Coptic Church ranks both Pilate andhis wife as saints.

We conclude this study of Pilate with a veryinteresting document. Pilate must have sent areport of the trial and death of Jesus to Rome: that

would happen in the normal course ofadministration. An apocryphal book called TheActs of Peter and Paul contains an alleged copy ofthat report. This report is actually referred to bythe early Christian writers Tertullian, JustinMartyr and Eusebius. The report as we have it canhardly be genuine, but it is interesting to read it:

Pontius Pilate unto Claudius greeting

There befell of late a matter of which Imyself made trial; for the Jews throughenvy have punished themselves andtheir posterity with fearful judgments oftheir own fault; for whereas theirfathers had promises that their Godwould send them out of heaven his HolyOne, who should of right be called king,and did promise he would send him onearth by a virgin; he then came when I

was governor of Judaea, and theybeheld him enlightening the blind,cleansing lepers, healing the palsied,driving devils out of men, raising thedead, rebuking the winds, walking onthe waves of the sea dry-shod, anddoing many other wonders, and all thepeople of the Jews calling him the Sonof God; the chief priests thereforemoved with envy against him, took himand delivered him unto me and broughtagainst him one false accusation afteranother, saying that he was a sorcererand that he did things contrary to thelaw.

But I, believing that these things wereso, having scourged him, delivered himto their will: and they crucified him,and, when he was buried, they set their

guards upon him. But while my soldierswatched him, he rose again on the thirdday; yet so much was the malice of theJews kindled, that they gave money tothe soldiers saying: Say ye that hisdisciples stole away his body. But they,though they took the money, were notable to keep silence concerning thatwhich had come to pass, for they alsohave testified that they saw him arisen,and that they received money from theJews. And these things have I reportedunto thy mightiness for this cause, lestsome other should lie unto thee, andthou shouldest deem right to believe thefalse tales of the Jews.

Although that report is no doubt mere legend,Pilate certainly knew that Jesus was innocent: buthis past misdeeds gave the Jews a lever with

which to compel him to do their will against hiswishes and his sense of justice.

PILATE'S LOSING STRUGGLE

Matthew 27:1-2, 11-26 (contd)This whole passage gives the impression of a manfighting a losing battle. It is clear that Pilate didnot wish to condemn Jesus. Certain things emerge.

(1) Pilate was clearly impressed by Jesus.Plainly he did not take seriously the claim to bethe King of the Jews. He knew a revolutionarywhen he saw one, and Jesus was no revolutionary.His dignified silence made Pilate feel that it wasnot Jesus but he himself who was on trial. Pilatewas a man who felt the power of Jesus - and wasafraid to submit to it. There are still those who areafraid to be as Christian as they know they oughtto be.

(2) Pilate sought some way of escape. Itappears to have been the custom at the time of the

Feast for a prisoner to be released. In jail therewas a certain Barabbas. He was not a minorcriminal; he was most probably either a brigandor a political revolutionary.

There are two interesting speculations abouthim. His name Barabbas means Son of theFather; father was a title by which the greatestRabbis were known; it may well be that Barabbaswas the son of an ancient and distinguished familywho had kicked over the traces and embarked ona career of magnificent crime. Such a man wouldmake crime glamorous and would appeal to thepeople.

Still more interesting is the near-certainty thatBarabbas was also called Jesus. Some of the veryoldest versions of the New Testament, forexample the ancient Syriac and Armenianversions, call him Jesus Barabbas; and those twoearly interpreters of Scripture, Origen and

Jerome, both knew of that reading, and felt itmight be correct. It is a curious thing that twicePilate refers to Jesus who is called Christ (verses17 and 22), as if to distinguish him from someother Jesus. Jesus was a common name; it is thesame name as Joshua. And the dramatic shout ofthe crowd most likely was: 'Not Jesus Christ, butJesus Barabbas.'

Pilate sought an escape, but the crowd chosethe violent criminal and rejected the gentle Christ.They preferred the man of violence to the man oflove.

(3) Pilate sought to escape the responsibilityfor condemning Jesus. There is that strange andtragic picture of him washing his hands. That wasa Jewish custom. There is a strange regulation inDeuteronomy 21:1-9. If a dead body was found,and it was not known who the killer was,measurements were to be taken to find what was

the nearest town or village. The elders of thattown or village had to sacrifice a heifer and towash their hands to rid them of the guilt.

Pilate was warned by his sense of justice, hewas warned by his conscience, he was warned bythe dream of his troubled wife; but Pilate couldnot stand against the mob; and Pilate made thefutile gesture of washing his hands. Legend has itthat to this day there are times when Pilate's ghostemerges from its tomb and goes through the actionof the handwashing once again.

There is one thing of which we can never ridourselves - and that is responsibility. It is neverpossible for Pilate or anyone else to say: 'I washmy hands of all responsibility', for that issomething that no one and nothing can take away.

This picture of Pilate provokes in our mindspity rather than loathing; for here was a man soenmeshed in his past, and rendered helpless to

such an extent by it, that he was unable to take thestand he ought to have taken. Pilate is a figure oftragedy rather than of villainy.

THE SOLDIERS' MOCKERY

Matthew 27:27-31

Then the governor's soldiers took Jesusto the military headquarters, andcollected to him the whole of thedetachment. They stripped him of hisclothes and put a soldier's purple cloakupon him; and they wove a crown ofthorns and put it on his head, and theyput a reed in his right hand: and theyknelt in front of him, and mocked him bysaying: 'Hail! King of the Jews!' Andthey spat on him, and took the reed andhit him on his head. And when they hadmocked him, they took off the cloak, andclothed him in his own clothes, and ledhim away to crucify him.

THE dreadful routine of crucifixion had nowbegun. The last section ended by telling us thatPilate had Jesus scourged. Roman scourging wasa terrible torture. The victim was stripped; hishands were tied behind him, and he was tied to apost with his back bent double and convenientlyexposed to the lash. The lash itself was a longleather thong, studded at intervals with sharpenedpieces of bone and pellets of lead. Such scourgingalways preceded crucifixion, and 'it reduced thenaked body to strips of raw flesh, and inflamedand bleeding weals'. Men died under it, and menlost their reason under it, and few remainedconscious to the end of it.

After that, Jesus was handed over to thesoldiers, while the last details of crucifixion werearranged, and while the cross itself was prepared.They took him to their barracks in the governor'sheadquarters; and they called the rest of thedetachment. The detachment is called a speira; in

a full speira there were 600 men. It is not likelythat there were as many as that in Jerusalem.These soldiers were Pilate's bodyguard who hadaccompanied him from Caesarea, where hispermanent headquarters were.

We may shudder at what the soldiers did; but ofall the parties involved in the crucifixion, theywere least to be blamed. They were not evenstationed in Jerusalem: they had no idea whoJesus was; they certainly were not Jews, for theJews were the only nation in the Roman Empirewho were exempt from military service; theywere conscripts who may well have come fromthe four corners of the earth. They indulged intheir rough horseplay; but, unlike the Jews andunlike Pilate, they acted in ignorance.

Maybe, for Jesus, of all things this was theeasiest to bear; for, although they made a shamking of him, there was no hatred in their eyes. To

them he was nothing more than a deludedGalilaean going to a cross. It is not withoutsignificance that Philo tells us that in Alexandria aJewish mob did exactly the same to a boyconsidered to be stupid: They spread a strip oflinen and placed it on his head instead of adiadem . . . and for a sceptre they handed up tohim a small piece of native papyrus bulrush whichthey found thrown on the roadside. And becausehe was adorned as a king . . . some came up asthough to greet him, others as though to plead acause.' So they mocked that boy; and the soldierslooked at Jesus in exactly the same way.

Then they prepared to lead him away tocrucifixion. We are sometimes told that we shouldnot dwell on the physical aspect of the cross; butwe cannot possibly have too vivid a picture ofwhat Jesus did and suffered for us. JosephKlausner, the Jewish writer, says: 'Crucifixion isthe most terrible and cruel death which man has

ever devised for taking vengeance on his fellow-men.' Cicero, the Roman statesman, called it 'themost cruel and the most horrible torture'. Thehistorian Tacitus called it 'a torture only fit forslaves'.

It originated in Persia; and its origin came fromthe fact that the earth was considered to be sacredto Ormuzd the god, and the criminal was lifted upfrom it that he might not defile the earth, whichwas the god's property. From Persia, crucifixionpassed to Carthage in North Africa; and it wasfrom Carthage that Rome learned it, although theRomans kept it exclusively for rebels, runawayslaves and the lowest type of criminal. It wasindeed a punishment which it was illegal to inflicton a Roman citizen.

Klausner goes on to describe crucifixion. Thecriminal was fastened to his cross, already ableeding mass from the scourging. There he hung

to die of hunger and thirst and exposure, unableeven to defend himself from the torture of thegnats and flies which settled on his naked bodyand on his bleeding wounds. It is not a prettypicture, but that is what Jesus Christ suffered -willingly - for us.

THE CROSS AND THE SHAME

Matthew 27:32-44

As they were going out, they found aCyrenian man, Simon by name, and theyimpressed him into their service, tobear Jesus' cross. When they had cometo the place which is called Golgotha(which means the Place of a Skull), theyoffered him wine mingled with gall todrink, and, when he had tasted it, herefused to drink it. When they hadcrucified him, they divided his garmentsamong them by casting lots for them:and as they sat there, they watched him.Above his head they placed a writtencopy of the charge on which he wasbeing executed: 'This is Jesus, the King

of the Jews.' Then they crucified alongwith him two brigands, one on the righthand and one on the left. Those whowere passing by kept flinging theirinsults at him. They kept shaking theirheads and saying: 'Destroyer of theTemple, and builder of it in three days,save yourself. If you are really the Sonof God, come down from the cross.' Inthe same way the chief priests also withthe scribes and the elders jeered at him:'He saved others,' they kept saying. 'Hecannot save himself. He is King ofIsrael. Let him come down from thecross now, and we will believe on him.He trusted in God. Let God rescue himnow, if he wants him; for he said: "I amthe Son of God."' The brigands too whowere crucified with him hurled thesame reproaches at him.

The story of the crucifixion does not needcommentary; its power resides simply in thetelling. All we can do is to paint in thebackground in order that the picture may be asclear as possible.

When a criminal had been condemned, he wasled away to crucifixion. He was placed in thecentre of a hollow square of four Roman soldiers.It was the custom that he should carry thecrossbeam of his own cross; the upright wasalready waiting at the scene of execution. Thecharge on which he was being executed waswritten on a board; it was then either hung roundhis own neck, or carried by an officer in front ofthe procession; and it was later affixed to thecross itself. The criminal was led to the scene ofcrucifixion by as long a route as possible, so thatas many as possible might see him and takewarning from the grim sight.

Jesus had undergone the terrible scourging;after that he had undergone the mockery of thesoldiers; before all that he had been underexamination for most of the night; and he was,therefore, physically exhausted, and staggeringunder his cross. The Roman soldiers knew whatto do under such circumstances. Palestine was anoccupied country; all that a Roman officer had todo was to tap a Jew on the shoulder with the flatof his spear, and the man had to carry out any task,however menial and distasteful, that was laidupon him. Into the city, from one of thesurrounding villages, there had come a man fromfar-off Cyrene in North Africa, called Simon. Itmay be that for years he had scraped and saved toattend this one Passover - and now this terribleindignity and shame fell upon him; for he wascompelled to carry the cross of Jesus. When Marktells the story, he identifies Simon as 'the father ofAlexander and Rufus' (Mark 15:21). Such an

identification can only mean that Alexander andRufus were well known in the Church. And it mustbe that on that terrible day Jesus laid hold onSimon's heart. That which to Simon had seemedhis day of shame became his day of glory.

The place of crucifixion was a hill calledGolgotha, so called because it was shaped like askull. When the place was reached, the criminalhad to be impaled upon his cross. The nails had tobe driven in, usually through the wrists, butcommonly the feet were only loosely bound to thecross. At that moment, in order to deaden the pain,the criminal was given a drink of drugged wine,prepared by a group of wealthy women ofJerusalem as an act of mercy. A Jewish writingsays: 'When a man is going out to be killed, theyallow him to drink a grain of frankincense in a cupof wine to deaden his senses. . . Wealthy womenof Jerusalem used to contribute these things andbring them.' The drugged cup was offered to

Jesus, but he would not drink it, for he wasdetermined to accept death at its bitterest and atits grimmest, and to avoid no particle of pain.

We have already seen that the criminal was ledto execution in the middle of a square of fourRoman soldiers; criminals were crucified naked,except for a loin cloth; and the criminal's clothesbecame the property of the soldiers as their'perks'. Every Jew wore five articles of clothing -his shoes, his turban, his girdle, his inner garmentand his outer cloak. There were thus five articlesof clothing and four soldiers. The first fourarticles were all of equal value; but the outercloak was more valuable than all the others. Itwas probably for Jesus' outer cloak that thesoldiers drew lots (but cf. John 19:23-4). Whenthe soldiers had divided the clothes, they satdown, on guard until the end should come. Sothere was on Golgotha a group of three crosses, inthe middle the Son of God, and on either side a

brigand. Truly, he was with sinners in his death.

The final verses describe the taunts flung atJesus by the passers-by, by the Jewish authorities,and by the brigands who were crucified with him.They all centred round one thing - the claims thatJesus had made and his apparent helplessness onthe cross. It was precisely there that the Jewswere so wrong. They were using the glory ofChrist as a means of mocking him. 'Come down,'they said, 'and we will believe on you.' But asGeneral William Booth of the Salvation Armyonce said, 'It is precisely because he would notcome down that we believe in him.' The Jewscould see God only in power; but Jesus showedthat God is sacrificial love.

THE TRIUMPH OF THE END

Matthew 27:45-50

From 12 noon, darkness came over theearth until 3 pm. About 3 pm, Jesuscried with a loud voice: 'Eloi, Eloi,lama sabachthani?' (that is, 'My God,my God, why have you forsaken me?').Some of those who were standing thereheard this, and said: 'This man iscalling for Elias.' And immediately oneof them ran and took a sponge and filledit with vinegar and put it on a reed, andgave him to drink. The rest said: 'Letbe! Let us see if Elias will come to savehim.' When Jesus had again shoutedwith a great voice, he gave up his spirit.

As we have been reading the story of thecrucifixion, everything seems to have beenhappening very quickly; but in reality the hourswere slipping past. It is Mark who is most precisein his note of time. He tells us that Jesus wascrucified at the third hour, that is at 9 am (Mark15:25), and that he died at the ninth hour, that is at3 pm (Mark 15:34). That is to say, Jesus hung onthe cross for six hours. For him the agony wasmercifully brief, for it often happened thatcriminals hung upon their crosses for days beforedeath came to them.

In verse 46, we have what must be the moststaggering sentence in the gospel record, the cryof Jesus: 'My God, my God, why have youforsaken me?' That is a saying before which wemust bow in reverence, and yet at the same timewe must try to understand. There have been manyattempts to penetrate behind its mystery; we can

look at only three.

(1) It is strange how Psalm 22 runs through thewhole crucifixion narrative; and this saying isactually the first verse of that Psalm. Later on, itsays: 'All who see me mock at me; they makemouths at me, they shake their heads; "Commityour cause to the Lord: let him deliver - let himrescue the one in whom he delights!"' (Psalm22:7-8). Still further on, we read: "They dividemy clothes among themselves, and for my clothingthey cast lots' (Psalm 22:18). Psalm 22 isinterwoven with the whole crucifixion story.

It has been suggested that Jesus was, in fact,repeating that Psalm to himself; and, though itbegins in complete dejection, it ends in soaringtriumph - 'From you comes my praise in the greatcongregation . . . For dominion belongs to theLord, and he rules over the nations' (Psalm 22:25-8). So it is suggested that Jesus was repeating

Psalm 22 on the cross, as a picture of his ownsituation, and as a song of his trust andconfidence, in the full knowledge that it began inthe depths, but that it finished on the heights.

It is an attractive suggestion; but on a cross aman does not repeat poetry to himself, even thepoetry of a psalm; and besides that, the wholeatmosphere is one of unrelieved tragedy.

(2) It is suggested that in that moment theweight of the world's sin fell upon the heart andthe being of Jesus; that that was the moment whenhe who knew no sin was made sin for us (2Corinthians 5:21); and that the penalty which hebore for us was the inevitable separation fromGod which sin brings. No one may say that that isnot true; but, if it is, it is a mystery which we canonly state and at which we can only wonder.

(3) It may be that there is something - if we mayput it so - more human here. It seems to me that

Jesus would not be Jesus unless he had plumbedthe uttermost depths of human experience. Inhuman experience, as life goes on and as bittertragedy enters into it, there come times when wefeel that God has forgotten us; when we areimmersed in a situation beyond our understandingand feel bereft even of God. It seems to me thatthat is what happened to Jesus here. We have seenin the garden that Jesus knew only that he had togo on, because to go on was God's will, and hemust accept what even he could not fullyunderstand. Here we see Jesus plumbing theuttermost depths of the human situation, so thatthere might be no place that we might go where hehas not been before.

Those who listened did not understand. Somethought he was calling on Elijah; they must havebeen Jews. One of the great gods of the paganswas the sun - Helios. A cry to the sun god wouldhave begun 'Helie!' and it has been suggested that

the soldiers may have thought that Jesus wascrying to the greatest of the pagan gods. In anyevent, his cry was to the watchers a mystery.

But here is the point. It would have been aterrible thing if Jesus had died with a cry like thatupon his lips - but he did not. The narrative goeson to tell us that, when he shouted with a greatshout, he gave up his spirit. That great shout leftits mark upon people's minds. It is in every one ofthe gospels (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke23:46). But there is one gospel which goesfurther. John tells us that Jesus died with a shout:'It is finished' (John 19:30). It is finished is inEnglish three words; but in Greek it is one -Tetelestai - as it would also be in Aramaic. Andtetelestai is the victor's shout; it is the cry of allthose who have completed their task; it is the cryof those who have won through the struggle; it isthe cry of those who have come out of the darkinto the glory of the light, and who have grasped

the crown. So, Jesus died a victor with a shout oftriumph on his lips.

Here is the precious thing. Jesus passed throughthe uttermost abyss, and then the light broke. If wetoo cling to God, even when there seems to be noGod, desperately and invincibly clutching theremnants of our faith, quite certainly the dawnwill break and we will win through. True victorycomes to those who refuse to believe that God hasforgotten them, even when every fibre of theirbeing feels that they have been forsaken. Victorycomes to those who will never let go of theirfaith, even when they feel that its last grounds aregone. Victory comes to those who have beenbeaten to the depths and still hold on to God, forthat is what Jesus did.

THE BLAZING REVELATION

Matthew 27:51-6

And, look you, the veil of the Templewas rent in two from top to bottom, andthe earth was shaken, and the rockswere split, and the tombs were opened,and the bodies of many of God'sdedicated ones were raised, and theycame out of the tombs after hisresurrection and came into the holy cityand appeared to many. The centurionand those who were watching Jesuswith him saw the earthquake and thethings that had happened, and they wereexceedingly afraid. 'Truly,' they said,'this man was the Son of God.'

Many women were there watching

from a distance. They were the womenwho had followed Jesus from Galilee,giving their service to him. Among themwere Mary from Magdala, and Mary themother of James and Joses [Joseph],and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

THIS passage falls into three sections.

(1) There is the story of the amazing things thathappened as Jesus died. Whether or not we aremeant to take these things literally, they teach ustwo great truths.

(a) The Temple veil was rent from top tobottom. That was the veil which covered the Holyof Holies; that was the veil beyond which no onecould penetrate, except the high priest on the Dayof Atonement; that was the veil behind which theSpirit of God dwelt. There is symbolism here. Upto this time, God had been hidden and remote, and

no one knew what he was like. But in the death ofJesus we see the hidden love of God, and the wayto the presence of God once barred to everyone isnow opened to all. The life and the death of Jesusshow us what God is like and remove forever theveil which concealed him from men and women.

(b) The tombs were opened. The symbolism ofthis is that Jesus conquered death. In dying and inrising again, he destroyed the power of the grave.Because of his life, his death and his resurrection,the tomb has lost its power, and the grave has lostits terror, and death has lost its tragedy. For weare certain that because he lives we shall livealso.

(2) There is the story of the adoration of thecenturion. There is only one thing to be said aboutthis. Jesus had said: 'I, when I am lifted up fromthe earth, will draw all people to myself" (John12:32). He foretold the magnetic power of the

cross; and the centurion was its first fruit. Thecross had moved him to see the majesty of Jesusas nothing else had been able to do.

(3) There is the simple statement concerning thewomen who saw the end. All the disciplesforsook him and fled, but the women remained. Ithas been said that, unlike the men, the women hadnothing to fear, for so low was the public positionof women that no one would take any notice ofwomen disciples. There is more to it than that.They were there because they loved Jesus - andfor them, as for so many, perfect love had cast outall fear.

THE GIFT OF A TOMB

Matthew 27:57-61

Late in the day there came a rich manfrom Arimathaea, Joseph by name, whowas himself a disciple of Jesus. Hewent to Pilate and requested the body ofJesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be givento him. So Joseph took the body andwrapped it in clean linen, and laid it ina new tomb, which he had hewn out inthe rock. And he rolled a great stoneacross the door of the tomb and wentaway. And Mary from Magdala wasthere, and the other Mary, sittingopposite the tomb.

According to Jewish law, even a criminal's body

might not be left hanging all night, but had to beburied that day. 'His corpse must not remain allnight upon the tree; you shall bury him that sameday' (Deuteronomy 21:23). This was doublybinding when, as in the case of Jesus, the next daywas the Sabbath. According to Roman law, therelatives of a criminal might claim his body forburial, but if it was not claimed it was simply leftto rot until the scavenger dogs dealt with it.

Now none of Jesus' relatives was in a positionto claim his body, for they were all Galilaeansand none of them possessed a tomb in Jerusalem.So the wealthy Joseph from Arimathaea steppedin. He went to Pilate and asked that the body ofJesus should be given to him; and he cared for it,and put it into the rock tomb where no one hadever been laid. Joseph must be forever famous asthe man who gave Jesus a tomb.

Legends have gathered around the name of

Joseph - legends which are of particular interestto those who live in England. The best known isthat in AD 61 Philip sent Joseph from Gaul topreach the gospel in England. He came bearingwith him the chalice which was used at the LastSupper, and which now held the blood of Jesusshed upon the cross. That chalice was to becomethe Holy Grail, which is so famous in the storiesof the knights of King Arthur. When Joseph andhis band of missionaries had climbed Weary-allHill and come to the other side, they came toGlastonbury; there Joseph struck his staff into theearth and from it grew the Glastonbury thorn. It iscertainly true that for years Glastonbury was theholiest place in England: and it is still a place ofpilgrimage. The story is that the original thornwas hacked down by a Puritan, but that the thornwhich grows there to this day came from a shootof it; and to this day slips of it are sent all over theworld. So, legend connects Joseph of Arimathaea

with Glastonbury and England.

But there is a lesser-known legend,commemorated in one of the most famous hymnsand poems in the English language. It is a legendwhich is still current in Somerset. Joseph, so thelegend runs, was a tin merchant, and came, longbefore he was sent by Philip, on quite frequentvisits to the tin mines of Cornwall. The town ofMarazion in Cornwall has another name. It issometimes called Market Jew, and is said to havebeen the centre of a colony of Jews who traded intin. The legend goes still further. Joseph ofArimathaea, it says, was the uncle of Mary, themother of Jesus. (Can it possibly be that he didactually exercise a relative's right to claim thebody of Jesus under Roman law?) And, it is said,he brought the young boy Jesus with him on one ofhis voyages to Cornwall. That is what WilliamBlake was thinking of when he wrote his famouspoem:

And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England's mountains green?And was the Holy Lamb of God On England's pleasant pastures seen? And did the Countenance Divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here, Among those dark Satanic mills?

The dark Satanic mills were the tin mines ofCornwall. It is a lovely legend which we wouldlike to be true, for there would be a thrill in thethought that the feet of the boy Jesus once touchedEnglish earth.

It is often said that Joseph gave to Jesus a tombafter he was dead, but did not support him duringhis life. Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin(Luke 23:50); and Luke tells us that he 'had notagreed to their plan and action' (Luke 23:51). Is it

possible that the meeting of the Sanhedrin calledin the house of Caiaphas in the middle of the nightwas selectively called? It hardly seems likely thatthe whole Sanhedrin could have been there. It maywell be that Caiaphas summoned those whom hewished to be present and packed the meeting withhis supporters, and that Joseph never even got achance to be there.

It is certainly true that in the end Josephdisplayed the greatest courage. He came out onthe side of a crucified criminal: he braved thepossible resentment of Pilate; and he faced thecertain hatred of the Jewish authorities. It maywell be that Joseph of Arimathea did everythingthat it was possible for him to do.

One obscure point remains. The woman who iscalled the other Mary is identified as Mary, themother of Joses (Joseph) by Mark (15:47). Wehave already seen that these women were present

at the cross; their love made them follow Jesus inlife and in death.

AN IMPOSSIBLE ASSIGNMENT

Matthew 27:62-6

On the next day, which is the day afterthe Preparation, the chief priests andPharisees came to Pilate in a body.'Sir,' they said, 'we remember that,while he was still alive, that deceiversaid: "After three days I will riseagain." Give orders therefore that thetomb should be kept secure until thethree days are ended, in case hisdisciples come and steal him, and say tothe people: "He has been raised fromamong the dead." If that happens, thefinal deception will be worse than thefirst.' Pilate said: 'You have a guard.Go, and make it as secure as you can.'

They went and secured the tomb bysetting a seal upon it as well as byplacing a guard.

This passage begins in the most curious way. Itsays that the chief priests and Pharisees went toPilate on the next day, which is the day after thePreparation. Now Jesus was crucified on theFriday. Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath. The hoursfrom 3 pm to 6 pm on Friday were called the Eve,or the Preparation. We have seen that, accordingto Jewish reckoning, the new day began at 6 pm.Therefore, the Sabbath began at 6 pm on Friday;and the last hours of Friday were the Preparation.If this is accurate, it can only mean one thing - itmust mean that the chief priests and Phariseesactually approached Pilate on the Sabbath withtheir request. If they did that, it is clear to see howradically they broke the Sabbath law. If this isaccurate, no other incident in the gospel story

more plainly shows how desperately eager theJewish authorities were to eliminate Jesus totally.In order to make certain that he was finally out ofthe way, they were willing to break even theirown most sacred laws.

There is a grim irony here. These Jews came toPilate saying that Jesus had said that he wouldrise after three days. They did not admit that theyenvisaged the possibility that that might be true,but they thought the disciples might seek to stealaway the body and say that a resurrection hadhappened. They, therefore, wished to take specialsteps to guard the tomb. Back comes Pilate'sanswer: 'Make it as safe as you can.' It is as ifPilate all unconsciously said: 'Keep Christ in thetomb - if you can.' They took their steps. The doorof these rock tombs was closed by a great roundstone like a cartwheel, which ran in a groove.They sealed it and they set a special guard - andthey made it as safe as they could.

They had not realized one thing - that there wasnot a tomb in the world which could imprison therisen Christ. Not all the plans in the world couldbind the risen Lord. Anyone who seeks to putbonds on Jesus Christ is on a hopelessassignment.

THE GREAT DISCOVERY

Matthew 28:1-10

Late on the Sabbath, when the first dayof the week was beginning to dawn,Mary from Magdala and the other Marycame to see the tomb. And, look you,there was a great earthquake; for theangel of the Lord descended fromheaven and came and rolled away thestone, and sat upon it. His appearancewas like lightning, and his garment wasas white as snow. Those who werewatching were shaken with fear, andbecame as dead men. The angel said tothe women: 'Do not be afraid; for Iknow that you are looking for Jesus whowas crucified. He is not here; for he is

risen, as he said he would. Come, seethe place where the Lord lay. Goquickly and tell his disciples: "He isrisen from among the dead. And, lookyou, he goes before you into Galilee;there you will see him." Look you, Ihave told you.' So they quickly wentaway from the tomb with fear and withgreat joy, and they ran to tell the newsto his disciples. And, look you, Jesusmet them. 'Greetings!' he said. And theycame and held him by the feet, andworshipped him. Then Jesus said tothem: 'Fear not! Go, tell my brothers togo away into Galilee, and there theywill see me.'

HERE we have Matthew's story of the empty tomb.And there is something peculiarly fitting in thatMary Magdalene and the other Mary should be the

first to receive the news of the risen Lord and toencounter him. They had been there at the cross;they had been there when he was laid in the tomb;and now they were receiving love's reward; theywere the first to know the joy of the resurrection.

As we read this story of the first two people inthe world to be confronted with the fact of theempty tomb and the risen Christ, three imperativesseem to spring out of it.

(1) They are urged to believe. The thing is sostaggering that it might seem beyond belief, toogood to be true. The angel reminds them of thepromise of Jesus, and confronts them with theempty tomb; his every word is a summons tobelieve. It is still a fact that there are many whofeel that the promises of Christ are too good to betrue. That hesitation can be dispelled only bytaking him at his word.

(2) They are urged to share. When they

themselves have discovered the fact of the risenChrist, their first duty is to proclaim it to and toshare it with others. 'Go, tell!' is the firstcommand which comes to all who havediscovered the wonder of Jesus Christ forthemselves.

(3) They are urged to rejoice. The word withwhich the risen Christ meets them is Chairete;that is the normal word of greeting, but its literalmeaning is 'Rejoice!' Those who have met therisen Lord must live forever in the joy of hispresence from which nothing can part them anymore.

THE LAST RESORT

Matthew 28:11-15

While they were on their way, certainof the guard came to the city and toldthe chief priests all that had happened.When they had met with the elders, theyformed a plan. They gave aconsiderable amount of money to thesoldiers. 'Say,' they said, '"Hisdisciples came by night, and stole himaway while we slept." And if thiscomes to the governor's ears, we willuse our influence, and we will see to itthat you have nothing to worry about.'They took the money and followed theirinstructions. And this is the story whichis repeated among the Jews to this day.

When some of the guard came to the chief priestsand told them the story of the empty tomb, theJewish authorities were desperately worried men.Was it possible that all their planning had come tonothing? So they formed a simple plan: theybribed the members of the guard to say that Jesus'disciples had come while they slept and hadstolen his body.

It is interesting to note the means that theJewish authorities used in their desperate attemptsto eliminate Jesus. They used treachery to lay holdof him. They used illegality to try him. They usedslander to charge him before Pilate. And now theywere using bribery to silence the truth about him.And they failed. Magna est veritas etpraevalebit, ran the Roman proverb; great is thetruth and it will prevail. It is a fact of history thatnot all the evil machinations devised can in theend stop the truth. The gospel of goodness isgreater than the plots of wickedness.

THE GLORY OF THE FINALPROMISE

Matthew 28:16-20

So the eleven disciples went intoGalilee, to the mountain where Jesushad instructed them to go. And they sawhim and worshipped him; but somewere not sure. Jesus came and spoke tothem. 'All power', he said, 'is given tome in heaven and upon earth. Go,therefore, and make all nations mydisciples, baptizing them in the name ofthe Father and of the Son and of theHoly Spirit, and teaching them to keepall the commandments I have given you.And, look you, I am with you throughoutall days until the end of the world.'

Here we come to the end of the gospel story; herewe listen to the last words of Jesus to hisdisciples; and in this last meeting Jesus did threethings.

(1) He assured them of his power. Surelynothing was outside the power of him who haddied and conquered death. Now they were theservants of a Master whose authority upon earthand in heaven was beyond all question.

(2) He gave them a commission. He sent themout to make all the world his disciples. It maywell be that the instruction to baptize is somethingwhich is a development of the actual words ofJesus. That may be argued about; the salient factremains that the commission of Jesus is to win allmen and women for himself.

(3) He promised them a presence. It must havebeen a staggering thing for eleven humbleGalilaeans to be sent forth to the conquest of the

world. Even as they heard it, their hearts musthave failed them. But no sooner was the commandgiven than the promise followed. They were sentout - as we are - on the greatest task in history, butwith them there was the greatest presence in theworld. As James Montgomery's hymn has it:

Though few and small and weak your bands, Strong in your Captain's strength, Go to the conquest of all lands; All must be his at length.