The name "Jesus" is the name by which the Saviour is preferably known in the Gospels. "Christ" is used as a proper name in the Epistles, but in the Gospels, except in rare instances, such as Matt 1:1; Mark 1:1; Luke 11:11; John 1:17 there is found not the familiar "Christ" but "The Christ." The later combination of the two names, "Jesus Christ," is found only in John (John 17:3) and after the resurrection (Acts 2:38, 3:6). "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Jehoshua" or in its abbreviated form "Joshua." Its variants are found in "Jeshua" and "Hoshea." "Jesus" means Deliverer and the divine selection of the name is indicated in Matt. 1:21--"He shall save his people from their sins."
The common language of Palestine at that time was Aramaic, a Syro-Chaldaic dialect. After the Babylonian captivity it supplanted the original Hebrew, although the latter continued in use for ecclesiastical documents. It is reasonable to believe that Christ used the Aramaic, as the people would not have understood him had he spoken any other language. Matthew is commonly believed to have been written in Aramaic and the other three in Greek. The commercial and literary language of the day was Greek. Neither Luke nor John was an uneducated man. Both would be likely to know Greek. Mark, too, as a young Jew of some standing, would probably know the language.
There is no absolute evidence that the prayer was taught on one occasion only. Matthew reports it as given during the Sermon on the Mount, and Luke (who was not one of the twelve) places its delivery after the close of the Galilean ministry, but mentioning no time or place. Many of the best scholars regard the position of the prayer in Matthew as unhistorical and give the preference to Luke, although it by no means follows that even he gives the original form. If delivered on more than one occasion, the prayer may have had one form for a small group of disciples, and another form for the whole body of Jesus' followers. And this might account for the presence of a clause in one version which was absent in the other. The word "trespasses" may be regarded simply as a variant. Furthermore, it is conjectured that Luke made certain changes in the expressions of the prayer, to make its meaning clearer to Gentile hearers. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, is the first writer who expressly mentions the use of the Lord's Prayer in religious worship, but it was not generally used in Christian churches during the early days. There is no evidence that it was employed by the apostles. Luke omits the closing doxology, and although it appears in Matthew's Gospel as we now have it, it is not to be found in any of the early manuscripts, and is probably an interpolation due to liturgical use.
Some commentators have claimed that the Prayer is based upon expressions and sentiments already familiar to the Jews, and that parallel phrases may be found in the Talmud, but this does not detract from its beauty and originality as a whole.
This passage is frequently misunderstood. Mark has .the better version: "Till they see the Kingdom of God come with power" (which is the more explicit), and Luke: "Till they see the Kingdom." Jesus is believed to have had reference to the realization of the firm establishment and victorious progress of the new Kingdom of Christ during the lifetime of some then present. He did not refer here to his second coming, but to the founding and triumphant extension of that work, the acceptance of which by the world was to be the grand pledge of his return.
The simple meaning of this passage (Matt. 5:3) is that it is the humble soul that gets blessed. And the higher a saint gets in the divine life the more humble he will be. Spiritual progress which is not accompanied by humility is progress in the wrong direction. This is one of the distinctive points of Christ's doctrine; at the very threshold of the Christian life the Christian gives up his self-confidence; he surrenders all hope of making himself righteous, and gives himself to Christ to be made righteous. And his highest attain ment can be expressed in the words of Paul: "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."
In Matt. 5:17-20 Jesus was explaining that he did not come to abrogate but to fulfill the law--to unfold its true spiritual meaning. In verse 19, the thing spoken of, as commentators explain, is not "the practical breaking or disobeying of the law, but annulling or enervating its obligation by a vicious system of interpretation and teaching others to do the same; so the thing threatened is not exclusion from heaven and still less the lowest place in it, but a degraded and contemptuous position in the present stage of the kingdom of God--in other words, they shall be reduced, by the retributive providence that overtakes them, to the same condition of dishonor to which their false system of teaching has brought down the eternal principles of God's law." On the other hand, those who so teach that they exalt and honor God's authority, shall be honored in the kingdom in due proportion. It is therefore a rebuke to the outward and formal righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, who neglect the inward, vital and spiritual.
The meaning of the passage in Matt. 5:19 is: Whosoever shall break, or make invalid through deliberate misinterpretation, one of the least of these commandments and shall teach men so (as the Pharisees were doing), shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. The penalty was not exclusion from heaven, but the loss of the position of honor in God's kingdom, which they might have enjoyed. On the other hand, whosoever shall teach men to obey the law in its right interpretation, looking to the glory and honor of God, should be honored in heaven. It was a warning to the Scribes and Pharisees that righteousness must be inward, vital and spiritual, instead of outward and formal.
God does not tempt any one. He may permit us to be placed in positions where, if left to our own resources, we would fall; but he does not tempt us to evil. Eve said, "The serpent beguiled me." (See Gen. 3:1,4,5,13.) She yielded in her weakness and suffered accordingly (vs. 14,15,16). In Matt 4:1, and parallel passages, it is distinctly stated that the devil was the tempter of Jesus. In I Cor. 10:13, also, it is made clear that though God may permit us to be tempted, he is not the tempter. See James 1:13, where it is emphatically asserted that God tempts no man. The withdrawal of the Holy Spirit exposes us to temptation, by leaving the heart open to the attack of the tempter; but nothing is more erroneous than to assume that temptation, or the placing of any agent in man's spiritual path which may cause him to fall, comes from God. If this were true, he would be the author of eternal ruin to multitudes who rush into sin by yielding to temptation. See also Job, 1st and 2nd chapters, where Satan is shown as the tempter who pleads to be allowed to test the spiritual stability of the patriarch. The only sources of temptation in any case are the evil spirit, the world and the flesh. Unless we are fortified by the presence of the Divine Spirit, when these assail, we are especially exposed and liable to fall. See further on the subject Rev. 12:9; John 8:44; II Cor. 11:3, I John 3:8; Mark 1:13, Luke 4:2; Acts 5:3; Matt. 26:41. Even when God has made a trial of man's faith, he has done so in every instance by the removal of spiritual safeguards and leaving man to his own resources, when the tempter availed himself of the opportunity. In this sense, it is evident that a test is not a temptation. Some cannot reconcile the statement that God did tempt Abraham, Gen. 22:1, with the assertion of James 1:13 that God tempts no man. James refers to allurements to sin. Abraham was not tempted in that sense. He was tried and tested. Temptation is a trial and a test because when a man is tempted he learns his strength and weakness, hence the confusion in the meanings of the word. It is obvious, however, that the trial may come in different ways. In Abraham's case he was ordered to do something that was against his nature, and the question was whether he would do what he did not wish to do at the command of God. James, on the other hand, is speaking of a case in which a man is prompted to follow his own inclinations and to commit sin. God tempts no man to commit sin, but he does test our faith in him and love for him by trials. Job must have been tempted to take his wife's advice and curse God; but his trials, as we know, were tests of his disinterested allegiance, not such temptations as James refers to.
The reference in Matt. 8:10 has caused discussion among divines in all periods of the Christian Church, and is by no means' satisfactorily explained. Jesus seems to have lifted for a moment the veil over the unseen state, and to have spoken of a matter familiar to him, but incomprehensible to us. The apparent meaning is that even the humblest followers of Christ are ministered to by angels, who have access to the presence of God himself.
In this passage (Matt 8:11-12) Christ was evidently referring to the Jews. His remark was called forth by a Roman officer exhibiting more faith in him than had ever been done by a Jew. He therefore warned his Jewish hearers that, although they prided themselves on being children of the kingdom of God, through their descent from Abraham, they might be excluded from the kingdom because of personal unfitness; while others, who could not claim that illustrious pedigree, would be admitted because of their personal fitness. The present application of his words appears to us to be not to converted persons, but to nominal Christians, who have never been converted, but expect to enter heaven because they belong to Christian families, have been baptized and admitted to membership in a Christian church; but have not the spirit of Christ and Christ's words here also apply to people in Christian countries who having a knowledge of the things of God, do not live according to their knowledge. They, too, will see people who had not their advantages admitted, while they themselves are excluded.
The language employed by Christ (Matt 8:22) on the occasion in question is to be accepted figuratively, as in many other instances of his teachings. He was speaking of the characteristics of true discipleship, and particularly referred to those who permitted themselves to become so entangled in worldly affairs, that they persistently procrastinated in spiritual things. To these, Jesus showed that all other claims were inferior to the divine claim upon their energies and the paramount command to "preach the kingdom of God." These should take precedence even of the highest claims of nature. While immortal souls are in peril, the true disciple must not hesitate, but must go even at the sacrifice of all he holds dear. Those who remain, being dead to the spiritual call, may well be relied upon to fulfill all needful natural duties to the dead or the dying among themselves. The disciple's duty is to obey the call, leaving the consequences with God.
It was probably out of consideration for his followers, as there might be a popular rising which might lead to slaughter. The people were expecting the Messiah to be a king and, if they had recognized Christ, and still held that notion they would probably have risen in rebellion against Rome. On one occasion (John 6:15), he hid himself to prevent such a rising. It was safe after his death to preach him as the Christ, because then the spiritual nature of his kingdom would be understood; but while he lived, it was necessary to avoid publicity. Even the disciples expected that he would make himself king and did not understand his real purpose until after the resurrection.
Stier and some other writers contend that it is Satan to whom Christ refers in Matt 10:28, but the context disproves this theory. The whole tenor of the chapter is directed to encouraging men to trust in God and to fear offending him. Christ shows in the following verse how God's control covers all life, and that without his permission no life is lost Christ does not teach us anywhere to fear Satan, but to rejoice that, through himself, Satan has been overcome. In this passage the contrast is between the fear of man on the one hand, which might lead us to keep away from Christ or desert him lest we should be persecuted; and the fear, on the other hand, of God whose power is infinite in extent, and whom we should dread to displease.
Christ's work on the individual soul may help you to understand his meaning (Matt. 10:34). The converted soul enjoys a peace passing all understanding; but bow is it attained? The first stages of the process are those of fierce conflict. See the agony, the distress, that the majority of men pass through when they are under conviction. It is through conflict that peace is attained. It is so with the evil in the world. Christ's kingdom is one of peace; but not the despicable peace with wickedness and oppression. With those evils there must be war. If a father wisely loves his son, he does not ignore that son's bad ways; he punishes him in order to save him. You may say how do we reconcile the rod in the father's hand with his love for his child. There is no need to reconcile. The rod is a sign and proof of the father's love. So Christ's coming brought a sword to smite the evil that is cursing the world.
This statement (Matt. 10:35) showed the result of his coming, not the purpose of it Christ was warning the people who came to him of the sufferings they would have to endure, among which was this of the hostility of their near relatives. Many were offering themselves as his disciples who expected that he would become the King of Israel, and that they would share his glory, and he wished none to come with any such idea. He wanted them to count the cost, and he told them of the trials awaiting them if they followed him. They must be quite sure that they. loved him so well that if their fathers or their brothers cast them off for being Christians they would be faithful to Christ, even at the cost of losing the love of their relatives.
(Matt. 11:14.) There was a prophecy that God would send Elijah or Elias to turn the hearts of the people (Malachi 4:5). When John appeared the Jews asked him if he was Elias, and he answered that he was not (John 1:21). They evidently expected that the literal Elijah, who is represented as ascending to heaven without dying (II Kings 2:11), would be sent to earth. John knew he was not that He regarded himself as a humble messenger, a mere voice, with no distinction but that of preparing the way. The character of his preaching, however, shows that, like other messengers from God, he underestimated his dignity. When Christ spoke of him he settled the question definitely in the passage you refer to. John, he said, was the Elias to whom the prophecy referred.
The passage in Matt. 12:36 means unseemly or improper conversation, levity, slander, scoffing, boasting, swearing, mocking at sacred things. The Saviour had been speaking of blasphemy and of the scoffing attitude of the Pharisees, who imputed his miracles to Beelzebub. The "idle words" presumably referred more particularly to their sceptical way of accounting for the miracles, of which they had spoken slightingly.
Its first application, as the closing words show, is to the Jews of that time. (See Matt 12:43,45.) They were rid of the evil of idolatry, but were worse than their fathers, who worshiped idols, in that they rejected Jesus and finally crucified him. In modern times, the same evil is seen when a nation abandons its superstitions, but instead of turning to Christ, and becoming Christian, becomes atheistic. Its application to individuals is of the same character. Christianity is positive as well as negative in its effects. It forbids and condemns sin (that is negative); it also enjoins love, kindness, service (that is positive). If, for example, a man who has been a drunkard overcomes his propensity, that is, gets rid of his unclean spirit, but does not go forward to faith in Christ, he is liable to become Pharisaic and intolerant, and perhaps skeptical. In that condition he is liable to fall into worse sin. The throne of the soul is never empty. If Christ does not rule, some evil spirit takes possession.
The tares in the parable refer to the seed called "darnel," a rank and widely distributed grass, and the only species that has deleterious properties. It- is poisonous and its grains, if eaten, produce vomiting, purging, convulsions and sometimes even death. Before it comes into the ear it resembles the wheat so closely that it can hardly be distinguished from the latter, hence the command to leave it to the harvest. Grain-growers in Palestine believe the tares, or suwan, to be a diseased or degenerate wheat. The seed resembles wheat in form, but is smaller and nearly black.
The keys and the power of binding and loosing referred to a common Jewish custom. When a man had passed his examinations for the high position of a doctor of the law, he received as his diploma, a key which was handed to him with the words, "Receive authority to bind and to loose," that is to permit or forbid. Having mastered the law, he could say whether some act was lawful or unlawful. Peter's declaration that Jesus was the Son of God was the evidence of his having reached a state of spiritual faith and perception which Christ recognized (Matt. 16:18,19). The keys may also have had reference to Peter's opening the doors of Christ's kingdom to the multitude on the day of Pentecost and to the Gentiles by preaching to Cornelius. It is clear that the Apostles did not recognize Peter as superior to themselves. It was James who passed sentence in the council (Acts 15:13,19) although Peter was present; and Paul "withstood Peter to the face." (Gal. 2:11.)
Christ's teaching in this and other passages was intended to inculcate principles, rather than blind, literal, servile obedience. He would have his followers patient, gentle, non-resistant, forbearing, submitting to be wronged rather than resisting. His own example in yielding himself to death, when by the exercise of his miraculous powers he could have delivered himself, is an illustration of his meaning. Yet he scourged the traders in the Temple, and in denouncing the Scribes and Pharisees he showed that he was not deficient in vigor. There have, however, been many instances of men literally obeying the command to turn the other cheek, and in some, the effect on the striker was to produce shame and humiliation greater than could have resulted from a fight. There have been many, too, who after painful experience have wished they had submitted to a wrong instead of going to the courts. (See Matt. 18:15,16,17.)
We may understand the remark better by reading the whole passage (Matt 19:1-12). The Pharisees were trying to draw Christ into a controversy which, at the time, was raging between the schools of different Jewish teachers. One school contended that a man was justified in divorcing his wife for any cause as, for instance, if she burnt the food she was cooking for his dinner. Another school held that physical defects alone justified divorce. There were other schools holding other opinions. Christ refused to identify himself with any and lifted the question into the higher plane by showing the origin of marriage in divine institution.
The "needle's eye" (Matt 19:24) was the small gate or wicket at the side of the big gate at the entrance to the city wall. When the big gate closed for the day, all entrance had to be gained through the small gate, and to a loaded camel, or indeed to any body of considerable size, passage was impossible.
To rightly understand the full significance of the passage in Matt 19:23 read Luke 18:24-27. It may be liberally interpreted: "How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter! Unless this idolatrous trust and confidence in mere wealth is overcome, they cannot enter" except by a miracle of divine grace, which changes the heart. Jesus found no fault with the young man because of his riches, since wealth, and the power and influence it brings, may be made a means of great blessing if used in the right spirit as a trust committed to our stewardship. He found, however, that the young man's wealth was to him of greater moment than his eternal welfare, since he could not grasp the great opportunity offered him by, the Master. Paul in I Cor. 6:10 also has a bearing upon the love of wealth and the hard and merciless means that are sometimes adopted to acquire it Where extortion begins may be defined by statute, but it must really be determined by the conscience, since what is a fair return in one case may be a cruel extortion in another. We must carry the Christ idea into Our business relations, and deal not only justly but generously and humanely, never making gain of another's necessity, and if with all we pile up riches, we are apt to rely on them to put us into heaven. This was the case of the young man who came to Christ. The sincerity of the young man was obvious; yet he himself felt that although he had lived a clean, moral life, keeping the letter of the law in absolute strictness, there was yet something wanting. He was not satisfied with his own blameless life. It was to find out what this hidden need was that he came to the Master, and asked, "What lack I yet?" Jesus, reading his heart, knew that his wealth stood as a barrier between him and the spiritual life he craved; that the influence and social position it gave were so dear to him that he could not bear to part with them, even to attain his ideal of a perfect life. His riches were his idol, and this the Master knew. So when Jesus in his wisdom put the test, forcing the young man to choose between riches and heaven--that he must himself cast aside the stumbling-block in his spiritual path--he failed at the crisis, turned his back upon the Master, and went away sorrowful. Jesus demanded an absolute surrender of the heart and the whole life, the placing of all in the scale as a heart offering. Good works could not save, but sacrifice of our works and our wealth brings us into a new and divine relationship as true heirs to the kingdom. See Matt. 19:29, in which the spiritual compensation for such sacrifice is promised. The rich young ruler came very near to the kingdom, but without entering in. His own estimate of his obedience was not justified, for if he had indeed kept the first commandment he would have placed God first, above even his much-prized earthly treasures, and he would never have gone away from Christ.
(Matt. 20:1-6.) There has, probably, been more difference in explaining this parable than any other. To us it appears mat the incidents of it are not intended as laying down a business principle, but as a commentary of the events in the preceding chapter. Peter had asked, "What shall we have, therefore?" showing a bargaining spirit. Christ shows him by this parable that, not they who stipulate for reward, but they who trust in God, leaving their reward for him to fix are treated best. That was a prominent characteristic of Christ. He craved personal trust and personal faith in himself. Where does the injustice of the householder come in? He kept his agreement with the early laborers, who had stipulated for a penny a day. They had the amount they had demanded and had no grievance. The householder chose to deal more liberally with the others, who had left their remuneration to him, but that was in no sense a wrong to the early laborers. If an employer knows something about one of his employees--perhaps that he has been sick, or that he has a large family--and chooses to give him a double wage, is he bound to go all round his factory and double the wages of every man in his employ? It is the hireling spirit, the spirit of the man who bargains, who resents the kindness done to another as a wrong to himself, that Christ reproves here. He condemns it, as he condemned the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son, who resented the feast to the prodigal and reminded the father of his own claims. Many of the first (not all) shall be last because of the spirit in which they have performed their work.
This parable in Matt. 20:1-16 stands in close connection with the preceding chapter, and its evident purpose was to illustrate the sentiment of the closing verse: "Many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first" The parable has reference to rewards, and illustrates the method of their bestowment upon the followers of Christ, namely, in such s way that the last shall be equal to the first, and the first last--a way that rewards faithfulness of service, rather than length of service or the amount accomplished in the service. The purpose of the parable, being understood, it cannot properly awaken any question as to discrimination in the matter of the pay of the laborers. As to the transaction of the householder, as represented in the parable, there was no injustice in it He agreed with the first laborers for "a penny a day," while with the others no specified amount was agreed upon, and he could pay them what he pleased. Further, the Saviour does not necessarily approve the course of the householder, and we are not required to show that it was either right or wise, as an act of man toward men, but only that rewards in the kingdom of God are thus bestowed without reference to the time of service, another and very different consideration actuating our Heavenly Father in this matter--namely, faithfulness.
The parable was an answer to Peter's question (Matt. 19:27), "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee: what shall we have therefore?" In a word, it was a rebuke of the bargaining spirit. Those who follow Christ for the sake of the reward, and not from love of him, will not be defrauded. They will have all that God has promised them, but they are not those whom he most loves. A parent who promises a child a reward for a certain service, or for good behavior, and notices that the child performs the task or behaves himself better than at other times, when no reward is promised, does not approve of the child's spirit He does not like to see the child doing for money the thing that he does not do for love, as he ought to do. Still, he keeps his promise and pays, as he agreed. But the child who does cheerfully and readily, as the parent requests, without any promise of reward, is the one whom the parent approves. That child would surely be rewarded, though no reward had been promised.
The householder in the parable makes his bargain with the first party of laborers. The phrase, "when he had agreed with them," clearly implies negotiation. With the others he made no bargain, merely giving his promise to pay whatsoever was right They trusted him, and went to work. He liked the confidence they showed, and he gave them more than they expected. The early morning laborers had no just ground of complaint They received all they had stipulated for. All through Christ's ministry he showed the same spirit. He craved personal love and confidence. He wanted people, above all things, to trust in him. Peter's question must have chilled Christ's spirit. It might have been interpreted as showing that this man who Christ supposed was following him for love, was there for what he could make out of it. Hence, the rebuke of the parable.
This passage in Matt 20:28, is the elevation of the duty of Christian service. Of course Christ did come to earth to win all men to his service, but it was for their sakes rather than his own. To serve him meant salvation; it was sin that kept them from their allegiance to him. And he came to save them from their sins. All the time he was in the flesh he gave rather than accepted service. He was moved by love. Even when the people would have taken him by force to make him king he would not accept it. That was not the kind of service he wanted. He wanted men to serve him in holiness and spiritual power. He gave his body in humiliation and sacrifice in order that they might be lifted up to this higher plane of service. The whole message of the New Testament is that Christ came to earth for the sake of mankind, not for his own sake. And he taught by example the life of humility, self-sacrifice and service which he wishes all men to lead.
This is the language of similitude and figure which Jesus frequently employed to illustrate and emphasize his teaching. A leading commentator writes of this passage (Matt. 21:21): "From the nature of the case supposed --- that they might wish a mountain removed and cast into the sea (a thing very far from anything which they could be thought to actually desire) --- it is plain that not physical but moral obstacles to the progress of his kingdom were in the Saviour's mind." What he designed to teach was the great lesson that no obstacle should be able to stand before a firm faith in God--that it would enable us to overcome all difficulties, if we absolutely trusted in him.
No; he was treated as he deserved. At a wedding feast in an Oriental land such as Christ was describing, the king would provide garments for his guests, suitable to the occasion. A guest who declined to wear the wedding garment and went in wearing his ordinary attire, would be conspicuous and his conduct would be an affront to the king. He would naturally be considered as despising the dress which the king had provided and preferring his own. Christ, in the passage in Matt. 22:11-13, was warning his hearers against trusting in their own righteousness and rejecting God's way of salvation.
Because he himself has told us to do so. It is a very beautiful and inspiring title which Christians everywhere may apply to their beloved Lord. (See Matt 23:10.) This passage is a part of Jesus' denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees, who were given over to formalism and regarded the letter rather than the spirit of Scripture. They sought personal honors and the applause of the multitudes. They carried strips of parchment of Scripture texts, bound to arm, forehead and side, in time of prayer, and they loved to be addressed by ecclesiastical titles. Rabbi (Master) was a title which they particularly affected and which their whole spiritual conduct discredited. Had they been true teachers and guides, instead of false, he would not have reprobated them, nor would they have belied the title they bore. Titles in the modern Christian Church are vain distinctions, except where they are worthily worn. All should be brethren in Christ, the highest dignitary of the church and the humblest follower. Unfortunately, in every age there has been a desire for ecclesiastical distinctions and, while in many cases these have been merited and gladly accorded, in others the honors were not deserved. The ecclesiastical system of the Jews lent itself to this vanity to such an extent as to arouse the divine indignation. The tide "Rab" was originally Babylonian and that of "Rabbi," Palestinian. It was given to learned men, authorized teachers of the law and spiritual heads of the community.
The expressions "heaven" and "the heavens" mean not only the spiritual, eternal world, but also the stars and the spaces of ether surrounding the earth. Jesus used the word frequently in both these senses. He spoke of "the kingdom of heaven," signifying the eternal kingdom, and then spoke of the stars as "heaven" or "the heavens" in passages like the one you mention. Paul speaks of "the house not made with hands eternal in the heavens." (II Cor. 5:1.) The teaching of the Bible is that the material universe, including the earth itself, will be transformed, but that the spiritual universe will endure forever.
The parable in Matt. 25 was given to explain the principle of the judgment From one who had been well endowed much would be expected, and a smaller result would be looked for from one who had received less. Only he would be punished who had made no effort to turn his talents to account Christ probably intended it to apply to every kind of gift Men of wealth, of education, of spiritual privilege, with any kind of opportunity for doing good, were affected by it. A man must do the best he could in his circumstances, and if he could not do as well, or as much as, another who was better equipped, he would not be blamed. The distinction between worldly and spiritual is somewhat vague in this instance. The man who gives to a starving family is not exactly doing spiritual work, but it is the kind of work that this parable would apply to.
It was a parable--an illustration of the kind made familiar in the teachings of Christ. It is the only parable in which a proper name is employed, and Lazarus was probably chosen because it was a common name. By some both men in the parable have been considered as real personages, and one tradition even gives the name of the rich man as Dobruk, while another gives it as Nimeusis. Neither tradition is deserving of credit, and the best commentators agree that the two characters were described by the Saviour simply to illustrate two type of men.
He is thought by some to have done so in the parable of the talents (Matt 25). Dean Farrar points this out as follows: "It is the only instance in which we can connect a parable of the Gospel with historical events. The man who goes into another country to seek a kingdom is Archelaus, son of Herod the Great. Left heir of the chief part of Herod's kingdom by the last will of his father, altered within five days of his death, Archelaus had to travel to Rome to obtain from the Emperor Augustus the confirmation of his heritage. (During his absence he had to leave the kingdom under commission to his kinsmen and servants, some of whom were wise and faithful, and others much the reverse. The circumstances of the succession of Archelaus would be recalled to Christ's memory as he passed the magnificent palace which the tyrant had built at Jericho. Archelaus was absent at Rome for some months. Jesus calls him a 'hard man.' The grasping character of Archelaus made him unpopular from the first, and the hatred felt for him was increased by his deadly cruelties. The event to which our Lord here distinctly refers had occurred in his own infancy."
Mark 2:21,22 is designed to illustrate the difference between the old and new economies, and the result of mixing up one with the other. The "new wine" was the evangelical freedom which Christ was introducing into the old spirit of Judaism. It was as though he had said, "These inquiries about the difficulty between my disciples and the Pharisees, and even John's disciples, serve to point out the effect of a natural revulsion against sudden change, which time will cure and which will be seen to be to the better advantage."
In the passage in Mark 4:11,12 Jesus meant apparently that he made the difference between his teaching of disciples and of the ordinary people because of the spiritual insight of the former. It was of no use to give the latter the direct teaching that he gave the disciples. But he taught them by illustrations to which they would listen and which would remain in their minds. They would thus learn more than they knew at the time. The meaning of the stories was not clear to them then, and they probably thought there was no particular moral to them, but the influence of the teaching would be felt afterwards. Sometimes a child may play at a game that may teach him geography or history and his teacher is aware that the child has learned more than he has any idea of. The child may be interested in a fable and see nothing in it applicable to himself, but in future years the moral meaning of the fable may be perceptible to him.
The word "mystery," found in Mark 4:11,12 as in certain other places in Scripture, is not used in the classical sense of religious secrets or things incomprehensible, but of things of purely divine revelation-- matters foreshadowed in the ancient economy and then only partially understood, but now fully published under the Gospel (see I Cor. 2:6,10; Eph. 3:3,6,8,9). The mysteries of the kingdom meant those great Gospel truths which at that time none but the disciples could appreciate, and even they only in part, while to those without (whose hearts had not yet been opened to the Gospel) they were like tales and fables, subjects of entertainment rather than divine truths. Such persons saw but recognized not, and heard but understood not, for their spiritual sight and understanding were judicially sealed by sin. From obdurate rejection of the Gospel, and their obstinacy in preferring darkness to light, they had become morally incapable of acceptance and totally indifferent. (See prophecy of Is. 6:9,10, then read contrasting passage in Matt. 13:16.)
The Saviour's language in Mark 5:39 was as though he had used the familiar figure "she hath fallen asleep" --the same figure that is frequently employed in the Scriptures in describing death as sleep. (See Acts 7:60; I Cor. 15:6,18; II Peter 3:14.) Some have interpreted the language of Mark 5 to mean that the maid was in a trance or swoon; but most commentators agree that Mark 5:35 is a clear affirmation that all the signs of death were evident, that the life had already fled and that the reassuring words of the Master (in verse 36)' before he had even seen the maid, were intended to strengthen the ruler's faith and prepare him for the manifestation of divine power that followed. The last nine verses, read as a whole, bear out this conclusion.
The Gospel accounts say: "They took up what remained over of the broken pieces twelve baskets full" (Matt 14:20). "They took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets" (Mark 8:8). There have been some differences among scholars as to the translation of the word (in the original) denoting "baskets." In describing the earlier miracle, that of the feeding of five thousand, a word is used which indicates large fishing baskets made of rope, while in the narrative of the later miracle, there is used a term which translated means smaller hand-baskets. It might well be asked how could the apostles have carried around with them seven large fishing baskets? A comparison between the two accounts will clear up a seeming difficulty. Many Jews carried small hand-baskets in which they kept their food supplies free from pollution. Each apostle may have carried such a small hand-basket and in the party of apostles there may have been one who carried a large fishing basket. This large fishing basket was filled seven times and again twelve times, for the phraseology used seems to indicate that, whereas in the one instance each apostle filled his small hand-basket with broken pieces, in the other the one large fishing basket was filled seven times.
The details of these incidents in the life of Jesus, have been preserved to us only by tradition. It is said that the little child of whom the Saviour remarked, "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mark 9:36), afterwards became known to the Christian Church as Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. He was one of the great company of martyrs who gave their lives for the faith in the time of Trajan, being torn to pieces by lions in the amphitheatre at Rome.
The true meaning of the much discussed passage (Mark 10:17) quoted is thus explained by very good authority. Professor David Smith, who writes: "'Master' or 'Teacher' was the regular appellation of a Jewish Rabbi, and it was accounted so honorable that it always stood alone without qualification. It was a deliberate departure from the established usage, an intentional improvement on the common style, when the young ruler addressed our Lord as 'Good Master.' It showed that he had recognized him as more than a teacher; and when our Lord fastened upon the epithet, his purpose was to elicit what his questioner really meant He said in effect: 'You have gone a long way in calling me "good." That epithet belongs only to God. You have recognized me as more than a teacher: are you prepared to go farther, and recognize me as divine?* Hence it appears that our Lord's question is not a repudiation of the attribute of deity. On the contrary, it is an assertion of his title to it. It is a gracious attempt to bring home to that anxious inquirer, in conscious realization, the truth which he had dimly perceived and was groping for."
The fig tree incident related in Mark 11 :13 has been a subject of much controversy, and the passage in Mark 11:13 has been claimed by some to be a mistake in the transcription of the record as to the words, "He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet" It is explained by some writers (including Pliny and Macrobius) that the fig tree in Palestine produces fruit at two or even three seasons of the year, and Hackett (in his Scripture Illustrations) tells us that the fruit precedes the leaves. One might infer from this that if a tree had leaves it might be expected to give evidence at least of having had fruit. In the case of this particular tree, having leaves in advance of the regular time (which "was not yet come") yet with no sign of having borne fruit, it was condemned, as some commentators interpret the case, because of its useless-ness. Trench and several others hold that the blighting of the precocious and fruitless tree was designed to convey a rebuke to "the barren traditions of the Pharisees, their ostentatious display of the law, and their vain exuberance of words without the good fruit of works." Still others, believe that our Lord, seeing the early leaves, had a right to expect that they would be accompanied by fruit.
It is reasonable to suppose that in the days of his flesh Christ experienced some curtailment of divine attributes. We read of his being weary, of his weeping, of his praying, being hungry and thirsty, and being tempted. We read also of his increasing in wisdom (Luke 2:52). We infer from all these that the divine nature did not have full scope for its powers in the human form or could only express them partially owing to the obvious limitations. Christ seems to have been aware of this while on the earth, for he said, "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28.) We conclude, therefore, that a part of his humiliation was his voluntarily divesting himself of some part of his divine nature and this may account for such a passage as Mark 13:32. It is impossible for the human mind to fully comprehend the mystery of the Trinity, but we can imagine that Christ in his loving compassion, voluntarily put from him certain attributes of the Godhead while on earth in order that in all things he might be made like unto his brethren. In what way or to what extent, if at all, the incarnation limited the divine attributes cannot be defined, and the fact of his praying to his Father indicated that in the days of his flesh there was a distinction between them that is incomprehensible to us.
No, the inference (to be drawn from Mark 13:32) does not appear logical. We do not understand the union of the two natures in our Lord's person, and therefore cannot explain many of the difficulties which are presented. If, however, we take the conception that is given in the first chapter of John's Gospel, of an incarnation, we can perceive how there may have been restriction in the exercise of divine power operating by a human brain. The instrument would be necessarily inadequate. The assumption of an unrestricted divine nature would imply perfect knowledge in boyhood, yet we know that as a boy Christ did not know all things; for Luke says explicitly (2:52) that he increased in wisdom, which he could not have done had he been omniscient from birth. In taking our nature he voluntarily submitted to the imperfections of our condition, otherwise he would not have been made "like unto his brethren."
Christ did not claim to know all things. He mentioned one thing that he did not know (Mark 13:32). At the same time he is said to have known what was in man (John 2:25), so he may have been aware of the possibilities of evil in Judas, which were probably not developed when he was chosen as an apostle. Christ knew of his intended treachery before it was committed. Doubtless Judas himself, at the time of his call, had no idea that he would commit such a crime. Even at the last, he may have expected that Christ would deliver himself by his miraculous power. He was evidently horror-stricken when he learned the result of what he had done, as is proved by his committing suicide.
Jesus did not promise that the signs referred to in Mark 16:17 should always follow. The speaking with tongues, casting out devils, taking up serpents, etc., were signs suitable for that age when the people, being densely ignorant, expected miracles and signs. Christ reproved the tendency, and on more than one occasion refused to gratify them. He wanted them to learn from the sign to seek spiritual blessings at his hands, which were of much greater value to them. We have entered into that higher and better understanding of him. It is much more wonderful to see a drunkard reclaimed, a vicious man reformed, than it was to see a lame man healed. The power to cast out devils and to speak with tongues and take up serpents would not be nearly so valuable to us as is the power he gives to transform evil lives.
The passage in Luke 7:28 is frequently misunderstood, as being spoken in derogation of John, because of the doubt his messengers had implied in their question (verse 20). The true meaning, as Weiss and other commentators believe, is that Jesus was speaking of the differences in the success of the Baptist with certain classes. The common people and the publicans, who had repented under John's ministry, and had been baptized by him, understood the meaning of Jesus and were glad (verse 29), but the Pharisees and Scribes-- the very class who should have been models of righteousness, had rejected and despised John. That Jesus spoke with this contrast in view is made dear in verses 30 to 35 inclusive. He was speaking of the advancement of the kingdom in the hearts of men.
"But unto others in parables that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not understand" Luke 8:10. Dean Farrar says on this passage: "Lord Bacon says, 'A parable has a double use; it tends to veil and it tends to illustrate a truth; in the latter case it seems designed to teach, in the former to conceal.' Our Lord wished the multitude to understand, but the result and profit depended solely on the degree of their faithfulness. The parables resembled the Pillar of Fire, which was to the Egyptians a Pillar of Cloud."
The truth veiled in the form of parable was withheld from the people because their minds had grown too gross to receive it. "Had the parable of the mustard seed, for instance," says Dr. Whedon, "been explained to the Pharisees as indicating that the Gospel would yet fill the earth, it would only have excited their additional hostility and hastened their purpose of accusing him as intending to subvert the existing government." They themselves, as we learn from Matt. 13:15, had willfully closed their eyes to the Gospel, and so its real principles must be withheld from them. To some this may have been a mercy, preventing them from using the truth to evil purposes. To others it may have been simply the penalty due them for having insulted the truth and become unworthy of it. While, however, the parable veiled the truth from cavilers, it unveiled it to the disciples (Matt. 13:11). The unreceptive people, "seeing" the narrative, saw "not" the doctrine embodied; "hearing" the literal parable, they understood "not" the secret meaning. "The whole Gospel is a parable to him whose heart has not the key." This solemn teaching is found also in the law and the prophets. Deu. 29:3,4; Is. 6:9; Jer. 5:21; Ezek. 12:2.
This expression (Luke 8:18) occurs in a number of New Testament passages, Matt. 13:12, Mark 4:25, etc. Its meaning is most evident in Matt. 25:29, and Luke 19:26, in connection with the parable of the talents, or pounds. Christ is stating in these words two laws which are universal. First, a man must have something to start with before he can do any work. Second, if he does not make good use of what is given he loses it In other words: something never comes from nothing; neglect means loss. Every man is given something to start with for working out his life plan. If he neglects to use what he has he loses it. It cannot be said that God takes it away from him; the man simply lets it slip through his fingers. Helen Keller had very little to begin with, but she made such amazingly faithful use of that, that she gained much more. She used and developed the sense of touch till it has become almost equal to sight and hearing. But a sense or a muscle unused becomes useless. A man has only to stop walking and he will soon lose the power to walk. It is ridiculous to say that there is anything cruel about this. It is simply the law of life. And the law works no hardship to any one who has a desire to make good use of life. In the passage (Luke 8:18) the law is applied to hearing. When a man hears a truth he must follow it and apply it quickly. If he does not he will forget it, or cease to believe it, or lose it in some other way.
According to the law of Moses, swine were unclean, and any Jew owning them or using them as food violated this law. The destruction of the herd (Luke 8:26,36) and the question of the destination of the evil spirits has been well explained by Trench in his famous book on Miracles. He wrote: "A man is of more value than many swine," and added that it is not necessary to suppose that our Lord sent the devils into the swine, but merely permitted them to go, adding further that if those Gadarene villagers who owned the swine were Jews, as may be supposed, they were properly punished by the loss of that which they ought not to have had at all. As for the evil spirits, it is reasonable to conclude that they found a congenial refuge somewhere else. With regard to their recognition of Jesus as divine, we have Scripture assurance that "the devils believe and tremble."
This was a part of the "Sermon on the Mount," and Luke 12:19-34 is intended to illustrate heavenly-mindedness and confidence in God's providence. The particular passage quoted admonishes the believer not to be too anxiously concerned or worried about things that are purely temporal. It is right to make due provision for our own needs and the needs of those dependent upon us; but when we have done so, we should not fret and doubt and make ourselves and others miserable because of our fears of coming trouble. This applies to our food, our clothing and our worldly affairs generally. All such doubts and worries spring from unbelief, and are after the manner of the world. If we really believe and trust our heavenly Father, he will provide all we need. This promise. however, does not relieve us from the natural duty of making reasonable provision, though there are some people who mistakenly think so. The whole passage, broadly interpreted, means that we are to do our work here properly and cheerfully and to trust the Father for the rest and never worry, always keeping in view the greater duty of "seeking first the kingdom," beside which all other things are insignificant. Worry in the sense involved in the passage is a sin against God since it shows absolute lack of faith in his promised providential care.
In Luke 14:26 our Lord asserts his claim to our most loyal service and our supreme affection. In taking up one's cross to follow him, we must be prepared for trials for his sake, and to break even the nearest and dearest ties, if need be. He must have the first place in our hearts. It may come to choosing between Christ and our nearest relations. Compare Matt. 10:37 with the passage in Luke 14. "Hate" is not the preferable word, as the passage in Matthew shows. The passage in Luke obscures the true form of the expression and invests it with harshness while Matthew makes the true meaning clear, that we are to love him better than all else, even those who are nearest and dearest to us, and that this love must assert itself loyally at the crisis, no matter what it may cost us. A loyal soldier will give up all to serve his country; so we too must be prepared to give up all, if need be, to serve Christ.
There was a tendency among the Pharisees (see Luke 15:2) to despise the sinner and make no effort for his reclamation. They prided themselves on their scrupulous observance of the law and on their lives being free from open sin. Christ met them on their own ground, and showed them that the recovery and reformation of the sinner was pleasing to God. He desires that none should perish, but that all should forsake sin and return. They thought that as there were no flagrant sins in their lives to be repented of, that they were God's favorite children. Christ showed them that if, as they contended, they were free from such sins, their self-righteous attitude was not so pleasing to God as was the attitude of the man who knew he had done wrong, and abjured it and asked pardon. There was need for repentance on the part of those who claimed to be just persons, as Christ showed them over and over again; but he was teaching another lesson at that time, and was proving to them, that, even assuming that they were sinless, as they claimed, they were wrong in the position they took toward the sinner.
The husks (see Luke 15:16), were the fruit of the carob tree, which is common in Palestine and is used by the poor as food and for the fattening of swine or cattle. When ripe, it is like a cooked beanpod, brown, glossy, and filled with seeds. Children eat it readily and seem to thrive on it. The carob is of the same family as the American locust tree. Its fruit is sometimes called "St. John's bread," as John the Baptist is thought to have lived upon it in the wilderness.
Primarily, the Pharisees and chief priests, who were scandalized by seeing Christ associate with the lower classes and notorious sinners. It was a rebuke to selfishness and formalism--to those who believe they have the spiritual right of way and that less worthy persons, who had been basking in the divine goodness should be envious or critical of the cordial welcome that is extended to a redeemed sinner. The lesson applies to people in our own day who have no sympathy with the work going on at rescue missions, and are skeptical about the conversion of evildoers. The parable was a reproof to such persons, but it also conveyed a weighty lesson as to the evil of sin. Although the father forgave his younger son and gave him joyful welcome, he said to the elder, "All that I have is thine," thereby intimating that the younger son's lost patrimony could not be restored. The sinner is urged to repent, and is promised pardon, but the time he has wasted, and the health he has injured, and the mischief his example has done, are irreparable evils.
The revised version renders the passage (Luke 22:32): "When thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren.'' We cannot suppose that after Peter's fall, he needed conversion in the sense in which we use the word. He needed repentance and restoration. His words, his actions, and the intense devotion he had previously shown to Christ, all indicated a man already converted. He fell under temptation as Christ had foreseen, but it was a backsliding which Christ forgave. At Pentecost their experience was not conversion, but an enduement of power for service, notably the power of speaking foreign tongues.
The "impassable gulf," in Luke 16:26, is a figure employed by the Saviour in describing the eternal separation of the good and the evil in the future life. In his parables and discourses, in order to impress upon the minds of his hearers the central objects of the lessons, he invested them with such natural and harmonious surroundings as the subject and the occasion demanded; and to interpret such surroundings literally would be as futile as to translate literally any of the multitudinous passages, full of similar imagery, that abound in Oriental oratory.
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19), the object was to illustrate the result of neglect of duty in commiserating and relieving the sufferings of others; to show how wealth hardens the heart, shuts up the springs of human sympathy and makes the possessor selfish and indifferent to the wants of his fellowmen. The rich man was a type of those who, while possibly generous at times, were yet so centered upon worldly pleasures and self-indulgence that all else was a mere incident. Riches that are used only for our own aggrandizement and gratification become a curse, while the man who employs his wealth in dispensing aid and comfort to those around him and relieving the distressed is a blessing to the land in which he lives. This was the distinction which the Saviour drew in his parable of the division of the sheep and the goats, when the King repudiated those that stood on his left hand with the words: "Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these ye did it not to me" (Matt. 25:45). Lazarus was a type of the hopeless, helpless, friendless poor who are to be found all over the world, and whose lot could be greatly benefited if people of means held their wealth as a beneficent stewardship. Nothing can be clearer than that it was the Saviour's intention to emphasize by these parables the divine law of love and sympathy which he came to teach the children of men by his own example.
The law, in its literalness, endured until the time of John the Baptist After him the kingdom of heaven was preached, the new kingdom whose law is love, whose king is Christ, and whose members are empowered by the Spirit of Christ to keep the greater and more comprehensive law of love, the law which includes and intensifies all the details of the ancient moral law. The law, while in Jesus it loses some of its ceremonial details, loses nothing of its real power; it is no less powerful, even by the tiniest measurement, than it was before, Luke 16:17; Matt. 5:17-19; Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law; he kept its authenticated details, and in his death all the requirements for sacrifice were satisfied and ended. While he kept the law and was to fulfill it, the Scribes and Pharisees were evading the law. By their interpretations and additions they really deprived it of authority. Jesus told them they must not dodge the law but keep it. He even indicated that those who kept the old law most carefully, as Paul did, would be given high places in the work of his new kingdom. Matt. 19:17: This again was counsel given before the Atonement. The way of life then was to seek to keep the law. Rom. 3:31: Here the declaration is made that the Gospel establishes the law. Men without the Gospel had little power to keep the law; the Gospel gives them power to keep it, and thus gives the law its rights, establishes it, makes it possible for its authority to assert itself. Rom. 8:7. The carnal mind is Paul's expression for the natural, evil, willful state of humanity. In that sinful, natural state a man cannot keep God's spiritual law. Paul uses also the term "old man" in the same sense. His teaching is that this "old man" is to be "destroyed" (Rom. 6:6), "put off" (Col. 3:8,9; Eph. 4:22). James 2:10: This verse is undoubtedly true whether it is applied to law either before or after the Gospel. The judgment of the whole law as an institution came upon the man who violated any part of it; and under the Gospel a man is under the same obligation to keep the whole spirit of the moral law and to obey the words of Christ. We dare not disobey or displease Christ. I John 2:3,4. These verses make a good climax. John tells about the "perfect love," which enables humble Christians really to keep Christ's law of kindness. That is the great secret. Paul declares: "Love is the fulfilling of the law." If we love Jesus perfectly we shall not displease him by disobedience; if we really love our neighbor we will do him no harm but all the good we can.
Probably no passage has been so often the subject of dispute as this in Luke 16:8,9. The Revised Version renders it, "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness." Luther thought it was a caution against avarice. Farrar regarded it as an injunction to care and faithfulness. Taking account of the parable that precedes the passage, it would appear that Christ was showing how a wicked man succeeded in getting friends at his employer's expense. Good men were not nearly so much in earnest in their godly affairs as the worldly men in their business affairs. If they used their money in relieving the needs of the poor they would make friends in heaven. It would not open the door of heaven, but it would cause those who had been benefited to give a warm welcome, thus enhancing the joy of that state. Dr. William Taylor used to illustrate it thus: A man whose house has been broken into naturally condemns the burglar; but he would be justified in pointing out to a lazy or incompetent workman, that if he had half the ingenuity the burglar had displayed he would soon make a fortune. We cannot imagine sorrow in heaven, but if there is any man who feels regret, it is he who on earth saw his poor brother suffer for the lack of money that he might have given out of his abundance. In heaven he cannot ease the burden of earth, but he must regret that when it was in his power he did not do it. In the passage in Luke our Lord was showing how worldly people, "in their generation" and for their own selfish purposes, were prudent and sagacious in the worldly sense, and showed energy and determination in carrying out their mercenary plans, none of which, however, were for God and eternity. They were types of the money-makers of that day. Even from them, selfish and worldly though they were, the children of light might learn the lesson of concentration--not in relation to worldly, but to spiritual, things. It should be noted also that (verse 8) it was not Jesus, but the "lord" of the steward who commended the latter. The Revised Version corrects verse 9, which, accurately translated, reads: "Make to yourself friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness," etc., implying that they, "the children of light," should use money not as the steward did, for selfish purposes, but in doing good to others. (See Luke 6:38 and Matt. 25:34-40.)
These seemingly harsh words (in John 2:4) addressed by the Saviour to his mother at the feast of Cana, have been a subject of much speculation. In English they have a harsher sound than they have in the original. Thus "woman" is in Greek a mode of address used with respect and used even to those high in authority, such as queens. What the Saviour intended by this address was to call his mother's attention to the fact that it was his work he was doing and not one in which she had any concern. He no doubt used a gentle inflection of the voice, and her remark to the servants showed that not only was she not hurt or offended, but that she fully understood.
The passage in John 2:17 is an expression which graphically describes the tremendous and inspiring enthusiasm of one who is aflame with a righteous purpose. The disciples were doubtless surprised at the courage of One whom they had regarded as so meek and gentle, setting himself to a task from which the bravest might have shrunk. It was a new side to their Master's character, but thinking it over, they realized that it was one that the prophets had predicted of him. His indignation at seeing the house that had been dedicated to God so prostituted made him regardless of his own safety. It absorbed him, or as John says, "ate him up"--made him forget everything else.
This passage in John 3:5 has given rise to much controversy and theologians are by no means agreed as to its meaning. Our opinion is that Christ had reference to the topic then agitating such men as the one he was speaking to. They had a ceremony by which the Gentile was admitted to the privileges of Judaism, part of which was baptism, which signified purification from the sins of his old life. To the astonishment of the Pharisees, John the Baptist had insisted that even they were in need of baptism, just as the proselyte was. But as John intimated that was not enough. There was One coming who would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Therefore Nicodemus would understand Christ's meaning, when he spoke of being born of water and of the spirit. To the new birth it was necessary that a man be purified in heart, his past sins blotted out, which was symbolized by the water, and he must be quickened to a new life, which was done by the Spirit Both are still necessary to conversion. They are called in theological parlance, justification and sanctification. This element of water and the operation of the spirit are the subject of prediction in Ezekiel 36:25-27.
It is an expression frequently used instead of "regeneration," to express the change from the natural state of sin to the new spiritualized life of the Christian. It is dying unto sin and being born again unto righteousness, a complete transformation of our moral nature, a new heart Following after conversion and justification, the new birth or regeneration brings about a complete change of heart (see Heb. 10:22; Gal. 6:15; II Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:22-24 and other passages).
The "witness of the Spirit" is the inward assurance which the believer enjoys of his filial relation to God, namely, that the Holy Spirit witnesses to and with his spirit that he is a child of God, and that his sins are forgiven. The immediate results of this witness of the Spirit are set forth in Gal. 5:22,23.
It is a comprehensive virtue. It includes gentleness, readiness to do good to all men, to walk humbly before God and man, and not to overrate ourselves; to be loving as well as lowly-minded, not given to worldly ambition, but zealous to yield willing obedience to God's will; quiet, self-possessed, never quarrelsome nor disputatious. See Matt. 5:5; Matt. 11:29; II Cor. 10:1; I Peter 3:4; I Cor. 6:7; Rom. 12:19; I Peter 2:19-22; Rev. 21:7. Thus the meek, though the "only rightful occupants of a foot of ground or a crust of bread here," are the heirs of all things hereafter.
When the question was prompted by mere curiosity, or when it was asked with the object of getting evidence from his own lips for the purpose of prosecuting him, it would have been unwise to satisfy the questioner. When, however, he was speaking to the woman of Samaria (John 4:26), there was no ambiguity: "I that speak unto thee am he." Under the adjuration of the High Priest, too, he answered plainly (Mark 14:62): "Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am."
Christ always objected to being regarded as a mere wonder-worker. He wanted the people to look upon his miracles merely as his credentials, and to argue from them that he who could do such things was sent from God. The miracles were intended to lead them to trust in him for eternal life. Consequently when, as he said, he went to the Father and the Holy Spirit was given to his disciples, they were enabled to do those greater works, such as the conversions at Pentecost, which Christ held to be of a far higher order than miracles (John 14:12).
No. Christ referred to the ostentatious devotion of the Pharisees who chose a public place for their devotions, with the motive that men might see them and honor them as pious people (John 16:23). There are many intimations in the New Testament that God approves of his people meeting together for prayer.
Peter had made himself conspicuous by his protestations of affection, as when he had said (Mark 14:29), "Although all should be offended, yet will not I." The form in which Christ put the question would appear to imply a delicate reminder of Peter's boast. Did he indeed love Christ more than did the other disciples? When Peter again avowed his love, Christ gave him a new commission to feed or shepherd the sheep and lambs (John 21:15). A commission not of authority, but of service.
This passage in John 21:20,22 is frequently misunderstood. John alone of all the disciples survived the destruction of Jerusalem and so witnessed the beginning of that series of events which belong to what are known as the "last days" of that particular age. He may thus be said to have witnessed the foundation of the kingdom in men's hearts, in a greater measure than any of his associates. The language of Jesus (in verse 22) was not a prediction, but a question in which there was, however, an assertion of his divine power to dispose of human life as he willed. It has been made the basis of a tradition which treats it mistakenly as a prophecy.
The saying like the act was symbolical. A different word is used in the original to express the washing, in the phrase "he that is washed," from that in the other phrase about the washing of the feet. The former refers to the bath, or the washing of the entire body, while the latter refers to the rinsing of the feet, as of one who had soiled them in walking from the bath. The body having been washed, he was clean every whit, when the dirt subsequently collected on the feet was removed. The teaching is obvious. The Christian who falls into sin does not need another regeneration, but the cleansing of these biter sins.
Some scholars have thought that John wrote those verses as a commentary and that they were not spoken by Christ; but the number of such scholars was small and has become smaller as the discussion proceeded. Their theory was based on the fact that there is a change of tense in the verses in question; that the phrase "only begotten" was a favorite one with John; and that no further interruption from Nicodemus is reported. These reasons do not appear to us of serious weight The change of tense occurs only when the topic requires it, and if the words are Christ's the change would occur as certainly as if they were John's. The phrase, "only begotten" was, it is true, a favorite one with John, but probably because he had heard it so frequently from his Master. And as to the third reason, it is not likely that Nicodemus broke in on that wonderful revelation, or that if he did, John would interrupt it to report his questions. We cannot believe that Christ ended his talk with the fifteenth verse, because if he had done so, Nicodemus would not have heard the essential facts. Neither would statements so authoritative have been made by John, unless he had distinctly indicated that it was he and not Christ who was speaking. The subject was fully discussed some years ago and scholars so eminent as Alford, Lange and Stier then expressed their conviction that the whole passage, from the beginning of the tenth to the end of the twenty-first verse, was spoken by Christ.
Jesus did not have a word to say against industry or prudence. His words in this instance were directed against the anxiety, worry, and foreboding which afflict so many people. Trust in God, he said in effect, do not spoil your lives by this distressing fear. At the worst, you will have clothing and food. Do not be grasping or selfish, but give to those in need. Solomon said a similar thing (Prov. 11:24). The one man whom Christ advised to sell all he had and give to the poor, was a boastful man who wanted to be perfect. Jesus saw the fault in his character and told him that his way to perfection was to eliminate that fault. To other men he probably gave no such advice. He laid his finger on the weak place. The apostles, it is true, were bidden leave all and follow him; but that was necessary to the work to which they were called; yet even with them Peter seems to have kept his house as did John.
The warning is against teachers who come, claiming to be authorized interpreters of the mind of God and expounders of his Word, yet who are false leaders, having no spiritual light in themselves and being unfitted to guide others into the light of truth. Coming in sheep's clothing implies that they present a plausible exterior, their lips filled with smooth, persuasive words; but they do not teach nor do they themselves know the Gospel of Jesus. They teach instead a man-made Gospel, and make a great show of liberal ideas. The "old paths" they discard for new ways of reaching heaven. They cast doubt upon the essentials of the faith and teach the doctrines of error. Any teacher who does not hold fast to the cardinal points of the Gospel, or who does not emphasize the divine nature and the mediatorial office of Christ and his sacrifice and atonement; who would exalt works above faith; who belittles the importance of the revealed Word, and casts doubt upon its genuineness and authority; who compromises with sin and the weakness of our nature; who leads his flock to regard with doubt all that pertains to the invisible realm of faith and the supernatural; who attaches more importance to the operations of the human mind than to all else--such a person is not calculated to lead others in the way of life everlasting. It is therefore of the very first importance that the pastor who is chosen for a church should himself be a Christian, living the Christian life, else, however sincere he may be in his efforts, he will not be able to lead others aright.
The duty of watchfulness and unworldliness. In the East, to this day, at a wedding ceremony, the approach of the bridegroom's procession is heralded by the cry, "The bridegroom cometh," and those who have been invited come out of their houses to join it, and go with him to attend the ceremony. In Christ's time, apparently, they were expected to carry lamps. All the virgins in the parable slept while the bridegroom tarried; but five of them were prepared with oil to trim their lamps, and the others were not Thus, when the bridegroom came they were ready to meet him, while the others were not. Professing Christians would be similarly divided if Christ were to come to the world now. Some would rejoice and be ready to welcome him, while others, who are leading worldly lives and are not cultivating Christian character, would be unprepared and would be stricken with consternation.
The corresponding passage, Matt. 12:43-45, appears to indicate that primarily the meaning applied to the Jewish nation. It had repented or reformed under the preaching of the Baptist, "cleaned up," as the modern phrase has it, but had not gone on as it should, to acceptance of Christ and righteousness toward God. The negative goodness was to be followed by a worse national condition, in which the Lord would be crucified. It is as if a nation was led to forsake idols, but instead of becoming Christian became atheistic. In the individual the reference is to a man weaned from some besetting sin, but not taking the grace of God into his heart, and replacing the love of sin with love of God and holiness, leaves the heart unoccupied ready for a return of the sin he had quitted, or the fall into something still worse.
This is one of Christ's terse and memorable sayings, several times uttered. It is interpreted to mean that many receive the invitation of the Gospel who never reach the stage of spiritual progress where they can be said to be "chosen" to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief on the truth." (See II Thes. 2:13.) The "chosen" were those who were set apart for special duty to become living examples of devoted service. Paul was such an illustration of God's sovereignty in choosing his instrument It should not be held to imply, however, that salvation is forfeited, except through the fault and wickedness of those who are rejected. Christ's death was all-sufficient, and it is not the divine will that any should perish. Many controversies have arisen over this passage, but we can safely rest upon the language of the Saviour himself, who said: "Whosoever will may come" . . . . and "Him that cometh I will in no wise cast out." This promise is absolute and assures us that saving grace is within the reach of all who will forsake sin and accept salvation through Christ The broad interpretation of the passage would seem to be that while many are called, or set in the way of salvation, the invitation alone does not save them; they must themselves comply with all the conditions. Thus a means is provided for the salvation of all, except those who willfully reject it. This is the true grace of the Gospel and it is so clear and unmistakable that no human doctrine or interpretation can change it.
He wished them to be forewarned of the world's hostility to the Gospel. He spoke in figurative language, as he frequently did, and they, misunderstand ing him, interpreted his words literally, supposing he alluded to present defense. Seeing that they misinterpreted his language about the swords, he closed the conversation with the words: "It is enough." His healing of the high priest's servant's ear simply emphasized the fact that he had not intended to counsel physical violence.
No. He meant to convey that the proclaiming of the Kingdom of God was more important even than to bury the dead--an office which could be performed by those spiritually dead as well as by one who had been called to the Master's service. He did not belittle the office of burial, but simply put it in contrast with the more imperative duty of preaching the Gospel.
The words "the kingdom of God is within you" are to be interpreted in the sense that those who follow Christ and believe in him as Saviour, and whose lives are guided by his example, have already in this life a part and share in his kingdom, which is eternal.
It is believed to be the sin against the Holy Spirit which tends toward or is destined to result in spiritual death. Several commentators make it quite distinct from what is known as the "unpardonable sin"--which is believed to have been attributing the Spirit's marvelous work to Satanic agencies. Alford makes it the act of "openly denying Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God." Such willful deniers are not to be received into one's house (see II John 1:10 and 11). The apostle's meaning is evidently that this chief sin is one by which faith and love are destroyed and the new life killed by a palpable rejection of grace. When such a person knowingly thrusts spiritual life from him, no human intercession can avail. See James 5:14,18; Matt. 12:31,32, as to the obstinate rejection of the Holy Ghost's plain testimony to the Divine Messiah. Jesus on the cross pleaded for those who knew not what they did in crucifying him, not for those willfully resisting grace.
The new is really the unshrunken cloth which, when it became wet and dried, would draw and strain the old garment, making a greater rent. The meaning was that at that time the most intelligent Jews, such as Nicodemus, were hailing Christ as a reformer. They were mistaken. His religion was not a new patch on the old. The old could not be mended, but must give place to his new religion. A specimen of this futile attempt was seen in the struggle to force the old Jewish laws on the Gentiles, which was repudiated (see Acts 15:1-21).
It should be noted that the evangelist, in giving an account of the pool, does nothing more than to state the popular belief (probably a legend) as he found it, without vouching for it except so far as it explained the invalid's presence there. Jesus simply put aside as of no moment the alleged healing virtues of the pool, and aroused the man's faith in that power which alone could minister to his need.
