Introduction

A while back I read the very distressing account of an incident in the life of a young bachelor. He worked in an office where every year the boss gave each employee a turkey as a bonus for the holiday season. Of course, the bachelor could never figure out what to do with his ‘turkey.’ One year the other fellows in the office decided to play a little practical joke on their friend. They exchanged the genuine item for one made of plaster. They could hardly wait to hear his report after the holidays.

On the way home on the bus that evening the young man was contemplating how he could dispose of his turkey. About this time a man in tattered clothing, obviously ‘down in his luck,’ sat in the seat beside him. In the course of their conversation, the young man began to perceive the solution to his problem—he would give this poor fellow his turkey. It would meet a real need for this fellow and his family, and it would solve his problem, too.

In order to avoid humiliating the man he decided that rather than give the turkey to him as charity, he would sell it to him for whatever he could pay. The man gladly produced the last of his money and the exchange was made. Both men parted rejoicing. But when the bachelor returned to the office, he was horrified to learn of the trick which had been played on him, and the terrible deed unknowingly done to the poor man on the bus. For days, the young attorney and his friends rode that same bus to rectify their error, but no one ever saw the man again.

This story (which I believe to be true²⁹), illustrates the principle laid down by our Lord that we are not qualified to pass judgment on the deeds of others. If we were to judge this young bachelor by the act itself, we would conclude that he was a scoundrel. If we were to judge him by his motives, we would have to regard him as a wise and benevolent individual.

While such distressing dilemmas do not occur to us routinely, we commonly err in condemning and criticizing on the basis of outward appearances. I remember when I was a teenager a man stumbled by those of us who were standing in front of our church. I immediately concluded he was drunk and began to mimic him to the delight of my peers. I was horrified when it suddenly dawned on me that this man was not drunk at all, but had some pathetic physical problem.

Because of our tendency to pass quick and critical judgment on others, our Lord has chosen to speak to this issue. As I presently understand verses 1-12 of chapter 7, they all speak to the matter plaguing the religion of Jesus’ day and of ours, that of misdirected effort. Much of that which is done in the name of Christianity is unprofitable and detrimental because it is misdirected and misguided. Verses 1-5 warn us of one type of misguided effort, criticism. Verse 6 cautions us not to carry this to the opposite extreme by insisting that we discriminate between receptive listeners and hardened rejecters. Verses 7-11 instruct us to redirect our efforts in the practice of persistent prayer. Verse 12 concludes with a principle which ties together the entire section and guides us in our relationships with our fellow man.

Judging Forbidden
(7:1-5)

Few sayings of our Lord are better known or more often quoted than these words: “Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves” (Matthew 7:1). Likewise, few sayings are more misunderstood and misapplied. For this reason we must begin by dealing with what our Lord did not mean by this warning.

(1) Jesus did not mean that it is wrong to have law courts and law enforcement. Such was the understanding of Tolstoy.³⁰ Other Scriptures clearly teach that government is a divinely appointed instrument to mete out punishment (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Jesus did not dispute Pilate’s authority to execute capital punishment. Indeed, He stated that this authority came from God (John 19:10-11).

(2) It is not wrong to think critically. Some would have us believe that godliness is closely akin to gullibility. This is really an extension of the error some have made concerning Matthew 6:25 (“… Take no thought …” KJV). We should accept every statement of men on its face value, and in no way should we ponder or weigh it as to its veracity (we are told). That is not the teaching of Scripture (cf. Acts 17:10-11; 1 Corinthians 14:29; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

(3) Neither is our Lord forbidding taking a decisive stand on doctrinal and moral issues. So often whenever a Christian takes what might be regarded as a negative position, the response is, “Judge not …” But the very context of our passage indicates that we must make decisions and take a stand. If we are not to ‘give what is holy to dogs’ (verse 6), then we must decide who are dogs, or hogs. If we are to “beware of false prophets” (verse 15), then we must determine who such men are. Paul took a public stand on the issue of immorality within the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 5:4-5). Timothy was instructed to take a stand in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3-7). We are to refuse to invite false teachers into our homes (2 John 8-11). We are also instructed to “contend earnestly for the faith …” (Jude 3).

(4) It is not wrong to correct those in error. In the 18th chapter of this same Gospel, Matthew recorded our Lord’s instructions concerning church discipline (verses 15ff). In Galatians 6:1, Christians are instructed to restore a sinning brother. Paul corrected Peter face to face (Galatians 2:11). Even the elders of a church are not above correction (1 Timothy 5:19-20). Good friends sharpen each other with constructive criticism (Proverbs 27:7,17).

What, then, did our Lord intend for us to understand by these words, “Judge not”? Since the Lord Jesus has all along been dealing more with attitudes and motives in the Sermon on the Mount, we are safe in concluding that the problem here has to do primarily with a critical, condemning spirit.

I have very little trouble identifying what our Lord has forbidden for there is much of this spirit in me. Often times I deceive myself by supposing that I am just being a critical thinker, when in fact, I am only a critical person. We all love to be critics. It is amusing to observe this during football season. We criticize the football coach for sending in such a ‘foolish’ play. We criticize the quarterback for throwing such a poor pass. We boo the referee for making such a bad call. No doubt we criticize the preacher for such a miserable message.

The criticism of which we are speaking is that which seeks to put others down, while elevating ourselves. It is the kind of smug disdain of those who feel superior to others.

“And He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt” (Luke 18:9).

The contempt of the scribes and Pharisees was more than just the smugness of superiority. It was a snobbery based upon legalism. The Jews had a neatly packaged system of rules and regulations which prescribed an external kind of righteousness. Those who judged (condemned, despised) the hoi polloi, the masses, did so on the basis that those who were righteous kept their rules, but the rest failed to do so, and, indeed, were ignorant of those rules and regulations (John 7:49).

The underlying issue is that these self-appointed judges set themselves up as those who were qualified to pronounce upon a person’s spirituality by the standards of his own system of rules. They perceived righteousness to be achieved by the keeping of human rules. They supposed that men would conform to these rules by the external pressure of those religious leaders who judged their performance by their man-made laws.

This error is more prominently exposed in Luke’s account in chapter 6. Immediately after speaking of the folly of attempting to remove a small speck from our brother’s eye while we have a beam³¹ in our own (verse 41-42), our Lord went on to say:

“For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit; nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth which is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart” (Luke 6:43-45).

Here was the problem within Judaism in the days of the Savior. Here is the problem within Christianity today. Men are directing their efforts toward producing righteousness through external acts. Worse yet, they are attempting to force this error on others by pressuring men to be righteous by keeping man-made rules and regulations and rituals. These efforts are futile and doomed to failure because they do not change a man’s heart. True righteousness cannot be imposed from without, but must be exposed from within. No man can be made righteous until his heart is radically changed by God. Religion today is trying to reform men, but only Christ can transform men by giving them a new heart.

I must digress for one moment, my friend, and ask if you have received a new heart by genuine conversion, or are you still trying to patch up your old sinful self. God has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to qualify as your sin-bearer by living a perfect life. He has died on the cross of Calvary to bear the penalty of your sins. He has been raised from the dead that you might live a victorious life and reflect God’s righteousness (though imperfectly) in your life. Religion and reform will never save you, only a renewal of heart can do that (cf. Titus 3:5-7).

Now that we understand what the Master has forbidden, let us concentrate for a moment on why such criticism is wrong.

(1) Criticism is wrong because it usurps divine prerogatives and therefore invites divine judgment, verse 1. “Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves.” Although it is not directly stated in this passage I believe it is to be inferred that when one appoints himself a judge of others he usurps a divine prerogative. In the Scriptures there are several passages which speak to this same evil (e.g. Romans 14, James 4:11-12). From these passages, we receive much helpful commentary on the meaning of Christ’s teaching. James wrote: “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?” (James 4:12).

Paul wrote in Romans 14:4: “Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls …” (cf. also verse 10). Judging is a divine prerogative. We take too much upon ourselves if we set ourselves over others to judge them. It is not the privilege or the position of a slave to judge other slaves. That is the responsibility of their master. We make ourselves masters (and not slaves) when we judge others.

(2) Criticism is wrong because it arises out of impure motives. The judging which is here condemned by the Master is wrong because it is criticism arising from impure motives. It attempts to emphasize one’s own righteousness at the expense of a brother’s reputation. On the surface such criticism may be done in a spirit of helpfulness, but this is only a shame. “I really love you, but…” “You’re a wonderful person, but…” “I’m saying this for your own good…” “This hurts me more than it does you, but…”

The only criticism or correction which is praiseworthy is that which is prompted by genuine love. Love does not seek a brother’s downfall, but his edification (cf. Romans 14:13,19). Love is reluctant to believe the worse and hopeful of the best:

“Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).

“Love seeks to conceal unrighteousness, not to expose it” (1 Peter 4:8).

(3) Criticism is wrong because it sets its own standards and judges other men by them. We have already suggested that it was the legalistic rules and regulations of Pharisaism by which men judged others, rather than by God’s law (cf. James 4:11-12). The judging forbidden by Paul in Romans chapter 14 was that concerning ‘doubtful things’ (verse 1). Of these things men were to be ‘fully convinced in their own minds’ (verse 5), but since their observance was ‘to the Lord’ (verse 6), we are not to condemn.

This tendency to go beyond the requirements of scripture is clearly implied by the Savior when He warned that the standard by which we judge men is the standard by which we will be judged ourselves (Matthew 7:2). If we wish to be overly demanding on others, we must accept this same standard for our own conduct (cf. Romans 2:1-2).

It is so easy for Christians to confuse biblical principles and personal preferences, convictions and commandments. We then try to impose these upon others, and we judge men’s spirituality by how well they live up to our preconceived ideas of righteousness.

(4) Criticism is wrong because it turns the focus of our attention outward rather than inward. Personal convictions are to be kept to ourselves, not crammed down the throats of others (Romans 14:22). The entire focus of criticism is upon the lives and conduct of others, but this is none of our business, for each man must give account of himself before God (Romans 14:10). Here we are trying to correct the flaws in others, rather than concentrating upon ourselves. Criticism is minding other people’s business. We listen to a sermon and remark how we wished that Sister Smith were here to hear it. How we deceive ourselves!

(5) Criticism is wrong because our knowledge is limited. Although our text does not specify this error, criticism is wrong because we are not in a position to know all the facts. If we judged the young bachelor’s gift of a phony turkey from the perspective of the man whose ‘luck was down’ we would judge wrongly. You and I cannot judge without full knowledge of the facts.

Furthermore, we cannot know the motives of a man. In doubtful things (not in matters clearly forbidden, as the situationalist would tell us), it is one’s motives that make all the difference. If a man drinks wine or eats meat, doubting his freedom to do so, he sins (Romans 14:22,23). Since we cannot know a man’s heart, his motivation for his deeds, we cannot judge him.

(6) Criticism is wrong because our perspective is distorted. You can imagine the smiles which began to work their way across the faces of our Lord’s audience as they saw the humor in what He was saying in verses 3-5. Here is the picture of a man with a large beam in his own eye attempting to remove a minute particle from the eye of another. The irony is that we often try to correct others while our own problems far surpass the errors of those we criticize and attempt to correct. This problem is emphasized in Luke’s account where he includes this statement of the Lord Jesus as an introduction to the paragraph on judging others while you have a beam in your eye: “And He also spoke a parable to them: ‘A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit?’” (Luke 6:39).

The scribes and Pharisees looked upon themselves as the leadership of Judaism. They felt that as such they were obligated to judge those under their authority, and to impose upon their inferiors the full requirements of Jewish traditionalism (which they called ‘the Law’). Jesus clearly implied in Matthew 7:3-5 (and plainly stated in Luke 6:39-45) that those with the greatest problems were the leaders themselves. How often we project our own failures (sins) upon others, while neglecting our own responsibilities.

(7) Criticism is wrong because it is hypocritical. Finally, the kind of criticism condemned by our Lord is wrong because at its base it is hypocritical. “You hypocrite …” (verse 5). Criticism is hypocritical because it holds a double standard. I often hold to a very rigid standard when I condemn others, but I am most tolerant when I commit the same sin. This process is called rationalizing. What we call ‘losing your temper’ in others we redefine as ‘righteous indignation’ in ourselves. Often, by the way, we use the most pious terms for our own transgressions. We call income tax evasion ‘stealing’ when others do it, ‘good stewardship’ when we are guilty. We call exceeding the speed limit ‘speeding’ when others are doing it, ‘redeeming the time’ when we are guilty of it. If only we were as tolerant, understanding, and merciful with others as we are with ourselves. This is precisely the principle which is laid down in verse 12.

The Need for Discernment

There is a great danger of imbalance in the application of what the Savior has taught in verses 1-5. If not counter-balanced, this prohibition of criticism (of condemning others while elevating ourselves) would be carried to illogical extremes. Thus the need for these words: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6).

Following through with the theme of ‘misdirected efforts,’ we have just learned that one such profitless practice is that of expending our energy in the fruitless venture of judging others. It fails to edify and build up our brother, it increases our own pride and sets the standard for our own condemnation. Worst of all, it does not produce righteousness in us or in others.

But there is an opposite and equal error, and that is the profitless expenditure of our time in persisting to proclaim the gospel to those who have clearly rejected it. We know from the Scriptures that Jesus Christ virtually divided the nation by His teaching and claims (cf. John 7:40-44; 9:16; 10:19-21). No doubt one member of a family would tirelessly work to convince the rest of his family that Jesus was the Christ, but often to no avail. Many there were who attempted to remain within the mainstream of Judaism and to work from the inside to change the system (cf. John 7:45-52; 12:42-43). Today there are Christians who are saved and yet have spent their lives in apostate churches. They often attempt to stay in the church and to bring about its revival and reform. These words of Jesus have direct bearing on such efforts.

We are not told specifically what that which is holy is, nor what pearls signify, but it is not difficult to figure out. Surely that which is holy pertains to spiritual things, matters which Christians would consider of great value and sacred in nature.³² We would conclude that foremost in our Lord’s mind is the Gospel of salvation. Other spiritual truths could surely be included.

But who are the ‘dogs’ and the ‘hogs’? Both dogs and hogs were considered unclean by Judaism. Consequently, they were expressions which could be employed with reference to the heathen or the Gentiles (cf. Matthew 15:27; Mark 7:28). Within Israel the term dog was an expression of disdain (cf. 2 Samuel 9:8; Proverbs 26:11). In Deuteronomy 23:18 ‘dog’ is a euphemism for a male prostitute. More to the point, I believe, is Paul’s warning: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision” (Philippians 3:2).

Peter wrote of those who were apostates and rejecters of the truth:

“But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed … For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘A dog returns to its own vomit,’ and ‘A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire’” (2 Peter 2:12, 21-22).

Dogs and hogs are not merely unbelievers,³³ but rather are those who have ample information concerning the way of righteousness and who have stubbornly rejected it.³⁴ They are hardened in their rebellion and unbelief. To persist in witnessing to such people is wasted energy.

The dogs of Jesus’ day were not well-mannered lap dogs, but wild dogs that lived on the streets, eating that which was discarded and unclean. At times this included dead bodies (1 Kings 14:11; 21:19-24). In offering meat to an unclean dog one might well get bitten in the process. They were not so well-mannered as to avoid ‘biting the hand that fed them.’ Were one to cast pearls³⁵ before swine, they might at first think them to be food, and then, not valuing pearls, might trample them under foot and even turn on the one who offered them.

And so although one dare not be overly critical of others (verses 1-5), neither is he to be so naive as to not distinguish between those who are open to the truth and those who oppose it.³⁶ Jesus followed His own counsel when He ceased speaking openly to those who accused Him of using demonic power (Mark 3:22ff.). When Christ sent out His disciples to proclaim the Kingdom of God He instructed them, “And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet” (Matthew 10:14). Likewise, this was the practice of the apostle Paul (Acts 13:44-51; 18:5,6; 28:17-28).

Thus, while we must initially proclaim the gospel universally and indiscriminately, there comes a time when we must mark those who are hardened to the truth and cease our efforts to convert them and press on. This does not necessarily mean that such persons may not be saved in the future. The apostle Paul may well have been in the category of a dog (or a hog) before his conversion. Only the power of the Spirit of God can transform scoffers into saints.

Profitable Persistence: Prayer
(7:7-11)

While the first six verses of chapter 7 have informed us of unproductive activities for the Christian, verses 7 through 11 provide us with a creative (and profitable) alternative, namely prayer. A number of Bible students have concluded that these verses have little or nothing to do with the preceding verses, but this seems very unlikely.

First, we are confronted with the word ‘therefore’ in verse 12, which implies that this verse directly and logically relates to what has come before. In this ‘Golden rule,’ it is easy to see direct application to the matter of criticism. I, at least, am compelled by this to see verse 12 as the concluding principle for the entire section composed of verses 1-12.

In addition to the grammatical connection just mentioned, there is a decided logical connection. Our Lord is challenging us to redirect our destructive energies to that of productive prayer. More than this, nothing neutralizes a critical spirit more than prayer. You cannot long be angry at those for whom you are praying, seeking their salvation and best interest. This, no doubt, is why Jesus tells us in this sermon to pray for our enemies (cf. Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:28).

I see yet another connection between verses 1-6 and 7-11. We have just been taught by the Lord that we are not to be critical of others, standing over them as their judge. We have also been told that we are to discern between good and evil, truth and falsehood, sheep and wolves (or dogs). The question which immediately comes to my mind is “How can I possibly walk this tightrope?” “How can I distinguish between destructive criticism and discernment?” It is a difficult, even impossible, assignment. I must have divine enablement.

I see verses 7-11 as an encouragement to pray for the wisdom and enablement demanded by verses 1-6. When our Lord says, “Ask, and it shall be given you, …” what are we to ask for? Daily bread? I think not, at least not primarily.³⁷ What about wisdom? James tells us, “But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God …” (James 1:5). Surely the instruction of verses 1-6 demands divine wisdom.

‘Seeking’ and ‘knocking’ suggest most aggressive and intensive prayer. I would think that we would be continually seeking to know to whom we should speak and what we should say in the light of the first 6 verses. Knocking may involve the matter of looking for opportunities to share our faith in such a way as to stimulate one’s interest in spiritual things.

The suggestion that the subject of the prayer which is encouraged in verses 7-11 is for wisdom and enablement is strongly supported by Luke’s additional statement: “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13).

If we ask the Father to grant us wisdom, discernment and enablement in the proclamation of the gospel, it is through the gift of the Holy Spirit (already given to the church at Pentecost, and to us at conversion) that God grants the answer to our requests. The prayer life which we are encouraged to cultivate here is not the prayer for things, but the prayer for enablement.

In all probability we dare not get too carried away with finding specific applications for each of these terms: ask, seek and knock. They are all present imperatives which would suggest continual and persistent activity. Rather than persisting at criticism or fruitless evangelism among the hardened, let us pour our efforts into prayer, for God is always willing to help us search our hearts. He is always ready to give us His best.

Here is the underlying theme, I believe, of these five verses on prayer—God’s willingness to give His children good things. Even earthly parents, who are evil by nature,³⁸ are eager to do what is best for their children. If we take verse 8 seriously we must conclude that there is no unanswered prayer for the Christian, for Jesus has said, “For everyone who asks receives …” Would an earthly father give his child a rock when he has asked for bread? Would he give him a snake (or perhaps an eel³⁹) when he asked for a fish?

If men, evil by nature, desire to give good things to their children, are we not to be assured of God’s answer to our prayers? Now we should also remark that while God’s willingness and goodness are here emphasized, no where are we told that God is going to give us all we ask for. Jesus has said that God does not play dirty tricks on His children, giving them useless or dangerous things in response.⁴⁰ Thank God He has not given me everything for which I have asked.

What is here stressed is that God will always answer our prayers. That, as a concerned and loving Father,⁴¹ He will never overlook a request, nor will He respond in a way which is harmful to His child. But just because we ask for a fish (or a fancy sports car, or a wife who is a beauty contest winner, or acceptance at a prestigious university) does not guarantee that we will receive exactly what we request. God will never give us that which is not for our good. And what God does give us is just what we really need.

We should greatly rejoice that our loving heavenly Father reserves the right to substitute something better in place of our request. One time my wife ordered a new electric drill for me from Sears and Roebuck. When the drill arrived, it had a note which explained that since they were out of the drill we had ordered, they had substituted one in its place that was more expensive. We should never hesitate to allow God to substitute what He knows to be better for us than that for which we pray.

Now here, my friend, is good reason for prayer. If there were ever motivation for prayer, it is in this fact. God is our Father (if we, by faith, have become His sons through Jesus Christ, His Son, John 1:12), and we are the objects of His intimate and infinite care. No request of ours is insignificant to Him, and no request is ignored.

A Rule for All Seasons
(7:12)

Perhaps without our realizing it, the Lord Jesus, in these few verses has succinctly summarized the Law and the Prophets. Implied by our prayer life (as prescribed in verses 7-11) is the fact that we love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength (cf. Deuteronomy 6:5; cf. Matthew 22:37). Explicitly stated is the second great command, that we love our neighbor as ourself.

It is this second summary principle of the Old Testament revelation which is put in coveralls in verse 12: “Therefore whatever you want others to do for you, do so to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

To love my neighbor as myself is an abstract concept, a little difficult to translate into everyday life. But this restatement in verse 12 is really where the ‘rubber meets the road.’ How do I love my neighbor as myself? By treating him as I would wish him to treat me.

This principle governing human relationships was not new to the ears of Jesus’ listeners. The ancient world had produced numerous parallels to it, yet all with one notable exception: they were expressed in the negative. The essence of these sayings was: ‘Don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you.’⁴²

Now let us take this summary principle and apply it specifically to the preceding verses. How would I want others to treat me in view of my sinfulness and obvious flaws? I would not want to be harshly criticized or smugly condemned. I would want to be treated with consideration, with an evident spirit of love, encouragement, and a desire to build me up rather than to tear me down. I would not want my sins to be overlooked or excused, but lovingly to be confronted and corrected.

If I were one who had heard the gospel and concluded that I wanted no part of it, I would hope that once I had made my disinterest and rejection known my feelings and decisions would be respected. I would desire that the same points not be raised over and over again, and that I would not have to avoid contact with the Christian or to terminate our friendship in order to avoid arguing the same points over and over again.

I would greatly appreciate having my critics spend their efforts in persistent prayer, reporting my faults to God alone, and asking him to strengthen and sanctify me. Were I an unbeliever I would prefer for the Christian to prevail upon God for my conversion rather than to pester me.

Conclusions and Application

There are several things which come to mind as I look back upon this lesson.

(1) The Christian life is, to a great extent, walking the tight rope between opposite and equally erroneous extremes. The key word is that of balance; not the balancing of truth with error, but the balancing of truth with truth. The more I read the Bible, the more need I see for balance.

Christians prefer things to be all nicely packaged, cut and dried. That is the great appeal of legalism. A law for every possible circumstance. But Christian liberty is not that easy. We are to live a life of faith, and this is to be exercised by keeping two opposite extremes in tension. The example given here is that of judging versus discerning. Only by God’s divine enablement can we walk the tightrope between these extremes.

The tension between criticism and discernment is not unique, but typical. So also the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is not a hypothetical problem posed by the theologian, but a practical problem raised by the fact that both truths are taught side by side (cf. Romans 9, 10; Philippians 2:12,13).

(2) Also we see the contrast between two opposing approaches to spirituality, legalism and liberty. Legalism attempts to avoid thinking and faith by drafting a rule for every conceivable circumstance and situation. Compliance is enforced by external pressure through fleshly effort.

Liberty lives by principles which apply to a broad diversity of situations. These principles are applied by faith through the power of the Spirit. They are applied individually as matters of personal conviction.

Legalism concentrates upon others, seeking to get men to live according to my personal preferences and prejudices. Liberty looks to my own responsibilities, living my life before God in the light of personal convictions and biblical principles.

(3) While prevailing upon men is unprofitable as a Christian exercise, prevailing in prayer with God is invaluable. The prayer of one of God’s children is always profitable because we have a heavenly Father Who answers every prayer. He never fails to hear or to respond, although He may choose to give us a better answer than we thought to ask for. Prayer dissolves a critical spirit and it is instrumental in obtaining wisdom and discernment.

(4) While the world talks much about love, it knows little about it. True love is not blind to the truth. Love sees things as they are and loves in spite of them. True love does not criticize, but neither does it fail to make necessary distinctions. As the apostle wrote to the Philippians long ago, “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment; so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ” (Philippians 1:9-10).

---

29 This story is told by David Roper in his sermon on James 2:1-13 entitled “The Case of the Near-Sighted Usher.” A Belief That Behaves, Message Number 3, 1971, Available from Discovery Publishing, 3505 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, California, 94306.

30 Cf. John R. W. Stott, Christian Counter-Culture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978), p. 175.

31 “A log on which planks in the house rest (so papyri), joist, rafter, plank (Moffatt), pole sticking out grotesquely.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), I, p. 60.

32 The ancient church applied this to the ordinance of the Lord’s Table. Hendriksen agrees with this application when he quotes from the Didache:

“As to specific reference, the terms “what is holy” and “pearls” are rather indefinite. They undoubtedly apply to other things besides the gospel message. The office of the ministry, the eldership, and the diaconate must not be entrusted to the unqualified. The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (IX..5) makes still another—I believe legitimate—application, as follows, “But let no one eat or drink of your eucharist (Lord’s Supper) except those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, ‘Do not give what is holy to the dogs.’” William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 360. Although some might see this as an application of this principle, it is not in my mind, our Lord’s primary intent.

33 Of special interest and import are Calvin’s comments on this text: “But here a question arises: for he afterwards commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark xvi. 15); and Paul says, that the preaching of it is a deadly savour to wicked men (2 Cor. ii. 16); and nothing is more certain than that it is every day held out to unbelievers, by the command of God, for a testimony, that they may be rendered the more inexcusable. I reply: As the ministers of the Gospel, and those who are called to the office of teaching, cannot distinguish between the children of God and swine, it is their duty to present the doctrine of salvation indiscriminately to all. Though many may appear to them, at first, to be hardened and unyielding, yet charity forbids that such persons should be immediately pronounced to be desperate. It ought to be understood, that dogs and swine are names given not to every kind of debauched men, or to those who are destitute of the fear of God and of true godliness, but to those who, by clear evidences, have manifested a hardened contempt of God, so that their disease appears to be incurable. In another passage, Christ places the dogs in contrast with the elect people of God and the household of faith. It is not proper to take the children’s bread, and give it to dogs (Matth. xv. 27). But by dogs and swine he means here those who are so thoroughly imbued with a wicked contempt of God, that they refuse to accept any remedy.” Calvin’s Commentaries: The Gospels (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc. n.d.), p. 153.

34 To determine that someone meets the qualifications of a ‘dog’ and to thereby cease from persisting with the claims of the gospel is not, in and of itself, to sentence one to eternal doom. In fact, it is altogether possible that God would, at a later time, open this person’s eyes to perceive the truth. It is a practical decision at the present moment in time dictated by the imperative to preach the gospel to all the nations. We cannot linger where efforts are unfruitful.

I believe this is a principle that is to be applied to individuals, and not to be misapplied nationally. Some have suggested that missions be supported mainly where the response is the greatest. Should we neglect missionary endeavors in the Moslem nations because the response has been exceedingly small? Personally, I think we must not fail to take the gospel to every nation. We must present the gospel to every man, turning from them only when they reject a clear-cut gospel. God is honored by the proclamation of His Word, and its proclamation is never without achieving God’s purpose (Isaiah 55:11). Isaiah was commissioned to preach to a stiffnecked and rebellious nation. His message was purposed to harden the hearts of the people, not to save them (Isaiah 6:8-10).

35 “Pearls look a bit like peas or acorns and would deceive the hogs until they discovered the deception.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, I, p. 61.

36 Stott beautifully sums up the matter: “To sum up, the command to judge not is not a requirement to be blind, but rather a plea to be generous. Jesus does not tell us to cease to be men (by suspending our critical powers which help to distinguish us from animals) but to renounce the presumptuous ambition to be God (by setting ourselves up as judges).” John R. W. Stott, Christian Counter-Culture, p. 177.

37 As someone has kindly pointed out to me, however, the three illustrations (two in Matthew and one additional one in Luke 11:12) our Lord employed (bread, fish, egg) were all items of food.

38 We are greatly enriched by this statement of the Savior with respect to the inborn sinfulness of man. Verse 13 assumes that men are evil by nature, all men. But the concept of total depravity does not mean that evil men are incapable of any good thing, only that every part of one’s nature has been affected by sin and the fall. Much like a glass of water is totally poisoned by a single drop of poison, so man is totally contaminated by sin.

39 “The point is that in each case the two things cited bear a close resemblance. The little, round, limestone stones on the seashore were exactly the shape and the colour of little loaves. If a son asks bread will his father mock him by offering him a stone, which looks like bread but which is impossible to eat? If a son asks a fish, will his father give him a serpent? Almost certainly the serpent is an eel. According to the Jewish food laws an eel could not be eaten, because an eel was an unclean fish. ‘Whatsoever has no fins or scales in the water, that is an abomination unto you’ (Leviticus 11:12). That regulation ruled out the eel as an article of diet. If a son asks for a fish, will his father indeed give him a fish, but a fish which it is forbidden to eat, and which is useless to eat? Would a father mock his son’s hunger like that? If the son asks for an egg, will his father give him a scorpion? The scorpion is a dangerous little animal. In action it is rather like a small lobster, with claws with which it clutches its victim. Its sting is in its tail, and it brings its tail up over its back to strike its victim. The sting can be exceedingly painful, and sometimes even fatal. When the scorpion is at rest its claws and tail are folded in, and there is a pale kind of scorpion, which, when folded up, would look exactly like an egg. If a son asks for an egg, will his father mock him by handing him a biting scorpion?” William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew (Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1963), I, pp. 274-275.

40 This is in contrast to the gods of the ancient Greeks: “God will never refuse our prayers; and God will never mock our prayers. The Greeks had their stories about the gods who answered men’s prayers, but the answer was an answer with a barb in it, a double-edged gift. Aurora, the goddess of the dawn, fell in love with Tithonus a mortal youth, so the Greek story ran. Zeus, the king of the gods, offered her any gift that she might choose for her mortal lover. Aurora very naturally chose that Tithonus might live for ever; but she had forgotten to ask that Tithonus might remain for ever young; and so Tithonus grew older and older and older, and could never die, and the gift became a curse.” Barclay, Matthew, I, p. 275.

41 “There is no doubt that our prayers are transformed when we remember that the God we are coming to is ‘Abba, Father,’ and infinitely good and kind.

Professor Jeremias has demonstrated the novelty of this teaching of Jesus. He writes that, with the help of his assistants, he has carefully examined ‘the prayer literature of ancient Judah—a large, rich literature, all too little explored,’ but that ‘in no place in this immense literature is this invocation of God as Abba to be found ... Abba was an everyday word, a homely family word. No Jew would have dared to address God in this manner. Jesus did it always ... and authorizes his disciples to repeat the word Abba after him.’ What could be simpler than this concept of prayer? If we belong to Christ, God is our Father, we are his children, and prayer is coming to him with our requests.” Stott, Christian Counter-Culture, p. 185.

42 “Much has been made by various commentators of the fact that the Golden Rule is found in a similar—but always negative—form elsewhere. Confucius, for example, is credited with having said, ‘Do not to others what you would not wish done to yourself’; and the Stoics had an almost identical maxim. In the Old Testament Apocrypha we find: ‘Do not do to anyone what you yourself would hate,’ and this, it seems, is what the famous Rabbi Hillel quoted in c. 20 BC when asked by a would-be proselyte to teach him the whole law while standing on one leg. His rival Rabbi Shammai had been unable or unwilling to answer, and had driven the enquirer away, but Rabbi Hillel said: ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else. This is the whole law; all the rest is only commentary.’” (Recorded in the Talmud: Shabbath 31a), Ibid., P. 190.

Introduction

James Stewart⁴⁷ reminds us of the famous painting of Holman Hunt, “The Shadow of Death,” which depicts Jesus in the carpenter’s workshop in Nazareth. It was the end of a long, tiring day and as the sun was beginning to set with its rays streaming through the door, Jesus stepped back from His workbench and stretched out His arms. The rays of the setting sun shone on His outstretched hands and cast a shadow on the wall behind Him in the form of a cross. Even in the carpenter shop, as the artist reminds us, the cross was in view.

Many think of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ as a kind of tragic mistake unthinkingly precipitated by the fervent religious and political climate surrounding the Jewish Passover season. This view simply does not fit the facts. The death of the Son of God had long been planned by the Jewish religious leaders. More than this, the death of the Messiah had been purposed in eternity past (Acts 2:23) and the Savior had, from the outset of His ministry, lived in view of the cross.

Our Lord was not an unsuspecting victim. His life was not snatched from Him; He willingly and deliberately gave it up for the sins of lost men (John 10:17,18). In coming messages we shall see how the death of Christ was a death by design. Our Lord masterfully lived out His last days in such a way as to provoke opposition to Himself and thus to precipitate His own death in perfect fulfillment of prophecy.⁴⁸ One of the evidences of our Lord’s sovereign control of His destiny is that found in the early chapters of the gospel of Mark⁴⁹ where He made a crucial change of course and began to veil His teaching by the use of parables. In so doing, the establishment of the Kingdom was delayed until a future time, while at the same time its certainty was assured by the Lord’s setting His face toward Jerusalem, deliberately setting His course toward the cross to die for the sins of man.

Background:
The Jewish Leaders Make Their Decision
(2:1–3:35)

While it is very early in the pages of Mark’s gospel, the ministry of our Lord is nearly half over.⁵⁰ The execution of Jesus comes much later, but the expressed purpose of the Pharisees and the Herodians was already to put Him to death (Mark 3:6). The reasons for the opposition of the Jewish leaders to Jesus can be summarized by the four questions of the scribes and Pharisees of chapter 2.

(1) “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). In Capernaum, Jesus was speaking in a house when four men lowered a paralyzed man through the roof. Before dealing with this man’s physical problem, He spoke to his spiritual need, saying, “My son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). The scribes immediately grasped the theological implications of our Lord’s statement. No one can forgive sins but God alone. How, then, can this man claim to forgive sins without also claiming to be God as well? Jesus clearly claimed to be God and thus the scribes were unwilling to accept Him. Throughout His earthly ministry He was challenged as to His authority.

(2) “Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?” (Mark 2:16). Someone has said that you never pay any attention to a person’s first reason for anything, but that the real reason is the second thing one says. I cannot help but think this rule of thumb applies here. The real question was not so much, “How can He claim to be God?” but “How can He claim to be the Messiah and yet shun us, while socializing with the scum?” The Jewish leaders were obviously snubbed. Jesus simply pointed out that His mission was to heal and to save, and only the sick needed His attention. A doctor cannot spend his time at the country club, while men and women are sick and dying.

(3) “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” (Mark 2:18). The third question has to do with Jesus’ ignoring the ceremonial observances of those who were considered (or at least who considered themselves) spiritual. This fasting was not mandatory among the masses, but optional. But John’s disciples observed this practice, as did the Pharisees. Why, then, did Jesus not conform to it also? Jesus gave two reasons for His neglect of this rite. First, fasting was usually conducted at a time of difficulty or disaster. This was the day of His visitation. Only after His departure and in His absence would fasting be appropriate for His followers. Secondly, Jesus did not come to patch up the old system of Judaism (as prescribed and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees). He came to bring something entirely new; new not in the sense of being unpredicted by the Old Testament, but different, in contrast with the Judaism of that day. Jesus did not desire to identify closely with their religious system. This, of course, was another rejection of their leadership, another reason for the rift between Jesus and Judaism.

(4) “Why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” (Mark 2:24). Here, it would seem was Judaism’s strongest argument. Jesus allowed His followers to pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath and this, according to their interpretation of the Old Testament Law, was work, a violation of God’s law. It was Jesus’ seeming disregard of the Sabbath laws (as interpreted by the scribes and Pharisees) which most angered the Jewish leaders. He frequently healed men on the Sabbath (cf. 3:1-6).

The Lord’s response to this challenge was that their interpretation of the Sabbath was inconsistent with God’s intent in giving it. The Sabbath was intended for man’s benefit and blessing. The Jewish interpretation made it a burden (cf. Matthew 11:28-30; 23:4). David, whom they greatly revered, went into the house of God and took some of the consecrated bread for himself and his men. This was bread ‘set apart for a special purpose,’ just as the Sabbath was to be set apart. But David’s need was of greater importance, just as the hunger of the disciples needed to be satisfied. The Sabbath exists for man’s highest good, not man for the Sabbath. If David could overrule in the matter of this bread, how much more can the Son of Man be Lord even of the Sabbath (verse 28)?

But the scribes and Pharisees were not satisfied with this explanation. The incident of the man with the withered hand was their golden opportunity to catch Jesus in a clear violation of their law. If they could prove Him to be a law-breaker, then all of His claims could be set aside. Jesus perceived the issue and the incident as a trap. He raised the greater question, “Is it lawful to do good, to save a life, on the Sabbath?” They refused to answer. Angered by their hardness of heart, Jesus healed the man regardless of the outcome.

What is critical to our understanding of this portion of Scripture is the response of the Pharisees and the Herodians.⁵¹ They determined that the only way to deal with Jesus was to put Him to death: “And the Pharisees went out and immediately began taking counsel with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him” (Mark 3:6).

The verdict to do away with Jesus was decided here, and not in Jerusalem, many months later. From now on, it was not a matter of legality (other than the maintaining of some semblance of legal procedures) but of logistics. Judas provided the inroad that was necessary to arrest and try Jesus apart from the masses.

I find it interesting also to note the sequence of the decision in chapter three, verse 6, to destroy Jesus, with the theological explanation given in chapter three, verse 22. The Jewish leaders determined to destroy Jesus before they had come up with a good reason for doing so. Here is another illustration of the truth that our morality often dictates our theology.

The great problem facing the Jewish leaders was how they could reject the claims of Christ in the face of His mighty acts. The claims of Christ were given credence and authority by His miracles. How, then, could the scribes and Pharisees substantiate their rejection of Christ as Messiah? They could not deny His miracles for they were too frequent, too varied, and too well attested. They were driven to the conclusion that they were both genuine and supernatural. In desperation they resorted to attributing the source of Jesus’ power to demonic influence. That is how He can cast out demons, they reasoned. He must be the servant of the prince of demons, Beelzebub. “And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, ‘He is possessed by Beelzebub,’ and ‘He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons’”(Mark 3:22).

I take it that this is not merely one thoughtless statement but the long-discussed, well thought-out position taken by the leadership who had already rejected Jesus as Messiah.⁵²

Without realizing it, the opposition party had gone one step too far, for in attributing the miracles of Christ through the Holy Spirit to Satan, they had committed the unpardonable sin.⁵³ While other sins would be forgiven, this sin was irreversible. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit made salvation impossible (verses 28-30). Our Lord’s speaking in parables was, I believe, the direct and immediate result of this stand taken by the scribes and Pharisees.

Christ’s Explanation of the Parabolic Method
(4:10-12)

It would appear from Matthew’s account (Matthew 13:1, “on that day …) that Jesus immediately began to teach by means of parables.⁵⁴ Clearly, Jesus had made a decisive change in His teaching method (cf. Mark 4:2,34-35). The disciples could not wait to get Jesus alone to ask why this change had taken place. Jesus first explained the reason for His change in teaching technique, and then He explained the parable of the soils to His disciples.

We know that the disciples asked pointedly why Jesus had begun teaching publicly only by means of parables: “And as soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables” (Mark 4:10). The answer to this question is hardly what we would have expected. While Jesus revealed truths pertaining to the ‘mystery of the Kingdom’ to His intimates, He deliberately concealed these truths from those who were ‘outside’ (verse 11) by the use of parables.

This decisive change of course on the part of our Lord was not something new or unexpected. Indeed, it was consistent with the principle revealed in the book of Isaiah: “in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand lest they return again and be forgiven” (Isaiah 6:9; Mark 4:12).⁵⁵

Isaiah had been commissioned by God to go forth and proclaim the Word of God (Isaiah 6:8), but it was not for the purpose of turning the nation back to God. It was rather to harden their hearts and to bring upon them the judgment of God. Just as Israel had turned from the Word of God in Isaiah’s day, so they had in the days of Jesus. Jesus had claimed to be God’s Messiah and Israel’s Savior, but, as we have seen from chapters two and three of Mark’s gospel, this message was rejected by the leadership of the nation. They were already plotting to kill Him.

Our Lord saw His teaching ministry not as one which would result in hearing and heeding, but in hardening. He, like Isaiah, was to prepare the nation for judgment.

I understand these words of the Savior as best explained in the light of the preceding context. Jesus had presented Himself as the Messiah. The Jewish leaders had resisted this claim and rejected Jesus. They had purposed to kill Him. Finally, they went so far as to accuse Him of working as the servant of Satan. In the light of their committing ‘the unpardonable sin,’ Jesus now spoke in such a way as to conceal further revelation of His Kingdom from them. He would not cast His pearls before swine. This new course of concealing the truth was more for the benefit of the Jewish leaders than for the masses. It was a little later (John 6) that Jesus thinned out the ranks of the masses by straightforwardly telling them of His impending sacrificial death. They departed, not because they did not grasp what He was saying, but because they all too clearly understood His meaning (John 6:60ff.).

It should also be observed that while Mark quotes Jesus’ reference to the sixth chapter of Isaiah as explaining His purpose of clouding the truth (‘in order that’) from some of His listeners (verse 12), Matthew cites this quotation as the reason why the truth was concealed (‘For the heart of this people has become dull,’ Matthew 13:15). Both aspects are true. Jesus spoke in parables in order to conceal the truth and because Israel had already turned a dull ear to the truth. Pharaoh hardened his heart against God (Exodus 8:15,32; 9:34), and likewise God caused his heart to become hard (Exodus 4:21; 10:1, etc.).

We should not conclude that the only purpose of the parables was to conceal. Jesus on the one hand was concealing the truth from some (Mark 4:10-12), while revealing it to others (4:32-34). The parables incited curiosity and deeper thought on the part of true seekers (cf. Proverbs 25:2; Mark 4:10,34). The parables enabled Jesus to teach publicly, and yet not give His opponents evidence to use against Him. While the scribes and Pharisees were able to understand that the parables were, at times, directed against them, they could not gain from them the hard evidence they needed to dispose of Jesus (Matthew 21:45,46).

The Parable of the Soils
(4:1-20)

The parable of the soils comes first in each of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). This is because it is the key to our understanding of all of the parables: “And He said to them, ‘Do you not understand this parable? And how will you understand all the parables?’” (Mark 4:13).

This parable was given in terms of the everyday agricultural life of those to whom Jesus spoke. The seed is that of the gospel or the ‘word’ (verse 14). In each instance the seed is the same, it is only the condition of the soil that is variable. Here the sower would be the Savior Himself, but also we could include anyone proclaiming the Word.

The first type of ground is the hardened soil (verses 4,15). It is the packed down soil of the pathway, trodden over by those who passed by. This soil was not at all receptive to the seed, but the birds of the air simply ate the seed before it could be worked into the soil.⁵⁶ This kind of soil represented those with hardened hearts, such as the scribes and Pharisees. They did not really grasp the message of Jesus, nor did they care to give it any consideration. So far as the gospel records inform us, the scribes and Pharisees never had a positive response toward the message of the Lord Jesus.

The second type of ground is the shallow soil (verses 5,16,17). When we think of rocky ground, we should not think of that which is plagued with many stones, large and small. Rocky soil is the soil like we have a bit of in Texas: a shallow layer of earth covering a solid shelf of underlying rock. Several years ago I agreed to help a friend plant a couple hundred large shrubs. He had bid this job on the basis of several test holes. Unfortunately, much of the ground was that of the type described by our Lord—thin soil, solid rock beneath. That was hard work!

The very shallowness of the soil (and the warmth retained by the rock, I suppose) encouraged a quick germination of the seed. The only problem was that this soil could not sustain life because of its shallowness. The roots of the plant could not sink deeply, and when the heat of the sun beat upon it, it withered and died.

Such is the case with those who make a hasty and shallow ‘decision for Christ.’ It is not a well thought-out decision, but a hasty one (‘immediately,’ verse 5). The real issues of the gospel are not grasped, and the decision is so quick because it is so shallow. Many thronged after Jesus as the great miracle worker and possible Messiah Who would deliver them from adversity, suffering and the difficulties of life. Many there were such as the masses who wanted Jesus to ‘feed them evermore of this bread’ (John 6:34). They did not really want a Messiah, but a meal ticket. It was only when the real reason for Christ’s coming was made clear that these hasty followers went away, never again to follow Jesus (John 6:60-66). It is only when ‘the heat is on’ that the sincerity of one’s profession can be known.

While the first kind of soil did not give the Word a moment’s thought, the second type of soil gave it only a moment’s thought and therefore misunderstood it. Thinking the life of a disciple to be easy and trouble-free, they quickly followed Jesus. As soon as they saw the full implications of discipleship, they withered up and withdrew. While the second soil fails to immediately grasp the implications of the gospel, the third kind of soil perceives the issues, grasps the implications of the gospel, and counts the cost too high.

The third type of ground is the crowded soil (verses 7,18,19). The seed is sown, but there are competing plants such as thistles and thorns. They take up the nutrition and sap the life from the grain. While the gospel is heard and grasped, so are its implications. Man cannot serve God and money. When the matter gets down to the hard choice of one master, God or money, money wins out. Such was the case with the rich young ruler. He heard the message, understood its implications and went away sad because the cost of discipleship was too high (Matthew 19:16-22, esp. verse 22).

The fourth type of ground was the fertile soil (verses 8,20). This soil was receptive to the seed and brought it to maturity and fruitfulness. It represents those whose hearts are truly receptive to the Word of God. They hear the gospel, understand it, count the cost, and intelligently determine to follow the path of faith and discipleship. These Christians are all fruitful, but to varying degrees (verse 20).

Now everyone always asks the question, “Which of the people represented by these four soils are truly saved?” My answer, of which I am fully convinced, is, only the fourth soil. Let me suggest several compelling arguments for my conclusion.

(1) We often err in trying to make the parable ‘walk on all fours.’ We mistakenly equate the germination of the seed with the conversion of the individual. This is neither necessary nor accurate in the case of this parable.

(2) While the word ‘receive’ is used with reference to the second type of soil (verse 16), it is a different (and weaker) word than that used of the fourth soil, ‘accept’ (verse 20). The word in verse 16 would best be translated ‘welcome.’ The word ‘accept’ of verse 20 is more emphatic, stressing the fact that the individual receives the Word by making it his own, possessing the truth by acting upon it in faith.⁵⁷

(3) Only the fourth type of soil actually bears fruit (cf. John 15:2,5), and yet the diversity in fruitfulness is sufficient to cover all Christians.

(4) The biblical illustrations of those in the first three categories are all identified as unbelievers in the Scriptures. The hardened scribes and Pharisees refused to believe (cf. Mark 2 and 3), so also those in John 6:60-66 were unbelievers. The rich young ruler, likewise, went away in unbelief.

(5) My final argument is by far the most compelling. The Greek text clearly sets the fourth kind of soil apart from the other three. Now here we must employ a very literal (and accurate) translation of the Greek text, the New American Standard Version. Other translations carelessly pass over the minute but crucial distinction in the original text. Notice that in verses 4,5, and 7 the little word ‘seed’ is supplied by the translators, as indicated by the fact that it is italicized. In each case, the word ‘seed’ is singular in the description of the first three soils. Now notice the fourth soil in verse 8. The word ‘seeds’ (plural) is supplied by the translators. This is a clue, given to us by the translators, that the pronoun referring to the first three soils differs from the pronoun referring to the fourth in that the pronoun used for the first three soils is singular, while the last is plural.

Now I can already hear the protests. Isn’t this rather thin evidence? Let us look, then, to our Lord’s interpretation of this parable in verses 14-20. Would a careful distinction of the fourth soil from the first three be very suggestive to us? I would hope so. And this is precisely what we find to be the case. In verses 15,16 and 18, the first three kinds of soil are referred to by the pronoun ‘these.’ Now look at verse 20, where we find the change to ‘those,’ revealing the fact that in the original text it is a different pronoun employed for the fourth soil. Our Lord carefully distinguished the first three soils from the fourth, I believe, because only the fourth soil represents true Christians.

Now I will not for one moment deny the fact that many applications of these soils to the Christian could be made, but this was not the intent of the Savior. His purpose was to explain why so many people could hear His preaching (and that of the disciples, or us) and not come to personal faith. The response of men to the gospel (humanly speaking) here is determined not by the potency of the seed or the persuasiveness of the sower, but by the receptivity of the heart of the hearer.

This parable, and its interpretation, is critical to our understanding of Christ’s use of the parabolic method of teaching. The condition of men’s hearts determines their response to the gospel of Jesus Christ. All those who heard the Word preached by the Lord would fall rather neatly into one of these categories. Into which of these categories do you fall, my friend?

The Principle Behind the Parable
(4:21-25)

While this parable helps to explain why so few actually come to faith in Christ, it does not yet relate directly enough to the disciples nor to us. All of this changes when the principle underlying the parable of the soils is expanded upon by the Master.

No doubt the disciples felt pretty smug hearing the Lord tell them that He was hiding His truth from the masses, while privately helping the disciples to understand it (verse 11). How cozy it is to be on the inside group, to have knowledge which is withheld from others. But knowledge brings with it responsibility, and this is what Jesus dwelt upon with His intimates.

God’s truth is not for the purpose of satisfying our curiosity, nor of filling our notebooks. God’s truth, though temporarily withheld from public proclamation, is shortly to be broadcast from the housetops (Luke 12:3). We do not light a lamp in order to hide that light (Mark 4:21). Neither does God reveal Himself and His truth so that men can keep it to themselves. Nothing which was then conveyed in secret was to stay that way for long (verse 22).

Let those who hear God’s Word listen carefully. In Jesus’ words: “If any man has ears to hear, let him hear” (Mark 4:23; also verse 9). Added knowledge brings added responsibility. Lest one pride himself in what he knows, let him be humbled by the responsibility which this knowledge has brought upon him. God’s truth was meant to be practiced and proclaimed. Not only must we proclaim what God has given to us, but we must put it to work in our own lives.

The principle behind this parable is this: “The truth you fail to use, you lose,” or “You only truly possess the truth you practice.” This is the meaning of our Lord when He said, “Take care what you listen to. By your standard of measure it shall be measured to you; and more shall be given you besides. For whoever has, to him shall more be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him” (Mark 4:24-25). Lest the disciples (or we) become proud over the knowledge we have, while others remain in ignorance, let us ponder the awesome obligation that falls upon us who know better.

The scribes and Pharisees heard the Word of the gospel from the lips of the Savior. They saw His attesting signs and wonders. And yet they rejected this revelation. On the basis of previous revelation, our Lord concealed further truth from them.

While the disciples might glory in the fact that they knew what others did not, they must also be humbled by the principle that God will reveal further truth only when that which we know has been implemented (or should we say, possessed) by practicing it.

Application

Historically, this parable and the principle behind it explains the change of course of our Lord. The gospel has been clearly proclaimed and blatantly rejected by the Jewish leadership. In order to conceal further truth yet unrevealed (‘mystery,’ verse 11), Jesus spoke publicly only by the use of parables. This concealed the truth from those who had rejected Jesus as the Messiah. And yet, on the same hand, the parables incited the curiosity of those who truly possessed the truths of God and desired to know more.

This was a major turning point in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. While Jesus initially presented Himself as Israel’s Messiah, the handwriting is already on the wall, just as God had purposed it. The nation will reject its Messiah. They will lift Him up on a cross, rather than upon a throne. By virtue of Messiah’s death, the forgiveness of men’s sins will be made possible. The change to teaching in parables signaled a crucial change in course purposed from eternity past. Henceforth, Jesus set His face toward Jerusalem to die on a cross. He spoke less frequently of the earthly Kingdom (and less publicly) and more of His atoning work upon the cross (cf. John 6). While the Kingdom was still future and still certain, it was a mystery to be misunderstood by many. It would come to pass only after atonement was made on the cross.

What implications this text has for those of us who are Christians. Those who may be so fortunate to be well-taught are obliged to practice what they know and also to proclaim it to others. To fail to do so is to nullify any benefit of biblical teaching, and to restrict additional biblical insight. What a sobering thought.

In the matter of evangelism we should consider several implications of this text. First of all, we should expect a variety of responses to the proclamation of the gospel. A failure to respond positively to the gospel is not a reflection on God’s Word, or necessarily upon His messenger. It is the condition of the soil which ultimately determines the response to the seed. If Christ had such a wide range of response, so should we.

Also, I believe that we should find here a word of caution to those who would proclaim the gospel in glittering generalities, suggesting that following Jesus guarantees the ‘good life,’ a life of freedom from the pressures and problems and pain. We must strive to make the issues clear to men. So, too, we should resist the temptation to press men, women and children to hasty decisions or professions of faith. It was those who were the first to cleave to Christ as His followers who were the first to leave. Let us refrain from hasty conversions.

---

47 James Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978), p. 167.

48 For further investigation consult Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972), pp. 147-174. Cf. also W. Graham Scroggie, A Guide to the Gospels (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.), pp. 482-486.

49 Mark’s account is paralleled by Matthew in chapter 13, and by Luke in chapter 8, verses 4-10.

50 The following chart is adapted from the self-study guide of Irving Jensen, The Life of Christ (Moody Bible Institute, 1969), p. 38. “Middle Galilean” indicates the approximate point in the ministry of Christ where the incident in Mark 4 took place.

PUBLIC MINISTRY
First Year		Second Year		Third Year
Obscurity		Popularity		Opposition
		14 months Extended Ministries
4 months Opening Events	8 months Early Ministries	Early Galilean	Middle Galilean	6 months Specialized Ministry	6 months Concluding Ministries

51 The Pharisees and the Herodians were about as different as night and day. While the Pharisees were the separatists, shunning all contact with the pagan government of home, the Herodians were those who decided to make the most of the situation by collaborating with Rome. In Matthew 22:15-16 we see their unholy alliance to execute Jesus as a common enemy.

52 This seems to me to be the force of the imperfect tense of the verb here (‘they were saying,’ Mark 3:22).

53 This passage deals with what has been called ‘the unpardonable sin.’ Much has been said about this sin, and there is considerable confusion. This sin was committed by unbelievers, and its result was that having committed this sin, their salvation was now impossible (Mark 3:29). The sin was that of blaspheming the Holy Spirit by attributing His power in the life and ministry of Christ to Beelzebub, the prince of demons. The unpardonable sin, then, is the sin of an unbeliever who attributes the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan, and thereby seals his own spiritual doom.

54 “It has been estimated that roughly one third of the recorded teaching of Jesus consists of parables and parabolic statements, and that there are some forty of the former and twenty of the latter (A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables 1960) 10ff.; ... In its broadest sense a parable is a form of speech used to illustrate and persuade by the help of a picture. In ancient writing, including the Bible, the use of figurative speech was widespread in giving concrete, pictorial and challenging expression to religious ideas for which there were no corresponding abstract concepts. Figurative speech is still part and parcel of every day life. On a philosophical and theoretical level religious language is interpreted in terms of abstractions and concepts relative to a contemporary world view. But this is merely to translate one set of thought forms from one conceptual scheme into those of another. In so doing care must be taken to avoid losing the original content of the picture and also the challenge which was an essential feature of the language. In discussing the character of the parable, scholars distinguish the parable proper from figurative language in general, Metaphors, similes and similitudes, parabolic stories, illustrative stories, and allegories.” Colin Brown, Ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), II, p. 743.

55 In addition to this, Matthew informs us that Christ’s speaking in parables was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 78:2: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world” (Matthew 13:35).

56 “The parable of the sower is faithful to the life situation of Palestinian agriculture, in which plowing follows sowing. The sower is not careless when he scatters the seed on the path or among the thorns or on ground which has no depth of soil. He does so intentionally, for the path on which the villagers have trodden over the stubble and the thorns which lie withered among the fallow ground will be plowed up to receive the seed. The seed that fell upon the rocky ground was scattered intentionally also, for the underlying limestone thinly covered with topsoil does not show above the surface until the plowing exposes it. The detail that plowing follows sowing is important for the correct interpretation of the parable; it serves to caution the interpreter that less attention is to be given to the various types of soils, and more to the central act of sowing. The feature of the parable which provides the key to its understanding is the act of sowing. This element is essential to the comparison being developed: the Kingdom of God breaks into the world even as seed which is sown upon the ground. In the details about the soils there is reflection on the diversity of response to the proclamation of the Word of God, but this is not the primary consideration. The central point concerns the coming of the Kingdom of God. God is in the center of the action.” William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 153-154.

57 The word translated ‘receive’ in verse 16 is the Greek term, lambano. In verse 20 the word translated ‘accept’ is paradekomai. Lambano seems to have the sense of ‘to welcome,’ while paradekomai seems to mean ‘to make one’s own,’ or ‘to possess.’ Both terms are capable of several definitions, and thus the context must indicate which definition is best.

Introduction

After my first year of seminary, I spent my summer vacation teaching psychology and world history in a medium security prison in Washington State. One of my fellow-teachers had a rather embarrassing experience. In his English classes, he used an individualized teaching program that employed tests which the student would correct himself. At the end of each class period the teacher would carefully check the materials to be sure that none of the test answer booklets were missing.

On one occasion he dismissed the class without his usual check. As the last student was walking out the door, it occurred to him that he had not counted the test answer books. Hurriedly, he made a tally and found, to his dismay, that one was missing. Frantically he tried to remember who might have last been using the answer book. One student came to his mind. Running out into the hall, he caught a glimpse of him and called for him to wait. As he approached the young prisoner, the teacher felt a surge of hope as the young man looked most uncomfortable at being stopped.

The young man earnestly pled to be allowed to go his way, or to at least be allowed to stop at the rest room, but the teacher, with hope ever increasing, led him to the shakedown room and called for a guard to assist in the search. When the prisoner was thoroughly searched, he was found to have a stolen set of test answers, not for the English class, but for the math class taught by an associate. Only when my colleague returned to his class did he discover that he had made a mistake and that the answer book he sought was merely misplaced in the classroom.

The moral to this story (if, indeed, it has one) is that one should be very careful in seeking the answers to certain questions. You may well receive answers that you didn’t expect.

The religious leaders learned this lesson the hard way. Having stood helplessly by while Jesus rode into Jerusalem as the King of Israel and when He cleansed the temple for the second time, they were forced to take aggressive action to put an end to His popularity and power. The ‘great debate’ was the scheme of a coalition of differing religious and political viewpoints to publicly embarrass Jesus by asking him for answers to seemingly unanswerable questions. These questions were calculated to have only two possible answers, either of which would cause Jesus to lose credibility and popularity. One example of the kind of questions He was asked might be, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” If I say yes, then I have admitted to doing so; if I say no, I confess to persisting at it. Either way, you see, I am caught in my own answer.

The religious leaders, like my teacher friend, sought the answers to their questions, but they never anticipated the answers they would receive. The result of the ‘great debate’ was the ridiculing laughter of the crowds and the public humiliation of the critics of our Lord. Their final response would no longer be with words of examination and debate but with works which resulted in execution and death.

Lest we approach this event merely as an exercise in historical study, let me suggest that there is much for us to learn here. The questions which our Lord was asked are the most important questions which any man will ever answer in life, and the answers which the Master gives are the key to life. Let us listen well to what He has said.

The Question of Jesus’ Authority
(11:27-33)

If there was one word which summarized the teaching of our Lord, it might well be authority (cf. Matthew 7:28-29). But where did Jesus receive this authority to act and teach as He did? This question is raised immediately after the triumphal entry and the temple cleansing. It may not have been as calculated as those occurring later. That is, I am not certain that it was necessarily a trick question, so much as a challenge to the authorization to teach and act as He did. Now if Jesus had made a clear public statement concerning His deity this may well have played into the hands of the opposition, who could accuse Him of outright blasphemy (as they later did, Luke 22:67-71; John 19:7).

The scribes and Pharisees had a rather well-defined process of ordination in the days of the Savior’s earthly ministry.⁷⁷ There is little question but what the religious elite regarded Jesus as little more than a ‘country boy,’ whose teaching was to be lightly regarded.

The question of authority is a crucial one, however, and cannot be brushed aside. The response of the Master is not an evasion of the question, but the exposure of the denial and rejection of those who were the leaders of the nation.

What might the Lord Jesus have answered in His defense? He could surely have claimed that His authority came from the Old Testament Scriptures, especially those which prophesied His first coming (John 5:39,46). The Father also had given witness to Jesus as His Son (John 8:16-18). If for no other reason men should listen because of His works (John 5:36). In what Jesus said and taught, there was intrinsic authority. Men could not disregard what He taught (cf. John 7:45-46).

The real issue was not really a lack of evidence which would accredit His authority, but a stubborn refusal to draw the conclusion which that evidence demanded. Because of this, Jesus sought to expose their willful rejection of the truth. This He did by posing a question to His opponents. “Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men? Answer Me” (Mark 11:30).

One of the primary witnesses to the identity and authority of Jesus was John the Baptist, who was sent to prepare the way for Messiah (cf. Mark 1:1-11). How did the chief priests, scribes and elders regard John and his claim? Did they accept his testimony?

The truth was they did not. But they were very discreet to keep their verdict to themselves, for they knew the masses accepted him as a messenger of God, a true prophet (Mark 11:32). If they parroted the position of the majority, then they would play into the hands of Jesus. If John were a prophet, indeed, then why did they not consider John’s testimony sufficient authority for Jesus’ teaching and ministry? If, on the other hand, they revealed their true appraisal of John (which probably was that he was some kind of religious ‘nut’) they would lose whatever esteem the multitudes had for them.

I marvel at the gospel accounts of the religious hierarchy’s private discussion, for not once did they consider the issue theologically (in terms of what the truth was), but only politically and pragmatically (what will the crowds think?). Their theology seemingly was only a facade, a high-sounding explanation for their moral wickedness.

The principle underlying the answer of our Lord to His critics is this: “Your response to the claims of Jesus is determined by your ultimate source of authority.”

The scribes and Pharisees considered themselves to be the ultimate authority. They were those who ordained and accredited religious leaders. They set aside scripture and made it subservient to their traditions (Matthew 15:6). They rejected the witness of the Law and the prophets. They refused to hearken to the preparatory announcement of John the Baptist. They made themselves the authority.

That, my friend, is precisely what men and women do today. The reason that many reject Jesus as their Messiah and Savior is that they place themselves above the authority of the Word of God. They trust in their own reasonings rather than in divine revelation. The fundamental question one must face in deciding about Jesus Christ is “What is my ultimate authority?” How sad it is that many spend more time and effort in choosing a laundry detergent (or a television) than in considering the claims made by the Scriptures concerning the Christ.

The Parable of the Vineyard
(12:1-12)

Mark informs us that Jesus’ response to the challenge of His authority consisted of a number of parables (Mark 12:1), of which Matthew records three. Mark preserves only one of these, but each of them displays the same truth from a slightly different perspective.

The parable of the vineyard dramatically depicts the willful rejection of Jesus as Messiah by the religious leaders of Israel. The backdrop to this parable, and the key to its interpretation is the analogy of Israel to a vineyard in the prophecy of Isaiah 5:1-7. The vineyard is the nation Israel and the owner is God the Father. The vine-growers to whom the vineyard had been rented were the religious leaders of the nation Israel. The slaves who were sent to the vine-growers to collect what was due the owner were the prophets, who were rejected by the nation throughout its history. The son of the owner is, of course, the Lord Jesus, God’s final messenger to the nation.

Seeking to take the property as their own,⁷⁸ they premeditated the death of the Son, thinking that in His absence, there would be no further interference with them. Matthew, in his account (21:40-41), indicates that this (perhaps rhetorical) question was answered by those who heard. Like David before Nathan, by their own lips they condemned themselves.

As the scribes and Pharisees quickly perceived (Mark 12:12), Jesus was not just spinning a yarn. He was still answering their challenge to His authority by this parable. They had refused to accept the credentials of Jesus, the fulfilled prophecies, the testimony of John, the accreditation of the words and works of Jesus. This rejection was, in and of itself, a witness to Jesus’ identity and authority, for the Scriptures had foretold of Messiah’s rejection by the religious leaders of the nation.

“Have you not even read this scripture: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the chief corner stone; this came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’” (Mark 12:10-11).⁷⁹

The stone, frequently regarded as a reference to Messiah in Jewish writings, was to be rejected.⁸⁰ The rejection of Jesus by the leaders of the nation was no shock, but simple fulfillment of Scripture. This rejection was no impulse or momentary decision; it was the final act of rebellion in a steady sequence of acts of disobedience and denial. Had they rejected Jesus’ authority? So they had refused John’s testimony? Had they disregarded John? So had all the prophets been ignored or ill-treated.

But not only does the quotation of Psalm 118:22-23 contain the element of fulfilled prophecy, it also includes unfulfilled prophecy—the promise of the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus after His death. The stone which was to be rejected by the builders was also destined to become the chief cornerstone. Would they put Messiah to death? God would raise Him from the dead and install Him as Israel’s King.

Here, then, is the answer of Jesus to the question of His authority. While they practiced human accreditation and ordination, they rejected divine authentication. Jesus would not reaffirm His authority because no matter how impressive or compelling it was, they would reject it. They had rejected John, as all the Old Testament prophets. This human rejection is not detrimental to the cause of Jesus the Messiah but is rather a declaration that the Old Testament prophecy of His rejection is fulfilled.

Man’s Obligation to His God and His Government
(12:13-17)

Now the fat is really in the fire. Though not intended to humiliate, Jesus’ defense has greatly angered His religious opponents. Would He make them look like fools before the people? Would He ask a question that they dare not answer? They would do so to Him, and more!

The public attack upon Jesus was well planned, I believe. It was the concerted effort of several distinct (and opposing) segments of Israel’s religious and political leadership. They strike with a barrage of verbal attacks, each following upon one another like waves against a rock. Each attack is couched in the form of a smashing question, seemingly innocent and innocuous, but carefully put so as to give the Lord Jesus only two possible answers, either of which would prove devastating. The order in which these questions have been recorded may also be significant.⁸¹

Strange bedfellows, these Pharisees and Herodians! The Pharisees were the purists, who wanted to stand aloof as much as possible from the contamination of Roman rule. The Herodians, on the other hand, seem to have determined to make the most of the situation. Nevertheless their common hatred of Jesus outweighed their dislike for one another.

The question was a simple one: “Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” (Mark 12:14b). Taxes were no more popular in Jesus’ day than they are today. In those times there were both religious and political taxes, which could amount to as much as 40% of one’s income.⁸² Essentially there were three taxes imposed by the Roman government. The tax here in question is the poll tax.⁸³ Not more than 25 years previous to this, a revolt had taken place over this very question. Out of this insurrection, one party of the Zealots had been born.⁸⁴

No one likes to pay taxes, but the issue was not just a political issue. The coin typically used to pay the poll-tax was the denarius. This small silver coin “portrayed the emperor as the semi-divine son of the god Augustus and the goddess Livia and bore the (abbreviated) inscription “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus’ on the obverse and ‘Pontifex Maximus’ on the reverse. Both the representations and inscriptions were rooted in the imperial cult and constituted a claim to divine honors.”⁸⁵ One could easily conceive of tax paying with such coins a religious sacrilege.

This question was not posed out of genuine concern for spiritual purity, but as a trap by which to discredit Jesus. It was an act of hypocrisy (Mark 12:15). This was evident by the words of flattery which introduced the question. In effect the questioners said, “We know that you are a man who says what he thinks, who lets the chips fall where they may.” Thus they are encouraging Jesus to speak freely, even if the matter was controversial. They encouraged a hasty and careless reply.

When I was considerably younger, I supported Senator Barry Goldwater in his bid for the presidency in 1964. 1 was the only school teacher in the entire faculty parking lot with a Goldwater bumper sticker. I can still remember my embarrassment at the answers he gave the press on crucial issues. I finally removed my bumper sticker. That is the kind of thing the would-be seekers of the truth hoped for from Jesus, but it didn’t work.

It may well be that when Jesus asked for a denarius and it was presented the battle was partially won, for if having such a coin was a sacrilege, why did they have one in their possession? The Savior then asked whose name was on the coin. “Caesar’s,” they replied. The inference was then drawn. If Caesar minted the coins, if they bear his image, then they must ultimately belong to him. One does not do wrong in giving to another what rightfully belongs to him.⁸⁶

Here, then, is the principle regulating one’s responsibilities to God and government: “‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). Government is not intrinsically opposed to God. Indeed the epistles inform us that government is a servant of God to punish evil-doers and to reward those who do what is right (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17, etc.). The many benefits of Roman rule must be paid for, and taxation is a means of doing this.

The answer to the question is a limited ‘yes,’ but it must be qualified. It is good and right to give to Caesar that which rightfully belongs to him. But this suggests that there is a sphere of rightful claim as well as a sphere in which he has no claim at all. If you would, our Lord is laying down, in part, the principle of separation of church (or religion) and state (or government). Each has its rightful place. To render to Rome its due is to also serve God. But Rome has no rights in certain areas.

Government, in my opinion, has no right either to establish and support religious endeavors, nor to restrict and prohibit them. In principle, I believe that the church has the right to operate schools and children’s homes without governmental harassment. When a country like Sweden can pass a law that a parent cannot spank their child I believe they have gone beyond their rightful authority. Where this line is to be drawn is the individual decision of every Christian. The principle of our Lord is timeless and universal. Its application is the responsibility of each Christian.

Note also that our Lord carefully distinguished between God and government. In Rome this distinction was clouded by claims to deity by Roman emperors. Such claims were carefully and discretely denied by the Master. I believe that Communism in our day in effect deifies government, making it the highest and ultimate good, and man its virtual slave. We must distinguish between God and government. They are distinct and each has its rightful role to play. Each has its rightful claim on men. Perhaps I should go on to say that whenever the demands of God and government clash, we must obey God, rather than men (Acts 5:29).

The Question Concerning Life After Death
(12:18-27)

The Pharisees and Herodians having utterly failed at their mission of humiliating Jesus, the Sadducees⁸⁷ make their bid in verses 18-27. The issue here is that of life after death. The Sadducees were the religious liberals of their day, believing neither in resurrection or angels. They tended also to reject the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament books other than the five books of the Law. Their approach was to discredit Jesus by posing a ludicrous hypothetical situation based upon the overly physical and materialistic interpretation of the Scriptures and the injunction of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

The hypothetical question is based upon two premises. First, that men will be raised from the dead. (Remember that the Sadduccees didn’t believe this, verse 18.) The second was that the necessity of levirate marriage was still binding. (This, too, had largely been explained away by contemporary Judaism.)⁸⁸ It is little wonder that the Sadducees could not accept the proofs posited for the resurrection of men by the Pharisees, for they were, indeed, difficult to defend.⁸⁹

With tongue in cheek, the Sadducees posited a hypothetical dilemma. A woman by levirate marriage was married to seven husbands, but bore children by none.⁹⁰ Whose wife would this woman be in the resurrection? Jesus’ response was that both the Sadducees and the Pharisees were greatly in error, as revealed by such a question (verse 24). There were two fundamental misconceptions which must be corrected.

The first error was concerning their understanding of Scriptures. The Pharisees viewed life in the resurrection as virtually a continuation of things as they presently are. While the Pharisees were correct in their conviction that men would rise from the dead,⁹¹ they were very wrong in their estimations of what this life would be like. There would be no need of physical procreation, and therefore, no need for marriage as a means of child-bearing. To be ‘like the angels’ does not necessarily mean to be sexless (cf. Genesis 6:1-2; 19:1-11), but rather not to be in need of earthly relationships or in institutions such as marriage.

The problem of the Pharisees was too earthly a view of heaven. The error of the Sadducees was a failure to believe in the power of God, as disclosed by their disdain of the Supernatural, and, in particular, the resurrection of the dead. While the Pharisees had been ineffective in their efforts to biblically defend the resurrection from the Old Testament, our Lord beautifully expounded it from a portion of the books of the Law (which the Pharisees held to be authoritative).

In Exodus chapter three, God had said, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

Even when God made this statement Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead. How could God be the God of dead men? God had made specific promises to these men which, until the present, have not been fulfilled. No self-respecting Jew could believe this statement, regarded as one of the cornerstones of the Jewish faith, without grasping the implications it had toward the resurrection of the dead. By their rejection of the doctrine of the resurrection the Sadducees greatly erred and failed to grasp the power of God, the power over death and the grave.

Here is a truth fundamental to all men concerning life after death. All men will be raised from the dead; some to everlasting life, and others to everlasting torment (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; Revelation 20:4-15). The nature of our resurrection life has not been (and, in fact, cannot be) fully defined, but we are safe in assuming that it will not be a mere continuation of life as we presently know it.

The Greatest Commandment
(12:28-34)

It would seem that there was one exception to the rule of rejection by the religious leaders confronting our Lord. Almost in spite of himself he applauds the wisdom of Jesus’ reply. This, in turn, evokes a question, although perhaps initially intended as a test (Matthew 22:35), it results in a positive influence upon this student of Scripture.

The Jews loved to discuss which parts of the Law were weightier than others.⁹² This may have suggested another question to this lawyer, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” (Mark 12:23). Jesus began with the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, followed by the commandment to love God with all your heart, self, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. If the whole Old Testament Law were to be condensed to its simplest terms, this is what it must be.

The lawyer could not help himself. What Jesus replied could not have been said better. While this scribe agreed with our Lord’s statement, I cannot help but get the impression that this religious authority is giving his approval as a superior to an inferior, such as a professor would respond to one of his students. He virtually repeats Jesus’ words with a few additional comments. While he has accepted the truth of His teaching, he has not yet acknowledged His sovereign authority, otherwise he should have fallen at the feet of Jesus.

The answer of the Savior must have been shocking. If the scribe had commended Jesus with an evaluation roughly equivalent to ‘not bad, not bad at all,’ Jesus appraises this man’s position as ‘not far from the Kingdom’ (Mark 12:34). That is tantamount to saying to a man like Billy Graham, “That was a fairly good sermon,” or to John Calvin, “Your theology is coming right along, so stay with it.” If the best word Jesus can give to this somewhat receptive scribe is ‘not far,’ what can His evaluation of the rest be? Matthew chapter 23 tells us, with these words no one else dared to ask anything further (Mark 12:34).

The Meaning of Messiah
(12:35-37)

But Jesus was not quite finished. He had been asked many difficult questions; now it was His turn to ask one final question,⁹³ for it was on this one final question that the whole issue hinged: “How can Messiah be both David’s son and David’s Lord?” That the Messiah would be the ‘Son of David’ was nearly universally accepted in Judaism.⁹⁴ From this supposition it was easy to regard Messiah as a man, a mere man, and one who would be a military leader like His father, David.

Jesus had claimed to be more than man. His authority was not that of men, but of God. The religious leaders could not tolerate Jesus largely because He claimed to be more than a mere man. This was the bone of contention underlying all of the questions of the day. Jesus would not depart from His interrogators until the real issue was clearly in view.

The Messiah was to be the seed of David. This was without dispute. It was also widely held that Psalm 110:1 was a Messianic Psalm. How could David refer to the Messiah as his son on the one hand, and his Lord on the other? Here was a real dilemma. Here was a question for His questioners to ponder. For in the answer to this question is the key to the identity and authority of Jesus. Jesus was, at one and the same time, the Son of David and the Son of God. He was the God-man. This is where He derived His authority. And this is what the religious leaders refused to acknowledge.

Many today, like those in Jesus’ day, were willing to accept Jesus as a good man, an impressive teacher, a noble example for men to follow. But they stop short at the crucial point of His divinity. This is what sets Him apart from all men, and what qualified Him to be the Savior of the world.

Conclusion

The historical implications of the great debate are unmistakable. This is the last verbal confrontation between Jesus and His opponents. They have tried to resist Him with words, now their last hope is some kind of quiet arrest and execution. In this final debate, all of the most powerful and influential segments of Jewish religious and political life have formed a coalition of conspiracy against the Messiah.

While the Lord Jesus did not deliberately or with malice seek to make the religious elite look like fools, it could not be avoided. While they tried to humiliate Him with debating tactics, He confronted them with the truth. In their blind rejection of Him as Messiah, they could not see the futility of their efforts, nor the fact that all the while the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Christ were being fulfilled. From here on, there is no turning back for the nation and its leaders. Their course is set on the cross.

In addition to its historical significance this text has a great deal to say to men today. It is noteworthy to observe that the entire section can be summarized by a question mark. The entire debate centers around crucial or critical questions.

I would like to suggest that questions can often be an indication of unbelief and rebellion. Questions frequently disclose an argumentative spirit. The book of Malachi illustrates the same kind of stubborn independence as was shown by the religious leaders (cf. 1:2,6; 2:14, etc.). Job revealed a rebellious and unsubmissive spirit when he began to question God’s working in his life, and for this he was rebuked.

Besides being an indication of our own rebelliousness or unbelief, questions are also one of Satan’s most effective means of destroying the faith of men. It is no surprise that the fall of Adam (and, thus, of all mankind) began with a question, a challenge to the goodness of God (cf. Genesis 3:1).

Over and over young Christians have floundered in their faith due to the scoffing questions posed by an arrogant and unbelieving professor. And one reason why questions prove so effective is that the scoffer does not have to have any answers of his own; he need only be skilled with his questions. This is probably part of the reason why the Lord Jesus turned the question of His authority back to His interrogators. They had many questions, but one’s authority should never be based upon his ability to ask, but rather to answer the basic questions of life.

There are two particularly destructive types of question which are employed in this portion of Scripture. The first type of question is purely hypothetical. Such is the case of the question about marriage in the life after death. Remember that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, yet their whole question hangs upon its premise. So also was the possibility that a woman could be married to seven brothers, all of whom died without a son.

Hypothetical questions are the favorite food of the situationalist. He will pose a question in which only two alternatives are possible, both of which are sin. It would appear that the Christian must sin, taking the ‘lesser of two evils.’ This is an absolute denial of 1 Corinthians 10:13: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.”

The Bible tells us that God never puts us in a position where we must sin. The situationalist poses questions about situations in which sin seems unavoidable, but remember that these ‘situations’ are always hypothetical, and so they must be according to God’s Word. Unbelievers and skeptics love hypothetical questions because they ‘tempt’ the Christian to anticipate his actions in circumstances which God has promised we will never be found.

The second type of question which is employed here is that of asking a question but limiting the answers to two, both of which are wrong.⁹⁵ “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” There is only a yes or no answer allowed, and both answers might well be wrong. I greatly respect those who hold a strongly Calvinistic understanding of the Scriptures. While I do not fully agree with those who tell us that the only purpose of Christ’s death was to accomplish the salvation of the elect,⁹⁶ I disagree strongly with the kind of question which is often raised to support their view of the atonement: “For whom did Christ die: To make all men savable, or to save the elect?” Such a question in my opinion does not do justice to those who hold this doctrinal position. One need not resort to debating type tactics to prove one’s doctrinal position. Let us ask the question, “For whom did Christ die?” and then let the Scriptures answer as they will. We need not restrict the answers to our questions.

It is interesting to note that in our world, our entire reasoning process is founded upon the question. This is the scientific method. The difficulty is that such a mentality can never accept a question as authoritatively answered. No wonder we live in a day of skeptics and agnostics. It is the spirit of our age. Beware of questions!⁹⁷

In this questioning age, even though the questions may be asked by scoffers (as they were asked of Jesus), let us always be ready to give a reasoned answer, “… always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15). As we give answers to the questions let us remember that even though we perfectly answer, convincing and converting men is God’s work at His discretion. Even the Lord did not convince His enemies.

Finally, let me say that while the motives of our Lord’s interrogators were wrong, and their methods despicable, nevertheless their questions touched upon the greatest issues of their day and ours: the source of our authority, the responsibility of men to God and government (we call it separation of church and state), the question of life after death, and the matter of Christ’s deity and humanity. These are the great questions of our day, and our Lord had answered them well. His answers may not be sufficient for the critic, but they are enough for the Christian.

---

77 “But authoritatively to teach, required other warrant. In fact there was regular ordination (Semikhah) to the office of Rabbi, Elder, and Judge, for the three functions were combined in one. According to the Mishnah, the ‘disciples’ sat before the Sanhedrin in three rows, the members of the Sanhedrin being recruited successively from the front-rank of the Scholars. At first the practice is said to have been for every Rabbi to accredit his own disciples. But afterwards this right was transferred to the Sanhedrin, with the proviso that this body might not ordain without the consent of its Chief, though the latter might do so without consent of the Sanhedrin. But this privilege was afterwards withdrawn on account of abuses. Although we have not any description of the earliest mode of ordination, the very name—Semikhah—implies the imposition of hands. Again, in the oldest record, reaching up, no doubt, to the time of Christ, the presence of at least three ordained persons was required for ordination. At a later period, the presence of an ordained Rabbi, with the assessorship of two others, even if unordained, was deemed sufficient. In the course of time certain formalities were added. The person to be ordained had to deliver a Discourse; hymns and poems were recited; the title ‘Rabbi’ was formally bestowed on the candidate, and authority given him to teach and to act as Judge (to bind and loose, to declare guilty or free). Nay, there seem to have been even different orders, according to the authority bestowed on the person ordained. The formula in bestowing full orders was: ‘Let him teach; let him teach; let him judge; let him decide on questions of first-born; let him decide; let him judge!’ At one time it was held that ordination could only take place in the Holy Land. Those who went abroad took with them their ‘letters of orders.’” Alford Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), II, p. 382.

78 Here, as I understand it, the Lord is speaking of the religious leaders’ desperate attempt to maintain their position of prestige and power in the face of the challenge put to them by Jesus. It looked as if all Israel were about to follow Jesus (John 11:47-48; 12:19). They must be rid of Jesus to regain their dominant role in Jewish society.

79 It is hard to know to what extent the religious leaders grasped the implications of this statement. Nothing could be more abhorent to a devout son of Israel than the thought of Jewish blessings being given to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 22:21-22).

80 “In rabbinic literature the rejected stone of Ps. 118:22 was understood with reference to Abraham, David, or the Messiah, while the expression ‘the builders’ was sometimes used of the doctors of the Law.” William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 420.

81 “D. Daube, however, has suggested that the four accounts which follow show an awareness of the traditional structure of the early Passover liturgy. The sequence of questions proposed corresponds to four types of questions recognized by the rabbis: questions of wisdom, which concern a point of law (cf. Ch. 12:13-17); of mockery, which frequently bear on the resurrection (cf. Ch. 12:18-27); of conduct, which center in relationship to God and men (cf. Ch. 12:28-34); and of biblical exegesis, which often concern the resolving of an apparent contradiction between two passages of Scripture (cf. Ch. 12:35-37). It is only in the Passover eve liturgy that the four types of questions appear in this particular order, and there the first three questions are posed by a wise son, a wicked son and a son of simple piety. The fourth is posed by the head of the family himself. This arrangement sheds light on the sequence of questions in Ch. 12:13-37.” Ibid., p. 421.

82 “To the psychological and ideological irritant of Roman rule must be added the much more practical grievance of Roman economic policy. The Jews had their own temple tax and other religious dues to pay, but the pax Romana was not a free gift either. There were dues on land and cattle, duties on trade and transport of goods, but above all a considerable poll-tax, rigorously enforced through periodic censuses, which was a perennial cause of unrest. It has been calculated that the total taxation, Jewish and Roman together, may have exceeded 40% of an ordinary man’s income.” R. T. France, I Came to Set the Earth on Fire (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), pp. 19-20.

83 “There were, in fact, three regular taxes which the Roman government exacted. There was a ground tax; a man must pay to the government one tenth of the grain; and one fifth of the oil and wine which he produced; this tax was paid partly in kind, and partly in a money equivalent. There was income tax, which was one per cent of a man’s income. There was a poll tax; this tax had to be paid by every male person from the age of fourteeen to the age of sixty-five, and by every female person from the age of twelve to sixty-five; it amounted to one denarius—that is what Jesus called the tribute coin—and was the equivalent of about ninepence, a sum which is to be evaluated in the memory that eightpence was the usual day’s wage for a working-man. The tax in question here is the poll tax.” William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew (Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1963), II, pp. 300-301.

84 “After A.D. 6, when Archelaus was deposed from his rule and Idumaea, Samaria and Judaea became Roman provinces under a procurator Caesaris, this tax was levied on the Jews (cf. Rawlinson, St. Mark, in loc.) The tax was extremely unpopular, and when it was levied the first time provoked the rebellion of Judas the Galilean (cf. Acts v. 37 and Josephus, Antiquities, xviii, I,I). The rebellion was suppressed, but the ideas for which Judas died continued to live, especially among the zealots. These extremists (who had tremndous influence among the whole nation) regarded the payment of the tribute as a punishable national infidelity towards God and ascribed all the misery of their country and people to this. Their view was that the Roman yoke should be thrown off by force of arms. Among the masses, however (probably through the influence of the Pharisees), the current view was that God would Himself remove the foreign overlordship and would do so through the actions of the Messiah (cf. Friedrich Hauch in loc., and also Rengstorf and Buchsel, in loc.).” Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), pp. 506-507.

85 Lane, Mark, p. 424. It should be stressed, however, that contrary to Lane’s statement that this was the only coin accepted for payment of taxes (p. 424), this was not necessarily the case.

“Herod had never had the right to strike silver coins. The Romans reserved this privilege for themselves. For current use they struck bronze coins, and to spare the scruples of the Jews at seeing human portraits which had for them an idolatrous savour, these little local coins had emblems imprinted on them from the world of nature, ears of corn, palms, vine-leaves, or other objects. But the denarii, Roman money ‘par excellence,’ bore the emporer’s portrait” (cf. Luce, in loc.).” Geldenhuys, Luke, p. 507, fn. 8.

86 “This fact proved that they tacitly accepted Caesar’s rule, for “it was regarded as a generally acknowledged principle that a king’s domain extended as far as the limits within which his coins were valid” (Strack-Billerbeck, das Evangelium nach Matthaus, p. 884). See also Fr. Hauch, in loc, and cf. the words of the Jewish scholar Maimonides: “Wherever the coinage of any king is current, there the inhabitants acknowledge that king as their ruler” (cf. Godet, in loc.).” Ibid., fn. 9.

87 “The Sadducees were the priestly aristocracy among the Jews by whom the political life of the people was largely controlled from the time of Alexander the Great onwards. They tried to live in close contact with the Roman rulers after 63 B.C. so that they might as far as possible promote the secular interests of their people. Consequently they took little interest in religious matters and in many respects clashed with the Pharisees, especially as regards the Pharisees’ attachment to the “traditions of the elders” which made Jewish religious life so intricate. Everything which, according to their views, was not taught by “the Law of Moses” (the first five books of the Old Testament) was rejected by the Sadducees as forbidden innovations. So, as the Jewish scholar Montefiore puts it: “They were in a sense conservative. The letter of the Law was enough for them; they did not want the developments of the rabbis. In doctrine, too, they were against innovation. … Many of these priests, and many of the nobles and ‘rulers,’ possessed, I should think, but a very formal and outward religion. We may compare them with many of the bishops, barons and rulers of the middle ages” (Synoptic Gospels part i. p. 102).” Ibid., p. 513, fn. 1.

88 Cf. Edersheim, Life and Times, II, p. 400.

89 “The Sadducees insisted that the doctrine of life after death could not be proved from the Pentateuch. The Pharisees said that it could be so proved. It is interesting to look at the proofs which the Pharisees adduced. The Pharisees cited Numbers 18:28 which says, “Ye shall give thereof the Lord’s heave-offering to Aaron the priest.” That is a permanent regulation; the verb is in the present tense; therefore Aaron is still alive! They cited Deuteronomy 31:16: “This people shall rise up,” a peculiarly unconvincing citation for the second half of the verse goes on, “and go a-whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land”! They cited Deuteronomy 32:39: “I kill and I make alive.” Outside the Pentateuch they cited Isaiah 26:19: “Thy dead men shall live.” They cited the Song of Solomon 7:9 which speaks of “causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.” It cannot be said that any of the citations of the Pharisees are really convincing; and no real argument for the resurrection of the dead had ever been produced from the Pentateuch.” Barclay, Matthew, II, pp. 304-305.

90 “The story may have been adapted from a popular version of the book of Tobit (for a woman married to seven husbands, all of whom died childless, cf. Tobit 3:8,15; 6:13; 7:11; for levirate marriage, cf. Tobit 4:12; 6:9-12; 7:12f.).” Lane, Mark, p. 427.

91 “A firm belief in the resurrection was an integral element in popular Jewish piety as expressed in the second benediction of the Shemoneh ‘Esreh’ (“Blessed be thou, O Lord, who raises the dead”) or in the doxology to be pronounced in a cemetery, “He will cause you to arise. Blessed be he who keeps his word and raises the dead!” (Tos. Berachoth VII, 5.).” Ibid.

92 “The Scribes had declared that there were six hundred and thirteen comandments: two hundred forty-eight affirmative precepts—as many as the members of the human body—and three hundred sixty-five negative, as many as the days of the year (Vincent). There was a great discussion between the opposing theological schools of Shamai and Hillel as to which were the “light” and which were the “heavy” commandments. They discussed the distinction between the ritual and the ethical, or the positive and the moral, the prevalent tendency being to attach more importance and greater weight to the positive commandments relating to circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and other ritual requirements (Lightfoot). The result was the “exaltation of the ceremonial element, the curse of later Judaism.’’ The words of the Rabbis were to be prized above the words of the Law. It was commonly agreed that the positive commandments about the minutest details of the ceremonial law were as binding as the fundamental moral code. The heavy commandments were the ones to which the death penalty was attached, such as the Sabbath-keeping laws, sacrifices, and purifications. If the Pharisees could get Jesus entangled in the web of current theological, hair-spliting controversy, they would bring the unlettered Nazarene Rabbi into disrepute. They hoped He would take the fatal step of asserting again His divine supremacy. This would precipitate a reaction of violence against Him such as had almost swept Him away on various previous occasions.” J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), pp. 501-502.

93 “Among the scribes this would be recognized as a Haggada-question, a question of exegesis concerned with the reconciliation of two seemingly contradictory points of view expressed in Scripture. The unity of different biblical passages was stressed by demonstrating their harmony, which depends upon bringing them into a correct relationship to each other. In a Haggada-question it is shown that two affirmations are true, but each is concerned with a different situation or a different epoch. Jesus, then, posed the question how the Davidic descent of the Messiah (which is attested by the Scripture) is to be harmonized with the equally supported affirmation that the Messiah is David’s Lord.” Lane, Mark, p. 436.

94 “Popular hopes, heightened by the celebration of redemption in the festival season, found expression in the pilgrim chant, “Blessed be the kingdom of our father David which is coming” (Ch. 11:10). The conviction that national deliverance would be achieved under Davidic leadership was an integral element of both scribal and sectarian piety, and the matter of the fulfilment of the divine promise to David (2 Sam. 7:11-16) was in the air. The Davidic sonship of the Messiah was a scribal tenet firmly grounded in the old prophetic literature (Isa. 9:2-7; 11:1-9; Jer. 23:5f.; 30:9; 33:15,17,22; Ezek. 34:23f.; 37:24; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11). Although the precise terminology “son of David” is not attested until the middle of the first century B.C. (Pa. Sol. 17:23), the designation soon became common for the messianic deliverer among early Palestinian teachers.” Lane, Mark, p. 435.

95 This method must be distinguished from that of the Savior in Mark 11:30, for in His question one answer was right and the other wrong.

96 My understanding of the doctrine of the atonement is that Christ died to save only the elect, not that Christ died only to save the elect. This is a very fine distinction. By it I mean that Christ died to pay the price for the sins of the whole world, and in this sense He is the Savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:1). In the broadest sense, Christ’s death had a universal scope in that it paid the penalty of all men’s sins. However men’s sins are forgiven on the condition that the price is paid (which it is) and on the basis that men turn to God in faith for the benefits of the work accomplished by Christ. Only those who are the elect will turn to Christ as Savior. In the mind of God then the death of Christ from eternity past was purposed to pay the price for all men’s sins but to actually save only the elect. The best analogy is that parable recorded by Matthew (13:45-46) wherein the man finds a pearl of great value in the field. He purchased the field in order to possess the pearl. So, also, Christ died for the whole world to save the elect. We do no injustice to the sovereignty of God to acknowledoe both truths. Yet the most rigid Calvinists maintain that He either died for all men or just the elect. Christ did not die to save all men; He died to save the elect. But He died to pay the penalty of sin for all men.

97 By this I do not mean that we should not have an inquiring and critical thinking. We should leave our theology open to refinement and revision, but we must be able to say, “This one thing I know.” There are verities and certainties which constitute the foundation of our faith (cf. 1 Corinthians 15). Let us not be like those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

Introduction

Those of you who know me rather well realize that I am, at heart and in fact, a country boy. Well, I had a rather embarrassing thing happen to me while I was driving through some cattle country in east Texas a few weeks ago. I saw an animal standing by a water tank, but I could not tell for certain whether it was a horse or a cow. You must believe that this is normally not a difficult decision for me. Since I was driving with a fellow even older and wiser in the ways of rural life, I asked him what it was. With a glitter in his eye, he responded, “Well, I’d guess that it was about the longest-necked cow I ever did see, but if you told me it was a big-bellied horse I shore wouldn’t call you a liar!” Regardless of what you might be thinking, that animal had what seemed to be the characteristics of both a cow and a horse.

I know you are beginning to wonder what all of this has to do with the biblical account of the Last Supper, recorded in the gospel of Luke, chapter 22. Quite frankly, it is a problem similar to that which I faced with that animal standing by that water tank. The Last Supper is a kind of hybrid, a mixture of an Old Testament Passover celebration, along with the institution of a New Testament Lord’s Table (or communion) celebration.

An accurate exposition of this passage is crucial to us for several reasons. First of all it deals with one of the two ordinances of the church established by our Lord. If this celebration described in Luke 22 is not a typical observance of the Lord’s table (as I will endeavor to prove), then we are in danger of error when we use it as a pattern for our communion remembrances today.

Also, this passage is the source of three difficult problems to which the careful student of Scripture should have some kind of answer.

The first major problem which we face in this passage is a textual one.¹¹⁶ One of the Greek manuscripts omits the last half of verse 19 and all of verse 20. It would appear that this deletion was an attempt to solve the problem raised by the reference to two different cups of wine in the passage. Such a change in the text seems completely unnecessary to me.

The second problem is one of harmony and chronology.¹¹⁷ It hinges on an apparent discrepancy between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the gospel of John. It is a significant problem because of its implications, first with regard to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, then for the interpretation of the Last Supper, and finally for a determination of the day on which our Lord was put to death. A casual reading of the synoptic gospels would seem to indicate that Jesus observed the Passover with His disciples, while John’s account would have Him put to death before its enactment (cf. John 18:28). While the explanations of this problem may differ, conservative scholars would agree that there is a solution.

The third problem relates to the great controversy over the precise meaning of the words of Jesus, “This is My body.” Roman Catholicism believes that each remembrance of the Lord’s death is a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ, and that the elements actually become the literal flesh and blood of the Savior.¹¹⁸ Others hold that while such a miraculous transformation is not necessary, the Lord is somehow present with, but not in, the elements as they are partaken.¹¹⁹ In either of these cases, the observance is regarded as a sacrament, the actual conveyance of grace to the participant. The preferable interpretation, that this is the symbolic remembrance of our Lord’s death, avoids this error, while stressing the significance and symbolic meaning of this ordinance.¹²⁰

It should be safe to assume that this event of the Last Supper is significant for every Christian to rightly understand and apply.

The Setting of the Last Supper

It is very difficult for the western mind to grasp what took place on this night without considerable preparation of mind. There is little in our own culture and experience that we can relate to this event. We shall assume, on much evidence, that this meal was, indeed, a Passover celebration.¹²¹

The Passover feast commenced the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which was a week-long celebration. Preparations for the Passover meal began on Thursday morning with a diligent search for any leaven which might be in the house. Leaven was not to be used in the bread which was baked in preparation for the original exodus from Egypt because there would not be time to bake bread that would have to rise (Exodus 12:34). Also, leaven was a symbol of evil, and was therefore not to be present (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8).

Also, on Thursday morning the unleavened bread would be prepared for the feast. In the afternoon, the Passover lamb would be taken to the temple and slain. After sunset the actual Passover meal was observed. Normally, this was a family gathering, with not less than ten, nor usually more than twenty at the table.

The Passover liturgy related to the meal as it was observed in the days of our Lord has been preserved:

“(1) Preliminary course. The head of the household pronounced the prayer of sanctification (qiddus), comprising the benediction for the festival and the first cup (the qiddus cup). The preliminary course (karpas), consisting of green herbs, bitter herbs and a sauce of fruit juice was eaten without bread. The meal was brought in but not yet eaten, the second cup was mixed with water and placed on the table, but not yet drunk.

(2) The Passover liturgy. The Passover service, in which the head of the household explained the special features of the Passover meal (Exod. 12:26) and proclaimed the outline of the story, the haggadah; the first part of the Passover Hallel (Psa. 113f.) was sung and the second cup (haggadah cup) was drunk.

(3) The main meal. The head of the household pronounced a benediction over the unleavened bread, which was distributed and the meal eaten which consisted of the Passover Lamb, mazzoth, bitter herbs (Exod. 12:8) and wine (optional). After grace the third cup (cup of blessing) was drunk.

(4) Conclusion. The second part of the Hallel (Pss. 115-118) was sung and a benediction pronounced over the fourth cup (Hallel cup).” ¹²²

The biblical text gives us other significant backdrop to the Last Supper. In verses 7-13 Luke told of the preparations that were made for the supper. It is obvious that the location and details of the Last Supper were a closely guarded secret. The disciples did not know where the Passover was to be held nor what preparations had been made. Luke alone tells us that Peter and John (two of the most intimate of the disciples) were sent to handle the preparations. They were not told the location of the house¹²³ where they were to gather, but were to discern that by a set of circumstances, all of which were out of the ordinary. They would see a man carrying a clay water vessel. This was unusual because normally these pots were borne by the women, while men carried water in skins. When they followed this man to his destination they were to ask the owner of the house for a room for the Teacher to use to keep the Passover (verse 11). He would then show them where they were to make their preparations.

All of this shroud of secrecy was on account of Judas, who had already agreed to betray the whereabouts of the Lord, and who waited for an opportune time, out of the sight of the crowds (verses 3-6). So far as Judas was concerned there would have been no better time than during the meal itself. Jesus carefully removed this option by keeping Judas ‘in the dark’ until it was too late for him to notify the officials as to their exact place of meeting. Judas, you will recall (John 13:27-30), left sometime during the meal to disclose the location where Jesus could be apprehended. I suspect that he led the temple guard first to the upper room, and, then, finding Him already gone, began to search for Him at some of His most frequently used places of refuge and privacy.

John includes the account of the washing of the feet of the disciples by our Lord (John 13:1-11). It was customary for the feet of the guests of a house to be washed as they entered. This would usually be done by the lowest slave. When the disciples entered the upper room it seems as though no one saw the basin and the water and towel waiting at the entrance to the upper room. Personally, I suspect that they were all too preoccupied with their efforts to be seated in the place of honor at the table. We do know that there was a spirit of self-assertion and the disciples, at this very meal, disputed over who was regarded as the greatest (verse 24).

Early in the Passover observance,¹²⁴ Jesus removed his garments, girded Himself with a towel, and began to wash the feet of the disciples. It is probable that He began with Peter, who seems to have been reclining across from Jesus at the end of the table. Peter absolutely recoiled at the implications of this action by His Lord. They may have been wrong to have failed to wash one another’s feet, but Peter was not about to allow Jesus to undertake such a humble task.

What seemed such a magnanimous reticence and refusal on Peter’s part was met with a strong rebuke, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me” (John 13:8). Peter failed to grasp the fact that this matter of footwashing by our Lord symbolized the underlying purpose and spirit of our Lord’s coming. Jesus came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). In the laying aside of His garments and assuming the role and work of a slave, Jesus beautifully portrayed what has been called the ‘kenosis’ (emptying) of Jesus Christ, described by Paul in Philippians chapter two. In order to bring redemption and salvation to men, Jesus willingly set aside His rightful claims to submission and service as God; He veiled His splendor and visible glory in human flesh, and came to die as a transgressor in the place of sinful man.

For Peter to refuse to allow Jesus to wash his feet was to reject the underlying principle upon which the mission of Jesus was based. More than this, to reject the principle of servanthood was to refuse one of the primary prerequisites of discipleship. No wonder Peter could have no part with Jesus and deny servanthood.

Peter characteristically overreacted. If this were the case, he would not be content with a mere footwashing; he would like a complete bath. Such enthusiasm, while commendable, was not necessary. Those who have been bathed (once for all) by regeneration (cf. Titus 3:5) need not have another bath, but only such daily washing as daily contact with the world requires.

We have spent considerable time in considering the scene of the Last Supper. Only one matter yet remains to be described, and that is the underlying mood(s) of this gathering. This is very important, I believe, because so many go back to this supper as the pattern for our observance of the Lord’s Table, and therefore, to be consistent, we should by all rights reproduce the mood as well. What, then, was the prevailing mood of this meal?

Surely it was one of expectation and anticipation. The events of the past week had risen popular messianic expectations to a crescendo. Something had to happen. Was the kingdom about to be ushered in? Mixed with this excitement and expectation was a kind of dread, for Jesus had clearly said to His disciples that He was going up to Jerusalem to die (Matthew 20:17-19), and to some extent the disciples sensed that death awaited Him and them in Jerusalem (John 11:16).

There was also an atmosphere of contention and strife, and personal attitudes of self-aggrandizement. Each man argued with the rest about who was the greatest (Luke 22:24). There was also a distinct mood of grief concerning our Lord’s disclosure of the fact that He would die and that this would be achieved by a betrayer, who was one of the twelve.

All in all, it was not the ideal mood for a remembrance of the Passover, nor for the institution of the Lord’s Table. While we may wish it to have been some other way, we know our own hearts well enough to believe that such an atmosphere is realistic. It may not have been a lovely scene, but it was a likely one.

The Last Supper
(22:14-23)

Several observations are crucial to our understanding of this event. First of all, let me remind you of my assumption that this meal was, indeed, a Passover celebration.¹²⁵ It is significant that while the other gospels refer to the twelve as ‘the twelve’ or ‘the disciples,’ Luke here uses the term ‘apostles’ (verse 14). I believe this is significant. Normally the Passover meal was a family celebration, and not just a gathering of men. The fact that the ‘apostles’ were alone with Jesus suggests that this event had particular significance for the church, of which the apostles were the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). Here is one of the evidences that while this meal had implications for the Jews, it was designed also for the church.

Second, I would underscore the intense desire of our Lord to gather with the twelve for this meal: “And He said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15).

I suspect that this statement is pregnant with meaning. To begin with, let me suggest that it is hard to conceive that Jesus earnestly desired to eat this meal with the twelve because of the sympathetic understanding He would receive from them. While He knew that all but one truly loved Him, they had no real grasp of what shape His mission was about to take. While He thought of the cross, they argued about their crowns (verse 24).

I believe that from the viewpoint of God this Passover meal was the final observance of this feast, for all that it had memorialized was about to be greatly overshadowed by the work of the cross. Also, all that it anticipated was, in fact, achieved or made certain. Jesus was the Passover Lamb. There was no longer any need to put a lamb to death for the type had been superceded by its antitype, its fulfillment. The old covenant, being fulfilled in Christ, was to be set aside. The Kingdom, while still future, was certain to be established, because Messiah, at His first advent, had laid its foundation by His sacrificial death (cf. Isaiah 52:13–53:12). When Jesus once again takes up the cup, it will be in His Kingdom (verses 16,18). The eager anticipation of our Lord relates largely to the achievement of God’s purposes, and also to the association He has with God’s people at this meal.

There is, in my estimation, a distinct break between verses 18 and 19. Verses 15-18 describe the final observance of the Passover, now obsolete, so to speak, because of its supercession by the institution of the Lord’s Table. We should not at all be disturbed by the presence of the first cup, for it was simply one of the four cups associated with the Passover celebration. This cup was to be taken one final time, not to be taken up again until the establishment of the Kingdom.

In verses 19 and 20 our attention is turned from culmination and termination of the Passover celebration to the initiation of the Lord’s Table. Here, the symbols on the table which were a part of the Passover were reinvested with new meaning in the light of the work which the Lord Jesus was about to undertake. More than this, they symbolize the establishment of a new covenant between God and men. This is the new covenant which was prophesied by Jeremiah of old (Jeremiah 31:31-34). While the blood of the Passover lamb sufficed to withhold the judgment of God for a time, the blood of the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus, actually took away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

The unleavened bread symbolizes the incarnation of God in human flesh. One Who had no sin in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). While the bread pertains to the earthly body and sinless life of the Lord Jesus, the wine is a visual symbol of His shed blood and violent death as the divine provision for men’s forgiveness of sin.

As I understand Luke’s account of the Last Supper, it is a subtle blending of two great symbolic remembrances, that of the Old Testament Passover and the New Testament ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. As such, this is a unique event, never again to be repeated in the form (or with the mood) that it was in that upper room hours before the death of the Savior. While the two events, the Passover and the Lord’s Table, are related, they are not to be equated, nor to be remembered simultaneously, for the greater has made unnecessary the lesser.

The Last Supper, then, is never again to be reenacted. It was a unique event, intended to terminate one ceremony and to institute another. The Lord’s Supper is to be understood as having some similarities to both the Passover celebration of the Old Testament, and the Last Supper of the gospels, but yet fully unique, and exclusive so far as our present-day obligation to continue its observance. We are no more to equate our remembrance of the Lord’s Table with the Last Supper than we are to identify our baptism with the baptism of the Lord Jesus by John, for they are not the same at all. Related, yes; but completely distinct.

Application

What does all this mean in practical terms? First of all, it does not mean that we have no obligation to remember the Lord’s Supper. I have suggested that our obligation does not come from the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, nor does the pattern for our remembrance of the Lord. Our authority comes, I believe, from apostolic precept and apostolic practice. Paul’s instruction concerning the Lord’s Table was that which he received from the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23). What was taught by Paul in the epistles was practiced by the churches in Acts. It would appear that while the Lord’s Table was daily observed in the first days of the church (Acts 2:46), the settled practice was that it was done on the first day of each week during the assembly of the whole church (cf. Acts 20:7).

This passage in Luke suggests that we are wrong when we pattern our observance of this ordinance after that in the gospels. We must remember that while the Last Supper anticipated the death of the Lord Jesus, the Lord’s Supper memorializes it. While the atmosphere at the Last Supper was more akin to that of a funeral, the Lord’s Supper, while a solemn remembrance is a joyful one, more in the spirit of that meal recorded later by Luke in chapter 24, after the Lord had been raised from the dead.

I am greatly puzzled and perplexed by those who seem so lackadaisical about the remembrance of our Lord. Some seem to think that it makes little difference whether one does so weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annually. Our Lord greatly desired this meal with the twelve, and I believe that our remembrance of Him is pleasing to Him. While the New Testament nowhere commands that we remember our Lord weekly, it would seem that this was the practice of the New Testament churches (Acts 20:7) . The only two options which the Scriptures reveal is that of daily and weekly observance.

“But such frequent repetition can become dull and monotonous,” people protest. You must excuse me for being so frank, but I have yet to hear a couple deeply in love with each other protesting frequent physical expression of their love for each other. (And personally, I believe that our physical relationship with our mates is illustrative and instructive concerning our spiritual intimacy with Christ.) You see, when we observe the Lord’s Supper each week we do not remember an institution or an ordinance, we remember our Lord Himself. “Keep on doing this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19b, my translation).

The waning of our desire to express spiritual intimacy with our Lord is indicative, all too often, of a coldness of heart. Only Judas (as I understand it) chose not to be at the table with our Lord as this Last Supper was concluded and the Lord’s Supper was instituted.

While impressed with the significance of this Last Supper, I cannot overlook its simplicity. It is described in the most ordinary term. There is no elaborate ceremony given in explicit detail as, for example, we would find in the Old Testament. It is amazing how ceremony can often overshadow the symbolism of such an event. If there were ceremony detailed for us we would concentrate our attention and our energies on reproducing these same ritualistic forms. Spirituality, like beauty, is closely related to simplicity. Where deadness occurs, ceremony shortly follows. We are prone to substitute ritual for reality, details for devotion.

“But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him, and said, ‘Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me.’ But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only a few things are necessary, really only one, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:40-42).

Finally, I see in this event an excellent example of the way in which we must deal with the events and instructions of the Old Testament. Over and over people ponder how they should interpret and apply the Old Testament. One of my Hebrew professors, Dr. Bruce Waltke, once wisely advised, “When interpreting the Old Testament always ask the question, ‘Does the New Testament ratify, modify, or abrogate (nullify) this Old Testament teaching?’” As I understand the Last Supper, it does a little of each.¹²⁶

---

116 “There is a textual problem here of great difficulty. In the ‘shorter’ text, followed by NEB, Goodspeed, where verses 19b-20 are omitted, the cup is given before the bread. In the ‘longer’ text (RSV, TEV, JB, Common Bible) the cup is mentioned twice. The shorter text is favoured by many on the grounds that the words are not likely to have been omitted if original and that they look like an insertion from I Corinthians 11:24f. to bring the passage into line with current liturgical practice. It is countered that the disputed words are found in all Greek MSS save one (Codex D) that Justin Martyr accepted them c. AD 150 (Apology i. 66; this is older than our oldest Greek MS) and that they may have been ommitted by scribes who could not understand two references to the cup. On the whole it seems that the longer text is to be preferred.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 305.

117 The problem, simply stated, is this. John’s gospel clearly sets the time of the death of Christ at the same hour in which the Passover lambs were being slain (John 18:28; 19:14,36). In apparent contradiction to this, the synoptic gospels speak of the last supper as though it were the observance of the actual Passover. There is therefore an apparent 24-hour discrepancy in the gospels. In the synoptics, Jesus observed the Passover with His disciples; in John, Jesus was the Passover Lamb, put to death at the time of the slaughter of the Passover lamb, before the Passover meal was eaten.

Liberal ‘scholars’ have little difficulty here. They delight in pointing out this ‘error’ to the conservative, who holds to biblical inerrancy. They are free to accept John’s account and discard the synoptics as inaccurate, or to regard the synoptics as correct, and John to be in error.

Conservative scholarship has posed several possible harmonizations of the gospel records, three of which are currently most popular: (1) On the basis of some historical data, it is known that there was a division within the nation as to when the month of Nisan was to commence. Because of this confusion over the calendar, there ended up being two days on which the passover lambs were slaughtered and two days on which Passover was observed, one, a day earlier than the other. Jesus could then have observed the (first) Passover with the disciples, while He died as the true Passover Lamb on the second, a day later. (2) There is also evidence that some (perhaps the Galilean Jews) commenced the new day in the morning, at daybreak, while the Judean Jews began the new day in the evening at six o’clock. If such were the case, the synoptics were reckoning from the Galilean time frame, and John from the Judean.

A third view, held by a number of conservative scholars, contends that there is no real discrepancy between John’s account and the synoptics. Every alleged problem is explained individually. For further reference on this complicated matter, consult: Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), pp. 75-90; Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), pp. 649-670. R.T. France, I Came to Set the Earth on Fire (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), pp. 136-140. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 774-785.

118 This view is usually called ‘transubstantiation’ by the theologians: “The theory of transubstantiation, accepted by Rome as a dogma in 1215, is an attempt to explain the statements of Christ: “This is my body,” and “This is my blood” (Mark 14:22,24) as applied to the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. It is insisted that the “is” must be taken with the strictest literalism. But to our senses the bread and wine seem to remain exactly as they were even when consecrated. There is no perceptible miracle of transformation. The explanation is found in terms of a distinction between the so-called “substance” (or true reality) and the “accidents” (the specific, perceptible characteristics). The latter remain, but the former, i.e., the substance of bread and wine, is changed into that of the body and blood of Christ.” Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “Transubstantiation,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), p. 530.

119 This theory is labled ‘consubstantiation.’ It is the view of Lutheran theologians: “In Luther’s own language, the actual body and blood of Christ exist “in, with, or under” the elements of bread and wine. No permanent association is postulated: the relationship is confined to the sacramental action. The transformation is effected by the Word of God, not by priestly consecration.” A. Skevington Wood, “Consubstantiation,” Ibid., p. 138.

120 “The taking, breaking and distribution of bread were regular features of the Passover observance and would cause no surprise. But as He gave it to His followers Jesus said, This is my body. These words have caused tremendous controversy in the church. The critical point is the meaning of is. Some argue for a change of the bread into the body of Christ, but the verb can mean very various kinds of identification, as we see from such statements as ‘I am the door,’ ‘I am the bread of life,’ ‘that rock was Christ.’ In this case identity cannot be in mind, for Jesus’ body was physically present at the time. It must be used in some such sense as ‘represents,’ ‘signifies,’ or, perhaps, ‘conveys’ (cf. Moffatt, ‘This means…’). The statement is a strong one and should not be watered down, but neither should it be overpressed.” Morris, p. 306.

121 Hoehner summarizes the evidence for this Last Supper being a Passover: “(1) the Synoptics explicitly state that the Last Supper was a Passover (Matth. 26:2,17,18,19; Mark 14:1,12,14,16; Luke 22:1,7,8,13,15). (2) It took place, as required by the Law (Deut. 16:7), within the gates of Jerusalem even though it was so crowded at the time. (3) The Upper Room was made available without difficulty in keeping with the Passover custom. (4) The Last Supper was eaten at night (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17; John 13:30; 1 Cor. 11:23) which was an unusual time for a meal. (5) Jesus limited Himself to the twelve rather than eating with the large circle of followers (which corresponds to the Passover custom). (6) A reclining posture at the table was for special occasions only. (7) The meal was eaten in levitical purity (John 13:10). (8) Jesus broke the bread during the meal (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) rather than as customarily done at the beginningof the meal. (9) Red wine was drunk which was only for special occasions. (10) Some of the disciples thought that Judas left (John 13:29) to purchase items for the feast which would not have been necessary if the Last Supper was a day before the Passover since he would have had the whole next day (Nisan l4) available for this purpose. (11) Some of the disciples thought that Judas left to give to the poor (John 13:29) which was customary on Passover night. (12) The Last Supper ends with the singing of a hymn which would have been the second half of the Passover hallel. (13) Jesus did not return to Bethany which was outside of Jerusalem’s limit but went to spend the night on the Mount of Olives which was within the enlarged city limits for the purpose of the Passover feast. (14) The interpretation of specific elements of the meal was a part of the Passover riitual.” Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), pp. 76-77.

122 B. Klappert, “The Lord’s Supper,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), II, p. 522.

123 It is possible that this house belonged to Mary, the mother of Mark, and that this upper room was frequently used by Jesus and the apostles, though there is no way to conclusively prove this (cf. Acts 1:13; 12:12).

124 Edersheim believes that this footwashing was an adaptation of the customary handwashing which was a part of the Passover ceremony:

“The next part of the ceremonial was for the Head of the Company to rise and ‘wash hands.’ It is this part of the ritual of which St. John records the adapatation and transformation on the part of Christ. The washing of the disciples’ feet is evidently connected with the ritual of ‘handwashing.’ Now this was done twice during the Paschal Supper: the first time by the Head of the Company alone, immediately after the first cup; the second time by all present, at a much later part of the service, immediately before the actual meal (on the Lamb &c.). If the footwashing had taken place on the latter occasion, it is natural to suppose that, when the Lord rose, all the disciples would have followed His example, and so the washing of their feet would have been impossible. Again, the footwashing, which was intended both as a lesson and as an example of humility and service, was evidently connected with the dispute ‘which of them should be appointed to be greatest.’ If so, the symbolical act of our Lord must have followed close on the strife of the disciples, and on our Lord’s teaching what in the Church constituted rule and greatness. Hence the act must have been connected with the first handwashing—that by the Head of the Company—immediately after the first cup, and not with that at a later period, when much else had intervened.” Alford Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), II, p. 497.

Edersheim then goes on to point out the significance of this adaptation: “The act of externalism and self-righteousness represented by the washing of hands, and by which the Head of the Company was to be distinguished from all others and consecrated, He changed into a footwashing, in which the Lord and Master was to be distinguished, indeed, from the others—but by the humblest service of love, and in which He showed by His example what characterised greatness in the Kingdom, and that service was evidence of rule.” Ibid., p. 499

125 Cf. fn. 5, Morris, p. 306.

126 “He spoke the words of institution in the setting of his last celebration of the Passover and “clearly referred to many features of the feast, assimilating some and changing others.…” W. Marxsen, as quoted by Klappert, “The Lord’s Supper,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, II, p. 529.